# Economic Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Im pacts of the Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program, As Proposed

June 2015i 

### ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognizes Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc), for the overall organization and development of this report. Phuc Phan , Jim O’Leary , and Rachel Horton provided guidance and review.i 

### TA **BLE OF CONTENTS**

**EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y**  **CHAPTER 1 | INTROD UCTION**  

### Overview 1
- 1 

### Background and Need for Regulatory Action 1
- 1 

### Summary of the Proposed Rule 1
- 2 

### Report Organization 1
- 7 

### CHAPTER 2 | POTENT **IALL Y IMP**  **ACTED UNIVE RSE**  

### Introduction 2
- 1 

### Universe of Facilities Affected by the Proposed Rule 2
- 1 

### Estimating the Number of LQGs 2
- 2 

### Estimating the Number of SQGs 2
- 3 

### Estimating the Number of CESQGs 2
- 4 

### Hazardous Waste Generation of Potentially Affected Facilities 2
- 10 

### LQG Hazardous Waste Generation 2
- 11 

### SQG Hazardous Waste Generation 2
- 20 

### CESQG Hazardous Waste Generation 2
- 22 

### Aggregate Generation of Hazardous Waste Among F acilities Potentially Affected by

the Rule 2
- 23 

### Management of Hazardous Waste 2
- 24 

### CHAPTER 3 | **ASSESS MENT**  **OF COSTS** 

### Introduction 3
- 1 

### Estimating Costs as a Range 3
- 1 

### Cost Methodology 3
- 3 

### General Assumptions 3
- 3 

### Methods for Assessing Costs of Rule Provisions 3
- 6 

### Results 3
- 48 

### Analytic Limitations 3
- 5 6 

### CHAPTER 4 | **ASSESS MENT**  **OF B E**  **NEFITS** 

### Introduction 4
- 1 

### Monetized Benefits 4
- 1 

### Drip Pad and Containment Building Requirements for SQGs 4
- 2 

### Intra

- organizational Transfers of Hazardous Waste from CESQGs to LQGs 4
- 5 

### Generators that Temporarily Change Generator Status Due to an Episodic Event 4
- 13ii 

### Non

- Quantified Benefits 4
- 17 

### Intra

- organization Transfers of Hazardous Waste from CESQGs to LQGs 4
- 18 

### Documentation of Negative or Non

- Hazardous Waste Determinations 4
- 19 

### SQG Re

-Notification 4
- 20 

### Marking and Labeling of Containers for SQGs and LQGs 4
- 20 

### LQG Clo sure Conditions 4
- 21 

### Strengthening of the Preparedness, Prevention, and Emergency Response Conditions for LQGs 4
- 21 

### Generators that Temporaril y Change Generator Status Due to an Episodic Event 4
- 22 

### Transfer Facility Requirements 4
- 22 

### Biennial Reporting Requirements 4
- 22 

### Prohibitions on Storage of Restricted Waste 4
- 22 

### Special Requirements for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes (Voluntary ) 4
- 23 

### CHAPTER 5 | SUMMAR**Y OF REGULA** **TO RY**  **BENE FITS**  **AND COSTS CHAPTER 6 |**  **EQUITY CONSIDERA** **TION S**  **AND OTHER IMP ACTS**  

### Regulatory Planning and Review 6
- 1 

### Regulatory Flexibility 6
- 2 

### Employment Impact Analysis 6
- 10 

### Unfunded Mandates Analysis 6
- 11 

### Federalism Analysis 6
- 12 

### Tribal Governments Analysis 6
- 13 

### Energy Impact Analysis 6
- 14 

### Environmental Justice Analysis 6
- 15 

### Children’s Health Protection Analysis 6
- 15 

### Jo int Impacts of Rules 6
- 16ES
- 1 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMAR**Y**

This document presents EPA’s analysis of the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. This proposed rule has the dual purposes of enhancing protection of human health and the environment and improving the efficiency of the hazardous waste generator standards. EPA is publishing this Economic Assessment (EA) in conjunction with the proposed rule and invites comments from the public on the data, methods, assumptions, and conclusions presented herein. The net benefits of the proposed rule are summarized in Exhibit ES

- 1. Further detail on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule is provided in the executive summary below. **EXHIBIT ES -**  **1 .**  **NET BENEFITS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE**

**REGULATORY REQUIREMENT** **S 3 PERC**  **ENT DISCOUNT RATE ($2012, MILLIONS)**  **7 PERCENT DISCOUNT R ATE**  **($2012, MILLIONS) ANNUALIZED**  **COSTS ANNUALIZED** 

**BENEFITS 1**  **NET BENEFITS ANNUALIZED**  **COSTS ANNUALIZED** 

**BENEFITS 1**  **NET BENEFITS** Mandatory Provisions of the Proposed Rule $5.2

- $12.0 $0.035

- $0.035 ($5.2)

– ($12.0) $5.5

- $11.9 $0.035

- $0.035 ($5.4)

– ($11.9) Voluntary Provisions of the Proposed Rule $0.8

- $5.4 $6.2

- $12.2 $5.4

- $6.7 $0.8

- $5.5 $6.2

- $12.2 $5.4

- $6.7 Mandatory and Voluntary Provisions of the Proposed Rule Combined $6.0

- $17.4 $6.2

- $12.2 $0.2

– ($5.2) $6.3

- $17.4 $6.2

- $12.2 ($0.03)

– ($5.2)

Notes: 1. Due to limitations in the available data, benefits associated with several provisions of the proposed rule could not be monetized. Net benefits for these provisions are therefore presented as negative. These negative values, however, do not reflect the benefits that EPA was unable to monetize. In excluding these benefits, the negative values in the exhibits underestimate the net benef its associated with the rule’s mandatory and voluntary provisions. Ranges are presented to reflect the low
- end and high
- end scenarios described later in this report. Numbers in parenthes e s indicate a net cost, as opposed to a net benefit.

**B ACKGROUND**  **AND N**  **EED FOR R**  **EGULA TO**  **RY A**  **CTION** 

### Under the statutory authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA originally promulgated the hazardous waste generator regulatory program in 1980. Since that time, the basic regulatory framework of the program has remained intact except for a limited number of major changes.ES
- 2 

### Over the course of the last 30 years, the Agency has become aware of ambiguities and gaps in the regulations, which, if corrected, could make the program more effective in protecting human health and the environment. For example, the current regulations do not require small and large quantity generators (SQGs and LQGs) to document situations where they generated a solid waste, as defined at 40 CFR 262.11, that is not a hazardous waste. However, generators often fail to accurately make a hazardous waste determination which can lead to the mismanagement of hazardous waste. In addition, current regulations do not require that hazardous waste container labels include information on the spec ific hazards of container contents or what risk these wastes could pose to human health and the environment when such waste is being accumulated on

- site. EPA has also become increasingly aware of certain inflexibilities in the generator regulations over the last 30 years

. For example, some generators, particularly those located in urban environments, may find it infeasible to meet the requirement that containers holding ignitable or reactive waste be placed at least 15 meters (~ 50 feet) back from the facility’s property line. In addition, current regulations require that a conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) or SQG that experiences a one

time generation event resulting in the generation of more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month comply with the regulatory requirements for LQGs. Requiring CESQGs or SQGs that rarely exceed their normal regulatory status to meet the full LQG requirements as a result of such episodic events may be burdensome. To address these shortcomings in the current generator regulations, EPA is proposing several specific changes to the hazardous waste generator program. These improvements are relatively minor on an individual basis , yet address a wide range of issues. In aggregate, the proposed changes to the program are expected to significantly improve regulatory efficiency and provide further protection of human health and the environment

.
**SUMMAR Y OF THE PROPO**  **SED RULE** 

### EPA is proposing several changes to the hazardous waste generator regulation s. Specifically, EPA proposes to (1) revise different components of the hazardous waste regulatory program; (2) address gaps in the current regulations; (3) provide greater flexibility for hazardous waste generators to manage their hazardous waste in a co st
effective manner; (4) reorganize the hazardous waste generator regulations to improve their usability among regulated facilities; and (5) make technical corrections and conforming changes to address inadvertent errors, remove obsolete programs, and improve the readability of the regulations. Some provisions of the proposed rule represent substantive changes to the requirements with which hazardous waste generators must comply, while others are simply revisions or minor corrections unlikely to affect the activities of most individual generators. This EA focuses on the former, as these provisions are more likely to result in costs, benefits, and/or other economic impacts. These specific provisions are summarized below. While the majority of the requirements are mandatory, three provisions of the rule are intendedES
- 3 

### to provide greater flexibility to certain classes of hazardous waste generators and are thus voluntary

. For a detailed discussion of all the changes that EPA is proposing to the generator regulations, please refer to the Preamble to the proposed rule. 1. **D ocumentation of negative**  **or non -** **hazardous waste determinations:** The proposed rule would require that SQGs and LQGs maintain records of all hazardous waste determinations, including determinations where a solid waste, as defined by 40 CFR 261.2, is not a RCRA hazardous waste. Under current regulations, generators must document and maintain records when they determine that they have generated a hazardous waste, but no such documentation requirement exists for negative determinations. 2. **SQG re**
**- notification**  : To ensure that regulatory agencies have information on facilities generating hazardous waste, EPA is proposing that SQGs re

-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year , similar to the existing requirement for LQGs. For each re

-notification, a facility need only review its previous notification and either make changes if necessary or confirm that the information remains accurate. 3. **Marking and labeling of containers**  **, drip pads, and containment buildings**  **for SQGs and LQGs**  : Current regulation requires that SQGs and LQGs label containers with the words, “Hazardous Waste.” While this wording provides some information regarding a container’s contents, it does not indicate the specific hazards associated with these contents or the risks that a waste may pose to human health and the environment. EPA is therefore proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark containers with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). Similarly, EPA is also proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark areas near drip pads and containment buildings with the words “Hazardous Wa ste” and use their inventory logs to document (1) the date the waste was first placed on the drip pad on in the containment building; (2) the contents of the waste; and (3) an indication of the associated hazards (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). 4. **LQG closure conditions:** EPA is proposing to strengthen the closure regulations for LQGs that accumulate hazardous wastes in containers in satellite accumulation areas (SAAs) or central accumulation areas (CAAs). Specifically, EPA proposes that if the generator cannot demonstrate that any contaminated soils can be practicably removed or decontaminated, then the generator must close the waste accumulation unit(s) and perform post

- closure care in accordance with the closure and post

- closure care requirements that apply to landfills (§ 265.310). In addition, for the purposes of closure, post

- closure, and financial responsibility, such a waste accumulation unit is then considered to be a landfill, and the generator must meet all of the requirements f or landfills specified in subparts G and H of part 265.ES
- 4 

### Also related to closure, EPA is proposing to require LQGs to notify EPA or their authorized state within 30 days prior to closure. EPA is also proposing that such generators subsequently notify within 90 days after closure that they have either clean clos ed or, if they cannot clean close, that they have closed as a landfill. 5. **Strengthening of the preparedness, prevention, and emergency response conditions:**  EPA is proposing to require that all LQGs and SQGs maintain records documenting their emergency resp onse arrangements with local emergency management authorities. This documentation must include a certified letter or any other documentation that confirms such arrangements actively exist. In addition, to improve the ability of emergency response teams to respond to an emergency, EPA is proposing that all new LQGs submit an executive summary of their contingency plans to emergency management authorities. While EPA is not proposing to require that existing LQGs develop an executive summary of their contingency plan , it is taking comment on expanding this requirement to all LQGs. 6. **Transfer facility requirements:** EPA is proposing to change the marking and labeling requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators. Thus, all hazardous waste stored by these facilities must be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). 7. **Biennial Reporting Requirements:** EPA is proposing two substantive changes to the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs. First, the Agency is proposing that LQGs report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting year, not just waste for the month(s) during which they were LQGs. Current regulation at the Federal level is unclear on this issue, and a limited number of states currently require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated for only those months that they were LQGs. Second, EPA is proposing that LQGs report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless of whether the waste was transported off

- site during the reporting year. Although the current EPA Biennial Report (BR) instructions state that generators should report the total quantity of hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, Federal regulations do not specifi cally address cases where a generator generates hazardous waste during the reporting year but ships it off

- site during the next calendar year. 8. **Prohibitions on storage of restricted waste:** Consistent with the proposed marking and labeling requirements for S QGs and LQGs, EPA is proposing to require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land disposal be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”, (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers, and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents.ES
- 5 

### 9. **Drip pad and containment building requirements:** Under the existing regulations, EPA has consistently interpreted the requirements for LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less without a permit or interim status to also apply to SQGs. Therefore, SQGs that us e drip pads or containment buildings must comply with the LQG 90

- day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180

- day accumulation limit) as well as the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, development of a full contingency plan, and biennial reporting. Under the proposed rule, EPA believes a more effective and efficient approach is to require SQGs that accumulated hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings to comply with the 90

- day accumulation limit, but to otherwise comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs. 10. **Intra**
**- organization**  **al transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to**  **LQGs (voluntary)**  **:** To afford greater flexibility to C ESQGs, EPA is proposing to allow CESQGs to voluntarily send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions related to labeling, transportation, notificati on, reporting, and recordkeeping

. 11. **Generators that temporarily change generator status due to an episodic event (voluntary):**  To provide greater flexibility to CESQGs and SQGs that generate much of their hazardous waste on an episodic basis, EPA is proposing to allow a CESQG or an SQG to voluntarily maintain its existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event in which the facility generates a quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar month that would otherwise elevate the faci lity to a more stringent regulatory status. To avail itself of this provision, an SQG or CESQG would be subject to various conditions related to the frequency of episodic generation events, notification and recordkeeping related to these events, the accum

ulation of hazardous waste generated during these events, and the management of this waste. 12. **Special r equirements for**  **i gnitable and**  **r eactive**  **w astes**  **(voluntary) :**  Current regulation requires that LQGs must locate containers holding ignitable or reactive waste at least 15 meters from the facility’s property line. In urban environments, LQGs may find it impossible to meet this requirement due to the relatively small footprint of many properties in these areas. To provide flexibility to LQGs, EPA is proposing to allow LQGs to voluntarily apply for a facility

- specific waiver from their local fire department if they are unable to meet the hazardous waste accumulation property line requirement.

**P OTENTIALL**  **Y IMP ACTED**  **UNIVERSE** 

### The proposed rule may affect a wide range of facility types across a number of industries. For an individual facility, the cost impact of the proposed rule will depend, in part, on its generator status under RCRA (i.e., LQG, SQG, or CESQGs). Therefore, to assess theES
- 6 

### rule’s cost impacts, this EA estimates the distribution of potentially affected facilities across generator status categories. Based on data from EPA’s BR database, the Agency’s RCRAInfo database, and a limited number of states, Exhibit ES

- 2 describes the total number of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs by state. As indicated in the exhibit, EPA estimates that between 353,000 and 543,000 hazardous waste generators are in operation in the U.S

. and its territories, more than 80 percent of which are CESQGs. For the facilities represented in Exhibit ES

- 2 , the impacts of the rule will depend, in part, on the amount of hazardous waste that they generate on an annual basis. Based on data from the 2011 BR database and select states, Exhibit ES

- 3 presents the average generation of hazardous waste on a per

- facility level for LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs. For both the tonnage of hazardous waste generated and number of waste streams generated, the exhibit presents both the median and mean values from the available data. In addition, due to the limited data available on SQG and CESQG waste generation and the variability of generation quantities within these categories, the exhibit also presents the interquartile range for SQG and CESQG hazardous waste generation. **EXHIBIT ES**  **- 2**  **: UNIVERSE OF FACILI TIES POTENTIALLY AFF**  **ECTED BY THE PROPOSE D RULE BY STATE AND**  **GENERATOR STATUS** 

**STATE**

**[A] NUMBER** 

**OF LQG s**  **[B] NUMBER OF SQG**  **s NUMBER OF CESQG**  **s TOTAL NUMBER OF**  **GENERATORS LOW**  **- END**  **[C] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[D] LOW**  **- END** 

**[E] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[F] LOW**  **- END** 

**[G] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[H]** Alaba ma 223 1,226 1,226 3,390 3,390 4,839 4,839 Alaska 27 96 143 617 941 740 1,111 Arizona 210 511 770 1,774 1,774 2,495 2,754 Arkansas 123 256 318 1,646 3,650 2,025 4,091 California 1,223 5,915 5,915 21,000 21,000 28,138 28,138 Colorado 107 434 482 2,791 3,175 3,332 3,764 Connecticut 278 756 1,092 4,862 8,249 5,896 9,619 Delaware 49 155 218 997 1,454 1,201 1,721 District of Columbia 23 36 74 232 682 291 779 Florida 279 3,800 3,800 19,350 19,350 23,429 23,429 Georgia 334 900 1,288 5,788 9,911 7,022 11,533 Guam 8 3 8 19 237 30 253 Hawaii 31 122 165 692 692 845 888 Idaho 19 79 89 508 586 606 694 Illinois 641 2,958 4,897 19,021 32,226 22,620 37,764 Indiana 503 790 1,156 5,080 14,926 6,373 16,585 Iowa 128 471 675 3,029 4,442 3,628 5,245 Kansas 170 480 680 3,087 5,045 3,737 5,895 Kentucky 269 355 469 2,283 7,982 2,907 8,720ES
- 7 **EXHIBIT ES**  **- 2**  **: UNIVERSE OF FACILI TIES POTENTIALLY AFF**  **ECTED BY THE PROPOSE D RULE BY STATE AND**  **GENERATOR STATUS** 

**STATE**

**[A] NUMBER** 

**OF LQG s**  **[B] NUMBER OF SQG**  **s NUMBER OF CESQG**  **s TOTAL NUMBER OF**  **GENERATORS LOW**  **- END**  **[C] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[D] LOW**  **- END** 

**[E] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[F] LOW**  **- END** 

**[G] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[H]** Louisiana 331 705 1,068 4,534 9,822 5,570 11,221 Maine 52 304 304 949 949 1,305 1,305 Maryland 132 974 1,780 3,917 11,714 5,023 13,626 Massachusetts 402 2,683 2,683 12,559 12,559 15,644 15,644 Michigan 342 1,486 2,194 9,556 14,438 11,384 16,974 Minnesota 320 1,366 1,366 21,743 21,743 23,429 23,429 Mississippi 128 210 286 1,350 3,798 1,688 4,212 Missouri 282 1,279 1,727 8,225 11,365 9,786 13,374 Montana 41 55 77 354 1,217 450 1,335 Navajo Nation 1 6 6 30 39 37 46 Nebraska 64 226 273 1,453 1,899 1,743 2,236 Nevada 68 196 280 3,187 3,187 3,451 3,535 New Hampshire 100 201 201 1,818 1,818 2,119 2,119 New Jersey 575 850 850 9,000 9,000 10,425 10,425 New Mexico 39 156 236 1,003 1,553 1,198 1,828 New York 1,471 1,983 3,255 12,752 43,650 16,206 48,376 North Carolina 437 1,169 1,786 7,518 12,967 9,124 15,190 North Dakota 19 62 78 399 564 480 661 Ohio 716 2,041 3,240 13,125 21,322 15,882 25,278 Oklahoma 179 379 502 2,437 5,312 2,995 5,993 Oregon 181 235 285 1,511 5,371 1,927 5,837 Pennsylvania 671 2,721 4,293 17,498 28,251 20,890 33,215 Puerto Rico 80 96 115 617 2,374 793 2,569 Rhode Island 65 700 700 2,100 2,100 2,865 2,865 South Carolina 257 485 722 3,119 7,626 3,861 8,605 South Dakota 33 182 256 979 1,685 1,194 1,974 Tennessee 334 442 710 2,842 9,911 3,618 10,955 Texas 1,006 1,471 2,164 9,460 29,852 11,937 33,022 Trust Territories 1 3 5 19 33 23 39 Utah 111 174 205 1,119 3,294 1,404 3,610 Vermont 39 185 250 1,157 1,645 1,381 1,934 Virgin Islands 2 6 5 33 59 41 66 Virginia 219 1,274 2,029 6,499 13,352 7,992 15,600 Washington 412 532 604 22,315 22,315 23,259 23,331ES
- 8 **EXHIBIT ES**  **- 2**  **: UNIVERSE OF FACILI TIES POTENTIALLY AFF**  **ECTED BY THE PROPOSE D RULE BY STATE AND**  **GENERATOR STATUS** 

**STATE**

**[A] NUMBER** 

**OF LQG s**  **[B] NUMBER OF SQG**  **s NUMBER OF CESQG**  **s TOTAL NUMBER OF**  **GENERATORS LOW**  **- END**  **[C] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[D] LOW**  **- END** 

**[E] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[F] LOW**  **- END** 

**[G] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[H]** West Virginia 98 280 376 1,801 2,908 2,179 3,382 Wisconsin 394 1,227 1,227 9,323 9,323 10,944 10,944 Wyoming 15 75 99 445 651 535 765 **TOTAL 14,262**  **45,762 59,702**  **292,912 469,378**  **352,936 543,342** 

**EXHIBIT ES -**  **3 :**  **PER F ACILITY GENERA** **T ION OF HAZARDOUS W**  **AS TE, BY F**  **ACILITY TYPE** 

**GENERATOR TYPE HAZARDOUS WASTE GENE**  **RATED PER FACILITY (TONS)**  **AVERAGE NUMBER OF WA STE**  **STREAMS PER FACILITY** LQG Median: 21.4 Mean: 2,421 Median: 5 Mean: 17 SQG Median: 1.5 Mean: 2.6 Median: 4 Mean: 8 CESQG Median: 0.20 Mean: 0.31 Median: 2 Mean: 4 **Sources** : LQG estimates derived from the 2011 Biennial Report (BR) database. SQG estimates reflect data from the States of Maine and Washington, as well as the limited SQG
- specific data included in the 2011 BR database. CESQG estimates are based on data from Maine, New Jersey, and Washington, as well as data from t he 2011 BR database.


### Exhibit ES

-4 reports the aggregate hazardous waste generation of facilities potentially affected by the proposed rulemaking. In total, this EA estimates that between approximately 353,000 and 543,000 facilities may be affected by the proposed rule. Due to uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation of SQGs and CESQGs, this EA bounds these generation quantities using the median and mean values reported above. 1 

### Using this approach, facilities in the affected universe, in aggregate, generate between 34.65 and 34.82 million tons of hazardous waste per year. While there is uncertainty about the actual number of SQG and CESQG facilities as well as their hazardous waste generation, the vast majority of hazardous waste (approximately 99 percent) is generated by LQGs. Therefore, in terms of volume, the difference between the low

- end and high

end scenarios contemplated in this EA is approximate ly 167,000 tons of hazardous waste or less than 1 percent of all hazardous waste managed by facilities in the affected universe.

1 For LQGs, Exhibit ES
- 4 uses the mean generation per facility so that the total across all LQGs matches the total in the 2011 BR database.ES
- 9 **EXHIBIT ES -**  **4 :**  **AGGREGA TE**  **ANNUAL HAZ**  **ARDOUS W ASTE**  **GENERA TION BY GENERA**  **TO R ST** **AT US (T**  **ONS)**

**SCENARIO [A]**  **LQGs SQGs**  **1 CESQGs**  **2 TOTAL** 

**NUMBER OF**  **FACILITIES [B]**  **TOTAL**

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **[C] NUMBER** 

**OF FACILITIES**  **[D] TOTAL** 

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **1 [E]**  **NUMBER**

**OF FACILITIES**  **[F] TOTAL** 

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **2 [G]**  **NUMBER**

**OF FACILITIES**  **[H] TOTAL** 

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **[I]** Low
- end Estimate 14,262 34,522,000 45,762 70,000 29 2 , 912 59,000 35 2 , 936 34,651,000 High
- end Estimate 59,702 152,000 469,378 144,000 54 3 , 342 34,818,000 Notes: 1. For SQGs, the low
- end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 1.54 tons/year of hazardous waste (the median). The high
- end estimate assumes that SQGs generate, on average, approximately 2.60 tons/year of hazardous waste (the mean). 2. For CESQGs, the low
- end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 0.20 tons/year of hazardous waste (the median). The high
- end estimate assumes that CESQGs generate, on average, approximately 0.31 tons/year of hazardou s waste.ES
- 10 **A SSESSMENT OF**  **C OSTS**  

### To assess the costs of the proposed rule, this EA estimates the unit costs (e.g., disposal cost per ton of waste) associated with each provision of the rule and applies these values to the number of facilities affected by each rule provision. To address uncertainties regarding the number of facilities in the regulated universe, the amount of hazardous waste that they generate, and several of the cost

-related inputs used in the analysis , this EA presents both low

- end and high

- end estimates of the costs asso ciated with the proposed rule. The low

- end cost estimates reflect low

- end estimates of (1) the number of facilities in the regulated universe, (2) the number of waste streams per facility, and (3) the annual generation of hazardous waste among regulated f acilities. The low

- end estimates also reflect the low

- end assumptions regarding any cost

-related inputs for which a range of data inputs were available. Similarly, the high

- end cost estimates developed in this EA reflect the high

- end estimates for these variables. Exhibit ES

- 5 reports the total annualized costs of the proposed rule by provision for both the mandatory and voluntary provisions of the rule. These costs are reported on an undiscounted basis as well as under discount rates of both 3 and 7 p ercent. As the exhibit shows, the most significant costs under the mandatory provisions of the proposed rule are associated with the marking/labeling requirements. Among the voluntary provisions, estimated costs are highest for the proposed intra

- organizational transfer provision. Exhibit ES

- 6 presents the distribution of the total costs of the rule across the three RCRA generator categories (i.e., LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs) for the mandatory and voluntary provisions combined. As the exhibit shows, the aggregate costs of the rule are higher for S QGs and CESQGs, which significantly outnumber LQGs in the potentially affected universe. However, on a per facility basis, the costs of the proposed rule are highest for LQGs. Specifically, on a per

- facility basis, the average annualized incremental cost s of the rule (for mandatory and voluntary provisions combined) are between $ 1 and $ 13 for CESQGs, between $ 80 and $1 70 for SQGs, and between $ 162 and $ 401 for LQGs (using a 7 percent discount rate). 2 

### While all generators are subject to the proposed rule, only a subset would incur costs depending on each provision of the rule. Therefore, the average costs reported may not be reflective of the actual costs that an individual facility may experience.

2 These values reflect the average across all facilities in the regulated universe, not just those that incur costs under individual provisions of the rule. For example, the cost range for LQGs reflects the costs of LQG closure divided by the total number of LQGs in the universe, even though only a limited number of LQGs close on an annual basis.ES
- 11 **EXHIBIT ES**  **- 5**  **. TO**  **TA L A**  **NNUALIZED COS TS OF THE PROPOSED R**  **ULE BY PROVISION ($2 012)** 

**REQUIREMENT LOW IMPACT SCENARIO**  **HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO**

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S (UNDISCOUNTED)**  **ANNUALIZED COST** **S (USING A 3%**  **DISCOUNT RATE)**  **ANNUALIZED**

**COST S**  **(USING A 7% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) ANNUALIZED** 

**COST S**  **(UNDISCOUNTED) ANNUALIZED**  **COST S**  **(USING A 3% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) ANNUALIZED** 

**COST S**  **(USING A 7% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) MANDATORY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Negative Determinations $374,000 $386,000 $403,000 $1,100,000 $1,130,000 $1,180,000 Re
- notification $737,000 $748,000 $762,000 $946,000 $960,000 $978,000 Labeling $3,020,000 $3,160,000 $3,370,000 $6,120,000 $6,270,000 $6,480,000 Closure $28,800 $28,800 $28,800 $1,840,000 $1,340,000 $988,000 Emergency Response Preparedness $414,000 $416,000 $420,000 $804,000 $807,000 $811,000 Transfer Facility $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $549,000 $549,000 $549,000 BR Requirements $290,000 $294,000 $299,000 $918,000 $931,000 $949,000 Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,050,000**  **$5,220,000 $5,480,000**  **$12,300,000 $12,000,000**  **$11,900,000 VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Intra
- organizational Transfers $547,000 $562,000 $584,000 $4,250,000 $4,280,000 $4,320,000 Episodic Generation $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $1,070,000 $1,070,000 $1,070,000 Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 $50 $50 $82,900 $88,000 $95,700 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $755,000**  **$771,000 $793,000**  **$5,400,000 $5,440,000**  **$5,490,000 MANDATORY AND VOLUNT**  **ARY PROVISIONS OF TH E PROPOSED RULE COMB**  **INED TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary**  **Provisions Combined $5,810,000**  **$5,990,000 $6,270,000**  **$17,700,000 $17,400,000**  **$17,400,000** Notes: All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.ES
- 12 **EXHIBIT ES -**  **6 .**  **TO TA**  **L A NNUALIZED COS**  **TS OF THE PROPOSED R ULE BY GENERA** **TO R ST** **A TUS (MANDA** **TO RY**  **A ND V**  **OLUNT AR** **Y PROVISIONS COMBINED,**  **$2012)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **LOW IMPACT SCENARIO**  **HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO**

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES ANNUALIZED** 

**COST S**  **(UNDISCOUNTED) ANNUALIZED**  **COST S**  **(USING A 3% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) ANNUALIZED** 

**COST S**  **(USING A 7% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) NUMBER OF** 

**AFFECTED FACILITIES**  **ANNUALIZED**

**COST S**  **(UNDISCOUNTED) ANNUALIZED**  **COST S**  **(USING A 3% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) ANNUALIZED** 

**COST S**  **(USING A 7% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) MANDATORY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** LQG 14,262 $1,470,000 $1,620,000 $1,840,000 14,262 $4,920,000 $4,590,000 $4,490,000 SQG 45,762 $3,580,000 $3,600,000 $3,630,000 59,702 $7,350,000 $7,390,000 $7,440,000 CESQG 292,912 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 469,378 $9,760 $9,800 $9,860 **SUB -**  **TOTAL 352,936**  **$5,050,000 $5,220,000**  **$5,480,000 543,342**  **$12,300,000 $12,000,000**  **$11,900,000 VOLUNTARY**  **PROVISIONS OF THE PR OPOSED RULE**  LQG 14,262 $431,000 $446,000 $468,000 14,262 $1,150,000 $1,180,000 $1,230,000 SQG 45,762 $27,300 $27,300 $27,300 59,702 $322,000 $322,000 $322,000 CESQG 292,912 $297,000 $297,000 $297,000 469,378 $3,930,000 $3,930,000 $3,930,000 **SUB -**  **TOTAL 352,936**  **$755,000 $771,000**  **$793,000 543,342**  **$5,400,000 $5,440,000**  **$5,490,000 MANDATORY AND**  **VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE**  **COMBINED** LQG 14,262 $1,900,000 $2,070,000 $2,310,000 14,262 $6,070,000 $5,770,000 $5,720,000 SQG 45,762 $3,610,000 $3,630,000 $3,650,000 59,702 $7,670,000 $7,710,000 $7,760,000 CESQG 292,912 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 469,378 $3,940,000 $3,940,000 $3,940,000 **TOTAL 352,936**  **$5,810,000 $5,990,000**  **$6,270,000 543,342**  **$17,700,000 $17,400,000**  **$17,400,000** Notes: All annualized cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.ES
- 13 **A SSESSMENT OF**  **BENEFITS** 

### The proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule may yield a variety of benefits as generators change several of their waste management practices to comply with the proposed rule requirements. These benefits reflect the rule’s focus on enhancing protection of human health and the environment and improving the efficiency of the RCRA hazardous waste generator standards. Ideally, this EA would quantify and monetize each of the rule’s benefits. H owever, only some categories of benefits are quantifiable. For the majority of benefits, sufficient data are not available to support a detailed quantitative analysis. For example, quantifying benefits associated with improved emergency response due to more detailed container labeling would require data on the annual number of emergencies at generator sites, the current risks associated with these incidents, the extent to which more detailed labeling would affect the procedures of emergency responders, and the reduction in risk associated with these changes. Detailed data on these items are not readily available. For those benefit categories for which detailed data are available, this EA quantifies and monetizes benefits. In instances where quantitative data are not available, this EA provides a qualitative characterization of benefits.
**MONETIZED B**  **ENEFITS** 

### The available data support the monetization of one mandatory provision (drip pad and containment building requirements for SQGs) and two voluntary provisions of the proposed rule (the intra

- organizational consolidation of CESQG waste at an LQG and the flexibility afforded SQGs and CESQGs that cross the threshold to a more stringent regulatory status due to episodic generation events )

. The benefits a ssociated with each of these provisions are as follows: **Drip Pad and Containment Building Requirements for SQGs :**  The additional flexibility afforded SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less without a permit or interim status to comply with the LQG 90

- day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180

- day accumulation limit), but to otherwise comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs , would result in a cost savings associated with no longer b eing subject to the LQG requirements for personnel training, emergency response preparedness, and biennial reporting. **Intra**
**- organization**  **al T** 

**ransfers :**  Allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization may result in a net cost savings from reduced management costs related to both disposal and transportation. With respect to disposal, organizations would realize a cost

- savings associated with managing waste quantities in bulk. Specifically, industry sources estimate that stand

- alone CESQG facilities incur an average cost premium of approximately 10 percent to dispose of theirES
- 14 

### hazardous waste relative to LQGs. 3 

### Organizations consolidating CESQG waste to LQGs may also reduce the costs they incur shipping hazardous waste to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) due to the higher transport costs typically incurred by CESQGs on a per

-ton basis compared to LQGs. 4 

### This provision of the proposed rule would also lead to cost savings for the limited num ber of organizations that transfer hazardous waste from CESQGs that they own and/or operate to LQGs within the organization. Under the proposed rule, LQGs owned by these organizations would no longer need to obtain a RCRA storage permit or financial assurance (assuming that they do not receive hazardous waste from SQGs, other LQGs, or CESQG facilities owned by other organizations) and would avoid the costs associated with these items. **Episodic Generation:** As noted above, EPA would allow a CESQG or SQG to retain its existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event that would otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent status. This provision would result in a cost savings for CESQGs and SQGs that avoid the cost increase associated with such a change in generator status. These costs are related to the RCRA generator requirements for training, inspections, manifests, contingency plan updating, and biennial reporting. Exhibit ES

- 7 reports the estimated monetized benefits of the proposed rule for one of the mandatory provisions of the rule and two of the voluntary provisions of the rule

. Due to limitations in the available data, benefits associated with several mandatory provisions and one voluntary provision of the rule could not be monetized. As indicated in the exhibit, the estimated benefits of the other voluntary provisions range from $ 6.2 to $ 12.2 million per year. Of the provisions for which benefits are monetized, benefits are greatest for the episodic generation provision of the rule. Approximately two

-thirds of the avoided costs associated with this provision reflect personnel training that generators would no longer need to provide their staff as a result of the rule. The benefits realized by individual facilities under this provision, however, would vary depending on their baseline generator status and the specific change in generator status they would avoid under the rule.

3 The 10 percent cost premium represents the average of a range of estimates from 5 to 15 percent, based on personal communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbor s on August 29, 2013. This cost premium is incurred across all management methods.

4 This excludes the costs of transporting CESQG waste to an LQG, which are included in the cost analysis.ES
- 15 **EXHIBIT ES -**  **7 . SUMMARY OF**  **MONETIZED BENEFITS**

**REQUIREMENT ANNUALIZED**  **BENEFIT (UNDISCOUNTED)**  **ANNUALIZED BENEFIT (USING A 3% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) ANNUALIZED BENEFIT** 

**(USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)**  **LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE**  Drip Pads and Containment Buildings (Mandatory) $34,700 $34,800 $34,800
Intra
- organizational T ransfers (Voluntary) $2,440,000 $2,450,000 $2,450,000 Episodic Generation (Voluntary) $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $3,760,000 **TOTAL $6,230,000**  **$6,230,000 $6,240,000**  **HIGH IMPACT**  **ESTIMATE** Drip Pads and Containment Buildings (Mandatory) $35,200 $35,200 $35,300
Intra
- organizational T ransfers (Voluntary) $4,490,000 $4,490,000 $4,490,000 Episodic Generation (Voluntary) $7,650,000 $7,660,000 $7,680,000 **TOTAL $12,200,000**  **$12,200,000 $12,200,000** ES
- 16 **NON -**  **MONETIZED BENEFITS** 

### In addition to the monetized benefits presented above , the proposed rule may yield a variety of other non

- quantifiable benefits. By rule provision, these benefits include the following: **CESQG Consolidation:** Because LQGs are subject to more stringent waste handling requirements than CESQGs, transferring waste from CESQGs to LQGs within the same organization would improve the oversight and management of hazardous waste generated by CESQGs. In addition, to the extent that consolidating CESQGs currently dispo se of their hazardous waste in Subtitle D landfills, the consolidation of CESQG waste to an LQG would divert the waste to more environmentally protective disposal at a Subtitle C facility. **Documentation of non**
**- hazardous waste determinations:**  This proposed requirement would result in benefits associated with more efficient facility inspections and more appropriate and accurate waste determinations. With respect to the former, the documentation required of SQGs and LQGs under the rule would provide facility inspectors with supporting information for negative determinations, allowing them to more easily and efficiently assess the reasonableness of potentially questionable determinations. In addition, requiring documentation for negative determinations would also provide SQGs and LQGs with an incentive to make more accurate determinations, as the documentation would make their determination processes more open to facility inspectors. These improved determination processes may reduce the volume of hazardous wa ste inappropriately identified and managed as non

-hazardous waste. **SQG and LQG re**
**- notification:**  The data made available to EPA through re

-notification would be more accurate and up

-to
- date than EPA’s current generator data , allowing the Agency to observe changes in facilities’ operations over time . Using this information, EPA can conduct more precise and meaningful reviews of waste generation activity. Similarly, the information collected through re

-notification would help EPA and the states target their outreach, enforcement, and compliance assistance efforts. **Marking and labeling of containers for SQGs and LQGs:** Including more detailed information on container labels would help increase awareness of a container’s contents among the various individual s in the waste management chain, which may in turn prevent improper treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste. The more detailed information that EPA proposes for display on container labels would also enhance the ability of emergency responders to limit adverse impacts from exposure to hazardous materials. **LQG Closure:** The proposed closure requirements for LQGs would ensure the containment of any contaminants left in place after the closure of an LQG storing waste in containers. In addition, the proposed notification requirements for LQG closure would (1 ) provide regulatory authorities with knowledge of the location and specifics of hazardous waste sites planned for closure; (2 ) allow the authorities to confirm that the unit is properly closed in compliance with the applicable closure regulations; and (3 )ES
- 17 

### allow the authorities to monitor the unit during the post

- closure period, alerting regulators in cases where generators may have abandoned the site or closed it improperly, or where other complications may have developed at the site. **Strengthening of the preparedness, prevention, and emergency response conditions for LQGs.**  EPA’s proposal that new LQGs prepare and submit an executive summary of their contingency plan would allow first resp onders to more easily discern the layout of a facility, the location of hazardous wastes, what those wastes are, and what chemicals to use (or not use) near those wastes. To the extent that first responders are able to respond more quickly and effectively based on this information, this provision of the proposed rule may prevent lethal outcomes and injuries among fire fighters, other first responders, and facility employees, and may also reduce exposure risk for local populations and ecosystems. **Episodic generation:**  In addition to the cost savings associated with avoided SQG

- or LQG

- specific activities (as estimated above), this provision of the rule may result in additional cost savings associated with facilities maintaining a more consistent RCRA generator status over time. Changing status from one month to the next impose s an administrative burden on facilities as they re

-visit the requirements for different generator status categories and implement measures to ensure compliance. If facilities are able to maintain a more consistent generator status over time, they would not need to re

-vi sit the generator requirements as frequently or make as many changes to their internal controls to ensure compliance with RCRA. **Transfer facility requirements:**  EPA is proposing to change the marking and labeling requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators. As discussed above, including this information on the container would alert facility workers of the container’s contents and its potential hazards, which may help prevent the improper treatment of this material. Displaying this information on the containers may also help first responders limit exposure to local populations and ecosystems in the event of a fire or other emergency. **Biennial reporting requirements:** The enhanced requirements that EPA is proposing for biennial reporting would make the BR more complete and consistent, allowing the Agency and the states to base their policy, programmatic, and enforcement decisions on more reliable hazardous waste generation and management data. **Prohibitions on storage of restricted waste:** The proposed labeling requirements for waste restricted from land disposal would result in bene fits similar to those described above for generator labeling. **Special requirements for ignitable and reactive wastes:** Facilities able to obtain a waiver from the prohibition on locating containers holding ignitable or reactive waste less than 15 meters (50 feet) from a facility’s property line may avoid costs associated with relocation or the reconfiguration of their fac ilities.ES
- 18 **COMP ARISON OF COSTS**  **AND BENEFITS** 

### Exhibits ES

- 8 and ES

- 9 present the net benefits of the proposed rule based on discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The exhibits present net benefits separately for the mandatory and voluntary provisions of the rule and also examine net benefits for the mandatory and voluntary provisions combined. As indicated above, benefits could not be monetized for many of the rule’s mandatory provisions. Net benefits for these provisions are therefore presented as negative. These negative values, however, do not reflect the benefits presented in Chapter 4 that EPA was unable to monetize. In excluding these benefits, the negative values in the exhibits represent underestimates of the net benefits associa ted with the rule’s mandatory provisions. For the voluntary provisions of the rule, this EA estimates positive net benefits ranging from $ 5.4 to $6.7 million per year based on discount rates of both 3 and 7 percent. 5 

### For both the low impact and high imp act scenarios, the positive net benefits for these provisions reflect the net benefits associated with the episodic generation provisions. As discussed above, organizations that opt into this provision are expected to experience cost savings associated with reduced transportation and hazardous waste disposal costs. The net benefits of this provision are also expected to be much higher under the high impact scenario than the low impact scenario. This difference reflects the assumption in this EA (stated in Chapter 4) that 50 percent of episodic generators would meet the rule conditions for taking advantage of this provision (i.e., no more than one episodic event per year, which lasts no more than one calendar month) under the low impact scenario while all episodic generators are assumed to meet these conditions under the high impact scenario.

