# R EGULATORY 

# I MPACT 

# A NALYSIS



# EPA’s 2014 Revisions to the Industrial Recycling Exclusions

of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste

November 26, 2014

# A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

T he following contributors produced this RIA during 2012

- 2014 :

1. EPA : Mark Eads, Economist, EPA Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery (ORCR) authored

and co

- authored certain sections of this RIA, and served as ORCR’s Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR; aka “Work Assignment Manager” or WAM ) for managing the

2012

- 2014 work assign ments under which the two consulta ncies listed below assisted with this

RIA.

Also of ORCR, Chris McMinimy (Economist) served as Alternate COTR and performed some spreadsheet calculations for certain secti ons of this RIA. Tracy Atagi ( Acting Chief

, ORCR’s Recycling & Generator Branch ) assisted with modifying this RIA to include the state government adoption ass umption adjustment and edits to text for consistency with the wording of the 2014 DSW final rule draft preamble.

Other EPA contributors include Jon Silberman (Attorney

- Advisor) of EPA’s Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assistance (OECA) who contributed to Sect ions 8B and 8C of this
RIA, Kathy Davey (Environmental Protection Specialist) and Sharon Austin (Chemical Engineer) of EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics (OPPT) who contributed to Section

4 D and to Appendix D of this RIA, and Dennis Guig net (Economist) of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics who provided QC review comments to ORCR o n a June 2012

draft of this RIA.

2. Industrial Economics Inc. : Industrial Economics Inc. (IEc) was the prime contractor for assisting wi th this R IA under three consecutive EPA contracts and work assignments:

 EP

- W

- 07

- 011 (March to June 2012 ; work assignment nr. 4

- 54)

 EP

- W

- 12

- 013 (July 2012 to April 2013; work assignment nr. B

- 0 5)

 EP

- W

- 12

- 013 (May 2013 to April 2014; work assignment nr. 1

- 05 )

 EP

- W

- 12

- 013 (May 2014 to April 2015; work assignment nr. 2

- 05)

C ynthia Ma nson was IEc’s manager for these work assignments.

3. DPRA Inc.:

DPRA Inc. provided the lead analytic role as a sub

- contractor under all three of IEc’s work assignme n ts ( i.e., 4

- 54, B

- 5 , 1

- 05 , and 2

- 05 ). DPRA provided authorship and co

- authorship

assistance for this RIA. I ndividuals from DPRA assisting with this RIA were David Gustafson, Craig Simons, Kevin Weinhold, and Patricia Kessler.

# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS

Abstract i

Executive Summary i i

A. Purpose of EPA’s 2014 Revisio ns to DSW Recycling Exclusions i i

B. 2014 DSW Revisions Eval uated in this RIA ( 6 Revision s) i i C. Potential Industry Costs for Co mplying With the 2014 Revisions v i

D. Pote ntial Benefits of the 20 14 Revisions x E. Findings of Supplemental Analyses x i

Chapter 1 Problem Statement (Justification for Regulatory Action) 1

- 1

1A. Purpose of EPA’s 2014 Regulatory Changes 1

- 1 1B. Justification for EPA’s Regulatory Changes 1

- 2

1C. Structure of this RIA 1

- 6

Chapter 2 B ackground and Scope of this RIA 2

- 1

2A. Background (2008 DSW Final Rule & 2011 Proposed Revisions) 2

- 1

2B. Summa ry of Public Comments on the 2011 DSW RIA 2

- 2

2C. 2014 DSW Final Rule Regulatory Revision s Evaluated in this RIA 2

- 7

Chapter 3 Baseline Industrial Entities and Materi als Potentially Affected by the

2014 Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions 3

- 1

3A. 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions: Baseline Industrial Recycling Potentially Affected 3

- 1

3B. Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions : Baseline Industrial Recycling 3

- 13

3C. Annual Rate of Future Notific ation of the DSW Exclusions 3

- 17 3D. Baseline Industrial Disposal Which May Switch to DSW Excluded Recycling 3

- 2 2

Chapter 4 Estimate of Baseline Regulatory Cost Savin gs to Industry for the Existing