5 This EA was not able to monetize the benefits associated with the voluntary provision related to waivers for ignitable and reactive wastes.ES
- 19

**EXHIBIT ES**  **- 8**  **. NET BENEFIT**  **S OF THE PROPOSED RU LE (3% DISCOUNT RATE**  **)**

**REQUIREMENT LOW**  **- END SCENARIO**  **HIGH END SCENARIO ANNUALIZED**  **COSTS ANNUALIZED** 

**BENEFITS NET BENEFITS**  **ANNUALIZED COSTS**  **ANNUALIZED**

**BENEFITS NET BENEFITS**  **MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE**  Negative Determinations $386,000

Not monetized
-- $1,130,000

Not monetized
-- Re
- notification $748,000 $960,000 Labeling $3,160,000 $6,270,000 Closure $28,800 $1,340,000 Emergency Response Preparedness $416,000 $807,000 Transfer Facility $192,000 $549,000 BR Requirements $294,000 $931,000 Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $34,800 $34,800 $0 $35,200 $35,200 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,220,000**  **$34,800 ($5,190,000)**  **$12,000,000 $35,200**  **($12,000,000) VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Intra
- organizational Transfers $562,000 $2,450,000 $1,880,000 $4,280,000 $4,490,000 $212,000 Episodic Generation $208,000 $3,750,000 $3,540,000 $1,070,000 $7,660,000 $6,600,000 Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 Not monetized ( $50 ) $88,000 Not monetized ($88,000) **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions**  **$771,000 $6,200,000**  **$5,430,000 $5,440,000**  **$12,200,000 $6,720,000**  **MANDATORY AND VOLUNT ARY PROVISIONS OF TH** **E PROPOSED RULE COMB INED**  **TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary Provisions Combined**  **$5,990,000 $6,230,000**  **$240,000 $17,400,000**  **$12,200,000 ($5,230,000)**  Notes: All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.ES
- 20

**EXHIBIT ES**  **- 9**  **. NET BENEFIT**  **S OF THE PROPOSED RU LE (**  **7 % DISCOUNT RATE)** 

**REQUIREMENT LOW**  **- END SCENARIO**  **HIGH END SCENARIO**  **ANNUALIZED COSTS**  **ANNUALIZED**

**BENEFITS NET BENEFITS**  **ANNUALIZED COSTS**  **ANNUALIZED**

**BENEFITS NET BENEFITS**  **MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE**  Negative Determinations $403,000

Not monetized
-- $1,130,000

Not monetized
-- Re
- notification $762,000 $960,000 Labeling $3,370,000 $6,270,000 Closure $28,800 $1,340,000 Emergency Response Preparedness $420,000 $807,000 Transfer Facility $192,000 $549,000 BR Requirements $299,000 $931,000 Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $34,800 $34,800 $0 $35,300 $35,300 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,480,000**  **$34,800 ($5,440,000)**  **$11,900,000 $35,300**  **($11,900,000) VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Intra
- organizational Transfers $584,000 $2,450,000 $1,880,000 $4,320,000 $4,490,000 $173,000 Episodic Generation $208,000 $3,760,000 $3,540,000 $1,070,000 $7,680,000 $6,610,000 Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 Not monetized ( $50 ) $95,700 Not monetized ($95,700) **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $793,000**  **$6,200,000 $5,410,000**  **$5,490,000 $12,200,000**  **$6,690,000 MANDATORY AND VOLUNT**  **ARY PROVISIONS OF TH E PROPOSED RULE COMB**  **INED TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary**  **Provisions Combined $6,270,000**  **$6,240,000 ($28,000)**  **$17,400,000 $12,200,000**  **($5,210,000)** Notes: All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.ES
- 21 **E QUITY**  **C ONSIDERA** **TIONS AND**  **O THER**  **I MP**  **ACTS** 

### As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this EA examines equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. Specifically, this EA considers the following (discussed further in Chapter 6 ):

 **Regulatory pl anning and review**  : Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563 , the Agency has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action

.
 **Regulatory flexibility:** The average per

- facility cost impacts developed in this EA suggest that the proposed rule would not have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities.

 **Unfunded mandates:** Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Re form Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in “ any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by s tate, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.” Based on the magnitude of the proposed rule’s estimated cost impacts, EPA does not expect the rule to result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million for either the private sector or state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate.

 **Federalism:** The proposed rule is not expected to result in substantial direct compli ance costs for hazardous waste generators owned by state and local governments.

 **Tribal governments:** The estimated costs of the rule for tribal entities suggest that the rule would not impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

 **Environmental justi ce:**  EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low

- income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule would reduce any adverse effects associated with the management of hazardous waste, thus benefiting minority and low

- income populations.

 **Children's health protection:** The rule is not expected to result in a disproportionate adverse health impact on children.

 **Energy Impacts:** The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, no measurable adverse impacts are expected on energy prices or foreign supplies.

 **Employment impacts:** Insufficient data are available to quantify the potential impact of the proposed rule on employment. The economics literature suggests, however, that the costs imposed on directly regulated sectors may raiseES
- 22 

### production costs and put some specific jobs at risk, while at the same time, environmental regulation may create jobs in the regulated sector or other sectors, such as the environmental protection sector. 6



###  **Joint impacts of rules:** Some of the hazardous waste generators regulated by the provisions of the proposed rule are also subject to RCRA requirements for TSDFs. Combined, the proposed changes to the generator standards and the existing regulations for TSDFs would ensure that the management of waste by facilities subject to both sets of regulations is protective of human health and the environment.

6 Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer, and Jhih
- Shyang Shih. (2002) “Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry - Level Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 412
- 436.1
- 1 

### CHAPTER **1 |**  **INTRODUCTION**

**OVER VIEW**  

### This document presents EPA’s analysis of the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. This proposed rule has the dual purposes of enhancing protection of human health and the environment and improving the efficiency of the hazardous waste generator standards. EPA is publishing this Economic Assessment (EA) in conjunction with the proposed rule and invites comments from the public on the data, methods, assumptions, and conclusions presented herein.

**B ACKGROUND**  **AND N**  **EED FOR R**  **EGULA TO**  **RY A**  **CTION** 

### Under the statutory authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA originally promulgated the hazardous waste generator regulatory program in 1980. Since that time, the basic regulatory framework of the program has remained intact except for three major changes. First, pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, the Agency established regulations in 1986 that distinguished between generators generating more than 100 ki lograms and less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month (small quantity generators, or SQGs) and generators generating 100 kilograms or less in a calendar month (conditionally exempt small quantity generators, or CESQGs). 7 

### Prior to the 1986 rule, CESQGs did not exist as a separate generator class, and all facilities generating less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month were subject to the same requirements. Second, and also as a result of HSWA, EPA established Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) regulations . The Agency’s LDR program established treatment standards for hazardous wastes , and specifie d requirements that generators, transporters, and owners or operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSD Fs) that manage restricted wastes destined for land disposal must meet

. Third, EPA modified the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulations in 2005 to standardize the content and appearance of the manifest form, make the forms available from a greater number of sources, and adopt new procedures for tracking certain types of hazardous waste shipments. Over the course of the last 30 years, the Agency has become aware of ambiguities and gaps in the regulations, which, if corrected, could make the program more effective in protecting human health and the environment. For example, the current regulations do

7 At the time, facilities in this category were referred to as, “Very Small Quantity Generators”.1
- 2 

### not require small and large quantity generators to document situations where they generated a solid waste, as defined at 40 CFR 262.11, that is not a hazardous waste. However, generators often fail to accurately make a hazardous waste determination which can lead to the mismanagement of hazardous waste. In addition, current regulations do not require that hazardous waste container labels include information on the specific hazards of container contents or what risk these wastes could pose to human health and the environment when such waste is being accumulated on

- site. EPA has also become increasingly aware of certain inflexibilities in the generator regulati ons over the last 30 years

. For example, some generators, particularly those located in urban environments, may find it infeasible to meet the requirement that containers holding ignitable or reactive waste be placed at least 15 meters (~ 50 feet) back fro m the facility’s property line. In addition, current regulations require that a CESQG or SQG that experiences a one

-time generation event resulting in the generation of more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month comply with the regul atory requirements for large quantity generators (LQGs). Requiring CESQGs or SQGs that rarely exceed their normal regulatory status to meet the full LQG requirements as a result of such episodic events may be burdensome. To address these shortcomings in the current generator regulations, EPA is proposing several specific changes to the hazardous waste generator program. These improvements are relatively minor on an individual basis yet address a wide range of issues. In aggregate, the proposed changes to the program are expected to significantly improve regulatory efficiency and provide further protection of human health and the environment

.
**SUMMAR Y OF THE PROPO**  **SED RULE** 

### EPA is proposing several changes to the hazardous waste generator regulations. Spec ifically, EPA proposes to (1) revise different components of the hazardous waste regulatory program; (2) address gaps in the current regulations; (3) provide greater flexibility for hazardous waste generators to manage their hazardous waste in a cost

effec tive manner; (4) reorganize the hazardous waste generator regulations to improve their usability among regulated facilities; and (5) make technical corrections and conforming changes to address inadvertent errors, remove obsolete programs, and improve the readability of the regulations. Some provisions of the proposed rule represent substantive changes to the requirements with which hazardous waste generators must comply, while others are simply revisions or minor corrections unlikely to affect the activiti es of most individual generators. This EA focuses on the former, as these provisions are more likely to result in costs, benefits, and/or other economic impacts. These specific provisions are summarized below. While the majority of the requirements are mandatory, three provisions of the rule are intended to provide greater flexibility to certain classes of hazardous waste generators and are thus voluntary. This section first describes the mandatory provisions of the rule, and then discusses the voluntary provisions. For a detailed discussion of all the changes that EPA1
- 3 

### is proposing to the generator regulations, please refer to the Preamble to the proposed rule.1. **D ocumentation of negative**  **or non -** **hazardous waste determinations:** The proposed rule would require that SQGs and LQGs maintain records of all hazardous waste determinations, including determinations where a solid waste, as defined by 40 CFR 261.2, is not a RCRA hazardous waste. Under current regulations, generators must document and maintain records when they determine that they have generated a hazardous waste, but no such documentation requirement exists for negative determinations. 2. **SQG re**
**- notification**  : To ensure that regulatory agencies have information on facilities generating hazardous waste, EPA is proposing that SQGs re

-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year, similar to the existing requirement for LQGs. For each re

-notification, a facility need only review its previous notification and either make change s if necessary or confirm that the information remains accurate. 3. **Marking and labeling of containers**  **, drip pads, and containment buildings for**  **SQGs and LQGs** : Current regulation requires that SQGs and LQGs label containers with the words, “Hazardous Waste.” While this wording provides some information regarding a container’s contents, it does not indicate the specific hazards associated with these contents or the risks that a waste may pose to human health and the environment. EPA is therefore proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark containers with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). Similarly, EPA is also proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark areas near drip pads and containment buildings with the words “Hazardous Wa ste” and use their inventory logs to document (1) the date the waste was first placed on the drip pad on in the containment building; (2) the contents of the waste; and (3) an indication of the associated hazards (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). 4. **LQG closure conditions:** EPA is proposing to strengthen the closure regulations for LQGs that accumulate hazardous wastes in containers in satellite accumulation areas (SAAs) or central accumulation areas (CAAs). Specifically, EPA proposes that if the generator cannot demonstrate that any contaminated soils can be practicably removed or decontaminated, then the generator must close the waste accumulation unit(s) and perform post

- closure care in accordance with the closure and post

- closure care requirements that apply to landfills (§ 265.310). In addition, for the purposes of closure, post

- closure, and financial responsibility, such a waste accumulation unit is then considered to be a landfill, and the generator must meet all of the requirements for landfills specified in subparts G and H of part 265.1
- 4 

### Also related to closure, EPA is proposing to require LQGs to notify EPA or their authorized state within 30 days prior to closure. EPA is also proposing that such generators subsequently notify within 90 days after closure that they have either clean closed or, if they cannot clean close, that they have closed as a landfill. 5. **Strengthening of the preparedness, prevention, and emergency response conditions for LQGs:**  To improve the ability of emergency response teams to respond to an emergency, EPA is proposing that all new LQGs submit an executive summary of their contingency plans to emergency management authorities. While EPA is not proposing changes to the preparedness and emergency response requirements for existing LQGs, it is taking comment on expanding this requirement to all LQGs. 6. **Transfer facility requirements:** EPA is proposing to change the marking and labeling requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators. Thus, all hazardous waste stored by these facilities must be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste) ; and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). 7. **Biennial Reporting Requirements:** EPA is proposing two substantive changes to the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs. First, the Agency is proposing that LQGs report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting year, not just waste for the month(s) during which they were LQGs. Current regulation at the Federal level is unclear on this issue, and a limited number of states currently require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated for only those months that they were LQGs. Second, EPA is proposing that LQGs report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless of whether the waste was transported off

- site during the reporting year. Although the current EPA Biennial Report (BR) instructions state that generators should report the total quantity of hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, Federal regulations do not specifically address cases where a generator generates hazardous waste during the reporting year but ships it off

- site during the next calendar year. 8. **Prohibitions on storage of restricted waste:** Consistent with the proposed marking and labeling requirements for SQGs and LQGs, EPA is proposing to require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land disposal be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”, (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers, and (3) an indication o f the hazards of a container’s contents. 9. **Drip pad and containment building requirements:** Under the existing regulations, EPA has consistently interpreted the requirements for LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less without a permit or interim status to also apply to SQGs. Therefore, SQGs1
- 5 

### that us e drip pads or containment buildings must comply with the LQG 90

- day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180

- day accumulation limit) as well as the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, development of a full contingency plan, and biennial reporting. Under the proposed rule, EPA believes a more effective and efficient approach is to require SQGs that accumulated hazardous waste on d rip pads or in containment buildings to comply with the 90

- day accumulation limit, but to otherwise comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs. 10. **Intra**
**- organization transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs**  **(voluntary) :**  To afford greater flexibility to CESQGs, EPA is proposing to allow CESQGs to send their hazardous waste voluntarily to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions. The CESQG conditions are as foll ows: (a) A participating CESQG must label containers with the words “CESQG Hazardous Waste,” other words that identify the contents of the containers, and an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). (b) CESQGs must co mply with all applicable Department of Transportation regulations when sending their hazardous waste to an LQG. The proposed conditions for LQGs receiving hazardous waste from one or more CESQGs controlled by the same organization include the following: (a) L QGs must submit a notification to EPA or their authorized state identifying the names, addresses, and contact information for the CESQGs that will be transferring hazardous waste to the LQG. (b) LQGs must maintain records of all hazardous waste received from C ESQGs that include the name, address, and contact information for each CESQG, as well as a description (i.e., quantity and hazardous waste codes) of each waste shipment received. (c) LQGs must mark shipments from CESQGs with the date the hazardous waste was re ceived from the CESQG. (d) LQGs must manage all incoming CESQG hazardous waste in compliance with the regulations applicable to their LQG status. (e) Hazardous waste received from CESQGs must be included in the receiving LQG’s BR submissions. 11. **Generators that temp orarily change generator status due to an episodic event**  **(voluntary):** To provide greater flexibility to CESQGs and SQGs that generate much of their hazardous waste on an episodic basis, EPA is proposing to allow a CESQG or an SQG to voluntarily maintain it s existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event in which the facility generates a quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar month that would otherwise elevate the1
- 6 

### facility to a more stringent regulatory status. To avail itself of this provision, an SQG or CESQG would be subject to the following conditions: (a) Limit of one episodic event per calendar year; (b) Notify EPA or the authorized state at least 30 calendar days prior to initiating a planned episodic event or within 24 hours after an unplanned episodic event; (c) CESQGs must obtain a RCRA ID number; (d) Accumulation standards: CESQGs must mark containers with the date the episodic event began; label containers “Episodic Hazardous Waste”; manage hazardous waste in a manner that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste; ensure that tanks are in good condition and compatible with the hazardous waste stored within; and identify an emergency coordinator for the duration of the event. SQGs must mark the container or tank log book with the date the episodic event began; label the container or write in the tank log book “Episodic Hazardous Waste”; mark the container or write in the tank log book words that identify the contents and indicate the hazard s of the contents; and comply with the applicable accumulation conditions in §262.34(d) and (e). (e) Hazardous waste generated from the episodic event must be managed on

- site or shipped off

- site via hazardous waste manifest to a permitted TSDF

. For purposes of analysis, this EA assumes that CESQGs and SQGs would not seek to obtain a RCRA storage or treatment permit, but would instead ship their hazardous waste off

- site to a permitted TSDF. (f) Complete and maintain records that include (1) the beginning and end dates of the event, (2) a description of the event, (3) the types and quantities of hazardous wastes generated at the event, (4) a description of how the hazardous waste was managed, and (5) name(s) of hazardous waste transporter s that transp orted the waste to a permitted TSDF

. **12. Special r** **equirements for i**  **gnitable and r** **eactive w** **astes (voluntary)**  **:** Current regulation requires that LQGs must locate containers holding ignitable or reactive waste at least 15 meters from the facility’s property line. In urban environments, LQGs may find it impossible to meet this requirement due to the relatively small footprint of many properties in these areas. To provide flexibility to LQGs, EPA is proposing to allow LQGs to voluntarily apply for a facility

- specif ic waiver from their local fire department if they are unable to meet the hazardous waste accumulation property line requirement

.1
- 7 **R EPOR**  **T O**  **RGANIZA TION**  

### To support development of the proposed rule, EPA developed this EA examining the rule’s costs, benefits, and other economic impacts. The data, methods, and results of this analysis are presented in the following chapters:

 **Chapter 2: Characterization of the Regulated Universe.** This chapter describes the universe of facilities potentially affected by the rule. Specifically, this chapter presents EPA’s estimates of the number of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs in the U.S. and its territories, outlines the quantity of hazardous waste generated by these facilitie s , and characterizes the management of this waste across various management methods.

 **Chapter 3 : Assessment of Costs.**  Chapter 3 include s EPA’s assessment of the rule’s c ost impacts. This chapter (1) identifies portions of the generator universe affected by individual rule provisions, (2) characterizes the regulatory baseline , (3) describes the data and methods employed for the assessment of the rule’s cost impacts , and (4) presents the results of the cost analysis

.
 **Chapter 4: Assessment of Benefits.**  After presenting the rule’s cost impacts, the focus shifts to EPA’s assessment of the rule’s benefits in Chapter 4. To the extent possible, these benefits are quantified

. Benefits that EPA was unable to quantify are addressed qualitatively.

 **Chapter 5: C** 

**omparison of Costs and Benefits.** To synthesize the results presented in Chapters 3 and 4 and help readers understand the rule’s benefits in the context of its costs, and vice versa , this EA includes a brief chapter comparing the costs and benefits of the proposed rule.

 **Chapter 6: Equity Considerations and Other Impacts.**  This chapter assesses distributional and other impacts of the proposed rule, including impacts to small entities, environmental justice implications, children's health, impacts to Tribal Go vernments, energy use and distribution effects resulting from the rule, and joint impacts with other rules.2
- 1 

### CHAPTER **2 |**  **POTENTIALL Y**  **IMP ACTED**  **UNIVERSE**

**INTRODUCTION** 

### This chapter provides an overview of the universe of facilities that may be potentially affected by the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. The proposed rule may affect a wide range of facility types across a number of industries. The information in this chapter provides context for the analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the proposed rulemaking. First, this chapter provides a profile of facilities that may be affected by the proposed rule. Second, this chapter characterizes the generation of hazardous waste by these facilities.

**UNI VERSE OF F**  **ACILITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROP**  **OSED RULE** 

### According to the 2007 Economic Census, there are approximately 7.35 million employer establishments in the United States. 8 

### Of these, the majority of establishments are non

generators of RCRA hazardous waste. Consequently, only the small percentage of facilities that generate hazardous waste is likely to be affected by the proposed rule. As described in more detail in Chapter 3, the cost impact of the proposed rule for individual facilities will depend, in part, on their generator status under RCRA (i.e., LQG, SQG, or CESQG). Therefore, to assess the rule’s cost impacts, this EA estimates the distribution of potentially affected facilities across generator status categories. Exhibit 2

- 1 describes the generation thresholds for LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs. **EXHIBIT 2**  **- 1**  **: RCRA SUBTITLE C HA**  **ZARDOUS W ASTE GENERA** **TION THRESHOLDS 1** 

**CESQG SQG**  **LQG**

 Less than or equal to 100 kg of hazardous waste per month, and
 Less than or equal to 1 kg of acute hazardous waste per month.  Greater than 100 kg and less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per calendar month, and
 Less than or equal to 1 kg o f acute hazardous waste per month.  Greater than or equal to 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month, or
 Greater than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste per month. Notes: 1. Any facility that generates a total of 100 kilograms of any residue or contaminated soil, waste, or other debris resulting from the clean
- up of a spill, into or on any land or water, of any acute hazardous wastes listed i n §§ 261.31, or 261.33(e) would be considered an LQG.

8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census.2
- 2 

### There is considerable uncertainty regarding the number of facilities that generate hazardous waste in the United States and its territories. The LQG universe is relatively well defined because LQGs are required to report their hazardous waste generation on a biennial basis to the EPA and/or state regulatory agencies. SQGs are required to submit a one -time notification of their hazardous waste generation activity to EPA in order to obtain a RCRA ID for purposes of disposing hazardous waste, but they are not required to re -notify EPA of subsequent changes to their activities. CESQGs are not required to report their hazardous waste generation to EPA. While there are no Federal reporting requirements for SQGs and CESQGs, some states have hazardous waste reporting requirements for these facility types. The remainder of this section describes the methodology used to estimate the number of facilities that may be affected by the proposed rule by generator status category for LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs. This EA reli es primarily on EPA’s BR database and EPA’s RCRAInfo database to estimate the number LQGs and SQGs in the potentially affected universe. Estimating the number of CESQGs nationwide is complicated by the fact that EPA and most states do not have mandatory notification or reporting requirements for CESQGs. To estimate the size of the CESQG universe, this EA extrapolates from the limited data collected from several states, including those that regulate CESQGs, and data for those CESQGs that voluntarily report to EPA. To inform this effort, data were compiled for 14 states across the country, providing broad geographic representation across different regions and reflecting a mix of large and small states. 9

**ESTIMA TING THE NUMBE**  **R OF LQG s**  

### This EA relies on the BR database to estimate the number of LQGs that may be affected by the proposed rule. F acilities that are considered LQGs under RCRA are required to report on the generation and management of their hazardous waste on a biennial basis. The BR database is the Agency’s primary repository for the information reported by these facilities. 10 

### Based on the 2011 BR data submissions by state, EPA estimates there are 14,262 LQG facilities in the United States. 11 

### Of these, more than half of the LQGs nationwide are lo cated in just nine states; these include: New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, Indiana, and North Carolina. Geographically, LQGs are heavily concentrated in the Mid

-Atlantic, the Pacific Coast, and the Gulf Coast. The concentration of LQGs varies considerably by state. New York has the largest number of LQGs (1,471), while Wyoming has the smallest (15).

9 These states include Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

10 There is uncertainty regarding the comprehensiveness of the BR database due to underreporting associated with noncompliance by LQGs. The degree to which LQG facilities may fail to submit BR records to EPA is unknown.

11 U.S. EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 2011 Data), Exhibit 1.1 Quantity of RCRA Hazar dous Waste Generated and Number of Hazardous Waste Generators, by State.2
- 3 **ESTIMA TING THE NUMBE**  **R OF SQG s**  

### When a facility determines for the first time they have generated more than 100 and less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a single calendar month, they are required to notify State agencies and EPA of their SQG regulatory status to obtain a RCRA ID to manage that hazardous waste. However, they are not required to re

-notify EPA of subsequent changes in their generator status, address, ownership, or operating status (e.g., whether they have closed). Consequently, there is no way to determine if the status of an SQG has changed over time. SQGs are also not subject to F ederal requirements for reporting hazardous waste generation to EPA on a regular basis (i.e., submitting BR records). Despite this lack of data reported by SQGs, some SQG information is available in the BR database, as TSDFs are required to submit a waste received (WR) form for each facility (including SQGs) from whom they received hazardous waste with a hazardous waste manifest. The WR form includes the RCRA ID of the facility that shipped the hazardous waste to the TSDF along with information about the type and quantity of hazardous waste. Based on these data in the WR form, this EA develops two approaches to estimate the universe of SQGs that may be affected by the proposed rule. The first approach yields a low

- end estimate of the number of SQGs, while the second provides a high

- end estimate. Both approaches are described below.

Low
- end Estimate of the Number of SQGs 

### To derive a low

- end estimate of the number of SQGs, EPA relied on information in the 2011 BR and RCRAInfo databases. Specifically, EPA used the WR form in the BR database to identify all facilities that shipped hazardous waste off

- site and compared this list against the Site ID form in RCRAInfo to identify active SQGs in 2011. 12 

### EPA then also included any new SQGs that notified after July 1 and, therefore, did not have to ship their hazardous waste off

- site to a TSDF in 2011. 13 

### Furthermore, as part of EPA’s data collection effort, several states provided information on the number of SQGs statewide. 14 

### Therefore, where state

- level data were provided, EPA re lied on this information rather than estimates derived from the BR and RCRAInfo databases. Using this approach, EPA developed a low

- end estimate of approximately 45,800 SQGs in the United States and its territories. EPA considers this a low end estimate because it may not capture SQGs that manage hazardous waste on site or SQGs that TSDFs failed to report in the BR database.

12 This analysis was conducted to exclude inactive SQGs in the RCRAInfo database. SQGs that sent multiple hazardous waste shipments to a single TSDF , or more than one TSDF , were only counted once.

13 SQGs can accumulate hazardous waste on
- site for up to 180 days before it must be managed for treatment, storage, or disposal. Therefore, SQGs that notified after July 1 would not necessarily have to ship any hazardous waste off
- s ite to a TSDF in the same calendar year and may not appear in any BR records for a given year.

14 These states include Alabama, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.2
- 4 High
- end Estimate of the Number of SQGs 

### Due to uncertainty associated with whether information in the data sources described above fully represents the universe of active SQGs, EPA used an alternative approach to derive a high

- end estimate for the number of SQGs. This approach is similar to the methodology employed in deriving the low

- end estimate, but instead uses WR forms from any of the years 2007, 2009, or 2011 to identify any SQGs that shipped waste off

site in any of those three BR cycles. This yields an estimate of the number of facilities that were SQGs sometime between 2007 and 2011. Because some facilities may have been S QGs for one of these years but not all years, this approach may lead to overestimation of the number of SQGs. Due to this potential for overestimation, this EA applies this approach to develop the high

- end estimate for SQGs. EPA used this approach for states from which no SQG counts were obtained, but continued to rely on the state estimates that were obtained otherwise. Using this alternative approach, EPA developed a high

- end estimate of approximately 59,700 SQGs in the United States and its territorie s.
**ESTIMA TING THE NUMBE**  **R OF CESQG s**  

### In the absence of reliable national data on the number and location of CESQGs, EPA used information collected from the states to estimate the universe of CESQGs potentially affected by the proposed rule. Specifically, EPA obtained estimates of the number of CESQGs statewide for 14 states, as described above. Then, EPA calculated the ratio of (1) CESQGs to SQGs (using low

- end and high

- end estimates for states with an uncertain number of SQGs) and (2) CESQGs to LQGs in aggregate across the 14 states. Exhibit 2

- 2 summarizes data collected from the states on the number of CESQGs within each state and the corresponding ratio values developed. As shown in the exhibit, these ratios vary considerably across states. This analys is uses the composite ratio of 29.67 (as opposed to the simple average) for all 14 states combined, as shown in the last row of Exhibit 2

- 2. For states where data on the number of CESQGs are unavailable, the composite ratios calculated above are multiplied by the number of SQGs and LQGs in the state to estimate an approximate range for the number of CESQGs. 15 

### In aggregate, the lower

-bound CESQG

-to
- SQG ratio (Column F) described in Exhibit 2

- 2 produces the lowest estimate, while the CESQG

-to
-LQG ratio (Colum n H) produces the highest estimate. The high

end estimate is similar to the alternative estimate developed using the upper

-bound CESQG

-to
- SQG ratio (Column G); the difference between the two is approximately seven percent. However, because these ratios a re indexed to the number of SQGs and LQGs, which vary considerably across states, on a state

-by

- state basis the LQG

-based estimate may be higher or lower than the SQG

-based estimates. Therefore, to be

15 For those states for which CESQG counts were directly available from the state, this EA uses the value provided by the state.2
- 5 

### pragmatic in estimating the number of CESQGs, EPA reports the lowest and highest of these three estimates to highlight the degree of uncertainty regarding the number of CESQGs. Finally, these estimates are combined with the CESQG estimates collected from the 14 states also described above.2
- 6 **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **2: NUMBER OF CESQG F**  **ACI LITIES BY ST** **AT E**  **AND CALCULA** **TION OF RA TIO**  **S USED IN EXTRAPOLA** **TION FOR NA** **TIONAL ESTIMA** **TES**

**STATE [A]**  **NUMBER OF**

**LQG s**  **1 [B]**  **NUMBER OF SQG s**  **2 NUMBER**  **OF CESQG**  **s 2**  **[E] RATIO OF CESQG**  **s TO** 

**SQG s**  **RATIO OF**

**CESQG s**  **TO LQG s**  **[H=E/B] LOW**  **- END**  **[C] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[D] LOW**  **- END**  **[F=E/D] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[G=E/C]** Alabama 223 1,226 1,226 3,390 2.8 2.8 15. 20 Arizona 3 210 511 770 1,774 2.3 3.5 8. 45 California 1,223 5,915 5,915 21,000 3.6 3.6 17. 17 Florida 279 3,800 3,800 19,350 5.1 5.1 69. 35 Hawaii 3 31 122 165 692 4.2 5.7 22. 32 Massachusetts 402 2,683 2,683 12,559 4.7 4.7 31. 24 Maine 52 304 304 949 3.1 3.1 18. 25 Minnesota 320 1,366 1,366 21,743 15.9 15.9 67. 95 Nevada 3 68 196 280 3,187 11.4 16.3 46. 87 New Hampshire 100 201 201 1,818 9.0 9.0 18. 18 New Jersey 575 850 850 9,000 10.6 10.6 15. 65 Rhode Island 65 700 700 2,100 3.0 3.0 32. 31 Washington 3 412 532 604 22,315 36.9 41.9 54. 16 Wisconsin 394 1,227 1,227 9,323 7.6 7.6 23. 66 **TOTAL 4,354**  **19,633 20,091**  **129,200 6.**  **4 6.**  **6 29.**  **67** Notes: 1. The number of LQGs appears as reported in EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 2011 Data, Exhibit 1.1 Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated and Number of Hazardous Waste Generators, by State, 2011, accessed at http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br11/national11.pdf on July 22, 2013. 2. Data sources for the number of SQGs and CESQGs are as follows. **Alabama:** E
- mail communication with Ron Shell o f the Alabama Department of Environmental Management; **Arizona/Nevada/Hawaii:** E
- mail communication with Kathryn Faulkner of EPA Region 9 on May 28, 2013; **California:** E
- mail communication with Schumin Wong of the California Department of Toxic Substances Con trol; **Florida:** Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Hazardous Waste Management Needs Assessment Report, January 2007, accessed at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/hazardous/2007HazardousWasteManagementNeed sAssessmentReport.pdf on July 10, 2013; **Massachusetts:** E
- mail communication with Mike Hurley of the Massachusetts Departme nt of Environmental Protection on October 16, 2012; **Maine:** E
- mail communication with Cherie Plummer of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection on October 26, 2012; **Minnesota:** E
- mail communication with Kathy Gedde of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on October 17, 2012; **New Hampshire:** E
mail communication with John Duclos of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services on June 26, 2013; **New Jersey:** E
- mail communication with Michael Hastry of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; **Rhode Island:** E
- mail communication with Mark Dennen of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management of May 14, 2013; **Washington:** E
- mail communication with Rob Rieck of the Washington Department of Ecology on March 8, 2012; **Wisconsi n:**  E
- mail communication with Pat Chabot of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on December 15, 2011. 3. Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada and Washington did not provide estimates of the number of SQGs. For these States, EPA estimated a range for the SQG unive rse by identifying the number of active SQGs as described earlier in this chapter.2
- 7 

### Using this methodology, EPA estimates that there are between approximately 293,000 and 469,000 CESQGs in the United States. Therefore, EPA estimates that the combined total number of hazardous waste generators is between approximately 353,000 and 543,000. Exhibit 2

- 3 describes the total number of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs by State. **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **3: UNIVERSE OF F ACIL**  **ITIES POTENTIALL Y**  **AF FECTED BY THE PROPOS**  **ED RULE BY ST** **AT E**  **AND G ENERA** **TO R ST** **AT US** 

**STATE [A]**  **NUMBER**

**OF LQG s**  **[B] NUMBER OF SQG**  **s NUMBER OF CESQG**  **s TOTAL NUMBER OF**  **GENERATORS LOW**  **- END**  **[C] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[D] LOW**  **- END** 

**[E] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[F] LOW**  **- END** 

**[G] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[H]** Alabama 223 1,226 1,226 3,390 3,390 4,839 4,839 Alaska 27 96 143 617 941 740 1,111 Arizona 210 511 770 1,774 1,774 2,495 2,754 Arkansas 123 256 318 1,646 3,650 2,025 4,091 California 1,223 5,915 5,915 21,000 21,000 28,138 28,138 Colorado 107 434 482 2,791 3,175 3,332 3,764 Connecticut 278 756 1,092 4,862 8,249 5,896 9,619 Delaware 49 155 218 997 1,454 1,201 1,721 District of Columbia 23 36 74 232 682 291 779 Florida 279 3,800 3,800 19,350 19,350 23,429 23,429 Georgia 334 900 1,288 5,788 9,911 7,022 11,533 Guam 8 3 8 19 237 30 253 Hawaii 31 122 165 692 692 845 888 Idaho 19 79 89 508 586 606 694 Illinois 641 2,958 4,897 19,021 32,226 22,620 37,764 Indiana 503 790 1,156 5,080 14,926 6,373 16,585 Iowa 128 471 675 3,029 4,442 3,628 5,245 Kansas 170 480 680 3,087 5,045 3,737 5,895 Kentucky 269 355 469 2,283 7,982 2,907 8,720 Louisiana 331 705 1,068 4,534 9,822 5,570 11,221 Maine 52 304 304 949 949 1,305 1,305 Maryland 132 974 1,780 3,917 11,714 5,023 13,626 Massachusetts 402 2,683 2,683 12,559 12,559 15,644 15,644 Michigan 342 1,486 2,194 9,556 14,438 11,384 16,974 Minnesota 320 1,366 1,366 21,743 21,743 23,429 23,429 Mississippi 128 210 286 1,350 3,798 1,688 4,212 Missouri 282 1,279 1,727 8,225 11,365 9,786 13,374 Montana 41 55 77 354 1,217 450 1,335 Navajo Nation 1 6 6 30 39 37 46 Nebraska 64 226 273 1,453 1,899 1,743 2,2362
- 8 **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **3: UNIVERSE OF F ACIL**  **ITIES POTENTIALL Y**  **AF FECTED BY THE PROPOS**  **ED RULE BY ST** **AT E**  **AND G ENERA** **TO R ST** **AT US** 

**STATE [A]**  **NUMBER**

**OF LQG s**  **[B] NUMBER OF SQG**  **s NUMBER OF CESQG**  **s TOTAL NUMBER OF**  **GENERATORS LOW**  **- END**  **[C] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[D] LOW**  **- END** 

**[E] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[F] LOW**  **- END** 

**[G] HIGH**  **- END** 

**[H]** Nevada 68 196 280 3,187 3,187 3,451 3,535 New Hampshire 100 201 201 1,818 1,818 2,119 2,119 New Jersey 575 850 850 9,000 9,000 10,425 10,425 New Mexico 39 156 236 1,003 1,553 1,198 1,828 New York 1,471 1,983 3,255 12,752 43,650 16,206 48,376 North Carolina 437 1,169 1,786 7,518 12,967 9,124 15,190 North Dakota 19 62 78 399 564 480 661 Ohio 716 2,041 3,240 13,125 21,322 15,882 25,278 Oklahoma 179 379 502 2,437 5,312 2,995 5,993 Oregon 181 235 285 1,511 5,371 1,927 5,837 Pennsylvania 671 2,721 4,293 17,498 28,251 20,890 33,215 Puerto Rico 80 96 115 617 2,374 793 2,569 Rhode Island 65 700 700 2,100 2,100 2,865 2,865 South Carolina 257 485 722 3,119 7,626 3,861 8,605 South Dakota 33 182 256 979 1,685 1,194 1,974 Tennessee 334 442 710 2,842 9,911 3,618 10,955 Texas 1,006 1,471 2,164 9,460 29,852 11,937 33,022 Trust Territories 1 3 5 19 33 23 39 Utah 111 174 205 1,119 3,294 1,404 3,610 Vermont 39 185 250 1,157 1,645 1,381 1,934 Virgin Islands 2 6 5 33 59 41 66 Virginia 219 1,274 2,029 6,499 13,352 7,992 15,600 Washington 412 532 604 22,315 22,315 23,259 23,331 West Virginia 98 280 376 1,801 2,908 2,179 3,382 Wisconsin 394 1,227 1,227 9,323 9,323 10,944 10,944 Wyoming 15 75 99 445 651 535 765 **TOTAL 14,262**  **45,762 59,702**  **292,912 469,378**  **352,936 543,342** 



### Exhibits 2

-4(A) and 2

-4(B) show the geographic distribution of the universe of facilities potentially affected by the proposed rule across the United States using the low

- end and high

- end estimates.2
- 9 **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **4(A): GEOGRAPHIC DIS TRIBUTION OF F**  **ACILIT IES USING LOW**  **- END**  **ESTIMA TE** 2
- 10 **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **4(B): GEOGRAPHIC DIS TRIBUTION OF F**  **ACILIT IES USING HIGH**  **- END**  **ESTIMA TE** 

**HAZARDOUS W ASTE GENE**  **RA TION OF POTENTIALL**  **Y AFFECTED F**  **ACILITIE S**  

### This section characterizes the hazardous waste generation of facilities in the potentially regulated universe. The overall tonnages of hazardous waste and the number of waste streams are relevant to estimating the cost of managing this waste in compliance with the provisions of the proposed rule. The methodology for estimating the quantities of hazardous waste generation varies by generator status due to limitations in the available data. Where possible, this EA relies on generation data from EPA’s 2011 BR database. The BR database is used to develop annual aggregate and per facility generation estimates for LQG facilities. For other facility types, however, the data available from the BR database are, alone, insufficient to develop nationwide hazardous waste generation estimates. Consequently, this EA derives generation estimates for SQGs and CESQGs by combining the limited data available in the BR database with facility

- level generation data obtained from individual states.2
- 11 **LQG HAZARDOUS W ASTE**  **GENERA TION**  

### EPA’s 20 11 BR databa se is the primary data source for estimating hazardous waste generation for LQG facilities. In 2011, LQGs generated approximately 34.5 million tons of hazardous waste in aggregate. Combining this value with the LQG facility count presented above suggests that LQGs, on average, generate approximately 2,420 tons of hazardous waste per facility per year. 16 

### The BR data also suggest that LQGs reported an average of 17 different waste streams per facility, with a few large facilities reporting several thousand waste streams. Exhibit 2

- 5 reports the overall and average per facility hazardous waste quantities generated on an annual basis as well as the average number of waste streams per facility for LQGs by state. As shown in the exhibit, the Gulf States of Texa s, Louisiana, and Mississippi account for approximately 64 percent of all hazardous waste generated by LQGs in the United States. In contrast, New York and California, which have the largest number of LQG facilities, collectively account for just 2.1 perc ent of all hazardous waste generated by LQGs. Exhibit 2

- 6 provides information on the distribution of LQGs by industry. Facilities in the BR database may be characterized by one or several North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. To avoid double

- counting, this EA uses the first NAICS codes listed in the BR database for a facility, which is considered to be the primary NAICS code. As shown in the exhibit, the four largest industries account for more than 95 percent of all hazardous wa ste generated by LQGs. These include: chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325); petroleum and coal products manufacturing (NAICS 324); primary metal manufacturing (NAICS 331); and waste management and remediation services (NAICS 562). Overall, the nine largest industries account for more than half the LQGs in the affected universe. In addition to those listed above, these also include: fabricated metal product manufacturing (NAICS 332); transportation equipment manufacturing (NAICS 336); electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing (NAICS 335); national security and international affairs (NAICS 928); and computer and electronic product manufacturing (NAICS 334).

16 This average (mean) value reflects a limited number of facilities in the BR that generate more than one million tons of hazardous waste per year. Thus, whereas the mean generation value per LQG is 2,420 tons per year, the median (50 th percentile) is 21.4 tons per year. Because the cost and benefit calculations in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, do not use LQG waste generation as an input (increme ntal costs and benefits for LQGs under the rule are not dependent on waste quantities), the choice of the mean or median has no impact on the estimated costs and benefits of the rule.2
- 12 **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **5: LQG HAZARDOUS W AS**  **TE QUANTITIES AND NU**  **MBER OF W ASTE STREAM**  **S GENERA TED**  **BY ST** **AT E** 

**STATE**

**[A] NUMBER OF** 

**FACILITIES IN BR DATA**  **1 [B]**  **TOTAL HAZARDOUS**

**WASTE GENERATED 2**  **(TONS) [C]**  **PERCENTAGE OF**

**TOTAL HAZARDOUS**  **WASTE [D]**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE**

**GENERATED PER FACILITY**  **(TONS) [E=C/B]**  **AVERAGE**

**NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS**  **PER FACILITY 3**  **[F]** Alabama 223 586,799 1.7% 2,631 19 Alaska 27 1,940 0.0% 72 24 Arizona 210 202,842 0.6% 966 15 Arkansas 123 985,790 2.9% 8,015 25 California 1,223 558,941 1.6% 457 18 Colorado 107 31,065 0.1% 290 48 Connecticut 278 24,738 0.1% 89 12 Delaware 49 35,207 0.1% 719 45 District of Columbia 23 1,134 0.0% 49 12 Florida 279 201,980 0.6% 724 18 Georgia 334 210,858 0.6% 631 11 Guam 8 86 0.0% 11 47 Hawaii 31 423,550 1.2% 13,663 51 Idaho 19 3,482 0.0% 183 32 Illinois 641 675,522 2.0% 1,054 9 Indiana 503 888,022 2.6% 1,765 13 Iowa 128 49,366 0.1% 386 9 Kansas 170 1,244,754 3.6% 7,322 9 Kentucky 269 208,463 0.6% 775 27 Louisiana 331 4,399,502 12.7% 13,292 10 Maine 52 2,292 0.0% 44 9 Maryland 132 43,590 0.1% 330 10 Massachusetts 402 32,886 0.1% 82 16 Michigan 342 316,360 0.9% 925 86 Minnesota 320 353,037 1.0% 1,103 8 Mississippi 128 1,828,854 5.3% 14,288 8 Missouri 282 252,895 0.7% 897 12 Montana 41 5,883 0.0% 143 8 Navajo Nation 1 23 0.0% 23 7 Nebraska 64 34,404 0.1% 538 27 Nevada 68 12,030 0.0% 177 10 New Hampshire 100 3,237 0.0% 32 50 New Jersey 575 290,495 0.8% 505 62 New Mexico 39 1,037,384 3.0% 26,600 462
- 13 **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **5: LQG HAZARDOUS W AS**  **TE QUANTITIES AND NU**  **MBER OF W ASTE STREAM**  **S GENERA TED**  **BY ST** **AT E** 

**STATE**

**[A] NUMBER OF** 

**FACILITIES IN BR DATA**  **1 [B]**  **TOTAL HAZARDOUS**

**WASTE GENERATED 2**  **(TONS) [C]**  **PERCENTAGE OF**

**TOTAL HAZARDOUS**  **WASTE [D]**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE**

**GENERATED PER FACILITY**  **(TONS) [E=C/B]**  **AVERAGE**

**NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS**  **PER FACILITY 3**  **[F]** New York 1,471 186,479 0.5% 127 6 North Carolina 437 81,678 0.2% 187 24 North Dakota 19 455,867 1.3% 23,993 7 Ohio 716 1,601,885 4.6% 2,237 15 Oklahoma 179 44,688 0.1% 250 5 Oregon 181 93,514 0.3% 517 9 Pennsylvania 671 294,971 0.9% 440 11 Puerto Rico 80 37,222 0.1% 465 26 Rhode Island 65 8,406 0.0% 129 15 South Carolina 257 176,964 0.5% 689 10 South Dakota 33 1,334 0.0% 40 8 Tennessee 334 90,121 0.3% 270 6 Texas 1,006 15,683,407 45.4% 15,590 8 Trust Territories 1 6 0.0% 6 1 Utah 111 49,706 0.1% 448 30 Vermont 39 2,773 0.0% 71 13 Virgin Islands 2 1,251 0.0% 626 12 Virginia 219 68,300 0.2% 312 17 Washington 412 349,508 1.0% 848 17 West Virginia 98 54,511 0.2% 556 11 Wisconsin 394 287,938 0.8% 731 10 Wyoming 15 4,058 0.0% 271 11 **TOTAL 14,262**  **34,522,000 100%**  **2,421 17**  Notes : 1. The number of LQGs appears as reported in EPA, National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report: Based on 2011 Data, Exhibit 1.1 Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated and Number of Hazardous Waste Generators, by State, 2011, accessed at http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br11/national11.pdf on July 22, 2013. 2. Hazardous waste quantities based on analysis of 2011 BR database. Figures may differ from those reported in EPA’s National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Rep ort due to minor discrepancies associated with rounding error in converting different units of measurement to tons. The quantities reported above are within +/
- 1 percent of the national data reported by EPA. 3. Number of waste streams based on analysis of 201 1 BR database.2
- 14

**EXHIBIT 2 -**  **6: LQG HAZARDOUS W AS**  **TE QUANTITIES AND NU**  **MBER OF W ASTE STREAM**  **S GENERA TED BY INDUS**  **TR Y** 

**NAICS [A]**  **NAICS DESCRIPTION [B]**  **NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN**  **BR DATA 1**  **[C] TOTAL HAZARDOUS** 

**WASTE GENERATED 1**  **(TONS) [D]**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE**

**GENERATED PER FACILI TY** 

**(TONS) [E=D/C]**  **AVERAGE NUMBER OF**

**WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY**  **1 [F]**  325 Chemical manufacturing 2,197 21,309,876 9,700 17 324 Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 188 6,643,349 35,337 20 331 Primary metal manufacturing 580 2,517,470 4,340 8 562 Waste management and remediation services 577 2,493,110 4,321 153 332 Fabricated metal product manufacturing 1,724 324,267 188 6 336 Transportation equipment manufacturing 861 155,444 181 13 335 Electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing 222 127,740 575 9 928 National security and international affairs 220 89,824 408 61 334 Computer and electronic product manufacturing 579 89,800 155 13 481 Air transportation 22 78,162 3,553 19 327 Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 149 59,550 400 7 326 Plastics and rubber products manufacturing 360 51,127 142 7 311 Food manufacturing 51 45,472 892 13 493 Warehousing and storage 285 44,736 157 8 488 Support activities for transportation 259 42,427 164 5 561 Administrative and support services 33 40,265 1,220 9 541 Professional, scientific, and technical services 462 32,137 70 21 221 Utilities 589 26,954 46 4 212 Mining (except oil and gas) 30 25,838 861 11 424 Merchant wholesalers, nondurable goods 368 24,257 66 8 423 Merchant wholesalers, durable goods 81 24,214 299 5 333 Machinery manufacturing 324 21,403 66 8 237 Heavy and civil engineering construction 179 19,204 107 12
- 15

**EXHIBIT 2 -**  **6: LQG HAZARDOUS W AS**  **TE QUANTITIES AND NU**  **MBER OF W ASTE STREAM**  **S GENERA TED BY INDUS**  **TR Y** 

**NAICS [A]**  **NAICS DESCRIPTION [B]**  **NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN**  **BR DATA 1**  **[C] TOTAL HAZARDOUS** 

**WASTE GENERATED 1**  **(TONS) [D]**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE**

**GENERATED PER FACILI TY** 

**(TONS) [E=D/C]**  **AVERAGE NUMBER OF**

**WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY**  **1 [F]**  621 Ambulatory health care services 116 18,751 162 6 611 Educational services 361 18,079 50 37 236 Construction of buildings 17 17,696 1,041 2 323 Printing and related support activities 262 17,656 67 4 486 Pipeline transportation 180 14,522 81 3 322 Paper manufacturing 157 14,321 91 6 321 Wood product manufacturing 140 13,571 97 3 339 Miscellaneous manufacturing 248 13,451 54 9 926 Administration of economic programs 39 11,944 306 2 811 Repair and maintenance 89 10,116 114 7 924 Administration of environmental quality programs 20 9,920 496 27 337 Furniture and related product manufacturing 139 8,881 64 3 211 Oil and gas extraction 48 8,554 178 6 483 Water transportation 29 7,655 264 5 531 Real estate 41 6,309 154 4 622 Hospitals 345 5,610 16 15 482 Rail transportation 34 4,824 142 3 313 Textile mills 52 4,515 87 6 812 Personal and laundry services 99 4,111 42 2 532 Rental and leasing services 16 4,057 254 6 921 Executive, legislative, and other general government support 34 2,569 76 13 485 Transit and ground passenger transportation 58 1,990 34 2 422 Wholesale trade, nondurable goods 27 1,804 67 122
- 16

**EXHIBIT 2 -**  **6: LQG HAZARDOUS W AS**  **TE QUANTITIES AND NU**  **MBER OF W ASTE STREAM**  **S GENERA TED BY INDUS**  **TR Y** 

**NAICS [A]**  **NAICS DESCRIPTION [B]**  **NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN**  **BR DATA 1**  **[C] TOTAL HAZARDOUS** 

**WASTE GENERATED 1**  **(TONS) [D]**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE**

**GENERATED PER FACILI TY** 

**(TONS) [E=D/C]**  **AVERAGE NUMBER OF**

**WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY**  **1 [F]**  452 General merchandise stores 745 1,235 2 10 484 Truck transportation 59 1,127 19 19 927 Space research and technology 15 992 66 27 213 Support activities for mining 38 986 26 5 238 Specialty trade contractors 61 976 16 2 314 Textile product mills 10 965 96 4 421 Wholesale trade, durable goods 10 919 92 4 713 Amusement, gambling, and recreation industries 11 892 81 10 712 Museums, historical sites, and similar institutions 9 637 71 4 623 Nursing and residential care facilities 1 628 628 1 234 Heavy construction 3 535 178 7 447 Gasoline stations 45 446 10 2 446 Health and personal care stores 144 365 3 6 454 Non
- store retailers 8 340 43 4 444 Building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers 31 315 10 8 492 Couriers and messengers 22 315 14 19 813 Religious, grant
- making, civic, professional, and similar orgs. 5 302 60 6 551 Management of companies and enterprises 12 261 22 23 925 Administration of housing programs, urban planning, and community development 4 252 63 1 512 Motion picture and sound recording industries 4 217 54 7 312 Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing 10 199 20 12 111 Crop production 5 194 39 4 425 Wholesale electronic markets and agents and brokers 2 182 91 22
- 17

**EXHIBIT 2 -**  **6: LQG HAZARDOUS W AS**  **TE QUANTITIES AND NU**  **MBER OF W ASTE STREAM**  **S GENERA TED BY INDUS**  **TR Y** 

**NAICS [A]**  **NAICS DESCRIPTION [B]**  **NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN**  **BR DATA 1**  **[C] TOTAL HAZARDOUS** 

**WASTE GENERATED 1**  **(TONS) [D]**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE**

**GENERATED PER FACILI TY** 

**(TONS) [E=D/C]**  **AVERAGE NUMBER OF**

**WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY**  **1 [F]**  922 Justice, public order, and safety activities 14 178 13 11 522 Credit intermediation and related activities 3 139 46 5 511 Publishing industries (except Internet) 6 129 22 11 525 Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 6 115 19 13 235 Special trade contractors 7 98 14 4 711 Performing arts, spectator sports, and related industries 5 92 18 2 441 Motor vehicle and parts dealers 9 86 10 2 515 Broadcasting (except Internet) 1 66 66 1 115 Support activities for agriculture and forestry 3 43 14 3 315 Apparel manufacturing 2 34 17 2 316 Leather and allied product manufacturing 2 34 17 2 443 Electronics and appliance stores 1 30 30 1 453 Miscellaneous store retailers 6 26 4 1 722 Food services and drinking places 1 21 21 1 517 Telecommunications 4 13 3 1 445 Food and beverage stores 31 12 0 1 112 Animal production 3 11 4 4 518 Data processing, hosting and related services 1 10 10 61 491 Postal Service 1 10 10 76 233 Building, developing, and general contracting 2 9 5 2 448 Clothing and clothing accessories stores 1 9 9 1 923 Administration of Human Resource Programs 3 6 2 12 524 Insurance carriers and related activities 2 6 3 72
- 18

**EXHIBIT 2 -**  **6: LQG HAZARDOUS W AS**  **TE QUANTITIES AND NU**  **MBER OF W ASTE STREAM**  **S GENERA TED BY INDUS**  **TR Y** 

**NAICS [A]**  **NAICS DESCRIPTION [B]**  **NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN**  **BR DATA 1**  **[C] TOTAL HAZARDOUS** 

**WASTE GENERATED 1**  **(TONS) [D]**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE**

**GENERATED PER FACILI TY** 

**(TONS) [E=D/C]**  **AVERAGE NUMBER OF**

**WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY**  **1 [F]**  814 Private households 1 5 5 1 514 Information services and data processing services 1 2 2 3 624 Social assistance 1 2 2 1 **TOTAL 14,262**  **34,522,000 2,421**  **17** Notes: 1. Data based on analysis of 2011 BR database.2
- 19 

### As described above, LQG facilities generate on average approximately 17 waste streams per facility per year. However, LQG hazardous waste generation data in the BR are heavily skewed based on a small number of facilities generating thousands of different waste streams on an annual basis. Specifically, in the 2011 BR data, half of the LQGs in the potentially affected universe manage five hazardous waste streams each year (the median) or less

—

while, in total, facilities generate an average of approximately 17 waste streams (the mean). 17 

### Therefore, as described later in Chapter 3, this EA presents a range of cost estimates based on both the median and mean values presented above. In reporting for the BR, facilities report waste codes for each waste stream to provide information on its contents and properties. However, the BR data do not include a quantitative analysis of the composition of a waste stream with respect to its reported waste codes (e.g., it does not report what percentage of the waste stream represents waste code F001). Therefore, it is not possible to determine the exact prevalence of individual constituents in each waste stream. Exhibit 2

- 7 describes the percentage of LQG waste streams associated with each waste code category. As shown in the exhibit, LQGs reported D waste codes for approximately 92 percent of their waste streams in aggregate. F waste codes and U waste codes account for the next most frequently reported waste codes among LQGs in the BR data. Expanding on the data reported in Exhibit 2

- 7, Exhibit 2

- 8 reports the waste codes that appear in the highest percentage of all LQG waste streams. As shown in the exhibit, the 12 most frequently reported waste codes are contained in 89 percent of all LQG waste streams. **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **7: PERCENT AGE OF LQG**  **WA STE STREAMS CONT** **AI NING INDIVIDUAL**  **WA STE CODE CA** **TEGORIE S**  **WASTE CODE CATEGORY**

**[A] PERCENTAGE OF WASTE**  **STREAMS [B]**  **1** D Waste Codes 92% F Waste Codes 26% U Waste Codes 11% P Waste Codes 4% K Waste Codes 1% Lab Packs 2 1% **TOTAL NUMBER OF LQG WASTE STREAMS IN BR DATA**  **247,154** Notes: 1. Waste streams may be comprised of multiple waste codes; therefore rows do not add up to 100 percent. 2. Facilities may consolidate different types of hazardous waste in small containers and, in some cases, not report individual waste codes.

17 In statistics, the median is the midpoint (or 50 th percentile) of the distribution. The mean is the mathematical average, or the sum of all quantities in a dataset divided by the number of observations.2
- 20 **EXHIBIT 2**  **- 8: PERCENT** **AGE OF LQG WA**  **STE STREAMS CONT AI**  **NING MOST FREQUENTL**  **Y REPOR TED**  **WA STE CODES** 

**EPA WASTE CODE [A]**  **WASTE DESCRIPTION [B]**  **PERCENTAGE OF WASTE STREAMS**  **[C] 1**  D001 Ignitable Waste 53% D002 Corrosive Waste 27% F003 Non
- halogenated Solvents 2 20% D007 Chromium 15% F005 Non
- halogenated Solvents 3 13% D008 Lead 13% D035 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 10% D003 Reactive Waste 9% F002 Halogenated Solvents 4 8% D018 Benzene 8% D006 Cadmium 7% D005 Barium 7% **TOTAL ABOVE LISTED WASTE CODES 89%**  **5** Notes: 1. The 2011 BR database contains 247,154 waste stream records for LQGs. Waste streams may be comprised of multiple waste codes; therefore rows do not add up to 100 percent. 2. F003 wastes include: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n
- butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol. 3. F005 w astes include: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2
- ethoxyethanol, and 2
- nitropropane
. 4. F002 w astes include: t etrachloroethylene ; methylene chloride ; tric hloroethylene; 1,1,1
- trichloroethane ; chlorobenzene ; 1,1,2
- trichloro
- 1,2,2
- trifluoroethane ; ortho
dichlorobenzene ; trichlorofluoromethane ; and 1,1,2
- trichloroethane
. 5. At least one of the waste codes above appear in 89 percent of all waste streams; the remai ning 11 percent of waste streams do not contain any of these waste codes.

**SQG HAZARDOUS W**  **ASTE GENE RA** **TION** 

### Due to the limited information in the BR database for non -LQG facilities, this EA does not rely solely on the BR data to characterize hazardous waste generation for SQGs. Instead, for SQGs, this EA relies on the limited data available in the BR database supplemented by facility

- level data provided by Maine and Washington. 18 

### The data provided by Maine and Washington represent the most complete set of state data for SQG

18 State data provided via e - mail communication with Cherie Plummer, Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), o n October 26, 2012 and e - mail communication with Jean Newman, Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) on November 8, 2012.2
- 21 

### facilities. SQG data were also provided by New Jersey; 19 

### however, these data appear to be less complete than the SQG data for New Jersey already reported in the BR database. The BR data are on their own are insufficient for estimating SQG hazardous waste quantities because most states do not require SQGs to submit generation data to EPA. For example, no SQG data are available for Texas and Miss issippi, which are two of the largest states in terms of hazardous waste generation of LQGs. In addition, there are reporting discrepancies in the BR data regarding generator status and hazardous waste quantities. Based on the hazardous waste generation thresholds, facilities must generate greater than 100 kg and less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month (or between 1.3 and 13.2 tons per year) and also generate less than or equal to 1 kg of acute hazardous waste in a calendar month to be c onsidered an SQG. 20 

### However, a number of facilities identified as SQGs in the BR data have generation quantities that exceed these thresholds. 21 

### Exhibit 2

- 9 provides a summary of the BR, Maine, and Washington data on hazardous waste generation for SQG facilities. The BR data exclude facilities that are reported to be SQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine and Washington data are also excluded from the BR data to avoid double

- counting. In total, these data represent 1,927 facilities generating, on average, approximately 2.6 tons of hazardous waste per facility per year. Recognizing the uncertainty associated with this average value, Exhibit 2

- 9 also reports the interquartile range for SQG hazardous waste generation (i.e., the 25 th 

### to 75 th 

### percentiles), which is 0.7 to 3.3 tons per year. In addition, the data suggest that SQG facilities manage approximately eight waste streams per facility per year.

19 State data provided via e - mail communication with Mike Hastry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, on October 19, 2012.

20 The RCRA generator status thresholds are based on monthly generation quantities. Since the BR data in this EA are reported in tons per year, the generator status thresholds are converted from kilograms to tons and the monthly threshold quantities a re then multiplied by 12 to obtain equivalent values on an annual basis. For example, the minimum SQG threshold is calculated as follows: 100kg/month × 2.204 pounds/kg × 1 ton/2000 pounds × 12 months/year = 1.322 tons/year.

21 Hazardous waste generation qua ntities reported by SQGs that exceed the LQG threshold may be indicative of either episodic generation or misreporting of generator status; however, the exact reason for this is unclear.2
- 22 **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **9: SQG HAZARDOUS W**  **ASTE QUANTITIES**  **AND NUMBE R OF W**  **ASTE STREAMS GENERA** **TED**

**DATA SOURCE [A]**  **NUMBER OF**

**FACILITIES WITH GENERATION**  **DATA [**  **B ]**  **TOTAL**

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **[C] HAZARDOUS** 

**WASTE GENERATED PER**  **FACILITY (TONS)**  **[D=C/B] AVERAGE NUMBER** 

**OF WASTE STREAMS PER**  **FACILITY [E]**  2011 BR Data 1 (excluding ME and WA) 1,051 3,270 3.1 9
Maine DEP 317 461 1.5 9 2 Washington DOE 559 1,183 2.1 6 TOTAL 1,927 4,914 2.6 (Median: 1.5) 3 8 (Median: 4) 3 Notes: 1. Data based on analysis of 2011 BR database. BR data exclude facilities that are reported to be SQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine and Washington data are also excluded to avoid double
- counting. 2. Maine did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. The BR data contain records for 9 SQG facilities in Maine that generated an average of 9 waste streams per facility per year
. 3. In statistics, the median is the midpoint (or 50 th percentile) of the distribution.

**CESQG HAZARDOUS W**  **ASTE GENE RA** **TION** 

### To estimate hazardous waste generation for CESQGs, this EA relies on the limited information available in the BR data supplemented by facility

- level information provided by Maine , New Jersey , and Washington

. 22 

### As with SQGs, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation quantities of CESQGs. Based on the hazardous waste generator status thresholds, facilities must generate less than or equal to 100 kg of hazardous waste per month (or less than 1.3 tons per year) and less than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste per month to be considered a CESQG. Therefore, this analysis excludes facilities in the BR data that are reported to be CESQGs, but exceed these thresholds. Exhibit 2

- 10 provides a summary of hazardous waste generation for CESQG facilities. The BR data exclude facilities that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste thresholds as well as data for Maine, New Jersey, and Washington to avoid double

- counting. In total, these data represent 2,527 facilities generating, on average, approximately 0.3 tons of hazardous waste per facility per year. The interquartile range around this average value is

22 State data provided via e - mail communication with Cherie Plummer, M aine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), on October 26, 2012 and e - mail communication with Mike Hastry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, on October 19, 2012.2
- 23 

### 0.14 to 0.60 tons per year. In addition, CESQG facilities generated an average of approximately four waste streams per facility per year. **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **10: CESQG HAZARDOUS W**  **AST E**  **QUANTITIES AND NUMBE**  **R OF W ASTE**  **STREAMS GENERA TED** 

**DATA SOURCE [A]**  **NUMBER OF**

**FACILITIES WITH**  **GENERATION DATA**  **[ B**  **] TOTAL** 

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **[C] HAZARDOUS** 

**WASTE GENERATED PER**  **FACILITY (TONS)**  **[D=C/B] AVERAGE** 

**NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS**  **PER FACILITY [E]**  2011 BR Data 1 (excluding ME, NJ, and WA) 252 67 0.26 6
Maine DEP 917 161 0.18 2 2 New Jersey DEP 1,224 501 0.41 5 3 Washington DOE 127 42 0.33 3 TOTAL 2,520 771 0.31 ( Median: 0.20 ) 4 4

( Median: 2) 4 Notes: 1. Data based on analysis of 2011 BR database. BR data exclude facilities that are reported to be CESQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine, New Jersey, and Washington data are also excluded to avoid double
- counting. 2. Maine did not report the number of waste streams g enerated for each facility. The BR data contain records for 2 CESQGs in Maine that generate an average of 2 waste streams per facility per year. 3. New Jersey did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. The BR data contain records for 17 CESQGs in New Jersey that generate an average of 5 waste streams per facility per year. 4. In statistics, the median is the midpoint (or 50 th percentile) of the distribution.

**AGGREGA TE GENERA** **TION OF HAZARDOUS W**  **ASTE A**  **MONG F ACILITIES POTE**  **NTIALL Y**  **AFFECTED BY THE RULE** 

### Exhibit 2

- 11 reports the aggregate hazardous waste generation of facilities potentially affected by the proposed rulemaking. The regulatory universe includes between approximately 353,000 and 543,000 facilities; however, not all of these facilities are affected by the proposed rule. For example, many CESQGs would only be affected if they voluntarily take advantage of the regulatory flexibility (e.g., intra

- organizational transfers and episodic generation) provided by the rule. Due to uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation of SQGs and CESQGs, this EA bounds estimates of these generation quantities using the interquartile ranges reported above to characterize the lower

- cost and higher

- cost impact scenarios. Using this approach, facilities in the affected universe, in aggregate, generate between 34.65 and 34.82 million tons of hazardous waste per year. While there is uncertainty about the actual number of SQG and CESQG facilities as well as their hazardous waste generation , the vast majority of hazardous waste (approximately 99 percent) is generated by LQGs. Therefore, in terms2
- 24 

### of volume, the difference between the low

- end and high

- end scenarios contemplated in this EA is approximately 167,000 tons of hazardous waste or le ss than 1 percent of all hazardous waste managed by facilities in the affected universe. **EXHIBIT 2 -**  **11: AGGREGA** **TE ANNUAL**  **HAZ ARDOUS W**  **ASTE GENERA T**  **ION BY GENERA TO**  **R ST A** **TUS (T ONS)** 

**SCENARIO [A]**  **LQGs SQGs**  **CESQGs TOTAL** 

**NUMBER OF**  **FACILITIES [B]**  **TOTAL**

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **[C] NUMBER** 

**OF FACILITIES**  **[D] TOTAL** 

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **1 [E]**  **NUMBER**

**OF FACILITIES**  **[F] TOTAL** 

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **2 [G]**  **NUMBER**

**OF FACILITIES**  **[H] TOTAL** 

**HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **GENERATED (TONS)**  **[I]** Low
- end Estimate 14,262 34,522,000 45,762 70,000 29 2 , 912 59,000 35 2 , 936 34,651,000 High
- end Estimate 59,702 152,000 469,378 144,000 54 3 , 342 34,818,000 Notes: 1. For SQGs, the low
- end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 1.54 tons/year of hazardous waste (the median). The high
- end estimate assumes that SQGs generate, on average, approximately 2.60 tons/year of hazardous waste (the mean). 2. For CESQGs, the low
- end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 0.20 tons/ye ar of hazardous waste (the median). The high
- end estimate assumes that CESQGs generate, on average, approximately 0.31 tons/year of hazardous waste.

**MANAGEMENT OF HAZARD OUS W**  **ASTE**



### This section describes the management of hazardous waste by facilities in the affected universe. This EA uses the 2011 BR database to identify the primary management methods for hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs. 23 

### The BR instructions allow facilities to report a number of different management methods, both on

- site and off

- site. For reporting purposes, this EA uses the number of waste streams reported in the 2011 BR, combined with EPA’s aggregated management method codes for similar activities (e.g., chemical reduction, destruction, oxidation, or precipitation) established in the 2013 BR. This reclassification resulted in a smaller number of categories than in prior editions of the BR. Specifically, this EA summarizes the frequency of 14 categories of on

- site and off

- site management methods (these are listed in Exhibit 2

- 12) reported in the 2011 BR database using the 2011

-to
- 2013 management method code crosswalk provided in the 2013 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Form

. 24 

### Exhibit 2

- 12 reports the primary on

- site and off

- site management methods for LQGs and SQGs. Overall, LQGs manage approximately 84 percent of their hazardous waste on

- site

23 Note that the BR database contains only a subset of SQGs in the affe cted universe. There are insufficient data available to estimate the primary management methods for CESQGs.

24 EPA, 2013 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Form, February 2013, accessed at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/br13/br2013rpt.pdf on July 23, 2013.2
- 25 

### and 16 percent off

- site. The primary on

- site management methods for LQGs include: deep well or underground injection (64 percent of all waste); biological treatment (6 percent); and reclamation and recovery (3 percent). 25 

### The primary off

- site management methods for LQGs include: reclamation and recovery (7 percent of all waste); landfill or surface impoundment (2 percent); and deep well or underground injection (2 percent). However, the disproportionate share of deep well or underground injection is almost entirely attributable to the largest four industries in terms of overall hazardous waste generation: chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325); petroleum and coal products manufactu

ring (NAICS 324); primary metal manufacturing (NAICS 331); and waste management and remediation services (NAICS 562). Excluding these industries, less than 0.01 percent of hazardous waste is managed through onsite deep well or underground injection. This also implies that, excluding these four industries, only 23 percent of hazardous waste generated by LQGs is managed on

- site

— with slightly less than half of that, or 11 percent of overall hazardous waste, being discharged to a sewer/publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

— while the remaining 77 percent of hazardous waste is managed off

- site

—including 18 percent being managed off

- site for reclamation and recovery, 15 percent being transferred off

- site with no treatment or recovery, and the remaining 44 percent being managed through other off

- site methods. Overall, SQG facilities manage approximately 77 percent of their hazardous waste off

site and 23 percent on

- site. The primary off

- site management methods for SQGs include: landfill or surface impoundment (18 percent of overall waste); transfer off

- site with no treatment or recovery (16 percent); and reclamation and recovery (10 percent). The primary on

- site management method for SQGs is sewering (23 p ercent of overall waste). One source of uncertainty regarding this analysis is that, in some cases, LQGs and SQGs that reported to EPA inadvertently submitted identical Waste Generation Management (GM) Forms for off

- site and on

- site waste management , thereby double

- counting the amount of hazardous waste they generate. 26 

### Itis not possible to determine whether these wastes were managed on

- site or off

- site. Because this occurs infrequently and the associated waste quantities are generally small, this EA include s these wastes in both estimates of waste managed on

- site and off

- site. In addition, for a small number of facilities, the waste quantities generated and the waste quantities managed (both on

- site and off

- site) did not match. This may be attributabl e to reporting error or changes in reporting methods. As this discrepancy accounts for a very small proportion of all hazardous waste generated, no attempt was made to correct for it

.

25 Figures represent the percentage of total hazardous waste generated, including both on
- site and off
- site methods.

26 As part of the BR submission, facil ities must complete GM forms for wastes managed off
- site (GM
- 4) and wastes managed on - site (GM
- 5).2
- 26 **EXHIBIT 2**  **- 12**  **: PERCENTAGE OF TOTA L HAZARDOUS WASTE GE**  **NERATED BY MANAGEMENT METHOD**  **1**

**MANAGEMENT METHO D** 

**[A] LQG**  **s 2**  **SQG s**  **ON**   ** SITE** **[B] OFF**  ****

**SITE [C]**  **ON**  

** SITE** **[D] OFF**  ****

**SITE [E]**  Reclamation and Recovery 3% 7% 1% 10% Incineration 1% 1% 0% 7% Chemical Treatment 1% 1% 0% 3% Biological Treatment 6% 0% 0% 0% Physical Treatment 2% 0% 0% 0% Stabilization Prior to Land Disposal at Another Site 0% 1% 0% 7% Neutralization Only 0% 0% 0% 0% Evaporation 0% 0% 0% 0% Other Treatment (excluding Onsite Disposal) 4% 0% 0% 6% Land Treatment or Application 0% 0% 0% 0% Landfill or Surface Impoundment 1% 2% 0% 18% Deepwell or Underground Injection 64% 2% 0% 9% Discharge to Sewer/POTW or NPDES 2% 0% 23% 0% Transfer Off
- site with no Treatment or Recovery 0% 1% 0% 16% **PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL WASTE 84%**  **16% 23%**  **77%** Notes: 1. Note that Columns B and C are additive and sum to 100 percent for LQGs. Similarly, Columns D and E are additive and sum to 100 percent for SQGs. 2. The primary management methods for the LQG universe largely mirror those for the SQG universe when excluding th e four largest industries in terms of overall hazardous waste generation (NAICS 324, 325, 331, and 562), which account for the vast majority of on
- site deepwell or underground injection.3
- 1 

### CHAPTER **3 |**  **ASSESSMENT OF COSTS** 

**INTRODUCTION** 

### This chapter assesses the costs of managing hazardous waste under the provisions set forth in the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, which are outlined in Chapter 1. This chapter begins by outlining EPA’s approach for addre ssing several uncertainties related to the rule’s cost impacts by estimating these costs as a range. Following this discussion, the chapter presents a detailed description of the methodology for the cost analysis. This includes a discussion of EPA’s approach for estimating costs based on the limited facility

- level data summarized in Chapter 2 and identification of the requirements likely to have the most significant impact on costs. This chapter then presents the total annualized costs under the proposed rule, and concludes with a discussion of the analytic limitations associated with the cost analysis.

**E STIMA** **TING C**  **OSTS AS**  **A R**  **ANGE** 

### To address uncertainties regarding the number of facilities in the regulated universe, the amount of hazardous waste that they generate, and several of the cost

-related inputs presented later in this chapter, this EA presents both low

- im pact and high

- im

pact estimates of the costs associated with the proposed rule. The low

- impact cost estimates presented in this chapter reflect the low

- end estimates presented in Chapter 2 regarding (1) the number of facilities in the regulated universe, (2) the number of waste streams per facility, and (3) the annual generation of hazardous waste among regulated facilities. The low

- im pact estimates also reflect the low

- end assumptions regarding any cost

-related inputs for which a range of data inputs were available. Similarly, the high

- im pact cost estimates developed in this chapter reflect the high

- end estimates for these variables. Exhibit 3

- 1 summarizes the low

- and high

- end assumptions regarding the number of facilities, the number of waste streams per facility, and the per

- facility generation of hazardous waste. The distinctions between the low

- and high

- end values for these variables are a s follows:

 

### Num **ber of facilities:** For SQGs, the low

- end estimate reflects the number of SQGs identified on the Biennial Report WR form in 2011, whereas the high

- end estimate reflects SQGs identified on the WR form for any of the years 2007, 2009, or 2011. A more detailed discussion on these estimates can be found in Chapter 2. For CESQGs, the low

- end estimate reflects the lowest value calculated among the CESQG

-to
- SQG and CESQG

-to
-LQG ratios presented in Chapter 2, whereas the high

- end estimate reflects the highest value. The estimated number of LQGs is derived from the 2011 BR database and is the same for both the low

- end and high

- end scenario.3
- 2

**EXHIBIT 3 -**  **1: BASELINE HAZARDO US W**  **ASTE GENERA TION**  **ESTIMA TES** 

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW**  **- END ESTIMATE**  **HIGH -**  **END ESTIMATE**

**NUMBER OF FACILITIES**  **[B] MEDIAN HAZARDOUS** 

**WASTE QUANTITY GENERATED PER**  **FACILITY 1**  **(TONS) [C]**  **MEDIAN NUMBER OF**

**HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY**  **2**

**[D] NUMBER OF** 

**FACILITIES [E]**  **MEAN HAZARDOUS WASTE**

**QUANTITY GENERATED PER FACILITY**  **1 (TONS)**  **[F] MEAN NUMBER OF** 

**HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS**  **PER FACILITY**  **3 [G]**  LQG 14,262 21.39 5 14,262 2,420.56 17 SQG 45,762 1.54 4 59,702 2.55 8 CESQG 292,912 0.20 2 469,378 0.31 4 Notes: 1. Hazardous waste generation mean and median quantities are derived from the following sources. For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined with data provided by the States of Maine and Washington; for CESQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined with data provided by the States of Maine, New Jersey, and Washington. 2. The median number of waste streams is derived from the following sources. For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs and CESQGs: data provided by the State of Washington. SQGs and CESQGs are not required to report to the BR; therefore, the computed median value may not be generally r epresentative of non
- LQG facil ities. Maine and New Jersey also provided data on waste quantities for SQGs and CESQGs, but did not report information on the number of waste streams managed. 3. The mean number of waste streams is derived from the following sources: For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs and CESQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined with data provided by the State of Washington.3
- 3  

### Num **ber of waste streams per facility:** Low

- end values represent the median estimates presented in Chapter 2, whereas the high

- end values represent the mean estimates.

 

### Annual hazardous waste generation per facility: Similar to the number of waste streams, the low

- end generation values reflect the median values derived from the BR or state data, and the high

- end values reflect the mean values estimated from these data sources.

**COST METHODOLOGY** 

### This section presents the methods employed in this EA to assess the cost impacts of the proposed rule. To begin, this section outlines the key assumptions reflected in several components of the cost analysis. Following this discussion, the chapter provides a detailed accounting of the unit costs associated with each provision of the proposed rule. For each provision , this section describes differences in requirements between the baseline and the proposed rule.
**GENERAL A**  **SSUMPTIONS** 

### The assessment of costs presented in this chapter relies upon several assumptions that influence the estimated costs of managing hazardous waste under the proposed rule. Some of these assumptions affect several components of the analysis. These include assumptions regarding ( 1 ) hourly labor costs that determine the costs associated with the various provisions of the rule and ( 2 ) the discount rate. These assumptions are outlined in detail below. Hourly Labor Costs 

### Many of the unit costs presented in this chapter reflect the time required of managers, technicians, attorneys, and other staff for various hazardous waste management activities. The costs associated with this time are estimated as a function of the hourly labor costs associated with various professional and clerical positions. Exhibit 3

- 2 reports the fully loaded labor costs on a per-hour basis for facility staff , including lawyers and office clerks, who will likely implement the requirements associated with the proposed rule. The hourly costs presented in the exhibit reflect unloaded hourly wages reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS ) based on a full time employee working 40 hours a week multiplied by a loaded wage rate factor of 1.4825, which represents the addition of two cost factors: (1) a fringe benefit (e.g., insurance, disability income protection, retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation, etc.) cost factor of 0.3625 and (2) an overhead cost factor of 0.12. 27

27 The fringe benefit cost factor and overhead cost factors were obtained from Figure C1 of the May 29, 2003 OMB Circular A
76: Performance of Commercial Activities, accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a076_a76_incl_tech_correction on September 6, 2013.3
- 4 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **2: HOURL**  **Y LABOR COSTS** 

**BLS OCCUPATION CATEO GRY**  **MEAN LOADED HOURLY LABOR COST**  **($201 2**  **) 1,2**  **,3** Managers $ 82.56 Technicians $39.82 Software Developers and Programmers $65.04 Office Clerks, General $21.04 Lawyers $94.09 Source: 1. B ureau of Labor Statistics , National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2012, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00
- 0000 on September 3, 2013. 2. Inflation factor based on December 2012 cost index using Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index Historical Listing Current
- dollar March 2001

– June 2013, Table 1: Employment Cost Index for Total Compensation, by Occupational Group and Industry (Seasonally Adjusted), accessed at http://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf on September 6, 2013. 3. Loaded wage rates calculated using f ringe benefit and overhead cost factors from Figure C1 of the May 29, 2003 OMB Circular A
- 76 : Performance of Commercial Activities, accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a076_a76_incl_tech_correction on September 6, 2013.
Discount Rates 

### This EA presents the cost impacts of the rule in present value and annualized terms based on discount rates of three and seven percent over a 20

-year forecast period. The present value represents the value of a payment or stream of payments in common doll ar terms. That is, it is the sum of a series of future cash flows expressed in today's dollars. Translation of future costs to present value terms requires the following: ( a) projected future costs ; and (b) the specific years in which these impacts are expected to be incurred. With these data, the present value of the future stream of impacts (PV c 

### ) from year t 1 

### to T is measured in 201 2 dollars according to the following standard formula: 28



### where C t 

### is the cost of each management activity in year t and r is the discount rate. 29

28 To derive the present value of future impacts, t 1 is 201 6 and T is the final year of the forecast. This EA uses a 20
- year forecast period.

29 To discount and annualize costs, guidance provided by the OMB specifies the use of a real rate of seven percent. In addition, OMB recommends sensitivity analysis using other discount rates such as three percent, which some economists believe more appropr iately reflects the social rate of time preference. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A
- 4,3
- 5 

### As indicated above, this EA also expresses cost impacts for each hazardous waste management activity as annualized values. Annualized values are calculated to provide a comparison of impacts across activities with varying time co mponents and forecast periods. 30 

### Annualized future impacts (APV c

### ) are calculated according to the following standard formula:

where N is the number of years in the forecast period.

Other Assumptions 

### The hazardous waste generation quantities reported above in Exhibit 3

- 1 inform several baseline waste management assumptions in this EA . Specifically, this EA relies on the mean and median per facility generation quantities to develop estimates of the number of storage containers used by hazardous waste generators . Generally, these facilities are assumed to accumulate hazardous waste in 55

- gallon drums, which are stored and eventually transported to disposal sites once filled. This EA assumes that facilities need to maintain a sufficient number of drums to manage all of their hazardous waste, whether it is managed on

- site or off

- site. This EA assumes that a filled 55

- gallon drum holds between 140 and 275 pounds of waste (an average of 207.5 pounds) in solid form or between 250 and 400 pounds of waste in liquid or sludge form (an average of 325 pounds). 31 

### Based on 2011 BR data, approximately 90 percent of all hazardous waste managed is in liquid or sludge form and 10 percent is in solid form . Therefore, this EA assumes that the average 55

- gallon drum holds approximately 313 pounds of hazardous waste , which represents the weighted average of the liquid/sludge and solid values presented above

. With respect to transportation, this EA assumes that a standard 18

- wheeler trailer can carry up to eighty 55

- gallon drums. 32

September 17, 2003 and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Draft 2003 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations; Notice,” 6 8 Federal Register 5492, February 3, 2003.