DSW Recycling Exclusions 4

- 1 4A. Baseline Cost Savings Estimation Methodology 4

- 1 4B. Baseline Regulatory Cost Savings for the 2008 DSW Recycling 4

- 11

4C. Baseline for the Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions 4

- 28

4D. Potential Addi tional 2008 DSW Rule Baseline Cost Savings

from the “Remanufacturing” Revision 5 4

- 2 9

Chapter 5 Estimate of Industry Costs to Comply with the 2014 DSW Final Rule 5

- 1

5A. Revision 1: Replace the 2008 DSW Off

- site Transfer

- Based Exclusion

with the 2014 DSW Verified Recycler Exclusion 5

- 1

5 B

. Revision 2 : Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Generator

- Controlled Recycling 5

- 4

5 C

. Revision 3 : Revise the DSW Definition of Recycling “ Leg itimacy ” 5

- 6

5 D

. Revision 4 : Revise the 1985 Partial Recycling Variance and 2008

DSW Non

- Waste Determination Petition Processes 5

- 1 1

5E. Revision 5: Add a “ Remanufacturing ” DSW Recycling Exclusion 5

- 1 8

5F. Revision 6: Add Emergency Preparedness and Response to DSW 5

- 28

Generator

- Controlled Exclusion, Verified Recycler Exclusion, and

VRE Intermediate Facilities and Recyclers Without a RCRA Permit

# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS 

## (Continued)

5 G . Summary of Estimated Industry Costs to Meet Revision s 1 to 6 5

- 32

Chapter 6 Sensitivity Analyses (7 Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors) 6

- 1

6A. Sensitivity Analysis #1: Future Annual Fluctuation in Affected Materials Quantities 6

- 2

6B. Sensitivity Analysis #2: Within

- Year Discrepancy Between Generation Tons and Management Tons 6

- 6

6C. Sensitivity Analysis #3: RCRA SQGs in this RIA 6

- 6

6D. Sensitivity Analysis #4: Physica l/Chemical Quality of Secondary

Materials for Viable Recovery/Recycling 6

- 7

6E. Sensitivity Analysis #5: Expec ted Accuracy of Impact Estimation Methodology 6

- 1 1

6F

. Sensitivity Analysis #6 : Incorrect Reporting of Pre

- 2008 Recycling Exclusion Data to the Biennial Report 6

- 1 2

6 G. Sensitivity Analysis #7: State Government Adoption Uncertainty 6

- 1 4

Chapter 7 Supplemental Analyses 7

- 1

7A. Regulatory Planning and Review (1993 Executive Order 12866) 7

- 1

7B. Small Business Impact Analysis (1980 RFA/1996 SBREFA 7

- 2

7C. Unfunded Mandates Analysis (1995 UMRA) 7

- 1 0

7D. Federalism Implications (1999 Executive Order 13132) 7

- 1 2

7E. Energy Impact Analysis (2001 Executive Order 13211) 7

- 1 3

7F. Employment Impact Analysi s (2011 Executive Order 13563) 7

- 1 3

Chapter 8 Potential Envir onmental and Economic Benefits f or the 2014 Revisions to

the DSW Recycling Exclusions 8

- 1

8A. Reduction in Future Environmental Damage Cases Associated With Recycling Hazardous Secondary Materials 8

- 2

8B. Im proved Environmental Compliance 8

- 1 8

8C. More Specific Standards Result in Redu ced Liability, Less Uncertainty for Regulated Entities

, and Lower Legal & Credit Costs 8

- 2 2 Appendices Appendix A 2009 Count of 6

- Digit NAICS Code Industries Potentially Affected A

- 1 Appen dix B Comparison of OSCPP’s and this RIA’s Benefit Estimates for the

DSW Re

- Manufacturing Exclusion B

- 1 Appendix C Calculat ion of Cost Adjustment Factors C

- 1 Appendix D 2009 EPA “Toxics Release Inventory” (TR I) Chemical Waste Data Reported

by the Four Industries Eligible for the “Remanufacturing” Revision 5 D

- 1 Appendix E Small Business Count Data to S upport the RFA/SBREFA Analysis E

- 1 Appendix F Hazardous Waste Recovery Data Outliers in the 2009 RCRA Biennial Report F

- 1 Appendix G 115 Historical Recycling Damag e Cases with Cleanup Cost Data G

- 1 Appendix H Comparison of Baseline s and Economic Impact Estimates Between

EPA’s RIA for the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions and t his RIA H

- 1 Appendix I Notes/Sources on State Government Comments on the 2008 D SW R ule I

- 1

### i 

# A BSTRACT

Introduction : This RIA estimates the future impacts of six revis ions to EPA’s RCRA

“ Definition of Solid Waste ” (DSW) regulatory exclusions for industrial recycling. The DSW regulatory exclusions are designed by EPA to provide incentives for increased industrial recycling of “ hazardous secondary materials ” (HSM) in lieu of currently recycling or disposing

such materials as “ hazardous wastes ” in compliance with the more costly requirement s of R CRA

Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.

Affected Entities : T wo groups totaling an average annual 4

, 925 industrial facilities are affected:

 Revisions to 2008 DSW exclusions : In whole or in part, all of the six revisions affect

EPA’s most recent October 2008 DSW recycling ex clusions final rule, involving 4,850 total potentially eligible facilities (as of 2009).

 Revisions to p re

- 2008 DSW exclusions : Two of the six revisions ( 3 A & 4 C) in part a ffect EPA’s pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (spanning 1985 to 2002 ) , affecting an esti mated average annual 75 ( 1 % ) of the estimated 7,500 facilities operating with pre

2008 DSW exclusions

.

Benefits : This RIA presents qualitative description s of three categori es of expected future

environmental and economic benefits for the proposed revisions:

1. R eduction in future environmental damage cases associated with HSM recycling;

2. I mproved environmental regulatory compliance;

3. R educed liability, less regulatory uncertainty , and lower legal and credit costs for recycling facilities.

Costs : The costs of the 2014 DSW rule are the change in future cost

- savings relative to the baseline cost savings expected from the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions (updated to 2012$)

. T his R IA estimates that the 2014 DSW rule could yield cos t savings to industry of $1. 0 million per year (2012$ at 7% discount rate) to $ 2. 0 million p er year (non

- discounted 2012$)

, over 50

- years (2014 to 2063).

Supplemental A nalyses : This RIA estimates the 2014 revisions are expected to :

 H ave an annual effect less than the $100 million “ economically significant ” threshold under Executive Order 12866: Regulator y Planning and Review.

 H ave a “ No SISNOSE ” small business impact under EPA’s RFA/SBRE FA “ sales test ”

threshold.

 I mpose less than $100 million in annual direct costs on state, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector, under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) threshold.

 I mpose less than EPA’s $25 million annual direct cost threshold on s tate/local governments under Executive Order 13132: Federalism Implications.

 Have no adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use under Executive Order 13211: Regulations that Affect Ene rgy Supply, Distribution or Use.

 C reate about 29

, 794 annual l abor hours of employment impact under Executive Order

13563.

### ii 

# E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMARY



## A. Purpose of EPA’s 2014 Revisions to DSW Recycling Exclusions

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the regulatory exclusions for certain types of industrial recycling from the “ definition of solid waste ” (DSW) under Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The DSW recycling exclusions

involve indus trial hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling (i.e., reclamation, recovery, regeneration, or reuse) rather than disposal. Some of the DSW recycling exclusions date back to 1985, whereas other DSW recycling exclusions are relatively new (2008)

.

The exclusions allow eli gible industrial facilities to avoid some compliance costs associated with RCRA’s full regulatory requirements for hazardous waste management, provided that facilities meet certain eligibility criteria, and comply with certain op erating conditions and requirements. Under the DSW exclusions, industrial recyclable materials are not “wastes” because they are recycled, not discarded (i.e., not disposed), and thus are not considered solid or hazardous

wastes.

EPA’s 2014 revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions are in response to a January 2009 petition submitted to the EPA by the Sierra Club (San Francisco, CA), claiming potential increases in risks to human health and the environment associated with recycling of 2008 DSW

excluded in dustrial hazardous secondary materials. With these revisions EPA intends to ensure that the 2008 DSW exclusions encourage recycling in industrial operations under conditions necessary to protect human health and the environment from potential mismanagemen t of hazardous secondary materials, for example, if such hazardous materials destined for recycling instead become discarded or otherwise mismanaged, resulting in potentially harmful

environmental releases of the hazardous materia ls. Some revisions affect EPA’s October 2008 DSW recycling exclusions, wh ile other revisions affect pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions

which date back to 1985.



## B. DSW Regulatory Re visions Evaluated in this RIA ( 6 Revision s)

Revision 1: Replace the 2008 DSW Off

- site Transfer

- Base d Exclusion with the 2014

DSW Verified Recycler Exclusion Modify the 2008 DSW exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred offsite for the purpose of reclamation with a require ment that materials be transferred to a verified reclamation facility for the purpose of reclamation. If transferred to a

verified re cycler and meets the other conditions of the exclusion it is not a solid waste. The following component s of the off

- site transfer

- based exclusion are being modified to reflect the new verified recycler DSW exclusion:

(1A) Reasonable Efforts : Eliminate costs associated with the “ reasonable e fforts ” requirement under the off

- site transfer based exclusion for the generator to audit r ecyclers that do not have a permit.