30 When comparing annualized costs using different discount rates, the values may vary depending on the timing of costs over the analytical time horizon. A priori , there is no rule stating whether a lower or higher discount rate should yield a higher annualized cost, as this depends on the timing of costs during the analytic time horizon. As described above, the annualization method involves two steps, which have countervailing influences on the magnitude of the ann ualized cost: the present value calculation and the standard annualization formula. In general, if the majority of costs are experienced in the upfront years, the annualized cost would be higher using a higher discount rate. However, if the majority of cos ts are experienced in the years further out, the annualized costs would be higher using a lower discount rate. For a constant stream of payments, the annualized costs are not sensitive to the discount rate and will be equivalent.

31 Based on personal commun ication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on September 10, 2013.

32 J. Wideberg, E. Dahlberg, and M. Svensson, Study of Stability Measures and Legislation of Heavy Articulated Vehicles in Different OECD Countries, University of Seville, KTH, and Scania, May 2006. Available at: http://www.mne.psu.edu/ifrtt/ConferenceProceedings/ISHVWD_9_2006/docs/pdfs/session%206/s6
- 2%2090.pdf
.3
- 6 

### Based on the waste generation values in Exhibit 3

- 1, this EA’s drum capacity assumption of 313 pounds per drum implies that a typical CESQG manages approximately two 55

- gallon drums of hazardous waste per year, while a typical SQG manages between approximately 10 and 17 drums per year. To estimate the number of drums used by LQGs, this EA applies the 313

-pound

-per- drum figure to the median LQG generation value from Exhibit 3

- 1. Based on this value, the typical LQG manages approximately 137 drums per year. The median generation value for LQGs is likely to be more representative than the mean because the latter is skewed by a limited number of larger facilities, which are more likely to use storage tanks than drums.
**M ETHODS FOR**  **A SSESSING**  **C OSTS OF**  **R UL**  **E P**  **ROVISIONS** 

### This section describes the methods employed to assess the costs associated with each of the rule provisions outlined in Chapter 1. For each provision, costs are estimated on an incremental basis relative to the baseline. 33 

### While the majority of the requirements are mandatory, three provisions of the rule (intra

- organizational transfers , episodic generation , and special requirements for ignitable and reactive waste) are intended to provide greater flexibility to certain classes of hazardous waste generators and are thus voluntary. This section first reports the costs associated with the mandatory provisions of the rule and then reports costs for the voluntary provisions. In this section, costs are annualized over a 20

-year period using a 7 percent discount rate. 34
Negative Hazardous W aste Determinations 

### The proposed rule would require that LQGs and SQGs maintain records of negative or non -hazardous waste determinations. Under current RCRA regulations, facilities must document and maintain records when they determine that they have generated a hazardous waste, but no such documentation is required for negative determinations. Several states already require facilities to document negative determinations. 35 

### Additionally, other states require facilities to provide documentation for questionable waste that is claimed to be non

-hazardous waste

— this implies that several States indirectly require documentation of negative determinations. 36 

### Therefore, the proposed rule imposes a cost only to those facilities located in states that do not currently require this documentation. Approximately 7,000 LQGs and between approximately 20,600 and

33 The sub
- sections below present much of the same information regarding the rule provisions as presented in Chapter 1. This information is repeated here to provide context for the methods discussion for each provision.

34 In the results section at the end o f this chapter, total costs are also reported on an undiscounted basis and using a 3 percent discount rate.

35 The following 17 States currently require facilities to document negative determinations: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana , Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas. Based on e
- mail communication with Jim O’Leary of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on October 21, 2013.

36 The followi ng 8 States reported that they indirectly require documentation of negative determinations: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia. Based on e
- mail communication with Jim O’Leary of EPA’s Office of Reso urce Conservation and Recovery on October 21, 2013.3
- 7 

### 26,900 SQGs are located in states that do no t directly or indirectly require documentation of negative determinations. Thus, EPA estimates that approximately 46 percent of LQGs and SQGs in the affected universe would likely be affected by this provision of the proposed rule. 37 

### The costs of hazardous waste determinations are composed of the following: (1) the cost of making a determination, (2) the cost of documenting the determination, and (3) the cost of maintaining records of a determination. Under the existing regulations, facilities must determine whether they generate RCRA hazardous wastes. Therefore, the cost of making negative hazardous waste determinations is already incurred by generators in the baseline

. The only costs associated with the proposed rule with respect to determinations are the costs of documenting and maintaining records of negative determinations. To estimate the cost of documenting and maintaining records of a hazardous waste determination, this EA relies on EPA’s waste analysis and recordkeeping requirements for generators that manage hazardous waste or soil contaminated with hazardous waste. EPA estimates that the time burden to prepare the one

-time documentation of a hazardous waste determination for contaminated soil is approximately 0.25 hours ( or 15 minutes) of a te chnician’s time and that the cost to maintain records of all supporting data is approximately 0.1 hours (or 6 minutes) of an office clerk’s time plus photocopying costs of approximately $0.11 per record. 38 

### Combining this information with the hourly labor c osts presented above , each negative waste determination that a facility must document as a result of the proposed rule has a cost of $1 2.17 . Facilities must maintain this information in their records for a minimum of three years from the date that the waste was last sent for on - site or off

- site treatment, storage, or disposal. This unit cost value for documenting hazardous waste determinations would be applied to all of an LQG or SQG’s non

-hazardous waste streams in the first year of the rule’s implementation and to all new non -hazardous waste streams in subsequent years. 39 

### However, the number of non

-hazardous waste streams generated by an LQG or SQG

— both presently and in the future

—is uncertain, as EPA does not require LQGs and SQGs to report negative determinations to the Agency. To estimate the number of non

hazardous waste streams per generator, this EA relies on limited data from a sample of 29 inspection reports from the State of Connecticut. 40 

### Most state agencies do not maintain records of negative waste determinations, even if facilities are required to do so . The

37 EPA estimates that states that do not require documentation of negative determinations account for approximately 49 percent (7,010 ÷ 14,262) of LQGs and approximately 45 percent (20,623 ÷ 45,762 or 26,9 20 ÷ 59,702) of SQGs.

38 EPA, ICR 1442.19 Land Disposal Restrictions, August 2007.

39 For purposes of analysis, this EA assumes a constant sized universe. In reality, firms are constantly entering and exiting the market. While this EA accounts for new facil ities and closures later in this Chapter, it is assumed that the net effect on the size of the universe is negligible because firms are entering and exiting the market at a similar rate.

40 Data provided by Ross Bunnell of the Connecticut Department of Ene rgy and Environmental Protection on March 14, 2013. Facility inspections were conducted in 2010, 2011, and 2012.3
- 8 

### Connecticut data represent a variety of facility types (LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs) and industries. On average, these facilities generate approximately 17 waste streams per year. Of these, the Connecticut data suggest that approximately 38 percent of waste streams generated were determined to be non

-hazardous, approximately 51 percent were determined to be hazardous, and approximately 12 percent were managed as universal waste. Therefore, the ratio of non

-hazardous waste streams to hazardous waste streams is approximately 0.75 to 1. 41 

### Based on analysis of the 2011 BR data, LQG facilities generate, on average, between 5 and 17 hazardous waste streams per facility per year (see Exhibit 3

- 1). Thus, each LQG is also assumed to generate between 4 and 13 non

-hazardous waste streams using a ratio of 0.75 negative determinations per positive determination. Applying this range to the cost per waste stream, the total cost of this provision for LQGs in the first year of the rule’s implementation is approximately $49 to $158 per facility. Using the same approach for SQGs, which on average generate between four and eight hazardous waste streams per year, yields an estimate of three to six non

-hazardous waste streams per year, which translates to costs of $37 to $73 per facility during the first year of the rule’s implementation. As noted above, the costs of this provision after the first year of rule implementation will include only the cost of documenting negative determinations for new non

-hazardous waste streams not generated during the first year the rule is in effect. To estimate the number of new waste streams per generator, this EA relies on sample data from the BR. More specifically, based on a random sample of 100 facilities from the BR that submitted records in both 2009 and 2011, approximately 50 percent of hazardous waste streams that were reported in 2011 were also reported in 2009 (based on an analysis of waste codes). Furthermore, based on a random sample of a subset (19 of 100) of these facilities, approximately 80 percent of the waste streams with matching waste codes between 2009 and 2011 were identical, based on an analysis of their written waste descriptions. This lowers the effective match rate to approximately 40 percent (80 percent of 50 percent). This implies that approximately 60 percent of waste streams generated each reporting period are new. Therefore, starting with an average of 13 negative determination waste streams per LQG facility in the high impact scenario, approximately eight of these are new each biennial reporting period, or about four each year (assuming that these are split evenly across the two years between reporting periods). 42 

### In the low impact scenario, LQGs are estimated to generate an average of four negative determination wastes streams per year (see above), of which two are new each reporting period (60 percent of four wa ste streams rounded to the nearest waste stream), or approximately one per year.

41 This EA focuses on the ratio of non
- hazardous to hazardous waste streams because generators are not required to include universal waste in t heir BR data. As described below, this EA estimates the number of non
- hazardous waste streams based on the number of hazardous waste streams included in the BR
. 42 In the high impact scenario, the number of new non
- hazardous waste streams managed by LQGs i s calculated as 13 × 60% = 7.8, which is approximately 8 per reporting period or 4 per year.3
- 9 

### Applying the same methodology, SQGs manage approximately two new non

-hazardous waste streams each year in the high impact scenario and approximately one new non

hazardous was te stream each year in the low impact scenario. Exhibit 3

- 3 reports the average number of hazardous and non

-hazardous waste streams generated by LQGs and SQGs in the potentially affected universe on a per facility basis. As described above, the proposed rule would require facilities to document and maintain records of all non

-hazardous waste streams in the first year of the rule and all new non

hazardous waste streams thereafter. **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **3: W ASTE GENERA** **TION CHARACER**  **TISTICS OF A**  **FFECTED F ACILITIES** 

**SCE NARIO**  **FACILITY**

**TYPE AVERAGE NUMBER** 

**OF HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS**  **AVERAGE NUMBER OF NO N**  **- HAZARDOUS**  **WASTE STREAMS**
**TOTAL NEW WASTE** 

**STREAMS PER YEAR** Low Impact Estimate LQG 5 4 1

SQG 4 3 1 High Impact Estimate LQG 17 13 4

SQG 8 6 2


### Exhibit 3

-4 reports the estimated annualized costs of this provision on both a per

- facility and aggregate basis, by facility type. Costs are also broken out by one

-time costs (i.e., first year only) and recurring costs (i.e., annual costs incurred each year thereafter).3
- 10 **EX HIBIT 3**  **- 4:**  **ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS**  **AND AGGREGA** **TE COSTS FOR NEGA**  **TIVE HAZARDOUS W**  **ASTE DETE RMINA** **TIONS (ANNUALIZ ED OVER 20 YEARS, US**  **ING A**  **7% DISCOUNT RA** **TE)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] a**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [D]**  **b ONE**  **- TIME** 

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 7,010 $4.29 $11.09 $30,100 $77,800 $108,000 SQG 20,623 $3.22 $11.09 $66,400 $229,000 $295,000 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 27,633 N/A N/A $96,500 $307,000 $403,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] c**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [D]**  **d ONE**  **- TIME** 

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 7,010 $13.95 $44.38 $97,800 $311,000 $409,000 SQG 26,920 $6.44 $22.19 $173,000 $597,000 $771,000 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 33,930 N/A N/A $271,000 $908,000 $1,180,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. One
- time costs represent a first
- year cost of $48.67 ($4.29 on an annualized basis) per LQG ($12.17 per waste stream × 4 waste streams) and $36.50 ($3.22 on an annualized basis) per SQG ($12.17 × 3 waste streams) under the low impact scenario. b. Recurring costs represent $12.17 to document one new non

- hazardous waste determination per facility each year after the first year of the rule in years two through 20 of the analytic time horizon in the low impact scenario. This translates to $11.09 on an annualized basis, when annualized over 20 years. In other words, the $12.17 incurred in years two through 20 is discounted to be expressed in present value terms, the resulting 19 present values are summed to yield an aggregate present value number, and this present value sum is then annualized. c. One
- time costs represent a first
- year cost of $158.18 ($1 2.17 × 13 waste streams), or $13.95 on an annualized basis, per LQG and $73.01 ($12.17 × 6 waste streams), or $6.44 on an annualized basis, per SQG under the high impact scenario. d. Recurring costs represent $12.17 per waste stream and there are four new non

- hazardous waste streams each year after the first year of the rule (years two through 20 of the analytic time horizon) per LQG ($44.38 on an annualized basis when annualized over 20 years) and two non

- hazardous waste streams per SQG ($22.19 on an annualiz ed basis) in the high impact scenario. For example, the $48.68 ($12.17 × 4) incurred by LQGs in years two through 20 is discounted to be expressed in present value terms, the resulting 19 present values are summed to yield an aggregate present value numbe r, and this present value sum is then annualized.3
- 11 Re
- notification 

### Under the proposed rule, SQGs and LQGs are required to re

-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year. LQGs are already required to re

notify EPA of their hazardous waste generator status through the BR. Therefore, this requirement only represents a cost for SQGs. However, twelve States and the District of Colombia already require SQGs to re

-notify. 43 

### There are approximately 5,500 to 8,000 SQGs in states that currently require SQG re

-notification; therefore, the proposed rule would impact between approximately 40,000 and 52,000 SQGs in states that do not currently require re

-notification. Specifically, for each re

-notification, a facility will need to revi ew its previous notification and either make changes, if necessary, or confirm that the information remains accurate. EPA estimates that the initial cost of notification is approximately $45.15 per facility and the cost of re

-notification is approximately $32.01 (in 2012 dollars). 44 

### Because facilities that must record changes in their re

-notification form may require additional time to collect this information, this EA assumes that these facilities are likely to incur costs similar to the initial notificati on, while facilities that need only confirm that the previous information is still accurate are likely to incur typical re

notification costs. To estimate the number of facilities that may take additional time to complete the re

notification, EPA analyzed BR data for approximately 18,450 facilities that submitted multiple BR records between 2003 and 2011 to assess whether those facilities reported changes in their general facility information between reporting periods. These include changes to a facility’ s: (1) physical location; (2) mailing address; (3) contact information; (4) ownership; and (5) generator status. Identifying changes between reporting years is complicated by the fact that facilities may report the same information differently each year. Thus, the most significant challenge in identifying actual information changes is eliminating false mismatches, which occur as a result of: misspellings, typos, abbreviations, acronyms, nicknames, titles, prefixes, suffixes, and word order. These false mismatches may account for the majority of changes in physical location and mailing address, which tend to occur less frequently than changes in contact information. Address mismatches are particularly challenging because zip codes may change while street addresses do not, and generators may alternate between listing adjoining or enveloping towns/cities/metro

- areas/counties in different reporting years. For example, a facility may list its location as being in Phoenix one year,

43 States that currently require SQG re
- notification include: Arkansas, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolin a, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Colombia. EPA, ASTSWMO Survey Responses, March 2012, provided by Jim O'Leary of EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on August 26, 2013.

44 Time burden and O&M cost estimates are based o n Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.16, "2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, September 2012.3
- 12 

### but in Glendale (a Phoenix suburb) the next. Considering these and other irregularities in the reporting of facility information in the BR, this EA uses the following approach to identify changes between reporting years: 1) For contact and owner names, remove titles, prefixes, and suff ixes to more easily identify actual matches. 2) U se a computer algorithm to calculate the “Levenshtein distance” between any two entries for a generator. 45 

### Then eliminate matches where the Levenshtein distance is less than four or where less than 30 percent o f the text characters change from one year to the next, because these are highly likely to be identical entries, but for typos, misspellings, etc. 3) For contact and owner names, eliminate mismatches where the last name does not change but the first name (or remaining part of the name) is a variation on another entry. For example, “Bill Rogers” and “William Rogers” or “EI Dupont”, “EI Dupont De Nemours”, and “E I Dupont De Nemours & Co.” 4) U se a search and replace method to clean the data of common typos or abbreviations, for example changing “PHX, ARIZONA” to “PHOENIX, ARIZONA.” 5) Finally, review any remaining changes between reporting years manually to identify and remove the remaining false mismatches. This methodology attempts to remove false mismatches that a ppear to be changes but are likely due to input error or inconsistent reporting methods over time. For all of the information changes identified, a manual check of the records was performed to ensure the accuracy of the results. However, this methodology is limited by the sheer volume of data and limitless possibilities for variation in user data entry. For contact and owner names, a limitation of this approach is that name changes that may occur due to marriage or divorce (i.e., an individual’s surname changes while their first name does not) are not easily verified. These types of name

- changes occur for a non

-trivial percentage of facilities (approximately 200 per year, or five percent of all name changes in the BR data). Another limitation of this approach is that many facilities submitted BR records in only one year, making it impossible to identify potential changes for these facilities. Based on this approach, this EA estimates that approximately 35.2 percent of facilities had at least one reason to notify EPA of a change in their general facility information between biennial reporting periods (or approximately 17.6 percent on an annual basis), with the most common reasons being a change in the primary contact name or a change in

45 The Levenshtein distance between two entries is the minimum number of single
- character edits (insertion, deletion, or substitution) required to change one entry into the other. For example, the Levenshtein distance between “Dave Rose” and “David Rose” is calculated as 2, as follo ws: (1) substituting “i” for “e” and (2) inserting “d.”3
- 13 

### ownership. Exhib it 3

- 5 reports the percentage of facilities that reported changes in their generator information to EPA across multiple BR reporting periods. **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **5: PERCENT AGE OF F**  **A CIL**  **TIES REPOR TING**  **A CHANGE IN THEIR**  **GENERA TO**  **R INFORMA TIO**  **N T O EP**  **A (ON**  **A BIENN**  **IAL BASIS)**  **1 REASON FOR**  **REPORTING CHANGE IN GENERATOR INFORMATIO**  **N PERCENTAGE OF FACILI**  **TIES** Physical Location C hange 0.05% Mailing Address Change 3.9% Contact N ame C hange 33.0% Owner C hange 8.2% Generator Status Change 4.7% **At Least One Notification for Any Reason**  **35.2% 2**  Notes: 1. Source: EPA’s BR database records from 2003 to 2011. 2. This value is less than the sum of the values associated with individual reasons for reporting a change in generator information because some facilities may have multiple reasons for reporting a change.


### Based on the 2003

- 2011 BR data, approximately 65 percent of facilities would likely incur standard re

-notification costs every other year, while approximately 35 percent of facilities may require additional time to report changes in generator information as part of their re

-notification. Therefore, the average per facility cost of re

-notification is approximately $36.64 every other year. 46 

### This represents a cost for SQGs in states that do not currently require re

-notification, but is already incurred by LQGs and a subset of SQGs in states with reporting requirements in the baseline. Exhibit 3

- 6 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of re

-notification under this provision of the rule by facility type. All of the costs associated with this provision of the rule are incurred on a biennial basis in even

-numbered years.

46 The average per facility cost of re
- notification is calculated as ( $45.15 × 35% ) + ( $32.01 × 65% ) = $36.64.3
- 14 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **6: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **COSTS AND**  **AGGREGA TE**  **COSTS FOR RE -**  **NOTIFICA TION**  **(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING**  **A 7% DI**  **SCOUNT RA TE)** 

**GENERATOR STAT**  **US [A]**  **LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE**

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNAULIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 SQG 40,229 $0.00 $18.94 a $0 $762,000 $762,000 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 40,229 N/A N/A $0 $762,000 $762,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 SQG 51,656 $0.00 $18.94 a $0 $978,000 $978,000 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 51,656 N/A N/A $0 $978,000 $978,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. This figure represents the annualized cost of re
- notification (a weighted average of $32.01 for basic re - notification and $45.15 for re

- notification with data modifications

— see the main text for details on the weighting). Approximately 64.8 percent of fac ilities are assumed to have basic re
notification, while 35.2 percent of facilities are assumed to have at least one reason for modification to their re
- notification submission. Applying these values as weights yields a weighted average cost of $36.64 inc urred every other year. This represents $18.94 on an annualized basis (assuming the costs are incurred in even numbered years).

Labeling/Marking 

### Current RCRA regulation s require that L QGs and S QGs label containers with the words “Hazardous Waste.” The proposed rule would expand this policy to require facilities to provide additional markings, including: (1) the words “Hazardous Waste ” ; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). Similarly, EPA is also proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark areas near drip pads and containment buildings with the words “Hazardous Waste” and use their inventory logs to document (1) the date the waste was first placed on the drip pad on in the containment building; (2) the contents of the waste; and (3) an indication of the3
- 15 

### associated hazards (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). This represents a co st for all LQGs and SQGs. This EA assumes that LQGs generally use a computerized labeling system or rely on an environmental services company to maintain a labeling/tracking database. 47 

### Furthermore, it is assumed that all of the necessary information to b e included on the label is already maintained in a database in the baseline and that the current labels used by LQGs are large enough to fit the additional information that must be included on labels under the proposed rule. 48 

### Therefore, the one

-time programming and testing costs to accommodate the new enhanced label format, which requires 10 hours of a programmers’ time, represents the only cost for LQGs. 49 

### Using the hourly labor costs for programmers as presented in Exhibit 3

- 2, this represents an initial one -time cost of approximately $650.41 per LQG to modify existing labels with the additional data elements. After incurring this initial cost, LQGs would realize no additional costs in subsequent years. In contrast, this EA assumes that SQGs rely on a manual process rather than an automated system to label their containers. EPA estimates that it takes about 0.25 hours (or 15 minutes) of a technician’s time to apply labels to containers in a primary storage area. 50 

### This cost is already incurred in the bas eline. Based on label price information for two label suppliers this EA estimates that the average cost of a simple label containing the words “Hazardous Waste” is approximately $0.06 per label, while the average cost of a complex label with space for the additional data elements required under the rule is approximately $0.46 per label. 51 

### Thus, the incremental cost of the complex label itself is approximately $0.40 per container (versus the simple label). Additionally, it is assumed to take about 0.08 hours (or 5 minutes) of a technician’s time per container to write the additional information on the label, which represents a cost of approximately $3.32 per container. 52 

### This cost would be applied to containers in SQGs’ primary accumulation areas, as well as their SAAs. As indicated in the assumptions section above, EPA estimates that SQGs use 10 to 17 containers in their primary accumulation areas each year. The number of containers in SQGs’ SAAs (that are not simply moved to primary accumulation areas),

47 Based on personal communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on August 27, 2013.

48 The determination that existing labels are sufficiently large for the additional information required on labels under the rul e is based on a sample label provided by Tom Baker, Veolia ES Technical Solutions, personal communication June 27, 2013.

49 The es timate of 10 hours assumes that all the required information is already maintained in a facility’s labeling/tracking database. If these data are not already available, the one
- time cost of building out a tracking database could be as high as $25,000 per fa cility. Based on personal communication with Tom Baker of Veolia ES Technical Solutions on August 27, 2013.

50 EPA, ICR 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, March 2011.

51 Average unit price of simple labels from JJ Keller and Label Master (ranging from $0.03 to $0.13 per label) based on purchase of 100
- 499 labels; Average cost of complex labels (ranging from $0.17 to $0.96 per label) from JJ Keller and Label Master based o n purchase of 100
- 499 labels, accessed at http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.labelmaster.com/Shop/labels/ on June 26, 2013.

52 Based on personal communicat ion with Tom Baker of Veolia ES Technical Solutions on June 27, 2013.3
- 16 

### however, is highly uncertain and likely to vary significantly across facilities. In the absence of information on containers in SAAs, this EA assumes that the number is half that in primary accumulation areas (or 5 to 8.5 containers) . Based on this assumption, the cost per container for SQGs is applied to 15 to 26 containers per SQG. With a cost of $3.72 per container ($3.32 plus $0.40), this translates to additional labeling costs of $56 to $95 per SQG. The requirements for SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings are slightly different in that these generators would use their inventory logs to comply with the labeling/marking provision. This EA assumes that the costs for these generators are similar to the costs f or SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containers

—approximately $56 to $95 per SQG per year. Unlike the system upgrade costs presented above for LQGs, these labeling/marking costs for SQGs represent an annual recurring cost incurred by SQGs. Exhibit 3

- 7 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of labeling/marking containers by facility type. Costs are also broken out by one

-time costs (i.e., first year only) and recurring costs (i.e., annual costs).3
- 17 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **7: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **COSTS AND**  **AGGREGA TE**  **COSTS FOR LABELING/M ARKING**  **(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING**  **A 7% DI**  **SCOUNT RA TE)** 

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 14,262 $57.38 a $0.00 $818,000 $0 $818,000 SQG 45,762 $0.00 $55.77 b $0 $2,550,000 $2,550,000 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 60,024 N/A N/A $818,000 $2,550,000 $3,370,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 14,262 $57.38 a $0.00 $818,000 $0 $818,000 SQG 59,702 $0.00 $94.81 c $0 $5,660,000 $5,660,000 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 73,964 N/A N/A $818,000 $5,660,000 $6,480,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. This figure represents a first
- year labor cost of $650.41 ($57.38 on an annualized basis) for 10 hours of a programmer’s time. b. This figure represents an additional cost of $0.40 for a complex label (as opposed to a simple label) plus labor costs of $3.32 (five minutes of a technician’s time) per 55

- gallon drum. This EA assumes that SQGs manage an average of 15 drums per year in the low impact scenario. The annualized cost of $55.77 per facility is split between labeling in primary accumulation areas ($37.18 per facility) and satellite accumulation areas ($18.59 per facility). Thus, the total annualized cost for SQGs of approximately $2.6 million is divided between primary accumulation areas ($1.7 million) and SAAs ($0.9 million). c. This figure represents an additional label cost of $0.40, plus labor costs of $3.32 (five minute s of a technician’s time) per 55
- gallon drum. This EA assumes that SQGs manage an average of 26 drums per year in the high impact scenario. The annualized cost of $94.81 per facility is split between labeling in primary accumulation areas ($63.21 per facil ity) and satellite accumulation areas ($31.60 per facility). Thus, the total annualized cost for SQGs of approximately $5.7 million is divided between primary accumulation areas ($3.7 million) and SAAs ($1.9 million).

Closure 

### Under existing regulations, LQGs must comply with general closure provisions (§ 265.111 and § 265.114), which require removing and decontaminating all contaminated equipment, structures, and soil to minimize the need for further maintenance and prevent3
- 18 

### post
- closure release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment. 53 

### LQGs storing or treating waste in tanks, drip pads, and containment buildings are also subject to closure requirements specific to these types of units. No such unit

- specific requirements exist, however, for SAAs or CAAs. In addition, LQGs are not currently subject to closure notification or financial assurance requirements. The closure requirements for SQGs are less stringent than for LQGs in that SQGs are only subject to certain requirements for accumulating hazardous waste in tanks, while there are no specific requirements for SQGs managing hazardous waste in containers. There are no closure requirements for CESQGs. The proposed rule would strengthen the closure requirements for LQGs. Specifically, EPA proposes that if an LQG cannot demonstrate that any contaminated soils in either a SAA or CAA can be practicably removed or decontaminated, then the LQG must close the waste accumulation unit(s) and perform post

- closure care in accordance with the closu re and post

- closure care requirements that apply to landfills (§ 265.310). In addition, EPA is proposing to require LQGs to notify EPA or their authorized state agency at least 30 days prior to closure. EPA is also proposing that such generators subsequently notify within 90 days after closure that they have either clean closed or, if they cannot clean close, they have closed as a landfill. The costs of this provision depend on four factors. First, for all LQGs that close, this provision’s costs depend on the cost of notifying EPA of a closure. Then, f or LQGs that close CAAs or SAAs and cannot demonstrate that contaminated soils in these areas can be practicably removed or decontaminated, the costs of this provision also depend on (1) the average number of LQGs with CAAs or SAAs that close annually, (2) the percentage of these facilities that would be required to close as a landfill, and (3) the per

- facility cost of closing as a landfill. This EA’s approach for estimating the costs of these items is as follows: **Cost of Notifying EPA of a C**  **losure:** All LQGs that close will incur costs associated with the proposed rule’s notification requirements for LQGs. Consistent with the unit costs presented above for re

-notification, the cost per notification is estimated to be $45.15 per facility. For two notifications (one 30 days prior to notification and another no later than 90 days following closure), this cost increases to $90.30 per LQG that closes. **Average number of LQG closures per year :**  Because EPA doe s not currently require notification for LQG closures, comprehensive data on the number of closures occurring each year are not available. EPA contacted several states to determine if any possess data on LQG closures, and the only state in possession of such data was Connecticut. Although Connecticut does not currently require facilities to submit notification of closure, the State maintains data on changes in generator status dating back to 1996 that

53 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Introduction to Generators (40 CFR Part 262), September 2005.3
- 19 

### were used to estimate the number of closures. 54 

### A statu s change is documented when a hazardous waste generator with an EPA ID number informs the State that it is changing its generator status, for example, from LQG to SQG or SQG to CESQG. A change in generator status from LQG, SQG, or CESQG to non

-handler is c onsidered a closure. For closures, Connecticut requires hazardous waste generators to confirm on a status change application form that they closed any storage areas that they ceased using in accordance with the state closure requirements. In addition to tracking LQG generator status changes, Connecticut also documented the number of SQGs that changed their generator status to CESQG and the number of SQGs and CESQGs that changed their generator status to non

-handler. Virtually all of the CESQGs that have EPA ID numbers were formerly LQGs or SQGs. Exhibit 3

- 8 reports the number of generator status changes and closures in Connecticut between 1996 and 2012. Over this time period, Connecticut had a total generator universe of approximately 400 LQGs, 1,700 SQGs, and 2,800 CESQGs. 55

54 Personal communication with Ross Bunnell of the Connecticut Dep artment of Energy and Environmental Protection on March 15, 2013.

55 Ibid
.3
- 20 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **8: CONNECTICUT HAZARDOU**  **S W ASTE GENERA** **TO R ST** **AT US CHANGES**  **AND CLOSURES FROM 19 96 T**  **O 2012**
**ORIGINAL STATUS ENDING STATUS**  **NUMBER OF STATUS CHA NGES**  LQG SQG 199 LQG CESQG 87 LQG Non
- Handler 152 SQG CESQG 141 SQG Non
- Handler 231 CESQG Non
- Handler 29 **TOTAL GENERATOR STATUS CHANGES 839**  **TOTAL CLOSURES 412**  **AVERAGE CLOSURES PER YEAR (all generators) 24.2**  **AVERAGE LQG CLOSURES PER YEAR 8.9**  

### As shown in the exhibit, Connecticut had 152 LQG closures (approximately 9 per year) between 1996 and 2012. This represents an annual LQG closure rate of approximately 2.2 percent. Applying this to the 14,262 LQGs in the regulated universe, this EA estimates approximately 319 LQG closures on an annual basis. **Percent of LQGs Closi**

**ng as a Landfill**

**:** As noted above, the proposed requirement for closing an LQG as a landfill (i.e., with contamination in place) would apply only to LQGs that are unable to remove or decontaminate contaminated soils from their accumulation areas. Data on the number of closures that would meet this criterion are unavailable. In addition, enforcement personnel contacted in state agencies that implement RCRA are unaware of any LQGs that closed without decontaminating their accumulation areas and suspect that such an occurrence is exceedingly rare. Based on this input and the lack of data on closure with contamination in place, this EA assumes that between zero and one percent of LQGs close with contamination in place in their accumulation areas. Applying this range to the estimates 319 LQG closures per year, this EA estimates between zero and three LQGs would close as a landfill each year under the proposed rule. **Additional Costs of Closing as a Landfill:**  The additional cost of an LQG closing its accumulati on area(s) as a landfill is uncertain, as EPA is unaware of any documented cases of LQGs closing with contamination remaining in their accumulation area(s). For the purposes of estimating these costs, this EA assumes that an LQG would need to demolish its concrete floor and stabilize it for disposal, install a new concrete floor, and conduct groundwater monitoring near the facility. EPA estimated each of these costs3
- 21 

### using 2010 Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements (RACER) software as follows: 56

 

### Demolition of Concrete Floor: The estimated cost of demolishing concrete flooring is approximately $793 per facility.

 

### Floor Disposal: The estimated cost of floor disposal, including transportation, is approximately $2,615 per facility.

 

### New Concrete Floor: The estimated cost of laying a new concrete floor is approximately $3,219 per facility.

 

### Groundwater Monitoring (installation): For each LQG closing as a landfill, this EA assumes that three monitoring wells would be drilled near each facility: two downsl ope and one in the immediate vicinity of the facility. The cost of drilling monitoring wells varies, based largely on well depth. Under the conservative assumption that a deep well would be necessary for each site, this EA applies an installation cost of approximately $16,226 per well, 57 

### plus professional labor management costs of approximately $9,784 and design costs of approximately $2,212, which translates to total well installation costs of $60,674 per LQG closing as a landfill.

 

### Groundwater Monitoring (sampling): Sampling of the three wells drilled near each site is assumed to occur semi

- annually, consistent with the minimum required under RCRA. 58 

### The cost per semi

- annual sampling for all three wells combined is an estimated $16,983 per year. However , the first year sampling costs are estimated to be higher due to the initial design and development of the monitoring systems and the benchmark establishment of recordkeeping and other requirements. Therefore, the increased cost of first year sampling is estimated to be $26,820 in addition to the regular annual sampling cost of $16,983. As required under RCRA, monitoring is expected to continue for 30 years after closure. To capture this recurring cost, this EA estimates the present value of monitoring for each LQG closing as a landfill. Based on a discount rate of three percent, this value is $369,684. With a discount rate of seven percent, this value declines to $252,317 per LQG closing as a landfill. Combining these various cost elements for LQGs cl osing as a landfill, this EA estimates costs of approximately $ 319,618 (using a seven percent discount rate) for every LQG that closes as a landfill.

56 RACER estimates provided by Phuc Phan of EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on October 24, 2013. RACER costs are estimated in 2010 dollars and inflation
- adjusted to 2012 dollars using the GDP implicit
- price deflator.

57 Value reflects a well depth of 110 feet. By comparison, a 25
- foot well would cost approximately $6,860 to drill.

58 U.S. EPA, Groundwater Monitoring Requirements for Treatment Storage and Disposal Fac ilities, http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/td/ldu/financial/gdwater.htm , last updated December 20, 2012.3
- 22 

### Exhibit 3

- 9 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of closure, including costs associated with the failure to clean close, by facility type. While closure notification and most closure activities

— with the exception of groundwater monitoring

— are one -time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs of the proposed rule bec ause a percentage of the LQG universe is expected to close each year. **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **9: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **COSTS AND**  **AGGREGA TE**  **COSTS FOR CLOSURE (ANNUALIZED OVER 20**  **YEARS, USING A**  **7% DI SCOUNT RA** **TE)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **a ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 319 (0) $0.00 $90.31 b $0 $28,800 $28,800 SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 319 (0) N/A N/A $0 $28,800 $28,800

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **a ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE**  **ANNUALIZED COST**  **TOTAL**

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 319 (3) $0.00 $3,096 c $0 $988,000 $988,000 SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 319 (3) N/A N/A $0 $988,000 $988,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. This EA assumes 319 LQGs close each year. The values in parentheses in this column represent the estimated number of LQGs that cannot clean close. The low impact scenario assumes that zero facilities fail to clean close, while the high impact scenario ass umes that three facilities fail to clean close each year. b. This figure reflects the cost ($45.15 each) of writing and submitting two closure notifications (30

- days prior to closure and within 90 days following closure) per facility to a Regional Administr ator. c. This figure reflects multiple costs, including two closure notifications per facility (as described in note b above), and is reported as a weighted average across all affected facilities

— including those that are able to clean close and those that are not. For facilities that fail to clean close, it includes the following costs: (1) concrete floor demolition, $793; (2) floor stabilization and disposal, $2,615; (3) laying a new concrete floor, $3,219; (4) installation of three groundwater monitoring wel ls, $60,674 = $9,784 labor + $2,212 design + $16,226 installation per well × 3 wells; and (5) the present discounted value of groundwater monitoring for 30 years, $252,317. Based on these values, the cost per facility that clean closes is $90.31 and the c ost per facility that does not clean close is $319,618. Therefore, the total annualized costs are calculated as follows: (319 × $90.31) + (3 × $319,618) = $987,663, which translates to an average per facility cost of approximately $3,096.3
- 23 Emergency Re sponse P reparedness 

### Under the existing RCRA requirements for prevention, preparedness, and emergency response, LQGs and SQGs must prepare a contingency plan, coordinate with local response agencies, and update the plan as needed. Under the proposed rule , LQGs and SQGs will also be required to maintain records documenting these arrangements with local emergency responders. This documentation must include a certified letter or any other documentation that confirms such arrangements actively exist. Most L QGs and SQGs are likely to have active arrangements with local authorities and will only incur costs to document these arrangements. While under existing regulations hazardous waste generators could document instances in which State or local authorities declined to enter in such arrangements, under the proposed rule facilities must ensure such arrangements exist. Currently, EPA estimates that 10 percent of facilities have failed to make arrangements with local emergency responders. 59 

### These facilities are compliant with existing regulations by documenting in their operating record where State or local authorities have declined to enter into such arrangements, but will no longer be in compliance under the proposed rule. **Requirements for Existing LQGs and SQG s** **.** In the first year after the promulgation of the proposed rule, LQGs and SQGs that do not have arrangements with local emergency responders would have to submit a copy of their contingency plan to their local emergency management authorities and all LQGs and SQGs would have to document such arrangements. EPA estimates it would take about 10 minutes (or 0.16 hours) of administrative time to re
- submit a plan that satisfies all of the requirements of the local emergency management authorities for approval. 60 

### EPA also estimates it would take all LQGs and SQGs about 6 minutes (or 0.1 hours) of administrative time to document active arrangements with local emergency responders. 61 

### Therefore, the average one

- time labor cost for a facility without existing arrangements would be $5.47 and the average labor cost for a facility with existing arrangements would be $2.10. **Requirements for New LQGs .**  In addition, the proposed rule would require all new LQGs to submit an executive summary of their contingency plan to emergency management authorities to improve the ability of emergency response teams to respond to an emergency. The cost to prepare a stand

- alone executive summary is estimated as a range. For the high end of the range, EPA assumes that the cost of develop ing the executive summary is similar to the annual cost to review and update a facility’s contingency plan. EPA assumes it takes approximately four hours of a manager’s time to perform these activities and 0.16 hours (or about 10 minutes) of an office clerk’s time to submit the plan

59 Personal communication with Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on April 1, 2015.

60 EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collect Request 1573.13, Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits", February 2013.

61 Based on information from EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collect Request 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal) , March 2011.3
- 24 

### to the emergency management authority. 62 

### Based on the labor cost values in Exhibit 3

- 2, these labor hour estimates translate to a cost of approximately $336 per executive summary. For the low end cost estimate, this EA assumes that LQGs would use the draft template that EPA released with today’s rule to copy and paste information from their more detailed contingency plan. This process is assumed to reduce the time burden on managers from four to two hours, which reduces the co st per LQG to approximately $171. Thus, the total cost of preparing an executive summary represents an initial one

time cost ranging from $171 to $336 for every new LQG. This estimate includes recordkeeping costs for maintaining documentation of these ar rangements. **Requirements for New SQGs .**  Under the proposed rule, new SQGs would have to document their arrangements with emergency management authorities and would incur one -time costs similar to facilities with existing arrangements. New facilities entering into the SQG universe are already required to attempt to make arrangements with local emergency responders; therefore, they would not incur additional costs relative to the baseline beyond documenting these arrangements. SQGs would not be required to develop a separate executive summary of their contingency plan. This EA estimates the annual number of new LQGs using EPA’s RCRAInfo database to identify facilities that: (1) submitted an initial RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form as an LQG to obtain an EPA ID number; (2) submitted a subsequent RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form to change a facility’s generator status from CESQG or SQG to LQG; or (3) submitted a BR Hazardous Waste Report Form to change a facility’s generator status from CESQG or SQG to LQG. Using data from 2000 to 2013, EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,350 new facilities entering into the LQG universe every year. 63 , 64 

### Using a similar approach, this EA estimates the annual number of new SQGs based on initial notifications and changes in generator status from CESQG to SQG. EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,610 new facilities entering into the SQG universe each year. 65

62 EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collect Request 1573.13, Part B Permi t Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits", February 2013.

63 The results are similar if data from 1980 to 2013 are used. However, in the 1980s, there were slightly more initial RCRA Subtitle C notifications and slightly less changes in facil ity generator status relative to the 1990s and 2000s. Overall, on an annual basis, the number of new LQGs is similar (within 10 percent) if the additional years of data from 1980 to 1999 are included.

64 Of these, approximately 990 facilities (or 42 percent ) submitted an initial RCRA Subtitle C Identification Form as an LQG and approximately 1,360 (or 58 percent) notified EPA of a change in their generator status from CESQG or SQG to LQG each year. A facility may be counted more than once if it is initially reported as an SQG, subsequently re
- notifies as an LQG, then submits a BR report as an SQG, and then later submits a BR report as an LQG. Excluding records for facilities that become “new” LQGs more than once (i.e., only counting initial changes), there are approximately 2,190 new LQGs each year. This represents a seven percent decrease in the number of new LQGs.