### iii

(1B) Variance : Recyclers that do not have a RCRA Part B permit or interim status must obtain a variance under 260.31(d) that addresses the management of hazardous secondary

materials.

(1C) Domestic Recycling : Hazar dous secondary material generators must transport their hazardous secondary materials to a verified reclamation facility located in the United

States.

(1D) Definition of “Contained” : Include a regulatory definition of “ contained ” in the

verified recycler exclusion

.

(1E) Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) : Make notification a condition of the verified recycler exclusion

.

(1F ) Speculative Accumulation Recordkeeping & Labeling : Generators of hazardous secondary materials are required to label the storage start date on each container (or post accumulation dates or enter dates in inventory logs in other types of units not amenable to labeling) to ensure against speculative accumulation.

Revision 2 : Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Genera tor Controlled Recycling Modify the 2008 DSW exclusion for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the control of the generator by:

(2 A) Definition of “C ontained” : Add a regulatory definition of “ contained ” to the 2008 DSW generator

- controlled rec ycling exclusion.

(2 B) Notification : Make notification a condition of the 2008 DSW generator

- controlled recycling exclusion.

(2 C) Speculative A ccumulation R ecordkeeping and L abeling : Generators of hazardous secondary materials are required to label t he storage start date on each container (or post accumulation dates or enter dates in inventory logs in other types of units not amenable to labeling) to ensure against speculative accumulation.

(2 D) Recordkeeping R equirements U nder the “ T oll M anufacturi ng” and “ S ame
C ompany” R ecycling E xclusions : Add a recordkeeping requirement for reclamation under the 2008 DSW “toll manufacturing” and “same company” recycling exclusions.

(2E) Re

- structure the Location of the Non

- land Based and Land

- based Unit Operational Requirements in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) : Relocate the non

- land based and land based unit operational requirements such that these requirements will be located together in 40 CFR
261.4(a)(23).

### iv

Revision 3 : Revise the DSW Definition of Recycling “Legitimacy”

This revision consists of two components:

( 3 A) Codify a P rohibition on “ S ham R ecycling”, as D efined as R ecycling T hat D oes N ot

M eet the D efinition of L egitimate R ecycling

. Under the new definition for legitimate recycling, a ll four legitimacy factors are mandatory, with built in flexibility for Factor 4 (i.e., the product of the recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate). Factor 4 is met when the product of recycling does not have an analogous prod uct from raw material but (1) the product is a generally recognized commodity that meets recognized commercial specifications (e.g., scrap metal) , or (2) the hazardous secondary materials being recycled are returned to the original process or processes from which they were generated to be reused (e.g., closed loop recycling). When Factor 4 is not comparable but recycling is legitimate

, this revision adds a condition requiring documentation of legitimacy (including certification) to be kept on site and n otification to be sent to the regulatory agency.

(3B) Four Legitimacy Factors Documentation Applied to 2008 DSW Exclusions : 2008 DSW exclusion recyclers are required to document legitimacy as a condition of the

generator

- controlled excl usion and the n on

- waste determinations . The document ation would consist of a written narrative outlining how their recycling meets each of the four factors of legitimacy as described in 40 CFR 260.34 and would be kept onsite for the duration of the recycling and for thr ee years after recycling cease s

.

Revision 4 : Revise the 1985 Partial Recycling Variance and 2008 DSW Non

- Waste

Determination Petition Processes

This revision consists of four components:

( 4 A) Requirement T hat an A pplicant R e

- certify in the E vent the M a terial N o L onger
M eets the R elevant C riteria and R e

- apply for a V ariance at L east E very 10 Years : Require that applicants re

- apply in the event the material no longer meets the relevant criteria under 40 CFR 260.33(c). Require facilities to re

- apply for a variance at least every 10 years.

( 4 B) Biennial Notification : Require biennial notification using EPA Form 8700

- 12 in compliance with 40 CFR 260.42.

( 4 C) 1985 D SW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials : Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW varianc e for partially recycled materials. The revisions include: (a) specifying that the variance applies at the point at which the hazardous secondary material must be commodity

- like; (b) requiring that all criteria must be met; and (c) removing the sixth “catc h all” criterion that other relevant factors may be considered.

( 4 D) 2008 DSW N on

- W aste D etermination P etitioners : M ust demonstrate why they cannot or should not meet existing DSW exclusions.

### v

Revision 5 : Add a new “ Remanufacturing ” DSW Exclusion

Add a new DSW recycling exclusion involving inter

- company transfer for off

- site reclamation of solvents via “remanufacturing” (i.e., transfer from one manufacturer to another) for the purpose of extending the useful life of the original solvent, by keeping the solvent in commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original solvent for continued use as a “processing aid” to manufacturing. This exclusion would operate according to criteria and conditions contained in the following three components of the rev ision :

( 5 A) Four E ligibility C riteria :
1. The generator or re

- manufacturer must be recycling one of th e following 18 spent

solvents: toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, 1,2,4

- trimethylbenzene, chlorobenzene,

n

- hexane, cyclohexane, methyl tert

- butyl ether, acetonitrile, chloroform, chloromethane, dichloromethane, methyl isobutyl ketone, N,N

dimethylformamide, tetrahydrofuran, ethanol, n

- buty l alcohol, and methanol.

2. The spent solvent must be generated (i.e., originate from use as processing aid) from commercial grade solvent used for reacting, extracting, pur ifying, or blending chemicals.

3. The continued use of the solvent after manufacturing is limited to that of a processing aid in reacting, extracting, purifying, or blending chemicals. The continued use cannot involve cleaning or degreasing oil, grease, or similar material from textiles, glassware, metal surfaces, or other articles.

4. The solve nt must originate from one of the following four industries: basic organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325199), plastics/resins manufacturing (NAICS 325211), pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), or paints/coatin g manufacturing (NAICS 325510).

( 5 B) Five C onditions for the Remanufacturing DSW Recycling Exclusion : Generators

and re

- manufacturers of hazardous secondary materials must meet five conditions to qualify for the remanufacturing DSW recycling exclusion. These conditions include (1)

noti fication, (2) reclamation plan, (3) records of shipments and confirmation of receipts, (4) prevention of hazardous air emissions, and (5) prohibition on spec ulative

accumulation.

( 5 C) Petition Process for the Remanufacturing DSW Recycling Exclusion : Gen erators

and re

- manufacturers may petition to add certain chemicals, industries, and/or chemical function uses to the remanufacturing criteria under the rema nufacturing exclusion.

Revision 6: Add Emergency Preparedness and Response to DSW Generator

- Contr olled Exclusion, Verified Recycler Exclusion, and VRE Intermediate Facilities and Recyclers

Without a RCRA Permit

Add emergency preparedness and response requirements of 40 CFR 265 Subparts C and D to (1) all generators in the generator controlled exclusi on who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite and (2) the generators who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite in the verified recycling exclusion (VRE) and (3) intermediate facilities and recycl ers that do not have a RCRA permit as part of the variance procedure for the verified recyclers under the VRE (these costs are not estimated separately but

### vi

are included in the costs of obtaining a variance under Revision 1)

. Generators who accumulate

les s than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials would be subject to emergency preparedness and response requirements of §262.34(d)(5). For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that LQGs would accumulate more than 6,000 kg onsite (regardless of post

- rule status) while SQGs and CESQG would accumulate less than 6,000 kg onsite.

(6A) Hazardous Waste/ Materials Training : LQGs under §26 5.16 and SQGs under §262.34(d)(5) are currently required to have manifesting, hazardous materials handling, and emergency procedures training. This training requirement will continue to be required for LQGs and SQGs under the requirements of Revision 6. Revi sion 6 adds personnel training requirement s u nder §262.34(d)(5) to CESQGs who are accumulating less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials and recycling them under the DSW

generator

- controlled exclusion and verified recycler exclusion.

(6B) Conti ngency Plan : LQGs under 40 CFR 265 Subpart D are currently required to prepare and implement a contingency plan. Under Revision 6, generators who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite (assumed to be LQGs in this analysis) a re continued to require a contingency plan if recycling under the

generator

- controlled exclusion, verified recycler exclusion, or are intermediate facilities and recyclers that do not have a RCRA permit.

(6C) Emergency Preparedness Plan : LQGs under 40 C FR 265 Subpart C and SQGs under §262.34(d)(5) are currently required to be prepared for emergencies (i.e., an emergency preparedness plan). This requirement will continue to be required for LQGs and SQGs under the requirements of Revision 6. Revision 6 a dds emergency preparedness requirements under §262.34(d)(5) to CESQGs who are accumulating less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials and recycling them under the DSW

generator

- controlled exclusion and verified recycler exclusion.