65 Of these, approximately 1,430 facilities (or 55 percent) submitted initial notifications and approximately 1,180 (or 45 percent) changed their generator status from CESQG to SQG.3
- 25 

### Exhibit 3

- 10 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs for this provision of the rule by facility type. The exhibit reports one

-time costs for existing facilities and recurring costs for the segment of the regulated universe consisting of new LQGs and SQGs each year. While emergency response preparedness costs are one

-time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs because a percentage of the regulated universe is comprised of new facilities entering into the LQG and SQG universe each year.3
- 26 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **10: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **COSTS AND**  **AGGREGA TE**  **COSTS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PREP**  **AREDNES S (ANNUALIZED OVER 2**  **0 YEARS, USING A**  **7% DISCOUNT RA** **TE)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS a**  **[B] ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **b [C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS c**  **[D] ONE**  **- TIME** 

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 14,262 (2,353) $0.22 $170.60 d $3,070 $401,000 $404,000 SQG 45,762 (2,610) $0.22 $2.10 $9,850 $5,490 $15,300 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 60,024 N/A N/A $12,900 $407,000 $420,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS a**  **[B] ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **b [C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS c**  **[D] ONE**  **- TIME** 

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 14,262 (2,353) $0.22 $335.73 e $3,070 $790,000 $793,000 SQG 59,702 (2,610) $0.22 $2.10 $12,900 $5,490 $18,300 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 73,964 N/A N/A $15,900 $795,000 $811,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. The first value in Column B represents the estimated number of existing facilities that would have to document their arrangements with emergency responders in the first year after the rule’s implementation; the value in parentheses represents the estimated number of new facilities each year. b. The one
- time costs represent a weighted
- average first
- year cost of $2.10 for 90 percent of LQGs and SQGs with existing arrangements and $5.47 for 10 percent LQGs and SQGs without existing arrangements. Thus, the weighted
- average one - time cost i s $2.44 per facility ($0.22 on an annualized basis). c. The recurring costs for LQGs vary by scenario and are described in detail below. The recurring costs for SQGs are identical to the first
- year costs for facilities with existing arrangements with emergenc y responders. While these are one
- time costs on a per facility basis , they are reported as recurring costs because a percentage of the regulated universe is comprised of new facilities entering into the SQG universe each year
. d. The low impact scenario assumes it takes approximately two hours of a manager’s time and ten minutes of administrative time to prepare and submit an executive summary to the local emergency management authority. It also assumes it takes approximately six minutes of a technician’s time to document active arrangements. Thus, the total estimated cost is $170.60 per LQG. e. The high impact scenario assumes it takes approximately four hours of a manager’s time and ten minutes of administrative time to prepare and submit an executive summa ry to the local emergency management authority. It also assumes it takes approximately six minutes of a technician’s time to document active arrangements. Thus, the total estimated cost is $335.73 per LQG.3
- 27 Tr ansfer Faciltiy R equirements 

### The proposed rule would change the labeling/marking requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators. Thus, all hazardous waste stored at these facilities must be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). While this provision would require transfer facilities to label all hazardous wastes that they receive, the proposed rule’s labeling/marking requirements, as outlined above, would assure that all hazardous wastes that transfer facilities receive from SQGs and LQGs meet these l abeling requirements. Thus, transfer facilities would incur additional costs under this provision only for waste received from CESQGs, which are not otherwise required to comply with the labeling/marking provision of the proposed rule. Based on the above, the costs that transfer facilities incur depend on the number of CESQGs that send their waste to transfer facilities and the labeling costs associated with each of these CESQGs’ wastes. As an initial step in estimating the number of CESQGs in the regulated universe that send their hazardous waste to transfer facilities, this EA assumes that the CESQGs engaged in this practice would include a subset of (1) those CESQGs located in states that do not allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste as MSW and (2 ) those CESQGs located in other states (i.e., states that allow CESQGs to dispose of hazardous waste in MSW landfills) , but that choose to manage their hazardous waste at a permitted TSDF. Industry and state agency data suggest that 32 states and the District of Columbia currently allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste through MSW landfill disposal. 66 

### These states are estimated to account for 146,300 to 204,300 CESQGs. Of the CESQGs in the remaining states, this EA assumes that 10 percent manage their hazardous waste at a TSDF, bringing the total number of CESQGs managing their hazardous waste at a TSDF to 161,000 to 230,800 facilities. 67 

### Of these CESQGs, this EA estimates that approximately 16 percent send their hazardous waste to a transfer facility, consistent with the percentage of SQGs in the 2011 BR database that send their waste to such a facility. In the abs ence of data specific to CESQGs, the SQG percentage is assumed to apply to CESQGs as well. Based on this assumption, an estimated 25,800 to 36,900 CESQGs send their hazardous waste to a transfer facility each year.

66 White, M., Health and Safety Annex CESQGs, WAAC Newsletter, September 1998, Volume 20, Number 3, accessed at http://cool.conservation
- us.org/waac/wn/wn20/wn20
- 3/wn20
- 306.html on July 10, 2013 and Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Overview of Regulatory Requirements for Hazardous Waste Generators in Arkansas, accessed at http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch_ie/hwgen.htm on July 10, 2013.

67 This 10 percent figure is based on professional judgment of James O’Leary, U.S. EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, as documented in personal communication with Phuc Phan of EPA on December 5 and 6, 2013.3
- 28 

### EPA estimates that there are 325 transfer facilities nationwide. 68 

### These facilities are a subset of generators in the regulated universe because they may consolidate hazardous waste and are therefore subject to the same requirements as generators . According to 2011 BR data, 317 of these facilities (approximately 98 percent) are LQGs and the remaining 8 facilities are evenly split between SQGs and CESQGs. The transfer facility costs associated with complying with the requirements for new consolidated wastes are already incurred in the baseline. Therefore, the only incremental cost of complying with the proposed rule is the labeling of hazardous waste containers received from CESQGs. Based on the number of CESQGs and the number of transfer facilities in the regulated universe, transfer facilitie s manage waste for between 80 and 110 CESQGs each , on average. The cost of labeling hazardous waste containers received from CESQGs is estimated to be $7.44 to $14.87 per CESQG per year (with an average of two to four 55

- gallon drums per CESQG) , which includes two factors : 69 

### ( 1 ) an additional five minutes of a technician’s time to write the required information on each container , 70 

### and (2 ) an incremental label cost of $0. 4 0 per container ( i.e., the difference between a complex label that costs $0.46 and a simple label that costs $0.06 )

. 71 

### CESQGs are already required to apply simple labels with the words “hazardous waste” to all containers sent to a TSDF in the baseline. The costs of this provision represent labeling costs above and beyond those incurred in the baseline. Exhibit 3

- 11 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of enhanced labeling under the transfer facility requirements of the proposed rule by facility type. The estimated cost per transfer facility to comply with the additional marking and labeling requirements range s from $ 590 to $ 1,690 per year .

68 The number of transfer facilities is b ased on an EPA analysis of 2011 BR data , which was provided by Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on July 2, 2014.

69 These costs for CESQG labeling are also presented below in the discussion of the proposed rule’s intra
- organization transfer provision. This EA conservatively a ssumes there is no overlap between CESQGs that send their waste to a transfer facility and those that would voluntarily consolidate their waste with an LQG.

70 Labor estimate of five minutes based on personal communication with Tom Baker of Veolia ES Techni cal Solutions on June 27, 2013.

71 Average cost of complex labels (ranging from $0.17 to $0.96 per label) from JJ Keller and Label Master based on purchase of 100
- 499 labels, accessed at http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.labelmaster.com/Shop/labels/ on June 26, 2013.3
- 29 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **11: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **AND AGGREGA** **TE COSTS FOR TRANSFER F**  **ACILIT Y**  **REQUIREMENTS (ANNUAL IZED OVER 20 YEARS,**  **USING A**  **7% DISCOUNT RA** **TE)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT**  **ESTIMATE**

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS a**  **[D] ONE**  **- TIME** 

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 317 $0.00 $589 $0 $ 187 ,000 $ 187 ,000 SQG 4 $0.00 $589 $0 $ 2 , 36 0 $ 2 , 36 0 CESQG 4 $0.00 $589 $0 $ 2 , 36 0 $2,360 TOTAL 325 N/A N/A $0 $ 192 ,000 $192,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS a**  **[D] ONE**  **- TIME** 

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 317 $0.00 $1,690 $0 $536,000 $536,000 SQG 4 $0.00 $1,690 $0 $6,760 $6,760 CESQG 4 $0.00 $1,690 $0 $6,760 $6,760 TOTAL 325 N/A N/A $0 $549,000 $549,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. This figure represents the cost of labeling containers (with an average of two to four 55
- gallon drums per CESQG) , which includes two factors: ( 1 ) an additional 5 minutes of a technician’s time to write the required information on each container; and ( 2 ) an incremental label cost of $0.40 per container (i.e., the difference between a complex label that costs $0.46 for a complex label and a simple label that costs $0.06)

BR R equirements 

### The proposed rule would make two substantive changes to the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs. First, it would require LQGs to report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting year, not just quantities for the month(s) during which they were LQGs. Existing regulation is unclear on this issue and a limited number of states currently require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated for only those months that they were LQGs. Second, the rule would require LQGs to report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless of whether the waste was transported off

- site during the reporting year. Although the current BR instructions state that generators should report the total quantity of hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, Federal regulations do not specifically address cases where a facility3
- 30 

### generates hazardous waste during the reporting year but ships it off

- site during the next calendar year. **Report for all waste generated, regardless of when it was managed** . As described earlier in this chapter, the 2011 BR data suggest that LQGs, on average, manage between five and 17 hazardous waste streams each year (and prepare a separate GM form for each waste stream). 72 

### Anecdotal accounts suggest that the BR data may under represent the true number of waste streams generated because many facilities only repor t those waste streams generated and managed in the BR reporting year. Limited information is available on the amount of hazardous waste generated but not transported off

- site during the reporting year. In the absence of such data, this EA assumes that, on average, no more than one

- quarter (25 percent) of an LQG’s total hazardous waste (all hazardous waste generated between the months of October and December) could be stored on

- site and not transported off

- site or managed on

- site until the following calendar year. This assumption is based on the current RCRA storage requirements allowing LQGs to accumulate hazardous waste on site for up to 90 days. As corroboration for this assumption, data collected from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s Hazardous Waste Annual Reports suggest that approximately 76 percent of the hazardous waste managed by facilities each year is generated in the same calendar year and approximately 24 percent is kept in accumulation areas for treatment or transportation off

- s ite in a different calendar year. 73 

### Applying the 25 percent assumption to the five to 17 waste streams reported per LQG in the BR, this EA estimates the BR reporting costs for an additional two to six waste streams. As described above, EPA estimates that the cost burden to prepare each GM form is approximately $19.99, which reflects 0.14 hours of a manager’s time, 0.18 hours or a technician’s time, and 0.06 hours of an office clerk’s time. 74 

### Based on this cost, the additional BR costs per LQG are between $ 39.98 and $119.93. These costs are incurred every other year. **Report for all months that a facility is an LQG .**  As noted above, EPA is proposing that facilities qualifying for LQG status for part of the year report their waste generation for the full year. Anecdotal accounts suggest that LQGs in some states complete biennial reports only for the months during which they cross the LQG threshold during the year. In addition, in a survey of 26 states, three states reported that they did not require one

time or short

-term LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste they generate for the

72 The GM Form is part of EPA’s Biennial Report used for reporting on
- site hazardous waste generation, management, and off
site shipment. U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, RCRAInfo File Specification Guide: 2011 Hazardous waste Report S ubmissions, November 2011.

73 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Hazardous Waste Generator Annual Reports 2001
- 2012, accessed at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste
- mgmt
- remediation/hazardous
- waste/hazardous
- waste
- reporting.aspx on March 5, 2013.

74 EPA ICR 0976.16 2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modi fication, September 2012.3
- 31 

### entire calendar year. 75 

### Idaho and West Virginia reported that they required these facilities to report the amount of hazardous waste they generated only for the months they were LQGs. South Carolina reported that it required facilities to report the amount of hazardous waste they generated for the remainder of the calendar year after they exceeded the monthly LQG generation threshold. Limited information is available on episo dic generation in these states. Overall, there are 374 LQGs in these states, between 844 and 1,187 SQGs, and between 5,428 and 11,120 CESQGs. For the 374 LQGs, the costs of the rule are estimated as a range. The low end of the range assumes that these f acilities report for two months of the year in the baseline and that their baseline reporting covers all of their waste streams, but underreports generation for those waste streams. Therefore, for the low scenario, the cost for these facilities is the cost to gather additional information on the existing waste streams. This cost is estimated to be $20 per facility. 76 

### The high end assumes that the number of waste streams that these facilities report in the baseline covers two months of the year and that this temporal coverage is proportional to the number of waste streams reported in the baseline. Thus, if the mean number of waste streams generated by LQGs is 17, this EA assumes that three are reported in the baseline and 14 are newly reported under the rule, at a cost of $19.99 per waste stream. This requirement of the rule would also affect CESQGs and SQGs that become LQGs in these three states. Data from EPA’s RCRAInfo database suggest that nationwide 1.4 to 1.8 percent of SQGs and 0.1 to 0.2 percent of CESQGs each year notify EPA of a change in their generator status to LQG (i.e., submitting BR records as an LQG when they were previously an CESQG or SQG). 77 

### Applying this to the number of SQGs and CESQGs in West Virginia, Idaho, and South Carolina, this EA estimates that the three states combined are home to 12 to 22 SQG episodic generators and 6 to 20 CESQG episodic generators. This EA conservatively assumes that all these episodic generators have just one month

- long episodic event each year that exceeds the monthly LQG generation threshold. Furthermore, these facilities are assumed to submit BR reports for one to two waste streams in the baseline (1/12 of the baseline values of five and 17 for LQGs). Therefore, the cost of BR reporting for SQGs and CE SQGs that are episodic generators in these states is the time and materials to prepare an additional GM form for each of the unreported waste streams, between 4 and 15 per facility

—approximately $80 to $300 per facility per reporting year. Exhibit 3

- 1 2 rep orts the annualized unit and aggregate costs of BR reporting under the proposed rule by facility type. All of the reported costs are incurred on a biennial basis in

75 EPA, ASTSWMO Survey Responses, March 2012, provided by Jim O'Leary of EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on August 26, 2013.
76 Estimate derived from EPA ICR 801.18 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & Was te Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System January 2012.

77 Based on analysis of EPA’s RCRAInfo database from 2000 to 2013.3
- 32 

### even -num bered years. Therefore, there are no one

-time costs associated with this provision of the rule. **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **1 2**  **: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **A ND**  **AGGREGA TE COSTS F**  **OR BR REQUIREMENTS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20**  **YEARS, USING A**  **7% DI SCOUNT RA** **TE)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 14,262 $0.00 $20.94 a $0 $299,000 $299,000 SQG 12 $0.00 $41.33 b $0 $496 $496 CESQG 6 $0.00 $41.33 b $0 $248 $248 TOTAL 14,280 N/A N/A $0 $299,000 $299,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 14,262 $0.00 $66.06 a $0 $942,000 $942,000 SQG 22 $0.00 $154.98 b $0 $3,410 $3,410 CESQG 20 $0.00 $154.98 b $0 $3,100 $3,100 TOTAL 14,304 N/A N/A $0 $949,000 $949,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. This figure represents the sum of the following costs: (1) labor costs of $19.99 per GM form × 2 additional GM forms per facility in the low impact scenario, which equals $39.98 incurred on a biennial basis in even numbered years (or 6 additional GM forms per facility in the high impact scenario) and (2) labor costs totaling $20.18 per facility on a biennial basis in even numbered years for data collection for 374 LQGs in States that require short
- term LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste they gener ate only for the months they are LQGs . In annualized terms, the $39.98 in biennial costs represents annualized costs of $20.66 and the $20.18 in biennial costs represents annualized costs of $10.43. The $10.43, however, is incurred by only 374 LQGs (2.6 percent of LQGs); averaging this over all 14,262 LQGs yields a per facility cost of $0.27. Adding thi s value to the $20.66 presented above yields $20.94 in annualized costs. b. This figure represents a labor cost of $19.99 per GM form ($10.33 on an annualized basis) × 4 additional GM forms per SQG and CESQG in the low impact scenario (or 15 additional GM for ms in the high impact scenario). These costs are incurred on a biennial basis in even
- numbered years.

Pr ohibitions on Storage of R estricted W aste 

### Consistent with the proposed labeling/marking requirements for LQGs and SQGs, the proposed rule would require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land3
- 33 

### disposal be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). Waste subject to the requirements of this provision would most likely be in compliance due to the labeling/marking and transfer facility requirements outlined above. This EA therefore estimates no additional costs for this provision.
Drip P ad and C ontainment Building R equirements 

### Under the existing regulations, EPA has consistently interpreted the requirements for LQGs subject to 40 CFR Part 265 Subparts W and DD to also apply to SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less without a permit or interim status

. Although there are no explicit requirements for SQGs, EPA intended for SQGs to comply with all of the LQG conditions for an exemption associated with the accumulation of hazardous waste , as well as any associated independent requirements for LQGs or else obtain a Part B permit for their drip pads or containment buildings. While SQGs may normally accumulate hazardous waste in primary accumulation areas or SAAs for 180 days, the maximum generator accumulation time period for drip pads or containment buildings is 90 days. 78 

### The current regulations also imply that generators using drip pads or containment buildings must comply with the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, emergency response preparedness , and biennial reporting. In contrast, if an SQG accumulates hazardous waste in containers, it can comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs, including accumulation of hazardous waste for up to 180 days

. 79 

### Under the proposed rule, EPA believes a more effective and efficient approach is to require SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings to comply with the LQG 90

- day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180

- day accumulation limit), but to otherwise comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs. Only hazardous waste that is accumulated on drip pads or in containment buildings must be managed in compliance with the LQG accumulation limits

. EPA estimates that there are 12 SQGs and 22 LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings. 80 

### Under the proposed rule, LQGs and SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings must comply with the labeling requirements described in the previous section on labeling/marking. The costs associated with this requirement are reported above and are not repeated here to avoid double

- counting.

78 U.S. EPA, “Introduction to Drip Pads (40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart W)”, RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Cal l Center Training Module, EPA
- 530
- K
- 02
- 0081, October 2001, page 7.

79 U.S. EPA, “Wood Preserving Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Compliance Guide

— A Guide to Federal Environmental Regulation,” EPA
- 305
- B
- 96
- 001, June 1996, Section 5
- 8.

80 Based on perso nal communication with Jim O’Leary and Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on May 6, 2015.3
- 34 

### Under the existing technical requirements for drip pads (40 CFR 265.443) and containment buildings (40 CFR 265.1101) , LQGs and SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings are required to conduct weekly inspections and document the results in their operating record

. In situations when a release from a drip pad or a containment building occurs, generators are required to notify their authorized state within 24 hours after discovery. Thus, there are no incremental costs associated with the inspection documentation requirements under the proposed rule as these requirements already exist under current regulations. Furthermore, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings would realize a net cost savings, as described in the discussion of benefits in Chapter 4.

Intra
- organizational T ransfers (V oluntary) 

### To afford greater flexibility to CESQGs, the proposed rule would allow CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions. The CESQG conditions are as follows: (a) A participating CESQG must label containers with the words “CESQG Hazardous Waste,” other words that identify the contents of the containers, and an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). (b) CESQGs must comply with all applicable DOT regulations when sending their hazardous waste to an LQG. The proposed conditions for LQGs receiving hazardous waste from one or more CESQGs under the same organizational structure include the following: (a) LQGs must submit a notification to EPA or their authorized state identifying the names, addresses, and contact information for the CESQGs that will be transferring hazardous waste to the LQG. (b) LQGs must maintain records of all hazardous waste received from CESQGs that include the name, address, and contact information for each CESQG, as well as a description (i.e., quantity and hazardous waste codes) of each waste shipment received. (c) LQGs mark shipments from CESQGs with the date the hazardous waste was received from the CESQG. (d) LQGs would be required to manage all incoming CESQG hazardous waste in c ompliance with the regulations applicable to their LQG status. (e) Hazardous waste received from CESQGs would need to be included in the receiving LQG’s BR submissions. Estimating the costs associated with this portion of the proposed rule requires information on (1) the number of CESQGs that may consolidate to an LQG and the number of LQGs3
- 35 

### that may receive CESQG waste, (2) the per facility costs for affected CESQGs, and (3) the per facility costs for LQGs receiving CESQG waste. **Num ber of CESQGs and LQGs opt**  **ing for this rule provision:** The number of entities that may take advantage of the flexibility provided by this portion of the proposed rule is uncertain. The sources of this uncertainty include the lack of information indicating the extent to which eligible facilities will take advantage of this rule provision and the limited data available on the number of CESQGs that are eligible (i.e., are owned by organizations that also own at least one LQG). With respect to the former, the CESQGs that take advantage of this rule provision may be split into two groups: 1. CESQGs in states that allow MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste : As indicated in the discussion regarding the proposed rule’s transfer facility provision, industry and state data suggest that 32 states and the District of Columbia currently allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste through MSW landfill disposal. 81 

### Facilities in these states are estimated to account for between 50 and 56 percent of the potentially affected universe of CESQG s, or 146,600 to 265,000 CESQGs. This EA assumes that 90 percent of the CESQGs in these states dispose of their hazardous waste as MSW and that 10 percent send their hazardous waste to a permitted TSDF. 82 

### The CESQG facilities that dispose of their hazardous waste in MSW landfills are assumed to continue to manage their hazardous waste as MSW (and not consolidate their waste through LQGs owned by the same organization) because of the relatively low cost of this disposal option. Of the remaining 14,700 to 2 6,500 CESQGs that are located in states that allow the MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste, but choose to send their waste to a TSDF, this EA assumes that CESQGs owned by organizations that also own LQGs consolidate their waste to an LQG. 2. CESQGs in states that prohibit MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste: In states that prohibit the MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste, all CESQGs owned by organizations that also own one or more LQGs are assumed to consolidate their CESQG hazardous waste to an LQG. These states account for an estimated 146,300 to 204,300 CESQGs. Combined, these two groups represent 161,000 to 230,800 CESQGs. To estimate the percentage of CESQGs owned by companies that also own at least one LQG, this EA relies on facility

- level data collected from Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Each of these states provided the name,

81 White, M., Health and Safety Annex CESQGs, WAAC Newsletter, September 1998, Volume 20, Number 3, accessed at http://cool.conservation
- us.org/waac/wn/wn20/wn20
- 3/wn20
- 306.html on July 10, 2013 and Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Overview of Regulatory Requirements for Hazardous Waste Generators in Arkansas, accessed at http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/hazwaste/branch_ie/hwgen.htm on July 10, 2013.

82 This 10 percent figure is based on professional judgment of James O’Leary, U.S. EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, as documented in personal communication with Phuc Phan of EPA on December 5 and 6, 2013.3
- 36 

### addre ss, and generator status of active hazardous waste generators within their borders, but lacked information on the ownership structure of facilities. Absent this ownership information, a matching algorithm based on facility names was used to identify the ultimate owner. First, generators in each state that had the same organization name were identified. Then, organizations owning multiple generators (including at least one CESQG facility and one LQG facility) within the same state were identified. For bordering states (i.e., Maine

-Massachusetts

-New Hampshire), facilities located in adjacent states were also included in the analysis. Three of the states analyzed (Florida, New Hampshire, and Oregon) allow CESQGs to dispose of waste in MSW landfills . For these states, 90 percent of all CESQGs are assumed to use MSW disposal and 10 percent are assumed to send waste to a TSDF. For the other three states, all CESQGs are assumed to send waste to a TSDF. Furthermore, for all states, CESQGs that are part of a l arger organization are assumed to manage their waste at a TSDF. Finally, we divide the number of CESQGs that are part of a larger organization that could potentially consolidate waste by the number of CESQGs that send waste to a TSDF in the baseline. Thi s EA then applies this percentage to the total number of CESQGs nationwide that send waste to a TSDF. The limitations of this approach are: (1) some states did not have information on the generator status of all facilities (e.g., Massachusetts only reported generator status for approximately 80 percent of facilities); (2) facility names do not necessarily identify the ultimate owner, therefore it is difficult to determine whether generators are owned by the same organization ; and (3) the states used to estimate the percentage of CESQGs that could consolidate their waste may not be representative of other states in the U.S. Based on this review of the state data, an estimated 9.7 percent of CESQGs that manage their waste at TSDFs are part of an organi zation that owns multiple generators (including at least one LQG) in the same state or a bordering state. Similarly, LQGs that are part of an organization that owns multiple generators (including at least one CESQG) in the same or a bordering state

—and could potentially serve as a consolidation facility

— account for approximately 33.7 percent of all LQGs. Therefore, this EA estimates that between 15,626 and 22,411 CESQGs could potentially manage their waste through consolidation with an LQG facility owned by the same organization and approximately 2,410 LQGs could potentially act as consolidators. 83 

### Thus, on average, each LQG could potentially consolidate waste for between approximately six and nine CESQGs. The facility

- level costs of intra

- organizational consolidation are described below. **CESQG costs per facility:** Under the requirements of the rule, CESQGs will incur two specific costs if they send their hazardous waste to an LQG owned by the same organization: (1) costs associated with labeling their containers consistent with the

83 The CESQG range is based on 9.7 percent of the estimated 161,000 to 230,800 CESQGs in (1) states that prohibit CESQ Gs from disposing of their hazardous waste in a MSW disposal facility and (2) the proportion of CESQGs in other states that manage their hazardous waste at a TSDF. The LQG value represents 33.7 percent of the 7,100 LQGs in those states. Values may not ma tch exactly due to rounding.3
- 37 

### requirements outlined above and (2) costs related to transporting their hazardous waste to an LQG. CESQGs are required to apply simple labels with the words “hazardous waste” to all containers sent to a TSDF in the baseline. The labeling costs described above represent the incremental cost above and beyond the current RCRA requirements for CESQGs in the baseline. Based on the average quantity of waste and number of waste streams per CESQG presented in Chapter 2 this EA estimate s that the average CESQG generates between two and four 55

- gallon drums of hazardous waste per year. Consistent with the CESQG labeling costs presented above for the proposed rule’s transfer facility provision, the cost of labeling each drum in compliance with the rule’s requirements is approximately $0.46 per 55

- gallon drum for the label itself (versus a cost of $0.06 per standard label for each container in the baseline) plus five minutes of a technician’s time per drum to write by hand the contents of a container and an indication of the container’s contents. 84 , 85 

### Combined, these tally to labeling costs of between $7.44 and $14.87 per CESQG. With respect to the cost of transporting hazardous waste to an LQG, CESQGs are assumed to comply with all existing DOT regulations . This EA assumes that large organizations would rely on an existing fleet of hazmat trucks to transport waste from a CESQG to an LQG or rely on a hazardous waste transporter within their own delivery network. These trucks are already required to comply with all DOT regulations. Therefore, the transportation cost for a CESQG would be between $0 and $1 27 per year. 86 

### LQG costs per facility: LQGs that receive waste from CESQGs owned by the same organization would incur costs associated with notifying EPA of the transfer, marking the date that waste is received from a CESQG, maintaining records of the waste received, and including the waste received from CESQGs in their BR submission. The additional burden for LQGs to notify EPA or a state authority of intra

- organizational consolidation is assumed to be a one

-time cost of $45.15 per LQG facility, consistent with the cost of a generator notifying EPA of its own generation activity. 87 

### To estimate the costs associated with marking the date that CESQG

- generated waste is received by an

84 Average cost of complex labels (ranging from $0.17 to $0.96 per label) from JJ Keller and Label Master based on purchase of 100
- 499 labels, accessed at http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.labelmaster.com/Shop/labels/ on June 26, 2013.

85 Labor estimate of five minutes based on personal communication with Tom Baker of Veolia ES Technical Solutions on June 27, 2013.

86 The low
- end estimate assumes there is no additional cost to put two 55
- gallon drums on a hazmat truck already transporting materials from a CESQG to an LQG. The high
- end estimate assumes CESQGs ship an average of four 55
- gallon drums per year at a variable cost of $3 1.84 per drum (assuming no fixed cost because the truck is already part of the organization’s delivery network) . RACER 2010 costs inflated to $2012 using GDP implicit price deflator, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

87 Supporting Statement for EPA Information C ollection Request Number 0976.16, "2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, September 2012.3
- 38 

### LQG, this EA assumes two minutes of a technician ’s time per shipment for marking the shipments received from CESQGs, which translates to approximately $ 8.60 to $ 12.30 per LQG receiving CESQG waste (based on the range of six to nine CESQGs consolidating to an LQG). Similarly, this EA assumes that it requires approximately six minutes of a technician’s time to maintain records of all waste received, which represents a cost of $3.98 per LQG. 88 

### T o estimate the costs associated with LQGs reporting the additional waste from CESQGs in their BR submissions, this EA assumes that each additional waste stream received from CESQGs would require one additional GM form, at an estimated cost of $19.99 per form. 89 

### Based on a range of two to four waste streams per CESQG (see Exhibit 3

- 1), this translates to additional BR reporting costs of $39.98 to $79.95 per CESQG from whom an LQG receives hazardous waste (on a biennial basis). This EA conservatively assumes that there is no duplication of waste streams between CESQGs owned by the same company and/or between CESQGs and the LQG that is consolidating the waste, or that similar waste streams are not combined. As noted above, each eligible LQG is estimated to re ceive hazardous waste from four to six CESQGs. Combined, these requirements for LQGs

— notification, marking shipments from CESQGs with the date received, maintaining records of waste received, and BR reporting

— result in annualized costs of $ 190 to $ 470 per facility (using a seven percent discount rate) for eligible LQGs. **Total cost of intra**
**- organizational transfers**  **:** Exhibit 3

- 1 3 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of CESQG consolidation under this voluntary provision of the proposed rule. Costs are also broken out by one

-time and recurring costs (e.g., annual and biennial costs).

88 Ibid.

89 Derived from EPA ICR 0976.16 2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, September 2012.3
- 39 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **1 3**  **: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **A ND**  **AGGREGA TE COSTS FOR**  **INTRA -**  **ORGANIZA TIONAL**  **TRANSFERS (ANNUALIZE D OVER 20 YEARS, USI**  **NG A**  **7% DISCOUNT RA T**  **E)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNU A**  **LIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F=B×D]**  LQG a 2, 410 $ 25.83 b $168.41 c $62,200 $406,000 $468,000 SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 CESQG 15,626 $0.00 $7.44 $0 $116,000 $ 116,000 TOTAL 18,036 N/A N/A $62,200 $ 522 ,000 $5 84 ,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNU A**  **LIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F=B×D]**  LQG d 2, 410 $ 37
. 04 e $ 433
. 69 f $89,300 $1,050,000 $1,130,000 SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 CESQG 22,411 $0.00 $ 142.23 g $0 $3,190,000 $3,190,000 TOTAL 24,821 N/A N/A $ 89 , 3 00 $4,230,000 $4,320,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 6.5 CESQGs in the low impact scenario. b. This represents a first
- year cost of $ 292.77 per facility ($ 2 5. 83 on an annualized basis) for notification ($45.15 per CESQG × 6.5 CESQGs per LQG). c. This represents the sum of three recurring costs multiplied by 6.5 CESQGs per LQG facility: (1) an annual cost of $1.33 for labeling; (2) an annual cost of $3.98 for recordkeeping; and (3) a cost of $39.98 for BR submissions ($20.66 on an annualized basis), which is incurred every even

- numbered year when reporting is required. Thus, the total annualized cost is $ 168. 41 per facility. d. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 9.3 CESQGs in the high impact scenario. e. This represents a first
- year cost of $ 419.90 per facility ($ 37.04 on an annualized basis) for notification ($45.15 per CESQG × 9.3 CESQGs per LQG). f. This represents the sum of three recurring costs multiplied by 9.3 CESQGs per LQG facility: (1) an annual cost of $1.33 for labeling; (2) an annual cost of $3.98 for recordkeeping; and (3) a cost of $79.95 for BR submissions ($41.33 on an annualized basis), which is incurred every even

- numbered year when reporting is required. Thus, the total annualized cost is $ 433.69 per facility. g. This represents the sum of two per facility costs: (1) an annual cost of $ 14
. 87 for labeling and (2) an annual cost of $ 127.36 for transportation.3
- 40 

### The intra

- organizational transfer provision of the proposed rule may also result in cost savings for some entities. Specifically, the potential cost savings may include a lower average cost of hazardous waste disposal. These cost savings, and other benefits of the rule, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this EA. Episodic Generation (V oluntary) 

### To provide greater flexibility to CESQGs and SQGs that generate much of their hazardous waste on an episodic basis, the proposed rule would allow a CESQG or an SQG to maintain its existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event in which the facility generates a quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar month that would otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent regulatory status. To take advantage of this provision, an SQG or CESQG would be subject to the following conditions: (a) A limit of one episodic event (planned or unplanned) per calendar year; (b) Notification to EPA or the authorized state at least 30 calendar days prior to initiating a planned episodic event or within 24 hours of an unplanned episodic event; (c) CESQGs must obtain a RCRA ID number; (d) Facilities must meet the following accumulation standards: (i) CESQGs must mark containers with the date the episodic event began; label containers “Episodic Hazardous Waste;” manage hazardous waste in a manner that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or release of hazardous waste; ensure that tanks are in good condition and compatible with the hazardous waste stored within; and identify an emergency coordinator for the duration of the event; (ii) SQGs must mark the container or tank log book with the date the episodic event began; label the container or write in the tank log book “Episodic Hazardous Waste”; mark the container or write in the tank log book words that identify the contents and indicate the hazards of the contents; and comply with the applicable accumulation conditions for SQGs; (e) Hazardous waste generated from the episodic event must be managed on

- site or manifested and shipped off

- site to a permitted TSDF; (f) Facilities must c omplete and maintain records that inc lude (1) the beginning and end dates of the event, (2) a description of the event, (3) the types and quantities of hazardous wastes generated at the event, (4) a description of how the hazardous waste was managed, and (5) name(s) of hazardous waste transporter s that transported the waste to a permitted TSDF

.3
- 41 

### This EA assumes that facilities already ensure containers are in good condition and compatible with the hazardous waste stored within them and manage hazardous waste in a manner that minimizes the possibility of a fire, explosion, or a release. Furthermore, this EA assumes that facilities that do not take advantage of the flexibility provided by the episodic generation provision of the proposed rule would experience no change in costs relative to the baseline. The costs associated with this portion of the rule depend on the following variables: (1) the estimated number of episodic generators in the regulated universe, (2) the average quantity of hazardous waste associated with each episodic event, (3) the number of waste streams associated with each event, and (4) the costs associated with the various activities included in the conditions outlined above. **Num ber of episodic generators:**  To estimate the number of episodic generators in the potentially affected universe, this EA relies on data from EPA’s RCRAInfo database. Specifically, changes in generator status identified in RCRAInfo are assumed to be indicative of episodic generation events. RCRAInfo data from 2000 to 2013 are used to identify facilities that: (1) initially submitted a RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form to obtain an EPA ID number as an SQG and later re

-notified EPA to indicate a change in their generator status from SQG to LQG; (2) obtained an EPA ID number as a CESQG and later re

-notified EPA to indicate a change in their generator status from CESQG to LQG; or (3) obtained an EPA ID number as a CESQG and then reported a change in their generator status from CESQG to SQG. Using this method, EPA estimates that approximately 2,500 facilities report a change in their generator status each year. These data suggest that 1.4 to 1.8 percent of SQGs and 0.4 to 0.6 percent of CESQGs nationwide report a change in their generator status annually. Of these episodic generators, the number meeting the eligibility conditions for this provision of the proposed rule (e.g., no more than one episodic generation event per year lasting one month or less) is uncertain. Neither EPA nor any state agencies maintain data on monthly generation of hazardous waste. To address this uncertainty, this EA estimates the number of eligible facilities as a range. The low end of the range assumes that 50 percent of the episodic generators characterized above would be eligible, while the high end assumes that all episodic generators would be eligible. Based on these assumptions, Exhibit 3

- 1 4 reports the estimated breakdown of changes in generator status by category.3
- 42 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **1 4**  **: NUMBER OF GENERA**  **TO R**  **ST AT**  **US CHANGES IN TH E POTENTIALL**  **Y AFFECTED UNIVERSE PE**  **R YEAR** 

**REPORTED CHANGE IN GENERATOR**  **STATUS NUMBER OF FACILITIES**  **PER YEAR 1**  **LOW END HIGH END**  SQG
- to
- LQG 419 837 CESQG
- to
- LQG 264 527 CESQG
- to
- SQG 590 1,180 **TOTAL 1,273**  **2,544** Notes: 1. Based on analysis of EPA’s RCRAInfo database from 2000 to 2013. 

### Generation of **hazardous waste during episodic events:** This EA relies on EPA’s BR database to estimate the average hazardous waste generation quantities associated with episodic events. Data from 2005 to 2011 were analyzed to identify facilities that submitted multiple BR records, reporting as an SQG in one or more years and an LQG in at least one year. These data suggest that facilities that changed their generator status generated, on average, approximately three times as much waste in years when they crossed the LQG threshold relative to the baseline. This EA assumes that, on average, the amount of hazardous waste generation associated with episodic events for SQGs is reflected by this 3

-to
- 1 ratio. Similar data are unavailable for CESQGs. In the absence of such information, this EA assumes that the 3

-to
- 1 ratio for SQGs also applies to CESQGs. Based on this assumption, this EA estimates that an episodic event for facilities crossing the LQG threshold would involve 4.6 to 7.7 tons of hazardous waste, requiring 30 to 49 drums, and that events surpassing the SQG threshold would yield 0.6 to 0.9 tons of hazardous waste (four to six drums). **Num ber of waste streams generated during episodic events:**  This EA assumes a range for the number of waste streams associated with episodic events. At the low

- end of the range, this analysis assumes an episodic generation event involves a single project

specific waste stream (e.g., asbestos removal). As the high

- end, this analysis conservatively assumes an episodic generator manage s as many waste streams as a typical LQG (in the case of SQG

-to
-LQG or CESQG

-to
-LQG events) or an SQG (in the case of CESQG

-to
- SQG events), as represented by the mean values presented in Exhibit 3

- 1. **Unit cost s**  **for rule conditions:** The costs incurred by facilities to comply with the conditions set forth in this voluntary provision of the proposed rule include those associated with (1) obtaining an EPA ID number (if a facility does not already have an EPA ID number), (2) notifying EPA or a state agency of an episodic event, (3) completing and maintaining records of waste streams associated with an episodic event, (4) identifying containers consistent with the enhanced labeling/marking provisions of the3
- 43 

### rule, and (5) completing a manifest for episodic waste sent offsite (an additional cost for CESQGs only). CESQGs are not required to have an EPA ID number. Therefore, facilities that experience a change in their generator status from CESQG

-to
- SQG or CESQG

-to
- LQG are assumed to incur a one

-time notification cost to obtain an EPA ID number. These costs are described earlier in this chapter under Re

-notification. Additionally, the cost, for any generator, to notify EPA or a state agency of an episodic event is assumed to be similar to the initial cost of notifying EPA of waste generation activity to obtain an EPA ID number (i.e., $45.15, as presented above in the Re

-notification section). The costs to complete and maintain records of hazardous waste management vary with the number of waste streams generated during episodic events. This EA assumes these costs are similar to the variable costs of preparing a GM form

—approximately $19.99 per waste stream. 90 

### Similarly, labeling costs vary with the generation of hazardous waste during episodic events. These costs are described earlier in this chapter under Labeling/Marking, but are also assumed to include an additional 30 seconds of a technician’s time to mark the date the episodic event began. As described above, SQGs and LQGs must already comply with the enhanced l abeling provisions of the rule. Therefore, the only additional cost associated with this voluntary provision of the proposed rule is the additional marking of the date the episodic event occurred for CESQGs. The rule’s manifesting requirements would result in additional costs for CESQGs, as these facilities are not required to manifest in the baseline. Specifically, the shipment of hazardous waste generated during the episodic event would result in additional costs of approximately $9.56 per CESQG that takes advantage of the episodic generation provision. 91 

### Finally, CESQGs that do not already have a contingency plan are required to identify the name(s), address(es), and contact information for all emergency coordinators and submit this information to relevant local emergency responders. This EA assumes that the cost to prepare this information is approximately one

- fifth of the total time required to collect all data required in a contingency plan, plus the cost of submitting this information. 92

90 Derived from Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.16, "2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, September 2012.

91 Value derived from U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request N umber 801.18 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System." January 2012.

92 This EA assumes the time burden to prepare a contingency plan is uniformly distributed across the five data items regulatory collected (action plan, arrangement with local emergency responders, updated list of emergency coordinators, updated list of all emergency equipment at the facility, and evacuation plan). EPA, ICR 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator St andards, March 2011.3
- 44 

### Therefore, t

he cost of identifying emergency coordinators is assumed to be approximately $23.50. 93 

### Exhibit 3

- 1 5 shows the annualized unit and aggregate costs of the episodic generation requirements under this voluntary provision of the proposed rule by facility type. All of the costs are incurred on an annual basis by SQGs and CESQGs that choose to take advantage of this provision of the rule. A single facility may experience an episodic event in one or multiple years. **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **1 5**  **: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **A ND**  **AGGREGA TE COSTS F**  **OR EPISODIC GENERA TI**  **ON (ANNUALIZED OVER 20**  **YEARS, USING A**  **7% DI SCOUNT RA** **TE)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST PER**

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 SQG 419 $0.00 $65.14 a $0 $27,300 $27,300 CESQG b 854 $0.00 $211.96 c $0 $181,000 $181,000 TOTAL 1,273 N/A N/A $0 $208,000 $208,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS**  **[B] ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 SQG 837 $0.00 $384.96 a $0 $322,000 $322,000 CESQG b 1,707 $0.00 $437.21 d $0 $746,000 $746,000 TOTAL 2,544 N/A N/A $0 $1,070,000 $1,070,000 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. SQGs incur two types of costs: (1) labor costs of $45.15 to notify EPA of an episodic event and (2) recordkeeping costs of $19.99 per waste stream × 1 waste stream in the low impact scenario (or 17 waste streams in the high impact scenario). b. This EA assumes that between 854 and 1,707 CESQGs may take advantage of this provision of the rule. Of these, approximately 31% would otherwise be required to change their generator status from CESQG
- to
- LQG and 69% would otherwise be required to change their generator status from CESQG
- to
- SQG.

93 This cost includes 0.4 hours of a technician’s time and 0.2 hours of administrative time to collect data, plus an additional 10 minutes of administrative time to submit the information to the relevant local emergency responders. Base d on information from EPA, ICR 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, March 2011.3
- 45 c. This figure re presents a weighted average cost across all CESQGs; costs vary according to whether a facility would otherwise change its generator status from CESQG
- to
- LQG or CESQG
- to
- SQG. CESQGs incur six types of costs: (1) labor costs of $45.15 to notify EPA of an epi sodic event; (2) recordkeeping costs of $19.99 per waste stream × 1 waste stream in the low impact scenario; (3) labor costs of $45.15 to obtain an EPA ID number; (4) **for CESQG**  **- to**  **- LQG:**  enhanced labeling costs of $39.82 for 1 hour of a technician’s time for an entire storage area and approximately $3.65 for five and half minutes of a technician’s time plus $0.46 per complex label per container × thirty 55

- gallon drums in the low impact scenario; **for CESQG -**  **to -**  **SQG:** enhanced labeling costs of $9.95 for 15 minut es of a technician’s time for an entire storage area and approximately $3.65 for five and half minutes of a technician’s time plus $0.46 per complex label per container × four 55

- gallon drums in the low impact scenario; (5) manifest costs of $9.56 for a si ngle shipment within 45 days of the episodic event; and (6) labor costs of $23.50 to identify emergency coordinators. d. This figure represents a weighted average cost across all CESQGs; costs vary according to whether a facility would otherwise change its ge nerator status from CESQG
- to
- LQG or CESQG
- to
- SQG. CESQGs incur six types of costs: (1) labor costs of $45.15 to notify EPA of an episodic event; (2) recordkeeping costs of $19.99 per waste stream × 17 waste streams for CESQG

- to
- LQG facilities and 8 waste s treams for CESQG
- to
- SQG facilities in the high impact scenario; (3) labor costs of $45.15 to obtain an EPA ID number; (4) **for CESQG**  **- to**  **- LQG:**  enhanced labeling costs of $39.82 for 1 hour of a technician’s time for an entire storage area and approximately $3. 65 for five and half minutes of a technician’s time plus $0.46 per complex label per container × forty

- nine 55
- gallon drums in the low impact scenario; **for CESQG -**  **to -**  **SQG:** enhanced labeling costs of $9.95 for 15 minutes of a technician’s time for an entire s torage area and approximately $3.65 for five and half minutes of a technician’s time plus $0.46 per complex label per container × six 55

- gallon drums in the high impact scenario; (5) manifest costs of $9.56 for a single shipment within 45 days of the episo dic event; and (6) labor costs of $23.50 to identify emergency coordinators. 

### The episodic generation provision of the proposed rule may also result in significant cost savings for qualified facilities. Facilities that experience one

-time or short

-term episodic events within a single calendar month each year may avoid the costs associated with compliance under the more stringent generator status requirements. These cost savings, and other benefits of the rule, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this EA. Special R equirements for Ignitable and R eactive W astes (V oluntary) 

### Current RCRA regulations require that LQGs must locate containers holding ignitable or reactive waste at least 15 meters from the facility’s property line. In urban environments, LQGs may experience difficulty meeting this requirement due to the relatively small footprint of many properties in these areas. To provide flexibility to LQGs, EPA is proposing to allow LQGs to voluntarily apply for a facility

- spec ific waiver from their local fire department if they are unable to meet the hazardous waste accumulation property line requirement. The costs associated with this provision of the rule would include the cost of select LQGs applying for a waiver from the existing requirement. The number of facilities that would apply for such a waiver is unknown. As an indicator of the maximum number of LQGs that might apply, approximately 63 percent of all LQGs manage reactive or ignitable waste and are located in metropo litan areas (population of 50,000 or more), and 68 percent of LQGs manage this waste and are located in metropolitan or micropolitan areas3
- 46 

### (population of at least 10,000). 94 

### Based on the 14,262 LQGs in the universe, these values translate to a range of 8,9 85 to 9,699 LQGs that might apply for a waiver. This range most likely represents an overestimate, however, because not all of these facilities necessarily have space constraints limiting their ability to keep ignitable or reactive waste at least 15 meter s from the property line. As an alternative to these values, the number of LQGs that report a change in physical address between BR reporting cycles may represent a better indicator of the number of LQGs that decide to submit a waiver application, as facilities experiencing problems complying with the 15

-met er requirement may move to a different site to ensure compliance. As shown in Exhibit 3

-4, EPA’s BR data suggest that approximately 0.05 percent of LQGs report a change in physical address on a biennial basis, which translates to 0.025 percent annually. Applying this value to the 14,262 LQGs in the regulatory universe implies that approximately four LQGs change their location each year. Based on these data, this EA assumes that between four and 9,699 LQGs apply for a waiver during the first year of the rule’s implementation. In subsequent years, a subset of all new LQGs is assumed to apply for a waiver. As indicated in the methods discussion for the emergency response provisions of the rule, this EA estimates that there are approximately 2,350 new LQGs each year. Assuming that 68 percent of these facilities are in urban areas (consistent with the discussion above) and that the 0.025 percent value discussed in the previous paragraph represents a reasonable lower bound, this EA estimates that between 1 and 1,601 facilities may apply for a waiver each year after the first year of the rule’s implementation. To estimate the cost of applying for an exemption, this EA assumes that this cost is similar to that for a generator submitting an exemption from the RCRA manifest requirements. These costs reflect 0.1 hours of managerial time, 0.17 hours of technical time, and 0.10 hours of clerical to develop the application, and 0.1 hours of managerial time and 0 .4 hours of technical time to review the application. 95 

### This represents a cost of approximately $41 per application per facility. Exhibit 3

- 1 6 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of preparing and submitting a waiver by facility type. For repor ting purposes, costs are broken out by one

-time costs and recurring costs of the rulemaking even though all costs are incurred only once on a per- facility basis. The one

- time costs reflect the first

-year costs of the rule, which may be potentially incurre d by all LQGs in urban environments. The recurring costs of the rule only reflect applications by new LQGs in the affected universe.

94 Based on analysis of EPA’s 2011 BR database. Facility zip codes are cross
- walked with metro/micro statistical areas using the Missouri Census Data Center’s Geographic Correspondence Engine accessed on September 20, 2013 at http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/geocorr12.html
. 95 U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 801.18 "Requi rements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System." January 2012.3
- 47 **EXHIBIT 3 -**  **1 6**  **: ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **A ND**  **AGGREGA TE COSTS F**  **OR SPECIAL**  **REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNIT** **ABLE AND RE**  **ACTIVE W ASTES**  **(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING**  **A 7%**  **DISCOUNT RA TE)** 

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **a ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] b**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [D]**  **c ONE**  **- TIME** 

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **= B×**  **D ]**  LQG 4 (1) $3.64 $37.67 $15 $38 $52 SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 4 (1) N/A N/A $15 $38 $52

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **a ANNUALIZED COST PER** 

**FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST TOTAL** 

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] b**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [D]**  **c ONE**  **- TIME** 

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **= B×**  **D ]**  LQG 9,699 (1,601) $3.64 $37.67 $35,300 $60,300 $95,700 SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 9,699 (1,601) N/A N/A $35,300 $60,300 $95,700 Notes: All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. The first value in Column B represents the estimated number of facilities applying for waivers in the first year of rule implementation; the value in parentheses represents the estimated number for all subsequent years. This EA assumes 4 LQGs would apply for waivers in the first year of the rule and 1 LQG each year thereafter in the low impact scenario. It assumes as many as 9,699 LQGs would apply for waivers in the first year of the rule and up to 1,601 LQGs each year thereafter in the high impact scenari o. b. The one
- time costs of the rule represent the cost for all affected existing LQGs in the regulatory universe to apply for waivers. The cost of the application for a waiver is assumed to be $41.31 per facility (or $3.64 on an annualized basis). c. The recur ring costs of the rule represent the cost for all affected new LQGs to apply for waivers. An average of 1,601 facilities will apply for waivers at a cost of $41.31 per facility each year after the first year of the rule (i.e., over years two through 20 of the analytic time horizon), thus the average annualized cost over a 20
- year period is $37.67 per facility. In other words, the $41.31 incurred in years two through 20 is discounted to be expressed in present value terms, the resulting 19 present values are summed to yield an aggregate present value number, and this present value sum is then annualized.3
- 48 **RESUL TS**  

### Exhibit 3

- 17 reports the total annualized costs of the proposed rule by provision. 96 

### These costs are reported on an undiscounted basis as well as under discount rates of both seven percent and three percent. As the exhibit shows, the most significant costs under the proposed rule are associated with labeling/marking. In addition, two of the provisions

— intra

- organizational transfers and episodic generation

—are optional and anticipated to result in cost savings, which are not included in Exhibit 3

- 17, but are included in the discussion of benefits in Chapter 4. The costs presented in Exhibit 3

- 17 do not appear to be sensitive to the discount rate. However, the various rule provisions differ with respect to the time horizon over which they affect generator activity. Exhibits 3

- 18(a)

- (c) therefore reports the total costs of the rule by year. As shown in the exhibits, a significant percentage of the co sts of the proposed rule is composed of one

-time notification costs incurred in the first year of the rule as opposed to recurring annual (or biennial) costs. This EA uses a 20

-year time frame to assess these costs in present value and annualized terms. Exhibit 3

- 19 presents the distribution of the total costs of the proposed rule across the three RCRA generator categories (i.e., LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs). As the exhibit shows, the aggregate costs of the rule are higher for SQGs and CESQGs than LQGs because of the greater number of these facilities in the potentially affected universe. However, on a per facility basis, the costs of the rule are higher for LQGs. Based on Exhibit 3

- 19, on a per facility basis, the average annualized costs of the mandatory provisions of the rule are negligible for CESQGs, between $79 and $16 3 for SQGs, and between $ 129 and $ 321 for LQGs (using a seven percent discount rate). The average annualized per facility costs of the mandatory and voluntary provisions of the rule combined are between $ 1 and $ 13 for CESQGs, between $ 80 and $1 70 for SQGs, and between $ 162 and $ 40 1 for LQGs (using a seven percent discount rate). The average annualized costs of the proposed rule appear to be low relative to many of the unit costs presented in this chapter, in part, because only a fraction of facilities are affected by each provision of the rule. Spreading these costs over the full universe of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs reduces these costs on a per

- facility basis. Similarly, the actual costs of compliance for a single facility may be much higher than the average values reported above. For example, closing as a landfill would cost a single LQG tens of thousands of dollars on an annualized basis; however, this EA assumes that three or fewer such closures occur each year. Finally, Exhibit 3

- 20 reports the total annualized costs of the proposed rule by one

-time and recurring costs. As the exhibit shows, less than 20 percent of the costs of the proposed rule are incurred on a one

-time basis in the l ow impact scenario and less than 10 percent of the costs are incurred on a one

-time basis in the high impact scenario. As

96 All cost figures in this section are reported to three significant digits.3
- 49 

### described above, these one

-time costs are concentrated in the first year of the rule’s implementation, after which time the costs ass ociated with the rule decline significantly (see Exhibit 3

- 18).3
- 50

**EXHIBIT 3 -**  **17: T OT** **AL A**  **NNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSE**  **D RULE BY REQUIREMEN T ($2012)** 

**REQUIREMENT LOW IMPACT SCENARIO**  **HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO**

**ANNUALIZED COST** **S (UNDISCOUNTED)**  **ANNUALIZED COST** **S (USING A 3%**  **DISCOUNT RATE)**  **ANNUALIZED**

**COST S**  **(USING A 7% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) ANNUALIZED** 

**COST S**  **(UNDISCOUNTED) ANNUALIZED**  **COST S**  **(USING A 3% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) ANNUALIZED** 

**COST S**  **(USING A 7% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) MANDATORY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Negative Determinations $374,000 $386,000 $403,000 $1,100,000 $1,130,000 $1,180,000 Re
- notification $737,000 $748,000 $762,000 $946,000 $960,000 $978,000 Labeling $3,020,000 $3,160,000 $3,370,000 $6,120,000 $6,270,000 $6,480,000 Closure $28,800 $28,800 $28,800 $1,840,000 $1,340,000 $988,000 Emergency Response Preparedness $414,000 $416,000 $420,000 $804,000 $807,000 $811,000 Transfer Facility $192,000 $192,000 $192,000 $549,000 $549,000 $549,000 BR Requirements $290,000 $294,000 $299,000 $918,000 $931,000 $949,000 Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,050,000**  **$5,220,000 $5,480,000**  **$12, 30**  **0,000 $**  **12 ,**  **000 ,000**  **$11,9 0**  **0,000 VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Intra
- organizational Transfers $547,000 $562,000 $584,000 $4,250,000 $4,280,000 $4,320,000 Episodic Generation $208,000 $208,000 $208,000 $1,070,000 $1,070,000 $1,070,000 Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 $50 $50 $82,900 $88,000 $95,700 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions**  **$755,000 $771,000**  **$793,000 $5,400,000**  **$5,440,000 $5,490,000**  **MANDATORY AND VOLUNT ARY PROVISIONS OF TH** **E PROPOSED RULE COMB INED**  **TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary Provisions Combined**  **$5,810,000 $5,990,000**  **$6,270,000 $17,**  **70 0,000**  **$17,4 0**  **0,000 $17,4**  **0 0,000**  Notes: All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.3
- 51

**EXHIBIT 3 -**  **18(A): T OT** **AL COSTS O**  **F THE PROPOSED RULE BY YEAR, MANDA**  **TO RY**  **P ROVISIONS ONL**  **Y ($201 2)** 

**YEAR LOW IMPACT SCENARIO**  **HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO**

**UNDISCOUNTED 3% DISCOUNT**  **RATE 7% DISCOUNT** 

**RATE UNDISCOUNTED**  **3% DISCOUNT RATE**  **7% DISCOUNT**

**RATE** 2016 $15,700,000 $15,700,000 $15,700,000 $25,100,000 $24,600,000 $24,300,000 2017 $3,520,000 $3,410,000 $3,290,000 $9,840,000 $9,070,000 $8,400,000 2018 $5,570,000 $5,250,000 $4,860,000 $13,600,000 $12,300,000 $11,100,000 2019 $3,520,000 $3,220,000 $2,870,000 $9,840,000 $8,550,000 $7,340,000 2020 $5,570,000 $4,950,000 $4,250,000 $13,600,000 $11,600,000 $9,700,000 2021 $3,520,000 $3,030,000 $2,510,000 $9,840,000 $8,060,000 $6,410,000 2022 $5,570,000 $4,660,000 $3,710,000 $13,600,000 $10,900,000 $8,470,000 2023 $3,520,000 $2,860,000 $2,190,000 $9,840,000 $7,600,000 $5,600,000 2024 $5,570,000 $4,400,000 $3,240,000 $13,600,000 $10,300,000 $7,400,000 2025 $3,520,000 $2,690,000 $1,910,000 $9,840,000 $7,160,000 $4,890,000 2026 $5,570,000 $4,140,000 $2,830,000 $13,600,000 $9,720,000 $6,460,000 2027 $3,520,000 $2,540,000 $1,670,000 $9,840,000 $6,750,000 $4,270,000 2028 $5,570,000 $3,910,000 $2,470,000 $13,600,000 $9,170,000 $5,650,000 2029 $3,520,000 $2,390,000 $1,460,000 $9,840,000 $6,360,000 $3,730,000 2030 $5,570,000 $3,680,000 $2,160,000 $13,600,000 $8,640,000 $4,930,000 2031 $3,520,000 $2,260,000 $1,270,000 $9,840,000 $6,000,000 $3,260,000 2032 $5,570,000 $3,470,000 $1,890,000 $13,600,000 $8,140,000 $4,310,000 2033 $3,520,000 $2,130,000 $1,110,000 $9,840,000 $5,650,000 $2,850,000 203 4 $5,570,000 $3,270,000 $1,650,000 $13,600,000 $7,680,000 $3,760,000 203 5 $3,520,000 $2,000,000 $972,000 $9,840,000 $5,330,000 $2,490,000 **Cumulative Total**  **Costs**

**( 201**  **6 -**  **203 5**  **) $101,000,000**  **$80,000,000 $62,100,000**  **$246,000,000 $184,000,000**  **$135,000,000 Annualized**  **Costs $5,050,000**  **$5,220,000 $5,480,000**  **$12,300,000 $12,000,000**  **$11,900,000** Notes: All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.3
- 52

**EXHIBIT 3 -**  **18(B): T OT** **AL COSTS O**  **F THE PROPOSED RULE BY YEAR, VOLUNT** **AR Y P**  **ROVISIONS ONL Y ($201**  **2)**

**YEAR LOW IMPACT SCENARIO**  **HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO** 

**UNDISCOUNTED 3% DISCOUNT**  **RATE 7% DISCOUNT** 

**RATE UNDISCOUNTED**  **3% DISCOUNT RATE**  **7% DISCOUNT**

**RATE** 2016 $1,740,000 $1,740,000 $1,740,000 $7,580,000 $7,580,000 $7,580,000 2017 $408,000 $396,000 $381,000 $4,440,000 $4,310,000 $4,150,000 2018 $1,030,000 $973,000 $902,000 $6,230,000 $5,880,000 $5,440,000 2019 $408,000 $373,000 $333,000 $4,440,000 $4,060,000 $3,630,000 2020 $1,030,000 $917,000 $787,000 $6,230,000 $5,540,000 $4,760,000 2021 $408,000 $352,000 $291,000 $4,440,000 $3,830,000 $3,170,000 2022 $1,030,000 $864,000 $688,000 $6,230,000 $5,220,000 $4,150,000 2023 $408,000 $331,000 $254,000 $4,440,000 $3,610,000 $2,770,000 2024 $1,030,000 $815,000 $601,000 $6,230,000 $4,920,000 $3,630,000 2025 $408,000 $312,000 $222,000 $4,440,000 $3,400,000 $2,420,000 2026 $1,030,000 $768,000 $525,000 $6,230,000 $4,640,000 $3,170,000 2027 $408,000 $294,000 $194,000 $4,440,000 $3,210,000 $2,110,000 2028 $1,030,000 $724,000 $458,000 $6,230,000 $4,370,000 $2,770,000 2029 $408,000 $277,000 $169,000 $4,440,000 $3,020,000 $1,840,000 2030 $1,030,000 $682,000 $400,000 $6,230,000 $4,120,000 $2,420,000 2031 $408,000 $262,000 $148,000 $4,440,000 $2,850,000 $1,610,000 2032 $1,030,000 $643,000 $350,000 $6,230,000 $3,880,000 $2,110,000 2033 $408,000 $247,000 $129,000 $4,440,000 $2,690,000 $1,410,000 203 4 $1,030,000 $606,000 $305,000 $6,230,000 $3,660,000 $1,840,000 203 5 $408,000 $232,000 $113,000 $4,440,000 $2,530,000 $1,230,000 **Cumulative Total**  **Costs**

**( 201**  **6 -**  **203 5)**  **$15,100,000 $11,800,000**  **$8,990,000 $108,000,000**  **$83,300,000 $62,200,000**  **Annualized Costs**  **$755,000 $590,000**  **$449,000 $5,400,000**  **$5,440,000 $5,490,000**  Notes: All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.3
- 53

**EXHIBIT 3**  **- 18(C): T**  **OT AL**  **COSTS O F THE PROPOSED RULE**  **BY YEAR, MANDA TO**  **RY A**  **ND VOLUNT AR** **Y PROVISI ONS ($2012)** 

**YEAR LOW IMPACT SCENARIO**  **HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO**

**UNDISCOUNTED 3% DISCOUNT**  **RATE 7% DISCOUNT** 

**RATE UNDISCOUNTED**  **3% DISCOUNT RATE**  **7% DISCOUNT**

**RATE** 2016 $17,500,000 $17,500,000 $17,500,000 $32,700,000 $32,200,000 $31,800,000 2017 $3,920,000 $3,810,000 $3,670,000 $14,300,000 $13,400,000 $12,600,000 2018 $6,600,000 $6,220,000 $5,770,000 $19,800,000 $18,200,000 $16,600,000 2019 $3,920,000 $3,590,000 $3,200,000 $14,300,000 $12,600,000 $11,000,000 2020 $6,600,000 $5,860,000 $5,040,000 $19,800,000 $17,100,000 $14,500,000 2021 $3,920,000 $3,380,000 $2,800,000 $14,300,000 $11,900,000 $9,580,000 2022 $6,600,000 $5,530,000 $4,400,000 $19,800,000 $16,200,000 $12,600,000 2023 $3,920,000 $3,190,000 $2,440,000 $14,300,000 $11,200,000 $8,360,000 2024 $6,600,000 $5,210,000 $3,840,000 $19,800,000 $15,200,000 $11,000,000 2025 $3,920,000 $3,010,000 $2,130,000 $14,300,000 $10,600,000 $7,310,000 2026 $6,600,000 $4,910,000 $3,360,000 $19,800,000 $14,400,000 $9,630,000 2027 $3,920,000 $2,830,000 $1,860,000 $14,300,000 $9,960,000 $6,380,000 2028 $6,600,000 $4,630,000 $2,930,000 $19,800,000 $13,500,000 $8,410,000 2029 $3,920,000 $2,670,000 $1,630,000 $14,300,000 $9,390,000 $5,570,000 2030 $6,600,000 $4,360,000 $2,560,000 $19,800,000 $12,800,000 $7,350,000 2031 $3,920,000 $2,520,000 $1,420,000 $14,300,000 $8,850,000 $4,870,000 2032 $6,600,000 $4,110,000 $2,240,000 $19,800,000 $12,000,000 $6,420,000 2033 $3,920,000 $2,370,000 $1,240,000 $14,300,000 $8,340,000 $4,250,000 203 4 $6,600,000 $3,880,000 $1,950,000 $19,800,000 $11,300,000 $5,610,000 203 5 $3,920,000 $2,240,000 $1,080,000 $14,300,000 $7,860,000 $3,710,000 **Cumulative Total**  **Costs**

**( 201**  **6 -**  **203 5)**  **$116,000,000 $91,800,000**  **$71,000,000 $354,000,000**  **$267,000,000 $197,000,000**  **Annualized Costs**  **$5,810,000 $5,990,000**  **$6,270,000 $17,700,000**  **$17,400,000 $17,400,000**  Notes: All cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.3
- 54

**EXHIBIT 3 -**  **19: T OT** **AL A**  **NNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSE**  **D RULE BY GENERA TO**  **R ST** **AT US ($2012)** 

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **LOW IMPACT SCENARIO HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES ANNUALIZED** 

**COST S**  **(UNDISCOUNTED) ANNUALIZED**  **COST S**  **(USING A 3% DISCOUNT RATE)**  **ANNUALIZED COST** **S (USING A 7%**  **DISCOUNT RATE) NUMBER OF**  **AFFECTED FACILITIES**  **ANNUALIZED COST** **S (UNDISCOUNTED)**  **ANNUALIZED COST** **S (USING A 3%**  **DISCOUNT RATE)**  **ANNUALIZED**

**COST S**  **(USING A 7% DISCOUNT**  **RATE) MANDATORY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE**  LQG 14,262 $1,470,000 $1,620,000 $1,840,000 14,262 $4,920,000 $4,590,000 $4,490,000 SQG 45,762 $3,580,000 $3,600,000 $3,630,000 59,702 $7,350,000 $7,390,000 $7,440,000 CESQG 292,912 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 469,378 $9,760 $9,800 $9,860 **SUB -**  **TOTAL 352,936**  **$5,050,000 $5,220,000**  **$5,480,000 543,342**  **$12,300,000 $12,000,000**  **$11,900,000 VOLUNTARY**  **PROVISIONS OF THE PR OPOSED RULE**  LQG 14,262 $431,000 $446,000 $468,000 14,262 $1,150,000 $1,180,000 $1,230,000 SQG 45,762 $27,300 $27,300 $27,300 59,702 $322,000 $322,000 $322,000 CESQG 292,912 $297,000 $297,000 $297,000 469,378 $3,930,000 $3,930,000 $3,930,000 **SUB -**  **TOTAL 352,936**  **$755,000 $771,000**  **$793,000 543,342**  **$5,400,000 $5,440,000**  **$5,490,000 MANDATORY AND VOLUNT**  **ARY PROVISIONS OF TH E PROPOSED**  **RULE COMBINED** LQG 14,262 $1,900,000 $2,070,000 $2,310,000 14,262 $6,070,000 $5,770,000 $5,720,000 SQG 45,762 $3,610,000 $3,630,000 $3,650,000 59,702 $7,670,000 $7,710,000 $7,760,000 CESQG 292,912 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 469,378 $3,940,000 $3,940,000 $3,940,000 **TOTAL 352,936**  **$5,810,000 $5,990,000**  **$6,270,000 543,342**  **$17,700,000 $17,400,000**  **$17,400,000** Notes: All annualized cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.3
- 55

**EXHIBIT 3 -**  **20: T OT** **AL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF**  **THE PROPOSED RULE BY REQUIREMENT**  **AND FREQ UENCY USING**  **A 7% DIS**  **COUNT RA TE ($2012)** 

**REQUIREMENT LOW IMPACT SCENARIO**  **HIGH IMPACT SCENARIO ANNUALIZED**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **ANNUALIZED**

**RECURRING COSTS**  **TOTAL**

**ANNUALIZED COSTS**  **ANNUALIZED**

**ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **ANNUALIZED**

**RECURRING COSTS**  **TOTAL**

**ANNUALIZED COSTS**  **MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE**  Negative Determinations $96,500 $307,000 $403,000 $271,000 $908,000 $1,180,000 Re
- notification $0 $762,000 $762,000 $0 $978,000 $978,000 Labeling $818,000 $2,550,000 $3,370,000 $818,000 $5,660,000 $6,480,000 Closure $0 $28,800 $28,800 $0 $988,000 $988,000 Emergency Response Preparedness $12,900 $ 407 ,000 $ 420 ,000 $15,900 $795,000 $811,000 Transfer Facility $0 $192,000 $192,000 $0 $549,000 $549,000 BR Requirements $0 $299,000 $299,000 $0 $949,000 $949,000 Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $9**  **28 ,000**  **$4,5 5**  **0,000 $5,4**  **8 0,000**  **$1,1 1**  **0,000 $10,**  **8 00,000**  **$1 1**  **, 9**  **00,000 VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Intra
- organizational Transfers $62,200 $522,000 $584,000 $89,300 $4,230,000 $4,320,000 Episodic Generation $0 $208,000 $208,000 $0 $1,070,000 $1,070,000 Ignitable and Reactive Waste $15 $38 $52 $35,300 $60,300 $95,700 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $62,**  **3 00**  **$730,000 $793,000**  **$ 125**  **, 0**  **00 $5,3**  **6 0,000**  **$5, 4**  **90,000 MANDATORY AND VOLUNT**  **ARY PROVISIONS OF TH E PROPOSED RULE COMB**  **INED TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary Provisions Combined**  **$9 90**  **,000 $5,2**  **8 0,000**  **$6,2 7**  **0,000 $1,2**  **3 0,000**  **$16,200,000 $17,400,000**  Notes: All annualized cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.3
- 56 **ANAL YTIC LIMIT** **AT IONS**  

### While the analysis presented in this chapter provides reasonable estimates of the costs associated with the proposed rule, the data and methods used in this analysis are subject to several uncertainties, the most significant of which are outlined below.

 

### Facility
**- specific characteristics not accounted for.**  In practice, hazardous waste management methods vary by industry and between individual facilities in the same industry. 97 

### Sufficient data were not available for this analysis to incorporate such considerations into the estimation of costs. Therefore, while costs are estimated separately for LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs, they do not account for facility

- specific differences. Thus, the average per facility cost estimates reported in this document may either overstate or understate costs for individual facilities.

 

### CESQG and **SQG data are generally limited.** This EA relies on limited data and information available in the BR and provided by the states to make assumptions regarding hazardous waste generation and management among SQGs and CESQGs. In cases where data are unavaila ble, LQG (or SQG) data analysis and trends are applied to the CESQG universe, which may lead to overestimation or underestimation of actual costs.

 

### Ownership structure of entities is unknown. The cost of the rule’s CESQG consolidation provisions is highly dependent on the uncertain ownership structure of the regulated universe. Specifically, the estimated costs of consolidation depend on the number of CESQGs that could consolidate their waste and the number of LQGs that could manage this waste. Thi s EA uses a facility name matching algorithm for a limited number of states as the basis for estimating these values. Because this approach uses data from a limited number of states and applies them more broadly to the U.S. as a whole, it may understate t he number of facilities that could take advantage of this provision of the rule. In addition, the number of eligible entities that may choose to consolidate waste is also highly uncertain.

 

### Activity in **SAAs .**  As described above, the costs of the labeling/marking requirements of the rule are partially dependent on the number of containers in SAAs. Because comprehensive data on SAAs were not readily available for this analysis, this EA assumed that the number of containers in satellite areas is half the numb er in primary storage areas. This assumption may lead to overestimation or underestimation of the rule’s costs.

 

### Number of LQGs closing as landfills **is unknown .**  No data are available on the number of LQGs that are required to close with contamination in p lace. Absent such information, this EA assumes that zero to one percent of the LQGs closing

97 Personal communication with John Kelsey of C lean Harbors on September 10, 2013.3
- 57 

### will close as a landfill. This assumption may either overstate or understate actual closure costs.

 

### Eligibility for episodic generation **is uncertain.** Data on epis odic generation are extremely limited. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately estimate the percentage of facilities that experience one

-time or short

-term generation events that last for one calendar month or less. To address this uncertainty, this EA assumes that between 50 and 100 percent of episodic events occur within a single calendar month. It is not clear whether this assumption leads to overestimation or underestimation of costs.

 

### Number of facilities applying for waivers under the rule provi**sion for ignitable and reactive waste.**  While the BR includes data identifying facilities that generate reactive and/or ignitable waste, no data are available that clearly indicate which of these facilities are located in areas where it is not possible to meet the 15

-meter property line requirement. This EA estimates the potential costs of this provision based on assumptions spanning a wide range, the upper end of which likely leads to overestimation of this provision’s costs.4
- 1 

### CHAPTER **4 |**  **ASSESSMENT OF BENEFI**  **TS**

**INTRODUCTION** 

### This chapter provides an assessment of the benefits that may result from the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule. These benefits reflect the rule’s focus on enhancing protection of human health and the environment and improving the efficiency of the RCRA hazardous waste generator standards. For example, the rule would allow for more effective emergency response in the event of an accident due to the proposed changes to the generator marking/labeling and contingency plan requirements. In addition, the rule’s provisions related to the documentation of negative hazardous waste determinations may reduce the amount of hazardous waste inappropriately managed as non

-hazardous. The benefits of the rule also include cost savings likely to be realized by many generators due to the increased flexibility that the rule provides for CESQGs and for generators that would be elevated to a more stringent regulatory status because of episodic generation events. This EA would ideally quantify and monetize , wherever possible, each of these benefits. S uch an analysis is feasible f or some categories of benefits. For the majority of benefits, however, sufficient data are unavailable to support a detailed quantitative analysis. For example, quantifying benefits associated with improved emergency response due to more detailed container labeling would require data on the annual number of emergencies at generator sites, the current risks associated with these inci dents, the extent to which more detailed labeling would affect the procedures of emergency responders, and the reduction in risk associated with these changes. Detailed data on these items are not readily available. The sections that follow characterize benefits for each individual provision of the rule. For those benefit categories with detailed data available, this EA quantifies and monetizes benefits. In instances where quantitative data are not available, this EA provides a qualitative assessment of benefits.

**MONETIZED BENEFITS** 

### The available data support the monetization of benefits associated with three maj or provisions of the proposed rule: the accumulation of hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings, the intra

- organization consoli dation of CESQG waste at an LQG , and the flexibility afforded SQGs and CESQGs that cross the threshold to a more stringent regulatory status due to episodic generation events. As indicated in greater detail below, these provisions are estimated to result in annualized benefits of $34,800 to $35,300, $ 2.5 to $ 4.5 million, and $3.8 to $7.7 million , respectively . Combined, these4
- 2 

### provisions total $ 6.2 to $ 12.2 million in annualized benefits. These values do not differ significantly regardless of whether a 3 p ercent or 7 percent discount rate is employed.
**DRIP P AD**  **AND CONT AIN**  **MENT BUILDING REQUIR EMENTS**  **FOR SQG s**  

### As described in Chapter 3, the proposed rule would allow SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or les s without a permit or interim status to comply with the LQG 90

- day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180

- day accumulation limit), but to otherwise comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs. Therefore, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings would experience a cost savings associated with no longer being subject to the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, development of a full contingency plan, and biennial reporting. Thus, the incremental cost savings for these generators is the difference between the LQG and SQG costs associated with these activities. EPA estimates that within the regulated universe there are eight SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads and four SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containment buildings currently subject to the LQG requirements. 98 

### Furthermore, this EA assumes that these facilities would not otherwise be subject to the LQG requirements (i.e., for waste not accumulated on drips pads or in containment buildings). EPA does not estimate that any CESQGs currently use drip pads or containment buildings. Thus, there are twelve SQGs that may experience a cost savings as a result of the proposed rule. The following sections present the cost savings associated with the additional flexibility for SQGs to no longer comply with certain LQG requirements and estimate the total potential cost savings realized by SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less. All cost savings estimates presented below reflect the hourly labor costs reported in Chapter 3

. Tr aining 

### LQGs and SQGs are required to conduct annual employee training related to hazardous waste management procedures to ensure that staf f are able to perform their duties to maintain facility compliance with RCRA requirements and respond effectively to emergencies. The requirements for LQGs in accordance with §262.34(a)(4), which reference S ubparts C and D in 40 CFR Part 265 and §265.16 , obligate LQGs to ensure that their training program is: “designed to ensure that facility personnel are able to respond effectively to emergencies by familiarizing them with emergency procedures, emergency equipment, and emergency systems, including, where applicable:(i) Procedures for using, inspecting, repairing, and replacing facility emergency and monitoring equipment...” In contrast, the less stringent SQG training requirements at §262.34(d)(5)(iii) state:

98 Based on personal communication with Jim O’Leary and Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on May 6, 2015.4
- 3 

### “ the generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relevant to their responsibilities during normal facility operations and emergencies. ” No training requirements exist for CESQGs. Exhibit 4

- 1 presents the estimated cost to conduct annual training by generator status. As shown in the exhibit, LQGs are assumed to train four technicians and two managers, while SQGs are assumed to train two technicians and one manager. 99 

### SQGs are expected to cond uct informal training that requires approximately four hours of a manager’s time to prepare (including pulling together EPA guidance, fact sheets, and relevant facility standard operating procedures). Consistent with the more stringent training requirements for LQGs under §262.34 (a)(4), LQGs are expected to conduct more formal training using an online training course supplemented with facility

- specific information. The class fee is approximately $125 per trainee. 100 

### The total cost of training includes the cost of training materials and the cost of the staff time associated with the training. **EXHIBIT 4**  **- 1**  **: ANNUAL**  **COST OF GENERA** **TO R ST** **AFF TRAINING**  **PER F ACILITY**  **($2012)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **STAFF**

**REQUIRING TRAINING**  **TRAINING**

**TIME TRAINING MATERIALS** 

**REQUIRED TOTAL**  **COST OF TRAINING**  SQG 2 technicians,

1 manager 4 hours 4 hours of manager’s time to develop training $ 979
LQG 4 technicians,

2 managers 8 hours $125 class fee per trainee, plus 0.6 hours for administrative requirements $3, 360


### Based on the training costs presented in Exhibit 4

- 1, the flexibility afforded SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less to avoid the more stringent LQG training requirements would result in a cost savings of $2,381 ($3,360

- $979) per facility.
Emergency R esponse P reparedness 

### Under the existing RCRA requirements for prevention, preparedness, and emergency response, LQGs must prepare a contingency plan, coordinate with local response agencies, and update the plan as needed. Similarly, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less must meet the LQG requirements. This EA assumes that all SQGs that would avoid the more stringent LQG

99 Assumptions based on training cost assumptions in U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the Industrial Recycling Exclusions of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste , September 25, 2008.

100 Based on the average cost of online providers, including: http://www.ed uwhere.com , http://www.thelearningcenter.com , http://www.gvltec.edu , http://www.epaalliance.com , http://www.distance
education.org , http://ww.iesshop.ies.ncsu.edu , http:///www.osha.com , http://www.epai nstitute.com , and http://www.training
- classes.com
.4
- 4 

### requirements under t

he proposed rule have previously prepared a detailed, written contingency plan for handling emergencies

. Therefore, the cost savings for these facilities is the annual cost to review, update, and distribute the contingency plan , which is assumed to take a

pproximately four hours of a manager’s time and one hour of administrative time. This represents $351 in costs based on the hourly labor costs presented in Chapter 3. Thus, the total cost savings associated with the flexibility afforded SQGs that accumul ate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less to avoid the more stringent LQG requirements for contingency plan updating is approximately $351 per facility per year.

Biennial R eports 

### Under existing RCRA regulations, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less must submit biennial reports of their hazardous waste generation activity to EPA or State authorities. The fixed costs of preparing a biennial report include the time to read the instructions, complete the site ID form, submit the report to EPA or State authorities, and maintain a copy of the report for three years. EPA estimates that the cost of these activities is approximately $245 per facility. 101 

### Additionally, the variable cost of completing each GM f orm for the BR submission is $19.99. As described in Chapter 3, SQGs on average are estimated to comp lete between 4 and 8 GM forms per BR reporting year (one for each unique waste stream) , which impli es an additional $80 to $160 in reporting costs per BR cycle. In total, these costs range from $3 2 5 to $ 405 every even -num bered year (or $1 6 8 to $ 209 on an annualized basis using a 7 percent discount rate). Aggregate Benefits of Drip P ad and Containment B uilding R equirements for SQGs 

### As described above, EPA estimates that 12 facilities could take advantage of the additional flexibility afforded SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for less than 90 days

. Exhibit 4

- 2 summarizes the cost savings associated with no longer being subject to the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, emergency response preparedness , and biennial reporting. These cost savings are reported on an annualized basis per facilit y and in aggregate. In total, this EA estimates that SQGs would experience annualized benefits of $34,800 to $35,300 as a result of the proposed drip pad and containment building requirements

.

101 BR
- related costs in this paragraph derived from EPA ICR 0976.16 “2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification,” September 2012.4
- 5 **EXHIBIT 4 -**  **2 :**  **ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **AND AGGREGA** **TE C OST SA**  **VINGS FOR DRIP P**  **AD AND**  **CONT AINMENT BUILDING**  **REQUIREMENTS (ANNUAL IZED OVER 20 YEARS,**  **USING A**  **7% DISCOUNT RA** **TE)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST**

**SAVINGS PER FACILITY**  **AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST**  **SAVINGS TOTAL**  **ANNUALIZED COST**  **SAVINGS [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 SQG a 12 $0.00 $2, 900 b $0 $ 34,800 $ 34,800 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $ 0 $ 0 TOTAL 12 N/A N/A $0 $34,800 $34,800

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST**

**SAVINGS PER FACILITY**  **AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST SAVINGS**  **TOTAL ANNUALIZED**  **COST SAVINGS**  **[G=E+F] ONE**  **- TIME**  **COSTS [C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 SQG a 12 $0.00 $ 2 , 941 c $0 $ 35,300 $ 35 , 3 00 CESQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 12 N/A N/A $0 $35,300 $35,300 Notes: a. EPA estimates that eight SQGs accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads and four SQGs accumulate hazardous waste in containment buildings. b. The annualized costs savings include $2,381 for training, $351 for contingency plan updating, and $168 for biennial reporting in the low

- impact scenario. c. The annualized costs savings include $2,381 for training, $351 for contingency plan updating, and $209 for biennial reporting in the high

- impact scenario.

**INTRA -**  **O RGANI**  **ZA TION**  **AL T**  **RANSFERS OF H**  **AZARDOUS W**  **ASTE FROM CESQG**  **s TO**  **LQG s**  

### As outlined in Chapter 1, EPA is proposing to allow CESQGs to send their hazardous waste voluntarily to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG c omply with certain conditions. 102 

### Under existing

102 The flexibility provided by the proposed rule would allow LQGs to consolidate waste without submitting an application for a RCRA Part B permit. This EA assumes that consolidating CESQG s send their hazardous waste to a commercial hazardous waste management facility in the baseline. Under this assumption, LQGs receiving CESQG waste under this voluntary provision of the rule would not realize a cost savings associated with avoided RCRA Pa rt B permit costs because they do not incur these costs in the baseline. The costs of RCRA Part B permitting are described in EPA ICR 1573.13 “Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits,” February 2013.4
- 6 

### regulations, a CESQG may either treat or dispose of its hazardous waste on site or ensure delivery to an off

- site treatment, storage, or disposal facility , which can include permitted hazardous waste faciliti es, interim status hazardous waste facilities, municipal solid waste facilities, non

-municipal non

-hazardous waste facilities, and universal waste handlers. The existing CESQG regulations do not allow a generator to send its hazardous waste off

site to another generator, unless the receiving generator is also one of the types of facilities listed above. In particular, existing RCRA regulations allow an LQG to accept waste from its CESQG affiliates only if the LQG has a RCRA storage permit and can demonstrate financial assurance for potential Corrective Action and closure/post

- closure liabilities. The proposed rule would eliminate the permit and financial assurance requirements for intra

- organizational transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs in order to encourage improved CESQG waste management. This section first describes the benefits of intra

- organizational transfers for facilities that voluntarily begin to consolidate waste in response to the flexibility provided by the proposed rule. Then, this section describes the cost savings of this provision for facilities that already manage hazardous waste by means of intra

- organizational transfers. Information collected by EPA suggests that four LQGs are currently permitted to accept CESQG hazardous waste for consolidation. 103

Vo luntary Adoption of Intra
- organizational T ranfsers 

### Allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization may result in a net cost savings from reduced management costs (1) at the establishment

- level for individual CESQG facilities and (2) at the firm

- level for organizations that manage multiple facilities that could potentially consolidate their hazardous waste. At the establishment

- level, CESQGs would no longer directly incur disposal costs and would only incur costs of transportation to an LQG facility either using the organizations’ existing fleet of hazmat vehicles or a hazardous waste transporter within their own delivery network

. 104 

### At the firm

- level, organizations would realize cost

savings associated with managing waste quantities in bulk. Specifically, industry sources estimate that stand

- alone CESQG facilities incur an average cost premium of approximately 10 percent to dispose of their hazardous waste relative to LQG s. 105 

### Organizations consolidating CESQG waste to LQGs may also realize a transportation cost savings due to the higher transport costs typically incurred by CESQGs on a per

-ton basis compared to LQGs (see below).

103 Based on e - mail communic ation with Lyn Luben and Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on December 5, 2013.

104 Assumptions regarding the transportation networks of larger organizations are based on personal communication with Jim O’Leary of EPA’s Office o f Resource Conservation and Recovery on July 30, 2014. The costs of transporting CESQG waste to an LQG are estimated in Chapter 3.

105 The 10 percent cost premium represents the average of a range of estimates from 5 to 15 percent, based on personal communic ation with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on August 29, 2013. This cost premium is incurred across all management methods.4
- 7 

### The net transportation cost savings associated with consolidating CESQG waste to LQGs owned by the same organization reflect two specific factors. 106 

### First, while CESQGs typically manage their waste off

- site, LQGs manage much more of their hazardous waste on - site (83.9 percent according to the 2011 B R data) and therefore , on average, incur lower transportation costs than CESQGs. Second, the incremental cost for an LQG to ship more waste off

- site includes only the variable cost of transporting the additional waste (on a per drum basis), since the fixe d costs of transportation (e.g., hiring a truck) are already incurred in the baseline, while the incremental cost for a CESQG to manage waste off

- site includes both fixed and variable costs. Considering both of these factors, this EA estimates the net tran sportation cost savings per CESQG consolidated as the difference between the transportation costs associated with a CESQG’s waste in the baseline and the transportation costs associated with that waste once consolidated. These transportation costs include a fixed

- cost of $44.98 per shipment, plus variable transportation costs of $31.84 per drum. 107 

### Based on the assumption stated in Chapter 3 that the average CESQG ships two to four 55

- gallon drums per year, this translates to avoided transportation costs of $109 to $172 per CESQG. Once the CESQG’s waste is transferred to an LQG, the cost of transporting it to a TSDF includes each of the costs outlined above except for the fixed cost of $44.98 per shipment, because the waste from the consolidated CESQG would likely be added to an existing shipment. Thus, when an LQG ships the CESQG waste off

- site, the cost is approximately $64 to $127 per consolidated CESQG. As noted above, however, 83.9 percent of LQG waste is managed on

- site. The expected transportation cost for a CESQG’s waste once consolidated to an LQG is therefore approximately $10 to $21

. Subtracting this from the avoided CESQG transport cost yields a net transportation cost saving of $9 8 to $152 per consolidated CESQG. 108 

### As noted above, organizations consolidating their CESQG hazardous waste at LQGs would also realize a cost savings associated with a reduction in disposal costs due to the 10 percent disposal cost premium typically incurred by CESQGs relative to LQGs. 109 

### The cost savings associated with avoiding this cost premium depend on the method by which CESQG hazardous waste is managed, as the per ton cost of managing hazardous waste varies by management method. This EA assumes that hazardous waste managed by CESQGs would, if consolidated to an LQG, generally be managed using the same disposal methods as under the baseline, with the exception of hazardous waste managed for reclamation and recovery in the baseline. Because the economic viability of reclamation and recovery may depend on a generator’s proximity to reclamation

106 The transportation cost discussion in this paragraph does not address the transportation costs incurred by CESQGs to send their haza rdous waste to an LQG, as these costs are estimated separately in Chapter 3.

107 RACER 2010 costs inflated to $2012 using GDP implicit price deflator, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

108 Value s may not sum exactly due to rounding.

109 Personal communication with John Kelsey of Clean Harbors on August 29, 2013
.4
- 8 

### facilities, this EA assumes that waste undergoing reclamation in the baseline would not be consolidated. To estimate the disposal costs of the other management methods used by CESQGs, this EA applie s the weighted average of the most common remaining off

site disposal methods. As described in Chapter 2, the most typical off

- site management methods among non

-LQG facilities include: landfill or surface impoundment (18 percent of overall waste); deepwell or underground injection (9 percent); stabilization prior to land disposal at another site (7 percent); and incineration (7 percent). 110 

### As shown in Exhibit 4

- 3 , the weighted average disposal cost per CESQG across these management methods is approximately $253 to $267 . This value reflects annual hazardous waste generation of approximately 0.31 tons per CESQG (see Chapter 2 , Exhibit 2

- 10 ), which is assumed to be split across two to four 55

- gallon drums (see Chapter 3 , Other Assumptions ). The exhibit also shows the cost of disposing of a CESQG’s waste once it is consolidated to an LQG. As presented in the exhibit, the estimated $23 to $24 in cost savings associated with consolidating to an LQG reflects the avoided cost premium paid by CESQGs in the baseline.

110 The 2011 BR also lists transfer off
- site without treatment or recovery as a common management method for non
- LQGs. Because this management method may reflect transfer faciliti es that later send hazardous waste off
- site for treatment or recovery at another facility, this EA also excludes this management method from the disposal cost calculations in this chapter.4
- 9 **EXHIBIT 4 -**  **3 :**  **PER F ACILITY COST SA**  **VINGS FOR DISPOSAL**  **OF HAZA RDOUS W**  **ASTE GENERA TE**  **D BY A**  **CESQG ($2012)** 

**MANAGEMENT METHOD**  **PERCENTAGE**

**OF NON -**  **LQG WASTE**  **MANAGED 1**  **LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE HIGH**  **IMPACT ESTIMATE**

**AVERAGE COST TO DISPOSE OF CESQG**  **HAZARDOUS WASTE (PER FACILITY)**  **2 SAVINGS IF**  **MANAGED AT AN LQG**  **INSTEAD OF A CESQG**  **3 AVERAGE COST TO** 

**DISPOSE OF CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE**  **(PER FACILITY) 2**  **SAVINGS IF MANAGED AT**  **AN LQG INSTEAD OF**  **A CESQG 3**  **WASTE MANAGED**  **BY CESQG WASTE** 

**MANAGED BY LQG**  **WASTE MANAGED**  **BY CESQG WASTE** 

**MANAGED BY LQG**  Incineration 6.6% $1,1 62 $1,0 56 $10 6 $1,176 $1,069 $107 Deepwell or Underground Injection 8.9% $97 $88 $9 $110 $100 $10 HW Landfill (with stabilization) 6.9% $93 $85 $8 $107 $97 $10 HW landfill (without stabilization) 18.1% $59 $53 $5 $73 $66 $7 **Weighted**   ** Average Cost of** **Disposal -**  **$25 3**  **$23 0**  **$23 $267**  **$242 $24**  Notes: 1. This EA assumes that waste managed using the most common off
- site disposal methods could potentially be consolidated at an LQG facility. These methods account for approximately 40.5 percent of total hazardous waste management. It is assumed that the remaining 59. 5 percent

— which may be managed on
- site (e.g., sewering), transferred off
- site with no treatment or recovery, or treated using another method

— would not be consolidated at another facility. 2. Average disposal costs are estimated for a CESQG facility generating approximately 0.31 tons of hazardous waste per year based on the average quantity reported in the 2011 BR data and data provided from the States of Maine, New Jersey, and Washington. A facility generating this amount of hazardous waste would likely accumu late two to four partially
- filled 55
- gallon drums per year, assuming an accumulation storage limit of one year and an average container capacity of approximately 157 to 313 pounds per drum. The unit costs for the management methods presented here are assumed to be the following (without the CESQG cost premium): $1.7 1 per pound for hazardous waste incineration, $237 per ton for landfilling with stabilization, $134 per ton for landfilling without stabilization, and $246 per ton for deepwell or undergroun d injection. These values are based on U.S. EPA Office Resource Conservation and Recovery, Unit Cost Compendium , September 26, 2011. The costs in this exhibit for each management method also reflect a cost of $12.50 per drum for loading a drum, as derived from RACER 2010. 3. Values may not equal difference between pre ceding two columns due to rounding.

Facilities that Already Consolidate Hazardous W aste 

### The intra

- organization transfer provision of the proposed rule may also lead to cost savings for organizations that already consolidate CESQG hazardous waste at an LQG. As noted above, information collected by EPA suggests that four LQGs currently accept CESQG waste for consolidation. 111 

### These LQGs would experience two types of cost

-

111 Based on e
- mail communication with Lyn Luben and Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on December 5, 2013.4
- 10 

### savings: (1) the avoided c ost to renew their RCRA storage permit and (2) the avoided cost to secure financial assurance to address Corrective Action and post

- closure liabilities. The cost to obtain a RCRA storage permit is very high, which may explain why most LQGs do not elect to obtain one. However, for the four permitted facilities assumed to accept CESQG waste in the baseline, this is a sunk cost and would not represent a cost savings under the rule. The permit

-related cost savings for these facilities would be limited to the avoided renewal costs for the Part B permit, which expires every ten years. The cost to review the regulations and submit the Part B renewal application is an estimated $5,212 per facility, or approximately $694 on an annualized basis (using a 7 percent discount rate). 112 

### In addition, financial assurance costs for potential Corrective Action and closure/post

closure liabilities represent a significant cost for facilities with RCRA storage permits. Avoiding these costs would represent a benefit to LQGs tha t already accept hazardous waste from CESQGs operated by the same owners. This EA uses the costs of securing a third

-party financial instrument (a letter of credit) as a proxy for the burden of obtaining financial assurance. Industry sources provided a range of cost estimates for annual premiums for securing a letter of credit, ranging from 1 percent to 3 percent of Corrective Action and closure/post

- closure liabilities. 113 

### For the purposes of this analysis, EPA uses the midpoint of this range (2 percent). The Corrective Action and closure/post

- closure liabilities covered by a letter of credit or other financial instrument can vary widely. Based on the results of a survey of Corrective Action liabilities reported in EPA’s 2002 Regulatory Impact Analysis f or the Corrective Action program, EPA estimates that the median cost of Corrective Action remediation is approximately $5 million (in 2002 dollars), which is equivalent to approximately $6.2 million (in 2012 dollars). 114 

### For closure/post

- closure care, this EA applies the closure/post

- closure costs reported in Chapter 3 for LQGs that would be required to close as a landfill (approximately $604,000). Companies that secure a letter of credit also typically incur an annual administrative processing cost of approximately $967. 115 

### Combining these items, the

112 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request 1573.13 "Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits," February 2013.

113 These sources include Pen nsylvania Chemical Industry Council, “Comments on Department of Environmental Protection Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations,” September 10, 2007; Mohammad Iqbal and John Collier, ICF, Inc., “Local Government Financial Test Economic Analysis,” memorandum to George Garland, U.S. EPA, April 30, 1995; and John Quarels and Michael W. Steinberg, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, “November 29, 2005 Workshop on Financial Assurance

— Comments on Financial Test and Captive Insurance Issues,” memorandum to Leonard Robinson , California Department of Toxics Control, November 23, 2005.

114 EPA, Office of Solid Waste, A Study of the Implementation of the RCRA Corrective Action Program , April 2002. This figure is inflation
- adjusted to $2012 using the Bureau of Economic Analysis' G DP implicit price deflator.

115 The administrative cost estimate is derived from Mohammad Iqbal and John Collier, ICF, Inc., “Local Government Financial Test Economic Analysis,” memorandum to George Garland, U.S. EPA, April 30, 1995 and inflation
- adjusted to $2012 using the GDP implicit price deflator.4
- 11 

### total annual cost of securing financial assurance for Corrective Action and closure/post

closure activities is approximately $136,500 per facility. 116 

### The intra

- organization transfer provision would result in no additional costs (or benefits) for CESQGs that currently consolidate their hazardous waste, as these facilities would experience no change in their operations relative to baseline. Similar to the cost assessment for the intra

- organization transfer provision presented in Chapter 3, this assessment of benefits assumes that CESQG consolidation will be limited to CESQGs in those states that prohibit or severely restrict the disposal of hazardous waste in MSW landfills and the estimated 10 percent of CES QGs in other states that send their hazardous waste to a TSDF. 117 , 118
Aggregate Benefits of Intra
- organizational T ranfsers 

### As described in Chapter 3, between 15,626 and 22,411 CESQGs in the potentially affected universe could take advantage of the flexibility provided by this provision and an estimated 2,410 LQGs would receive this waste (in addition to the four LQGs that already accept CESQG waste for consolidation). Exhibit 4

-4 shows the derivation of the net transportation and disposal cost savings associated with intra

- organization transfers allowed under the rule as well as the cost savings for avoided RCRA storage permit renewal and financial assurance costs for LQGs that already consolidate CESQG waste. The costs (for LQGs) and cost savings (for CESQGs) are presented as annualized impacts per facility and in aggregate. From the perspective of the organizations that own these LQGs and CESQGs, the net impact is a cost savings. The waste management activity is simply transferred from CESQGs to LQGs. This EA presents this change in the location of where management costs are realized as a cost increase for LQGs and a cost savings for CESQGs for illustrative purposes. The cost savings realized by CESQGs, however, exceed the increase in costs realized by LQGs, leading to a net cost savings. All of the benefits associated with intra

- organizational transfers are realized on a recurring annual basis, with the exception of avoided RCRA storage permit renewal costs.

116 The total annual cost of securing a letter of credit is calculated as follows: $967 in administrative costs + (2% annual premium × $6. 776 million liability) = $1 36 ,5 00 per facility. The $6.776 million figure in this equation is the sum of the Corrective Action and closure/post
- closure liabilities presented in the main body text.

117 This 10 percent figure is based on the professional judgment of James O’Leary, U.S. EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, as documented in personal communication with Phuc Phan of EPA on December 5 and 6, 2013.

118 As described in Chapter 3, 90 percent of CESQGs in states that allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste as MSW are assumed to manage their hazardous waste in this manner. Because of the relatively low management costs associated with MSW disposal, this EA assumes that CESQGs employing this approach in the baseline will continue to manage their hazardous waste as MSW following implementation of the rul e.4
- 12 **EXHIBIT 4 -**  **4 :**  **ANNUALIZED UNIT AND**  **AGGREGA TE COST SA**  **VIN GS FOR INTRA**  **** **ORGANIZA TION TRANSFE**  **RS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20**  **YEARS, 7% DISCOUN T RA** **TE)**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST**

**SAVINGS PER**  **FACILITY AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED**  **COST SAVINGS**  **TOTAL ANNUALIZED**  **COST SAVINGS**  **[G=E+F] ONE**  **- TIME**  **COSTS [C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG a 2,410 (4) b $0.00 ($ 1,326 ) c $0 ($ 3 , 200 ,000) ($ 3 , 200 ,000) SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 CESQG 15,626 $0.00 $361 d $0 $ 5 , 65 0,000 $ 5 , 650 ,000 TOTAL 1 8,0 36 (4) b N/A N/A $0 $ 2 , 450 ,000 $ 2 , 450 ,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST**

**S AVINGS**  **PER FACILITY AGGREGATE**  **ANNUALIZED COST**  **SAVINGS TOTAL**  **ANNUALIZED COST**  **SAVINGS [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG e 2,410 (4) b $0.00 ($ 2,213 ) f $0 ($ 5,340 ,000) ($ 5 , 340 ,000) SQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 CESQG 22,411 $0.00 $ 439 d $0 $ 9 ,8 4 0,000 $ 9 ,8 4 0,000 TOTAL 24,82 1 (4) b N/A N/A $0 $ 4 , 49 0,000 $ 4 , 49 0,000 Notes: Positive values are a cost savings, whereas negative values in parentheses are a cost increase. All aggregate cost savings are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. a. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 6.5 CESQGs in the low impact scenario. b. In addition to facilities that may take advantage of the flexibility provided by this provision of the proposed rule, information collected by EPA indicates that 4 LQG facilities already accept CESQG waste for consolidation. These facilities may incur cost savings as detailed below. c. This is a weighted average of the following : For LQGs that do not already consolidate waste : facilities would incur an average annual disposal cost of $230 plus transportation cost s of $10 for CESQG waste that would be managed by an LQG. These costs are multiplied by 6.5 CESQGs per LQG in the low impact scenario , for an average annual cost of $ 1,556 per LQG. T his reflects a net transport costs savings of $98 per CESQG and a net disposal cost savings of $23 per CESQG (for a total cost savings of $12 1 per consolidated CESQG) for the organization as a whole
. For LQGs that already consolidate waste : facilities would experience the cost savings of (1) avoid ed RCRA Part B permit renewal costs every 10 years (a cost savings of $5,212, or $694 on an annualized basis, per facility) and (2) avoid ed cost s of securing financia l assurance for Corrective Action and closure/post
- closure activities (a total annual cost savings of $136,500 per facility). Combined, these represent $137,194 in cost savings. Averaged with the cost for LQGs that do not already consolidate the cost incre ase of $ 1,326 is estimated as ($ 1,556 × 2,410

– $137,194 × 4) ÷ 2,414. d. This cost savings represents an average annual hazardous waste disposal cost savings of $253 plus an average annual transportation cost savings of $109 for CESQG waste that would be ma naged by an LQG voluntarily under the proposed rule.4
- 13 e. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 9.3 CESQGs in the high impact scenario. f. See costs in footnote b. For LQGS that do not already consolidate waste, costs are multiplied by 9.3 CESQGs per LQG in the high impact scenario. 

### As the exhibit illustrates, the intra

- organizational transfer provision of the proposed rule yields a total cost savings of between approximately $ 2.5 and $ 4.5 million. This range of cost savings applies to both a 3 percent discount rate and a 7 percent discount rate, since the vast majority of the benefits are incurred on an annual basis.
**G ENERA** **TO RS THA** **T T**  **EMP ORARIL**  **Y C**  **HANGE G**  **ENERA TO**  **R S**  **TAT US**  **D UE T**  **O AN**  **E PISODIC**  **E VENT**  

### Under the proposed rule, EPA would allow a CESQG or SQG to retain its existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event that would otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent status. This provision would result in a cost savings for CESQGs and SQGs that avoid the cost increase associated with such a change in generator status. These costs are related to the RCRA generator requirements for training, inspections, manifests, contingency plan updating, and biennial reporting. The following sections present the costs associated with these waste management activities, and also estimate the potential cost savings realized by facilities that experience temporary episodi c events. All cost and cost savings estimates presented below reflect the hourly labor costs reported in Chapter 3. These costs are summarized in Exhibit 4

-4 and reported in aggregate on an annualized basis in Exhibit 4

- 5 below.

Tr aining 

### The RCRA training requirements for LQGs and SQGs are described earlier in this chapter in the section on drip pad and containment building requirements. No training requirements exist for CESQGs. Based on the training costs presented in Exhibit 4

- 1, the flexibility afforded episodic generators in the proposed rule would result in savings of $979 per CESQG avoiding SQG status, $2,381 ($3,360

- $979) for SQGs that avoid LQG status, and $3,360 for CESQGs that avoid becoming LQGs.
Inspections 

### LQGs and SQGs are required to conduct weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage areas . This EA assumes that a technician would take one hour to inspect all storage areas for an LQG and one hour for an SQG 119 

### , which implies a weekly inspection cost of approximately $40 per LQG or SQG. In the baseline, if an episodic generator crosses the threshold from CESQG to LQG or SQG in a given month, the facility will need to conduct inspections until the waste is removed from the site. Based on the LQG

119 LQG inspections may require more time than SQG inspections due to the higher amount of waste generated by the typical LQG. However, because this provision of the rule focuses on changes in regulatory status for facilities that generate the same amoun t of waste regardless of their status, the same inspection time is assumed for LQGs and SQGs.4
- 14 

### accumulation time limit of 90 days, this EA assumes that any episodic generator (otherwise a CESQG) that crosses the LQG threshold removes the waste 90 days after the generation event and conducts weekly inspections in the interim. For CESQGs becoming SQGs due to episodic generation, this EA assumes that inspections take place for 180 days (the SQG accumulation time limit). Based on these assumptions, CESQGs that cross the LQG threshold incur an additional $517 in inspection costs due to their episodic generation activity and CESQGs becoming SQGs as a result of episodic generation incur an additional $1,035 in inspection costs. Thus, the cost savings of the rule with respect to inspections are $518 per CESQG that avoids LQG status and $1,035 per CESQG that avoids SQG status. SQGs that become LQGs because of episodic generation realize no cost savings because SQGs are required to conduct inspections in the baseline.

Manifest T raining 

### Based on the RCRA training regulations , this EA assumes that LQGs and SQGs provide training to employees every three years on the preparation of hazardous waste manifests. 120 

### This EA assumes each facility trains one manager and one technician to complete manifests. Employees are expected to receive a four

-hour manifest training session once every three years. As part of this training, this EA assumes facilities will use EPA’s free online hazardous waste manifest video. 121 

### The cost of manifest training also includes one hour of a manager’s time to compile EPA’s hazardous waste manifest instructions and other training materials. Approximately 0.3 hours of administrative time would likely be incurred to schedule the training every three years. Based on these estimates, the cost of manifest training is approximately $ 578 per facility once every three years (an annualized cos t of $206, using a 7 percent discount rate). CESQGs that avoid SQG or LQG status due to this provision of the proposed rule would avoid this cost altogether.

Manifests 

### Under RCRA, LQGs and SQGs are required to prepare a manifest that, among other information, includes the RCRA waste codes for each hazardous waste shipment. No such requirements exist for CESQGs. This EA estimates that the cost to complete a manifest is $ 9.56 per shipment for SQGs. 122 

### This value is also assumed to apply to CESQGs and SQGs that become LQGs due to an episodic generation event. With respect to the frequency of manifesting, this EA assumes that an episodic generation event

120 Manifest training requirements are specified by RCRA Subtitle C and Department of Transportation regulations. Hazardous waste generators must comply with RCRA personnel training requirements at 40 CFR Part 265.16 (for LQGs) and 40 CFR Part 262.34 (for SQGs).

121 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Manifest System, accessed at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/transportation/manifest/index.htm on December 24, 2012.

122 Manifest costs presented in this paragraph are derived from U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 801.18 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System." January 2012.4
- 15 

### occurring in the baseline may lead a generator that is otherwise a CESQG to submit one manifest for the shipment of its non

- episodic waste. 123 

### Under the proposed rule, the facility would not need to prepare a manifest for this waste and would realize a cost savings of $9.56.
Contingency Plan Updating 

### As described earlier in the section on drip pad and containment building requirements, under existing regulations LQGs must prepare a contingency plan, coordinate with local response agencies, and update the plan as needed. This EA assumes that all facilities that would avoid LQG status under the proposed rule have previously prepared a detailed, written contingency plan for handling emergencies (when they surpassed the LQG threshold during previous episodic generation events), because such a plan is required of all LQGs

. Therefore, the cost savings for these facilities is the annual cost to review, update, and distribute the contingency plan , which is assumed to take approximately four hours of a manager’s time and one hour of administrative time. Thus, the total cost savings associated with avoiding LQG status and the associated contingency plan updating is approximately $351 per facility per year.

Biennial R eports 

### Under existing RCRA regulations, LQGs must submit biennial reports of their hazardous waste generation activity to EPA or State authorities. As described above, EPA estimates the fixed costs of preparing a biennial report to be approximately $245 per facility. Additionally, the variable cost of completing each GM f orm f or the BR submission is $19.99. As described in Chapter 3, LQGs on average are estimated to complete between 5 and 17 unique GM forms per BR reporting year, which implies an additional $100 to $340 in reporting costs per BR cycle. LQGs incur these costs every even -num bered year. In total, these costs range from $345 to $584 (or $178 to $302 on an annualized basis using a 7 percent discount rate).
Cost Savings Acr oss W aste Management Activities 

### Drawing from the cost information summarized in the previous sections, Exhibit 4

- 5 reports the per facility cost savings associated with the changes in generator status that would be avoided under the proposed rule.

123 If the facility has waste onsite that had been generated more than 180 days prior, it would need to ship this waste offsite to compl y with the accumulation time limit.4
- 16 **EXHIBIT 4 -**  **5 :**  **PER -**  **FA CILITY COST SA**  **VING S**  **ASSOCIA TED WITH**  **AV OIDING**  **A CHANGE**  **FROM A**  **LESS STRINGEN T T**  **O A**  **MORE STRINGEN T G**  **ENERA TO**  **R ST AT**  **US ($2012)**  **RCRA REQUIREMENT**  **CHANGE IN GENERATOR STATUS AVOIDED**  **FREQUENCY**

**CESQG -**  **TO -**  **SQG CESQG**  **- TO**  **- LQG**  **SQG -**  **TO -**  **LQG** Training $979 $3,360 $2,381 Annual Weekly Inspections $1,035 $518 $0 Annual Manifest Training $578 $578 $0 Every 3 Years Manifests $10 $10 $0 Annual Contingency Plan Updating $0 $351 $351 Annual Biennial Reports $0 $345 to $584 $345 to $584 Every 2 Years

Aggregate Benefits of Episodic Generation P rovisions 

### To estimate the total cost savings associated with this rule provision, this EA applies the per facility savings in Exhibit 4

- 5 to the estimated number of eligible generators. As described in Chapter 3, this EA estimates that 2,544 facilities (including both CESQGs and SQGs) move into a more stringent generator status each year. This value represents less than 1 percent of the p otentially affected universe. The number of these facilities that would be elevated to a higher generator status due to an episodic generation event that meets the rule conditions (e.g., the episodic event must occur within a single calendar month) is unc ertain. Due to this uncertainty, this EA estimates the number of facilities qualifying for this provision of the proposed rule as a range. The low end of the range assumes that 50 percent of facilities experiencing a change in generator status meet the r ule conditions (one episodic event per year that lasts no more than a month) and take advantage of this provision . The high end of the range assumes that 100 percent of affected facilities are able to take advantage of this provision. As reported in Exhibit 4

- 6 , b ased on these assumptions, EPA estimates an aggregate annual cost savings of between $ 3.8 million and $ 7.7 million for CESQGs and SQGs that could maintain their existing regulatory status in the event of an episodic generation event. This range of cost savings is similar when applying a 3 percent discount rate or a 7 percent discount rate. 124 

### The flexibility afforded episodic generators under the proposed rule would yield annualize d cost savings on a per- facility basis ranging from approximate ly $2,070 per CESQG avoiding SQG status to $ 4,730 per CESQG avoiding LQG status. This flexibility would also yield annualized cost savings of approximately $2,910 to $3,030 per SQG avoiding LQG status.

124 The discount rate has minimal impact on these benefits. With a 3 percent discount rate, the estimated range is $3.7 5 to $7. 66 million. With a 7 percent discount rate, the range is $3. 76 to $7. 68 million.4
- 17 **EXHIBIT 4 -**  **6 :**  **ANNUALIZED UNIT**  **AND AGGREGA** **TE C OST**  **SA VINGS FOR THE EPIS**  **OD IC**  **GENERA TION PROVISION**  **(ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING**  **A 7% DI**  **SCOUNT RA TE)**  **a**

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST**

**SAVINGS PER FACILITY**  **AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST**  **SAVINGS TOTAL**  **ANNUALIZED COST**  **SAVINGS [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 SQG 419 $0.00 $2,910 c $0 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 CESQG b 854 $0.00 $2,974 d $0 $2,540,000 $2,540,000 TOTAL 1,273 N/A N/A $0 $3,760,000 $3,760,000

**GENERATOR STATUS**  **[A] HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE** 

**NUMBER OF AFFECTED**  **FACILITIES LIKELY TO**  **INCUR COSTS [B]**  **ANNUALIZED COST**

**SAVINGS PER FACILITY**  **AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST**  **SAVINGS TOTAL**  **ANNUALIZED COST**  **SAVINGS [G=E+F]**  **ONE -**  **TIME COSTS**  **[C] RECURRING** 

**COSTS [D]**  **ONE -**  **TIME**

**COSTS [E=B×C]**  **RECURRING**

**COSTS [F**  **=B ×**  **D ]**  LQG 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 SQG 837 $0.00 $3,034 c $0 $2,540,000 $2,540,000 CESQG b 1,707 $0.00 $3,011 e $0 $5,140,000 $5,140,000 TOTAL 2,544 N/A N/A $0 $7,680,000 $7,680,000 Notes: a. See Exhibit 4
- 5 for unit cost details by waste management activity. b. This EA assumes that the following changes in generator status would occur but for the regulatory flexibility provided by the proposed rule: 264 CESQG
- to
- LQG and 590 CESQG
- to
- SQG changes in the low impact scenario and 527 CESQG
- to
- LQG and 1,180 CESQG
- to
- SQG changes in the high impact scenario. c. The SQG values reflect per facility costs presented above in Exhibit 4
- 5
. d. This figure is a weigh ted average that reflects a cost savings of $2,235 per CESQG that would otherwise be elevated to SQG status and $4,627 per CESQG that would otherwise be elevated to LQG status in the low impact scenario. As indicated in Chapter 3, an estimated 590 CESQGs would avoid SQG status under the low
- impact scenario and 264 CESQGs would avoid LQG status. e. This figure is a weighted average that reflects a cost savings of $2,235 for CESQGs that would otherwise be elevated to SQG status and $4,731 for CESQGs that would otherwise be elevated to LQG status in the high impact scenario. As indicated in Chapter 3, an estimated 1,180 CESQGs would avoid SQG status under the high
- impact scenario and 527 would avoid LQG status.

**NON -**  **QUANTIFIED BENEFITS** 

### In addition to the moneti zed benefits presented in the previous section, the proposed rule may yield a variety of other non

- quantifiable benefits. These benefits are summarized below for each major rule provision outlined in Chapter 1.4
- 18 **INTRA -**  **ORGANIZA TION**  **T RANSFERS OF**  **H AZARDOUS**  **W A**  **STE FROM CESQG**  **S T O**  **LQG S**  

### As outlined above, the proposed rule would permit CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions. In addition to the reduced transportation and disposal costs estimated above, allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization would contribute to more environmentally sound management of hazardous waste and reduce environmental risks associated with long

-term storage of hazardous wastes on site. These potential benefits are outlined in more detail below.

 Improved Oversight. The proposed rule would require that LQGs receiving waste from CESQGs within the same organization manage the CESQG

- generated waste in accordance with RCRA LQG requirements. Under these requirements, LQGs are subject to more rigorous management condition s (labeling, emergency planning, and containment standards) that are more protective of human health and the environment than CESQG requirements. As a result, the proposed change would improve oversight and management of hazardous waste by subjecting hazardous wastes generated by CESQGs to more rigorous management and disposal requirements. Related to these differences in requirements, the consolidation of CESQG waste at LQGs owned by the same company may lead to more protective management of hazardous waste, as LQGs typically have a better understanding of safe management practices and implement these practices on a more consistent basis.

 Reduce the Amount of Hazardous Waste Deposited in Subtitle D Landfills. 125 

### Under the proposed rule, CESQGs that dispose o f their hazardous waste in Subtitle D units (e.g., MSW landfills) in the baseline may send their waste to LQGs instead. Because LQGs receiving CESQG hazardous waste must manage this waste in a permitted Subtitle C facility, the consolidation of CESQG waste to LQGs may, in effect, lead to the diversion of CESQG hazardous waste from Subtitle D disposal to Subtitle C disposal. Such a change in the management of CESQG hazardous waste would reduce the overall quantity of hazardous waste disposed of in Subtitle D units, resulting in improved environmental quality and outcomes, particularly associated with landfill leaching.

 Reduce Risks Associated with Longer Storage Times of Hazardous Wastes at CESQG Facilities. Whereas LQGs have up to 90 days to accumulate hazardous waste without having to obtain a RCRA storage permit or comply with interim status standards, CESQGs may accumulate up to 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste (or up to 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste or up to 100 kilograms of

125 For the purposes of estimating the costs and benefits of the CESQG provision, this EA assumes that CESQGs in states that allow the disposal of CESQG waste in Subtitle D facilities will continue to manage their waste in this manner. However, to the extent that CES QGs in these states opt to consolidate to an LQG in the same organization, the benefits described here would apply.4
- 19 

### residues from the c leanup of a spill of acute hazardous waste) without any time constraint. The longer storage time of the hazardous waste on site presents a greater risk of adverse impacts to human health and the environment. Allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same organization may reduce the overall time that CESQG hazardous waste is accumulated on site, further reducing the potential risk to human health and the environment.

 Reduced Liability Risk. Organizations that opt to transfer their CESQG hazardous waste to LQGs within the organization will likely realize a reduction in liability risk. Because the transferred waste would be managed at facilities with more protective safeguards than under the baseline, the likelihood of an environmental accident would be lower, which would reduce the organization’s expected liabilities. This reduction in liabilities could lead to cost savings associated with lower legal costs and lower insurance costs.
**D OCUMENT** **AT ION OF**  **N EGA** **TIVE OR N**  **ON -**  **HAZARDOUS W**  **ASTE D**  **ETERMINA TIONS**  

### The proposed rule would require that SQGs and LQGs maintain records of all hazardous waste determinations, including determinations where a solid waste is found not to be a RCRA hazardous waste. Current regulation requires that SQGs and LQGs maintain documentation of determinations only when they determine that a material is a hazardous waste. This proposed requirement would result in benefits associated with more efficient facility inspections and more appropriate and accurate waste determinations. With respect to the former, the documentation required of SQGs and LQGs under the rule would provide facility inspectors with supporting information for negative determinations, allowing them to more easily and efficiently assess the reasonableness of potentially questionable determinations. This provision of the proposed rule may therefore result in time savings for many inspections, freeing up labor resources to allow state agencies to conduct more inspections and/or to realloc ate resources to other productive activities. The lack of documentation for negative determinations under current regulation in many cases prolongs the review of waste streams that generators determine are not hazardous. Requiring documentation for negative determinations would also provide SQGs and LQGs with an incentive to make more accurate determinations, as the documentation would make their determination processes more open to facility inspectors. These improved determination processes may reduce the volume of hazardous waste inappropriately identified and managed as non

-hazardous waste. This change in facility behavior would reduce risks to human health and the environment and may further improve the efficiency of facility inspections, as inspectors would likely identify fewer waste streams with negative determinations that are questionable.4
- 20 **SQG R**  **E -**  **NOTIFICA TION**  

### EPA’s proposal that SQGs re

-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year would improve the ability of EPA and the states to perform compliance monitoring of regulated facilities. The data available to EPA would become more accurate and up

-to
- date, allowing the Agency to observe the changes in facilities’ operations over time and therefore conduct more precise and meaningful reviews of their waste generation activity. Similarly, the information collected through re

-notification will help EPA and the states target their outreach, enforcement, and compliance assistance efforts. For example, the information collected from re

-notifications may help determine which facilities warrant greater oversight. This more targeted enforcement approach may reduce the risk of environmental damage from the mismanagement of hazardous waste. Re

-notification may also result in time savings associated with assembling data for analyses performed by the Agency and the states on a periodic basis. For example, information collected from re

-notifications may inform analyses of regulatory burdens to the regulated community and the benefits of RCRA regulations , or serve as data inputs in public reports on hazardous waste generation and management.
**M ARKING**  **AND L**  **ABELING OF C**  **ONT AINERS FOR**  **SQG S**  **AND LQG**  **S** 

### As described in Chapter 1, EPA is proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark containers with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). This change would help increase awareness of a container’s contents among the various individuals in the waste management chain, which may in turn prevent improper treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste. In addition, due to the increased awareness associated with enhanced labeling, generator employees may handle hazardous waste with greater care, potentially leading to a reduction in the number of accidental spills and other incidents that might jeopardize the health and safety of site employees and the nearby population. The more detailed information that EPA proposes for display on container labels would also enhance the ability of emergency responders to limit adverse impacts from exposure to hazardous materials. Emergency medical technicians would be abl e to treat those exposed to the hazardous waste in a manner specific to the waste, limiting exposure time, preventing lethal outcomes, and improving the time and chances of recovery. Fire fighters may be able to extinguish fires and contain spills more qui ckly by using reactive chemicals designed specifically for the waste in question. The use of these chemicals may prevent lethal outcomes and injuries among fire fighters and minimize exposure and environmental damage associated with fires, spills, and other hazardous waste incidents.4
- 21 **LQG CLOSURE CONDITIO NS**  

### With respect to facility closure, EPA is proposing that LQGs accumulating hazardous wastes in containers meet the landfill closure requirements if they cannot demonstrate that contaminated soils can be removed or decontaminated. This provision of the proposed rule would ensure that facilities are closed in a manner that reflects the additional risk associated with leaving hazardous waste (or materials containing hazardous constituents) in place at c losure. Under current regulation, LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containers may close accumulation areas with contamination in place without implementing measures to contain the waste. Relative to these baseline closure requirements, the closure requirements for landfills are much more stringent and designed to contain any contaminants left in place at closure, thereby preventing potential releases to the environment. The Agency is also proposing that LQGs notify EPA of their intention to close waste accumulation unit(s) at least 30 days prior to closure as well as notify EPA when the units have been closed. These requirements would a) provide regulatory authorities with knowledge of the location and specifics of hazardous waste sites planned for closure; b) allow the authorities to confirm that the unit is properly closed in compliance with the applicable closure regulations; and c) allow the authorities to monitor the unit during the post
- closure period, alerting regulators in cases where generators may have abandoned the site or closed it improperly, or where other complications may have developed at the site. This , in turn , will prevent releases of harmful substances to the environment and adverse impacts to human health and the environment.
**S TRENGTHENING OF THE**  **P REP**  **AREDNESS, P**  **REVENTION, AND**  **E MERGENCY**  **R ESPONSE**  **C ONDITIONS FOR**  **LQG S**  

### Building on the current preparedness requirements for LQGs, EPA is proposing that all new LQGs submit an executive summary of their contingency plans to local emergency management authorities. While LQGs are already required to provide a copy of their contingency plans to local emergency response agencies, the length of these documents may make it difficult for first responders to identify key information in the limite d time available when an emergency occurs. The contingency plan executive summaries called for in the proposed rule would allow first responders to more easily discern the layout of a facility, the location of hazardous wastes, what those wastes are, and what chemicals to use (or not use) near those wastes. To the extent that first responders are able to respond more quickly and effectively based on this information, this provision of the proposed rule may prevent lethal outcomes and injuries among fire fighters, other first responders, and facility employees, and may also reduce exposure risk for local populations and ecosystems.4
- 22 **G ENERA** **TO RS THA** **T T**  **EMPORARIL Y**  **C HANGE**  **G ENERA** **TO R**  **S TAT**  **US D**  **UE T O**  **AN E**  **PISODIC E**  **VENT** 

### As described above, EPA is proposing to allow a CESQG or an SQG to maintain its existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event in which the facility generates a quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar month that would otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent regulatory status. In addition to the cost savings associated with avoided SQG

- or LQG

- specific activities (as estimated above), this provision of the rule may result in additional cost savings associated with facilities maintaining a more consistent RCR A generator status over time. Changing status from one month to the next may impose an administrative burden on facilities as they re

-visit the requirements for different generator status categories and implement measures to ensure compliance. If facilities are able to maintain a more consistent generator status over time, they would not need to re

-visit the generator requirements as frequently or make as many changes to their internal controls to ensure compliance with RCRA.
**T RANSFER**  **F ACILITY**  **R EQUIREMENT**  **S** 

### EPA is proposing to change the marking and labeling requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators. Thus, all hazardous waste stored by these facilities must be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container’s contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic). A s discussed in the marking and labeling section above, including this information on the container would alert facility workers of the container’s contents and its potential hazards, which may help prevent the improper treatment of this material. Displaying this information on the containers may also help first responders limit exposure to local populations and ecosystems in the event of a fire or other emergency.
**B IENNIAL**  **R EPOR**  **TING R**  **EQUIREMENTS** 

### As described in Chapter 1, EPA is proposing two substantive changes to the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs under the rule. First, the Agency is proposing that LQGs report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting year, not just waste for the month(s) during which they were LQG s. Second, EPA is proposing that LQGs report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless of whether the waste was transported off

- site during the reporting year. Both of these changes would make the BR more complete and consistent, allowing the Agency and the states to base their policy, programmatic, and enforcement decisions on more reliable hazardous waste generation and management data.
**P ROHIBITIONS ON**  **S TO**  **RAGE OF R**  **ESTRICTED W**  **ASTE** 

### EPA is also proposing to require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land disposal be marked with (1) the words “Hazardous Waste”, (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers, and (3) an indication of the hazards of a4
- 23 

### container’s contents. As described above, including this information on containers may help prevent the improper treatment or transportation of hazardous waste, and may also help first responders limit exposures to hazardous waste in the unlikely event of a fire or other emergency.
**S PECIAL**  **R EQUIREMENTS FOR**  **I GNIT** **ABLE AND**  **R EACTIVE**  **W ASTES**  **(VOLUNT AR** **Y)** 

### The proposed rule would also include flexibility for LQGs to apply for a waiver from the hazardous waste accumulation property line requirement. Under this requirement, containers holding ignitable or reactive waste must be located at least 15 meters (50 feet) from a facility's property line. In some settings, however, particularly in urban environments, LQGs may experience difficulty in meeting this requirement. For example, meeting this requirement may not be possible if the width of a facility is 100 feet or less or if a facility’s operations have expanded such that it no longer has the ability to accumulate ignitable or reactive waste at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the facility’s property line. With a waiver from this requirement, LQGs would avoid a variety of costs associated with the 50

- foot limit. For example, some LQGs would avoid the costs of relocation or purchasing additional property to meet the 50

- foot requirement. In addition, faciliti es that would otherwise reconfigure their layout to meet the 50

- foot requirement may be able to structure their operations to streamline the process flow at the facility, rather than structure their operations based on the required location of ignitable or reactive waste. This more optimal facility structure would likely result in operational cost savings for affected facilities and would provide greater flexibility for meeting other requirements (e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations). The option of obtaining a waiver may also allow some businesses to operate in geographic areas where they are unable to operate under current regulation.5
- 1 

### CHAPTER **5 |**  **SUMMAR Y**  **OF REGULA TO**  **R Y**  **BENEFITS AND**  **COSTS**

This chapter compares the costs and benefits of the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule as estimated in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EA. Specifically, this chapter calculates the net benefits of the proposed rule (i.e., benefits minus costs). From an economic perspective, the proposed rule would enhance economic efficiency if benefits (cost savings) exceed costs. Focusing solely on these or other benefit

- cost metrics provides an incomplete view of the effects of the proposed rule, however, because many positive impacts of the rule cannot feasibly be monetized, such as improvements in emergency response associated with the rule’s enhanced marking and labeling requirements. Exhibits 5

- 1 and 5

- 2 report the net benefits of the proposed rule using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The exhibits present net benefits separately for the mandatory and voluntary provisions of the rule and also examine net benefits for the mandatory and voluntary provisions combined. As indicated in both exhibits, benefits were not monetized for many of the rule’s provisions because sufficient data were not available. Net benefits for these provisions are therefore presented as negative. These negative values, however, do not reflect the benefits presente d in Chapter 4 that EPA was unable to monetize. In excluding these benefits, the negative values in the exhibits underestimate the net benefits associated with the rule’s mandatory provisions. For the voluntary provisions of the rule, this EA estimates po sitive net benefits (cost savings) ranging from $ 5.4 to $6.7 million per year based on discount rates of both 3 and 7 percent. 126 

### For both the low impact and high impact scenarios, the positive net benefits for these provisions reflect , in part, the net benefits associated with episodic generation. As discussed in Chapter 4, organizations that opt into the episodic generation provision are expected to experience cost savings associated with reduced transportation and hazardous waste disposal costs. The net benefits of this provision are also expected to be much higher under the high impact scenario than the low impact scenario. This difference reflects the assumption in this EA (stated in Chapter 4) that 50 percent of episodic generators would meet the rule conditions for taking advantage of this provision (i.e., no more than one episodic event per year, which lasts no more than one calendar month) under the low impact scenario while all episodic generators are assumed to meet these conditions under the high impact scenario.

126 This EA was not able to monetize the benefits associated with the voluntary provision related to waivers for ignitable and reactive wastes
.5
- 2

**EXHIBIT 5 -**  **1. NET BENEFIT**  **S OF THE PROPOSED RU LE (3% DISCOUNT RATE**  **)**

**REQUIREMENT LOW**  **- END SCENARIO**  **HIGH END SCENARIO ANNUALIZED**  **COSTS ANNUALIZED** 

**BENEFITS NET**  **BENEFITS ANNUALIZED**  **COSTS ANNUALIZED** 

**BENEFITS NET BENEFITS**  **MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE**  Negative Determinations $386,000

Not monetized
-- $1,130,000

Not monetized
-- Re
- notification $748,000 $960,000 Labeling $3,160,000 $6,270,000 Closure $28,800 $1,340,000 Emergency Response Preparedness $416,000 $807,000 Transfer Facility $192,000 $549,000 BR Requirements $294,000 $931,000 Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $34,800 $34,800 $0 $35,200 $35,200 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,220,000**  **$34,800 ($5,190,000)**  **$1 2**  **, 00**  **0,000 $35,200**  **($1 2**  **, 000**  **,000) VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Intra
- organizational Transfers $562,000 $2,450,000 $1,880,000 $4,280,000 $4,490,000 $212,000 Episodic Generation $208,000 $3,750,000 $3,540,000 $1,070,000 $7,660,000 $6,600,000 Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 Not monetized ( $50 ) $88,000 Not monetized ($88,000) **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions**  **$771,000 $6,200,000**  **$5,430,000 $5,440,000**  **$12, 20**  **0,000 $6,720,000**  **MANDATORY AND VOLUNT ARY PROVISIONS OF TH** **E PROPOSED RULE COMB INED**  **TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary Provisions Combined**  **$5,990,000 $6,230,000**  **$240,000 $17,4**  **0 0,000**  **$12, 20**  **0,000 ($5,230,000)**  Notes: All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.5
- 3

**EXHIBIT 5 -**  **2 . NET**  **BENEFIT S OF THE PROPOSED RU**  **LE ( 7**  **% DISCOUNT RATE)**

**REQUIREMENT LOW**  **- END SCENARIO**  **HIGH END SCENARIO**  **ANNUALIZED COSTS**  **ANNUALIZED**

**BENEFITS NET BENEFITS**  **ANNUALIZED COSTS**  **ANNUALIZED**

**BENEFITS NET BENEFITS**  **MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE**  Negative Determinations $403,000

Not monetized
-- $1,130,000

Not monetized
-- Re
- notification $762,000 $960,000 Labeling $3,370,000 $6,270,000 Closure $28,800 $1,340,000 Emergency Response Preparedness $420,000 $807,000 Transfer Facility $192,000 $549,000 BR Requirements $299,000 $931,000 Prohibitions on Storage $0 $0 Drip Pads and Containment Buildings $0 $34,800 $34,800 $0 $35, 3 00 $35, 3 00 **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions $5,480,000**  **$34,800 ($5,440,000)**  **$11,9 0**  **0,000 $35,**  **3 00**  **($11,900,000) VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS**  **OF THE PROPOSED RULE** Intra
- organizational Transfers $584,000 $2,450,000 $1,880,000 $4,320,000 $4,490,000 $173,000 Episodic Generation $208,000 $3,760,000 $3,540,000 $1,070,000 $7,680,000 $6,610,000 Ignitable and Reactive Waste $50 Not monetized ( $50 ) $95,700 Not monetized ($95,700) **SUB -**  **TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions $793,000**  **$6,200,000 $5,410,000**  **$5,490,000 $12,**  **20 0,000**  **$6,690,000 MANDATORY AND VOLUNT**  **ARY PROVISIONS OF TH E PROPOSED RULE COMB**  **INED TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary**  **Provisions Combined $6,270,000**  **$6,240,000 ($28,000)**  **$17,4 0**  **0,000 $12,2**  **0 0,000**  **($5,210,000)** Notes: All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.5
- 4 

### In addition, the values in Exhibits 5

- 1 and 5

- 2 show that the estimated net benefits of the voluntary intra

- organizational transfer provision are positive. While there is a transfer of costs from CESQGs to LQGs, the net benefits of the provision are positive for the organization as a whole. Furthermore, because not all benefits associated with CESQG consolidation can be monetized in this EA, EPA estimates that the actual benefits are even larger. Therefore, EPA expects that eligible organizations are likely to take advantage of this provision. As described in Chapter 4, these qualitative benefits include reduced liability risk for organizations that opt to consolidate waste because the transferred waste would be managed at facilities with more protective safeguards. In additional, this voluntary provision would provide the following social welfare benefits: 1) Improved oversight by subjecting hazardous wastes generated by CESQGs to more rigorous management and disposal requirements in accordance with RCRA LQG requirements; 2) Reducing the amount of hazardous waste deposited in Subtitle D landfills; 127 

### and 3) Reduced risks associated with longer storage times of hazardous waste at CESQG facilities in accordance with the 90 day storage limit for LQGs, lowering the potential risk to human health and the environment

.

127 For the purposes of estimating the costs and benefits of the CESQG provision, this EA assumes that most CESQGs in states that allow the disposal of CESQG waste in Subtitle D facilities will continue to manage their waste in this manner. However, to the extent that CESQGs in these states opt to consolidate to an LQG in the same organization, more hazardous waste would be managed in permitted Subtitle C facilities, resulting in improved environmental quality and outcomes, particularly associated with l andfill leaching.6
- 1 

### CHAPTER 6 | EQUITY **CONSIDERA TIONS**  **AND O THER IMP**  **ACTS**

As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this chapter summarizes EPA’s analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. This chapter assesses potential impacts, with respect to the following issues:

 

### Regulatory planning and review : requires examination and quantification of costs and benefits of regulating with and without the proposed rule;

 

### Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the proposed rule on small entities;

 

### Employment **i mpact**  **s :**  assesses the potential impact of the proposed rule on employment;

 

### Unfunded mandates: examines the implic ations of the proposed rule with respect to unfunded mandates;

 

### Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty;

 

### Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to include impacts on Native American tribal gover nments and their communities;

 

### Environmental justice: considers potential issues for minority and low

- income populations ;

 

### Children's health protection: examines the potential impact of the proposed rule on the health of children;

 

### Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the proposed rule on energy use, supply, and distribution; and

 

### Joint impacts of rules: considers the combined effect of the proposed rule with other regulations affecting the healthcare sector.

**REGULA TO**  **RY PLANNING**  **AND REVIEW** 

### Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], as amended by Executive Order 13563 , the Agency, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. EO 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:6
- 2 

### (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise nove l legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of EO 12866 , as affirmed in EO 13563 , the Agency has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. Findings for the EA indicate that the rule, as proposed, is projected to result in aggregate annual ized costs of approximately $ 5.5 to $ 11.9 million for the mandatory provisions of the rule, and $6.3 to $17.4 million when fac toring in the voluntary provisions, using a discount rate of 7 percent. This full range is below the $100 million threshold established under part 3(f)(1) of the Order. The proposed rule is therefore not considered to be an economically significant action. In addition to calling for assessment of regulatory costs, the Executive Order also requires Federal agencies to assess benefits and, “recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” 128 

### As described in Chapter 4 of this Assessment , monetization of all the rule’s benefits was not possible given limitations in the available data. This Assessment , however, e stimates that the proposed rule would lead to $ 6.2 to $ 12.2 million in quantifiable benefits per year under the voluntary CESQG consolidation and episodic generator provisions. In addition, requirements related to labeling/marking, documentation of negative hazardous waste determinations, LQG closure, and other rule provisions would help ensure that hazardous waste is managed in such a way as to minimize risks to human health and the environment.

**REGULA TO**  **RY FLEXIBILI**  **TY** 

### The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency certifies that the rule will not

128 See Section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866.6
- 3 

### have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, s mall organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Based on EPA’s RFA/SBREFA analytic guidance, a rule is not expected to result in a significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities if the costs of the regulation for a facility are less than 1 percent of annual revenues. 129 

### Ideally, assessment of the rule’s small entity impacts would identify specific entities affected by the rule as small and assess impacts for these entities. As described in previous chapters of this Assessment , however, detailed data necessary for the assessment of regulatory impacts for individual facilities are not readily available. In the absence of such information, this Assessment uses the average cost impacts by generator status in conjunction with revenue and employment data from the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 Census of Agriculture for industries affected by the rule to gauge potential small entity impacts. The steps in this process are as follows: 1) **Identify most heavily represented ind**  **ustries among small entit**  **ies .**  To identify the most common industries among small entities affected by the rule, EPA consulted data from two surveys conducted in 1985, a National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Survey and a Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D Establishments, in addition to several state and local studies of CESQGs. 130 

### Although some of these data are more than 25 years old, they represent the most comprehensive data available on SQGs and CESQGs. EPA used this information to identify indu stries with the largest number of hazardous waste generators in the SQG and CESQG universe. This list broadly includes the following industry groups: (a) pesticide end

-users and application services; (b) industrial chemical manufacturers; (c) wood preservation; (d) pharmaceutical and other chemical and chemical product manufacturers; (e) dry cleaners and industrial launderers; (f) funeral services and crematories; (g) photography; (h) textile manufacturing; (i) vehicle maintenance; (j) metal manufacturing; (k) construction; (l) printing; (m) professional cleaning services; (n) hospitals; and (o) wholesale paints and chemicals. For this analysis, EPA assumes that LQGs are not owned by small entities. 2) **Estimate percentage of facilities**  **that are small, by indu stry.**  To assess the prevalence of small entities within the industries identified in Step 1, EPA relied on NAICS

- level data from the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 Census of Agriculture and calculated the percentage of facilities, by NAICS code, owned by facilities below the Small Business Administration (SBA) small size standard

129 U.S. EPA, Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, November 2006.

130 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey, February 1984; U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of the CESQG Rulemaking, June 1996; U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Generation and Managemen t of CESQG Waste, July 1994.6
- 4 

### threshold (see Exhibit 6

- 1). SBA’s small size standards vary by industry and may be based on either a firm ’s annual revenues or number of employees. The 2007 Economic Census reports the number of firms and number of establishment s by revenue

-based or employee

-based categories (e.g., establishments with 50 to 99 employees). In those cases where one of the categories is below the SBA threshold, all entities within that category are considered small. Similarly, entities in categories above the SBA threshold are not considered small. For some NAICS codes, the SBA small size threshold is between the category boundaries used by the Economic Census. In these cases, entities within each category are assumed to be evenly distributed between small firms and large firms. Ideally, this analysis would apply the industry

- specific percentages estimated in this step to the SQGs and CESQGs in the affected universe to derive estimates of the number of small entities in the universe. Performing this calculation, however, is not possible because the SQGs and CESQGs in the regulated universe are not broken out by industry. 131 

### Therefore, Exhibit 6

- 1 reports the percentage of facilities in the industries identified in Step 1 that are small according to the SBA thresholds. With the exception of five industries, more than 60 percent of facilities in each NAICS code are considered to be small. 132 

### 3) **Estimate average annual revenues of affected small enti ties.**  EPA also used the Economic Census and Census of Agriculture data to calculate the average annual revenue per small entity in the industries identified in Step 1 by dividing the total revenues of entities meeting the SBA definition by the total number of establishments owned by those entities within each industry. Exhibit 6

- 1 reports the small business size standard for each NAICS code, the percentage of facilities that are considered to be small, and the average annual revenues per small facility. 4) **E stimate regulatory costs per small entity.**  The average incremental costs of the rule per small entity are estimated based on the cost analysis presented in Chapter 3 . As an upper bound, this regulatory flexibility analysis reports the total per facility costs for SQGs and CESQGs, excluding the voluntary provisions of the rule, for a hypothetical small facility that incurs costs under every provision of the rule. In practice, however, many small entities will incur costs associated with only a subset of the rule provisions. For example, between 25,500 and

131 The data sources in Step 1 provide an estimate of the number of SQG and CESQG facilities broken out by industry group; however, these data are more than 25 years old and there have been significant changes in the composition of industry groups as well as the number of establishments in each industry. While these data are helpful for identifying the industries most heavily represented among SQGs and CESQGs, these data would be less reliable for developing precise counts of the current number of SQGs and CESQGs by industry.

132 These five industries include: hospitals; truck leasing; passenger car rental; industrial launderers; and general freight trucking.6
- 5 

### 33,800 small facilities (of a total of 338,700 to 529,100 SQGs and CESQGs) 133 

### are anticipated to be impacted by the negative hazardous waste determination requirement on an annual basis. Based on this approach, EPA estimates an upper bound annualized cost of $131 to $298 per facility (excluding the rule’s voluntary provisions) for small facilities (SQGs and CESQGs) , excluding transfer facilities, affected by each mandatory provision of the rule using a 7 percent discount rate. Since there are only a small number of CESQG and SQG transfer facilities in the regulated universe and the ir NAICS codes are known, this EA pre sents a separate cost range for transfer facilities and compares this range against the average annual revenues for these establishments. For small transfer facilities, the upper bound annualized cost is $720 to $1,988 per facility. For small facilities not affected by every provision of the rule, these estimates overstate the potential cost impacts. In addition, many SQGs and CESQGs that take advantage of the voluntary provisions of the rule are anticipated to experience a net cost savings relative to the baseline. These provisions are excluded from this regulatory flexibility analysis. **EXHIBIT 6 -**  **1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRES**  **ENTED AMONG SMALL EN TITIES AFFECTED BY T**  **HE PROPOSED RULE** 

**NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCR**  **IPTION SBA SMALL SIZE STAND**  **ARD 1**  **PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES**  **THAT ARE SMALL**  **2 AVERAGE REVENUE** 

**PER SMALL FACILITY**  **2 ($2012, MILLIONS)**  **REVENUE (MILLIONS OF**  **DOLLARS) NUMBER OF** 

**EMPLOYEES** 115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and

Cultivating $7.0 99. 9 % $0.1 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 500 100.0% $154.2 236 Construction of Buildings $33.5 97.4% $2.5 237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction $33.5 93.8% $4.7 313110 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 500 97.6% $19.4 313210 Broadwoven Fabric Mills 1,000 99.6% $13.7 313220 Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli

Machine Embroidery 500 100.0% $3.3 313230 Nonwoven Fabric Mills 500 98.4% $20.0 313240 Knit Fabric Mills 500 99.2% $6.3 313310 Textile and Fabric Finishing

Mills 1,000 100.0% $5.6 313320 Fabric Coating Mills 1,000 100.0% $13.2 314110 Carpet and Rug Mills 500 93.4% $23.9 314120 Curtain and Linen Mills 500 99.9% $2.2

133 As noted above, this Assessment assumes that small entities affected by the rule include SQGs and CESQGs only.6
- 6 **EXHIBIT 6 -**  **1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRES**  **ENTED AMONG SMALL EN TITIES AFFECTED BY T**  **HE PROPOSED RULE** 

**NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCR**  **IPTION SBA SMALL SIZE STAND**  **ARD 1**  **PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES**  **THAT ARE SMALL**  **2 AVERAGE REVENUE** 

**PER SMALL FACILITY**  **2 ($2012, MILLIONS)**  **REVENUE (MILLIONS OF**  **DOLLARS) NUMBER OF** 

**EMPLOYEES** 314910 Textile Bag and Canvas Mills 500 99.9% $1.7 314994 Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire

Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills 1,000 100.0% $23.7

314999 All Other Miscellaneous Textile

Product Mills 500 99.8% $1.8 321114 Wood Preservation 500 100.0% $12.3 322110 Pulp Mills 750 86.0% $120.9 322121 Paper (except Newsprint) Mills 750 73.0% $121.3 322122 Newsprint Mills 750 100.0% $68.6 322130 Paperboard Mills 750 85.6% $123.8 323111 Commercial Printing (except

Screen and Books) 500 96.4% $8.7 323113 Commercial Screen Printing 500 99.9% $1.7 323117 Books Printing 500 98.2% $6.8 325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $1,498.4 325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing 1,000 $15.3 325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment

Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $30.9

32518 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1,000 99.4% $34.5 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $74.7 325199 All Other Basic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing 1,000 99.1% $102.8

325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural

Chemical Manufacturing 500 99.6% $37.8

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation

Manufacturing 750 95.1% $65.8 325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing 500 99.6% $10.4 326211 Tire Manufacturing (except

Retreading) 1,000 84.7% $41.0 326212 Tire Retreading 500 100.0% $3.4 326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and

Belting Manufacturing 500 98.1% $13.7

326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing

for Mechanical Use 500 99.0% $13.66
- 7 **EXHIBIT 6 -**  **1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRES**  **ENTED AMONG SMALL EN TITIES AFFECTED BY T**  **HE PROPOSED RULE** 

**NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCR**  **IPTION SBA SMALL SIZE STAND**  **ARD 1**  **PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES**  **THAT ARE SMALL**  **2 AVERAGE REVENUE** 

**PER SMALL FACILITY**  **2 ($2012, MILLIONS)**  **REVENUE (MILLIONS OF**  **DOLLARS) NUMBER OF** 

**EMPLOYEES** 326299 All Other Rubber Product

Manufacturing 500 99.5% $9.4

327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and

Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 750 99.3% $1.8

327120 Clay Building Material and

Refractories Manufacturing 750 99.6% $9.5 327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $68.3 327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass

and Glassware Manufacturing 750 97.2% $7.3 327213 Glass Container Manufacturing 750 97.7% $78.9 327215 Glass Product Manufacturing

Made of Purchased Glass 500 99.5% $6.5 327310 Cement Manufacturing 750 100.0% $38.2 327320 Ready
- Mix Concrete

Manufacturing 500 99.9% $6.1
327331 Concrete Block and Brick

Manufacturing 500 99.9% $7.2 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 500 100.0% $9.0 327390 Other Concrete Product

Manufacturing 500 99.9% $5.5 327410 Lime Manufacturing 500 98.8% $21.9 327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing 1,000 100.0% $20.5 327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing 500 99.1% $13.2 327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product

Manufacturing 500 100.0% $2.0

327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and

Earth Manufacturing 500 99.6% $9.7 327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing 750 99.0% $19.5
327999 All Other Miscellaneous

Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 500 100.0% $7.2

331110 Iron and Steel Mills and

Ferroalloy Manufacturing 1,000 92.7% $172.9

424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies

Merchant Wholesalers 100 66.9% $4.0
483211 Inland Water Freight

Transportation 500 92.3% $10.36
- 8 **EXHIBIT 6 -**  **1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRES**  **ENTED AMONG SMALL EN TITIES AFFECTED BY T**  **HE PROPOSED RULE** 

**NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCR**  **IPTION SBA SMALL SIZE STAND**  **ARD 1**  **PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES**  **THAT ARE SMALL**  **2 AVERAGE REVENUE** 

**PER SMALL FACILITY**  **2 ($2012, MILLIONS)**  **REVENUE (MILLIONS OF**  **DOLLARS) NUMBER OF** 

**EMPLOYEES** 484110 General Freight Trucking, Local $25.5 99.5% $1.0 484121 General Freight Trucking,

Long
- Distance, Truckload $25.5 89.6% $1.8

484122 General Freight Trucking,

Long
- Distance, Less Than Truckload $25.5 39.6% $1.6

484210 Used Household and Office

Goods Moving $25.5 95.7% $1.0

484220 Specialized Freight (except

Used Goods) Trucking, Local $25.5 98.1% $1.1

484230 Specialized Freight (except

Used Goods) Trucking, Long
- Distance $25.5 77.6% $2.0
532111 Passenger Car Rental $35.5 35.4% $0.7 532112 Passenger Car Leasing $35.5 94.8% $1.3

532120 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV

(Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing $35.5 35.2% $1.6

541921 Photography Studios, Portrait $7.0 61.5% $0.3 541922 Commercial Photography $7.0 98.7% $0.5 561710 Exterminating and Pest Control

Services $10.0 84.7% $0.5 561720 Janitorial Services $16.5 95.6% $0.5 561730 Landscaping Services $7.0 96.9% $0.6 561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning

Services $5.0 97.6% $0.3

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment

and Disposal $38.5 57.4% $3. 8 622 Hospitals $34.5 24.9% $16.1 712130 Zoos and Botanical Gardens $25.5 99.3% $0.7 713910 Golf Courses and Country Clubs $14.0 90.1% $1.3 811111 General Automotive Repair $7.0 97.2% $0.5 811112 Automotive Exhaust System

Repair $7.0 97.6% $0.4 811113 Automotive Transmission Repair $7.0 99.4% $0.5
811118 Other Automotive Mechanical

and Electrical Repair and Maintenance $7.0 93.0% $0.56
- 9 **EXHIBIT 6 -**  **1. CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRES**  **ENTED AMONG SMALL EN TITIES AFFECTED BY T**  **HE PROPOSED RULE** 

**NAICS NAICS INDUSTRY DESCR**  **IPTION SBA SMALL SIZE STAND**  **ARD 1**  **PERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES**  **THAT ARE SMALL**  **2 AVERAGE REVENUE** 

**PER SMALL FACILITY**  **2 ($2012, MILLIONS)**  **REVENUE (MILLIONS OF**  **DOLLARS) NUMBER OF** 

**EMPLOYEES** 811121 Automotive Body, Paint and

Interior Repair and Maintenance $7.0 96.6% $0.8

811191 Automotive Oil Change and

Lubrication Shops $7.0 66.5% $0.6

811198 All Other Automotive Repair

and Maintenance $7.0 88.7% $0.4
812210 Funeral Homes and Funeral

Services $7.0 84.6% $0.8 812220 Cemeteries and Crematories $19.0 81.1% $0.4 812310 Coin
- Operated Laundries and

Drycleaners $7.0 96.1% $0.2

812320 Dry
- cleaning and Laundry

Services (except Coin
- Operated) $5.0 94.5% $0.3 812331 Linen Supply $30.0 62.8% $2.9 812332 Industrial Launderers $35.5 37.5% $2.5 812921 Photofinishing Laboratories

(except One
- Hour) $19.0 94.2% $0.5 812922 One
- Hour Photofinishing $14.0 100.0% $0.1 Notes: 1. U. S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, effective July 22, 2013, accessed at http://www.sba.gov/content/table
- small
business
- size
- standards
. 2. Based on analysis of data compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 Economic Census (accessed at http://www.census.gov/econ/census07 ) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture (accessed at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php ).



### As Exhibit 6

- 1 shows, the average annual revenues of small entities in the affe cted universe range from approximately $129,000 (for soil preparation, planting, and cultivating) to over $1 billion (for petrochemical manufacturing). As described in Step 4, above, the average annualized costs of the rule are estimated to be between $13 1 and $298 on a per facility basis for SQGs and CESQGs , excluding transfer facilities (using a 7 percent discount rate). 134 

### Therefore, at most, the costs of the proposed rule represent

134 On a per facility basis, the average incremental cost of the proposed rule is between $ 41 and $ 155 for CESQGs, between $ 131 and $ 298 for SQGs, and between $212 and $3,333 for LQGs (using a 7 percent discount rate). These values assume that a CESQG, SQG, or LQG will incur the costs of all the rule provisions affecting their generator category. In practice, each rule provision will affect only subset of CESQGs, SQGs, and/or LQGs. The cost ranges presented here ther efore represent upper bounds that may overstate costs for many individual facilities. For any LQGs that might be owned by small6
- 10 

### between 0.10 and 0.23 percent of annual revenues for CESQGs and SQGs. F or CESQG and SQG transfer facilities, the average annualized costs of the rule are estimated to be between $720 and $1,988 (using a 7 percent discount rate) compared with average annual revenues of approximately $3. 8 million for a small business

. 135 

### Therefore, at most, the costs of the proposed rule represent less than 0.1 percent of annual revenues for CESQG and SQG transfer facilities. Since the incremental impact to the smallest facilities in terms of revenue is less than 1 percent of average annual revenues, the proposed rule is not expected to have a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities. As shown in the presentation of year

-by

-year costs in Chapter 3, the costs of the proposed rule are estimated to be higher in the first year than in later years. These relatively high costs in the first year reflect the one

-time costs associated with the rule’s marking/ labeling requirements and the costs of documenting non

-hazardous waste determinations for existing wastes. To assess whether these higher costs for the first year represent a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities that year, upper bound costs similar to those presented above for annualized costs were developed for costs incurred in the fir st year of the rule. For a hypothetical small entity (SQG or CESQG) that incurs the first

-year costs of all of the rule’s mandatory provisions, the costs of the rule range from $ 211 to $ 507 . This range represents 0.16 to 0.39 percent of annual revenues p er facility for the industry with the lowest per- facility revenue s in Exhibit 6

- 1, further suggesting that the rule would not lead to a significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities

. 136

**EMPLOYMENT IMP ACT**  **AN AL**  **YSIS** 

### Executive Order 13 563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821; January 18, 2011) requires Federal agencies to consider the employment impacts of

entities , the $212 to $3,333 range represents between 0.16 and 2.58 percent of annual revenues for a small facility. However, the bulk of these costs are attributable to the cost of closure as a landfill. As described in Chapter 3, three or fewer LQGs are anticipated to close as a landfill each year. Excluding closure costs for LQGs, the costs of the proposed rule represent betwe en 0.16 and 0.18 percent of annual revenues (or $212 to $237 per LQG). Therefore, even if LQG costs are used in place of costs for SQGs and CESQGs, the rule does not result in a significant impact for a substantial number of small entities.

135 Transfer fa cilities generally self
- report in biennial reports submitted to EPA using NAICS code 562211 (Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal).

136 For a hypothetical LQG that incurs the costs of all of the rule’s provisions, the costs of the rule during the first ye ar range from $860 to $4,090 (using a 7 percent discount rate). However, the bulk of these costs are attributable to the cost of closure as a landfill. As described in Chapter 3 and in a previous footnote, three or fewer LQGs are anticipated to close as a landfill each year. Excluding closure costs for LQGs, the costs of the rule for an LQG affected by all of the other rule provisions represent between 0.67 and 0.77 percent (or $860 to $994 ) of annual revenues in the first year of the rule for the agricult ural sector and photofinishing establishments (the two industries in Exhibit 6
- 1 with the lowest revenue per facility). For all other industries, the percentage is below this range. Therefore, even if LQG costs are used in place of costs for SQGs and CES QGs, these data suggest that the rule would not result in a significant impact for a substantial number of small entities.6
- 11 

### regulatory policy. Specifically, Executive Order 13563 states, “Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” Consistent with the requirements of the Executive Order, this Assessment considers the employment impacts of the proposed rule. Ideally, this Assessment would include a quantitative assessment of these impacts, but insufficient data are available to quantify changes in employment associated with the rule. This Assessment therefore presents a qualitative assessment of the rule’s potential employment impacts. In general, an environmental regulation can be understood as an increase in demand for a particular output: environmental quality. Meeting this new demand can result in increased demand for the various factors of production (including labor) available to the economy. However, the regulated sector generally relies on revenues generated by their other market outputs to cover the costs of supplying increased environmental quality. This can lead to reduced demand for labor and other factors of production used to produce the market output. Thus, as described in Morgenstern, Pizer , and Shih (2002), the net effect of an environmental regulation on employment in regulated sectors and the overall economy is indeterminate. 137 

### The costs imposed on directly regulated sectors may raise production costs and put some specific jobs at risk, while at the same time environmental regulation may create jobs in the regulated sector or other sectors, such as the environmental protection sector. Bec ause the costs of this rule are relatively low, both in aggregate and on a per

- facility basis, EPA believes it is unlikely that it would result in significant employment impacts

.
**UNFUNDED MANDA TES**  **AN AL**  **YSIS** 

### Among its other purposes and federal agency rulemaking requirements, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whet her any proposed rulemaking may result in

“ any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.” Section 202 of UMRA requires fe deral agencies that propose rules that are likely to exceed this expenditure threshold to prepare a “Written Statement” containing the following five components, supply the statement to OMB, and summarize it in the Federal Register: 1. Identification of the applicable authorizing federal law; 2. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the rule including the costs and benefits to state, local, and tribal governments or

137 Source: Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer, and Jhih
- Shyang Shih. (2002) “Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry
Level Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 412
- 436.6
- 12 

### the private sector, and an analysis of whether federal resources may be available to pay these costs; 3. Estimates of future compliance costs and any disproportionate budgetary effects; 4. Estimates of effects on the national economy such as productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation, international competitiveness; and 5. Description and summary of agency’s prior consultation with elected representatives of the affected state, local and tribal governments. The total annual ized cost of the proposed rule , including the voluntary provisions, is estimated to be $ 6.3 to $ 17.4 million (using a 7 percent discount rate) , but declines to $ 5.5 to $11.9 million when excluding the voluntary provision s . Determining the private sector and state/local/tribal government shares of these costs requires inf ormation on the extent to which regulated facilities are owned by these two groups. Based on EPA’s 2011 BR database, approximately 6.7 percent of LQGs, or 961 facilities, are owned by state/local/tribal governments and the private sector accounts for approximately 89.0 percent of LQGs or 12,697 facilities. Facility

- level data are not widely available for SQGs and CESQGs. However, using limited data from the BR combined with facility

level data from the State of Washington (which this EA assumes to be representative of the U.S. as a whole), 138 

### EPA estimates that 14.2 percent of SQGs and CESQGs are owned by state/local/tribal governments and 82.6 percent are privately

- owned. Applying these percentages to the estimated cost of the proposed rule, including the voluntary provisions of the rule, suggests that the annualized cost to state/local/tribal governments is between $ 0.7 and $ 2.0 million and the annualized cost to the private sector is between $ 5.3 and $ 14. 8 million (using a 7 percent discount rate). Excluding the voluntary provisions of the rule, the annualized cost to state/local/tribal governments is between $ 0.6 and $ 1.4 million and the annualized cost to the private sector is between $ 4.6 and $10.1 million (using a 7 percent discount rate). Therefore , b ased on the magnitude of the rule’s estimated cost impacts, EPA expects that the rule would not result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million for the private sector or state, local, and tribal governments , separately or in aggregate.

**FEDERALISM A**  **NAL YSIS**  

### The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 furthers the policies of UMRA by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state and local government consultation process for the development of federal regulations with implications for federalism. These include regulations and other federal policies and actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

138 Data provided by Jean Newman of the Washington Department of Ecology on November 8, 2012.6
- 13 

### Pursuant to the consultation process of Executive Order 13132, this section evaluates whether the proposed rule may “impose substantial direct compliance costs” on state and local governments. EPA’s 2008 guidance for compliance with Executive Order 13132 describes two numerical methods for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications with respect to “substantial direct compliance costs”: 139 

### 1. **The $25 million test**. Annualized dire ct compliance cost expenditures to state and local governments in aggregate of $25 million or more. 2. **The 1 percent test.** Annualized direct compliance costs faced by state and local governments are likely to equal or exceed 1percent of their annual revenues. As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, the annualized cost of the proposed rule to state and local governments is estimated to be between $ 0.7 and $ 2.0 million, including the voluntary provisions of the rule, and between $ 0.6 and $ 1.4 million, excluding the voluntary provisions (using a 7 percent discount rate). Thus, the estimated costs incurred by facilities owned by state and local governments are not expected to exceed the $25 million threshold. This suggests that the proposed rule would not result in substanti al direct compliance costs, as defined in the EPA guidance, for facilities owned by state and local governments. EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would affect the relationship between the federal government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, however, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.

**TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS**  **A NAL**  **YSIS** 

### EO 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” To assess the potential tribal implications of the rule, EPA compiled data on the number of tribally

- owned establishments in the U.S. and estimated the costs of the rule for these facilities. Based on the BR data, less than 0.1 percent of LQGs, or approximately 5 facilities, are tribally

- owned. Similarly, based on the BR and Washington State data, less than 0.1 percent of SQGs and CES QGs, or between 77 and 120 facilities are tribally

owned. To estimate the potential costs of the rule, the aggregate costs described above were applied to the estimated percentage of tribally

- owned establishments. This suggests that the annualized cost to tribal entities is between $1,700 and $4,700 , including the

139 The two methods are from “EPA’s Action Development Process
-- Guidan ce on Executive Order 13132: Federalism,” OPEI Regulatory Development Series, Nov 2008, at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/documents/federalismguide11
- 00
- 08.pdf
.6
- 14 

### voluntary provisions of the rule, and between $1,500 and $3,300 , excluding the voluntary provisions (using a 7 percent discount rate). Based on these values, the proposed rule is not expected to impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

**ENERGY IMP ACT**  **ANAL YS**  **IS** 

### EO 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to more fully consider the potential energy impacts of regulatory action. Under this executive order, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use. The proposed rule would not directly regulate energy production or consumption. In addition, with annualized cos ts of approximately $ 5.5 to $11.9 million for the mandatory provisions of the rule and $6.3 to $ 17.4 million when adding the voluntary provisions (based on a discount rate of 7 percent), this rule is not considered an economically significant action under EO 12866. Changes in the management of hazardous waste resulting from the proposed rule are not expected to significantly impact energy producti on or distribution. The rule, however, may lead to a small increase in energy production. As described in Chapter 1, voluntary provisions of the rule would allow for intra

- organization transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs under certain conditions. Under the baseline, the hazardous waste generated by CESQGs may be managed as municipal solid waste, as the RCRA regulations do not require CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste at a permitted TSDF. In contrast, any hazardous waste sent from a CES QG to an LQG within the same organization must be managed at a TSDF under the provisions of the rule, consistent with the requirement for all waste generated by LQGs. Such TSDFs include hazardous waste burning cement kilns, which use the energy value of the wastes they burn as a source of heat for the production of cement. Thus, to the extent that the rule diverts hazardous waste generated by CESQGs from disposal as municipal solid waste to combustion for energy recovery, the rule may lead to an increase in energy production. The magnitude of this effect is uncertain. Aside from the potential increase in energy production described above, the requirements of the rule would have minimal impact on energy consumption; therefore, the rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, no measurable adverse impacts are expected on energy prices or foreign supplies.6
- 15 **ENVIRONMENT AL**  **JUSTICE ANAL**  **YSIS** 

### EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agenc ies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, po licies, and activities on minority populations and low

- income populations in the United States. Among other actions, the Order directs agencies to improve research and data collection regarding health and environmental effects in minority and low

- income c ommunities. EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low

- income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule would reduce any adverse effects associated with the management of hazardous waste, thus benefiting minority and low

- income populations. For example, the rule would expand the marking and labeling requirements for hazardous waste containers used by SQGs and LQGs, reducing the likelihood that SQG and LQG staff mismanage the contents these containers. Improved labeling will also help emergency responders minimize local populations’ exposure to hazardous waste in the unlikely event of an accident. Similarly, the requirement that new LQGs submit an executive summary of their contingency plans to emergency management authorities would help these authorities respond more quickly should an accident occur. Low income and minority populations may also experience a reduction in risk associated with the intra

- organization transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs under the rule. Because the storage, inspection, employee training, and other requirements for LQGs are more stringent than those for CESQGs, transferring hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs would reduc e the risks associated with the management of hazardous waste generated by CESQGs. While the voluntary provisions of the rule related to episodic generation may reduce the stringency of requirements for some SQGs and CESQGs, EPA does not expect that these changes will lead to increased risk for low

- income or minority populations. This portion of the rule will still require that hazardous waste generated on an episodic basis is managed in a permitted unit on

- site or at a permitted offsite TSDF, minimizing exposure risk for low

- income and minority populations in the area.

**CHILDREN’S HEAL TH PR**  **OTECTION ANAL**  **YSIS** 

### EO 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under EO 12866, or (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteri a, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.6
- 16 

### EPA does not anticipate that the proposed rule would lead to a disproportionate negative impact on children. As described in the environmental justice discussion above, the proposed rule includes several provisions that would reduce risks for populations in c lose proximity to generator facilities. These reductions in risk represent a benefit for all segments of the population, including children.

**J OINT IMP**  **ACTS OF RULE S**  

### Some of the hazardous waste generators regulated by the provisions of the proposed rule are also subject to RCRA requirements for TSDFs. Combined, the proposed changes to the generator standards and the existing regulations for TSDFs would ensure that the management of waste by facilities subject to both sets of regulations is protective of human health and the environment.