## C. Potential I ndustry Costs for Complying With the 2014 Revisions

C1. Industry Compliance Cost Estimates

For the cost estimates for complying with the 2014 DSW revisions, t his RIA aggregates (i.e.,

adds

- up) the incremental regulatory cost estimates for Revision s 1 to 6 listed above. Costs are

estimated over the future 50

- year peri od of 2014 to 2063

. All costs presented in this RIA are in

2012 dollars unless noted otherwise. Depending on the particular revision of the DSW rule

, two industrial facility sub

- popu lations are affected by the 2014 revisions: (a) facilities which may operate under the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions and (b) facilities currently operating under the

pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions ( promu lgated between 1985 and 2002).

### vii

2008 DSW Final Rule Exclu sions and Verified Recycler Exclusion : Under the 2008 DSW rule, facilities are required to notify their regulatory authority prior to managing hazardous secondary materials under the DSW rule and every other year thereafter

. 1 

### A s of February 24 , 201 4

, 96

facilities have submitted notifications to EPA claiming either onsite recycling, same

- company transfer recycling , tolling recycling , and/or offsite transfer recycling exclusions. 2 

### The 96

facilities that claimed one or more of the 2008 DSW exclusions are located in eight states and

territories that have adopted the 2008 DSW rule (i.e., AK ID, IL, IA, NJ, PA, PR, and VI ). The

counts of facilities that have submitted a 2008 DSW recycling exclusion notification is available by state and territory. This RIA uses t hese data along with th e state adoption dates to estimate the annual number of notifying facilities per year. Based on the total estimated number of

aff ected facilities for these eight states and territories, the estimated annual percentage of

notif ying facilities is 3.2 % per year (from Exhibit 3K ) , which over the 50

- year period

- of

- analysis
(2014 to 2063 ) of this RIA grows to an average annual rate of 54% of all 4,850 potentially affected (i.e., 2008 DSW final rule exclusion eligible) industrial facilities (from Exhibit 3L )

.

This RIA further assumes the following time intervals:

 Federal Register publication and lagging effective date for the 2014 DSW final rule both

occur in 2014

.

 State government adoption of the 2014 DSW final rule is expected to begin in 2016 two

years after its 2014 effective date (this 2

- year lag of 2014 & 2015 recognizes the fact that state governments need time to change their state regulations and statutes).

 This RIA applies a future 50

- year period

- of

- analysis span ning fro m 2014 to 2063

.

In determining the future rate of notifications for these exclusions , it is assumed that the eight

states and territories (AK, ID, IL, IA, NJ, PA, PR, and USVI) that already have adopted the 2008

DSW rule as of August 2014 will continue to notify at an average annual rate of 24 facilitie s (wastes) per year in 2014 and 2015 . For the remaining years of the future 50

- year period

- of

analysis (2014 to 2063 ) applied in this RIA

, 3.2 % of potentially eligible facilities are assumed to

submit DSW exclusion notifications each year up through the maximum number of 3,865 potentially eligible facilities located in the 44 states and territories assumed to adopt the 2008

DSW rule and the 2014 DSW revisions

. 3 

### This estimate results in a 54% average an nual rate of facility notification (2,604 out of 4,850 facilit ies) over the 50

- year period

- of

- analysis for the full population of facilities affected by the 2008 DSW rule and 2014 DSW revisions

.

Other Recycling Exclusions : Under the 2014 DSW r evisions

, al l recycling must meet the definition of legitimate recycling, including recycling at facilities operating under the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions identified in this RIA. Costs associated with documentation (including certification) that recycling is legitimate are incurred only when the recycled product: does not have an analogous product from raw materials, is not a generally recognized commodity, or is not returned to the original process or processes from which it was generated to be reused and

1 See 73 FR 64668.

2 Notification data are available from EPA’s webpage at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/dsw/notify

- sum.pdf

3 In this RIA, it was assumed that 44 states and territories would adopt the DSW exclusions in the 2008 DSW rule and the verified recycler exclusion based on public comments received on the 2008 DSW rule. Alternative state adoption rates are discussed in m ore detail as a sensitivity analysis in this RIA.

### viii

contains hazar dous constituents that are not comparable to those in products made from virgin

materials

. In this RIA, the following assumptions are used to estimate costs:

 1% of wastes would incur the documentation, certification and notification costs of legitimacy F actor 4 because products from the recycling of these wastes contain higher levels of hazardous constituents than do products made from raw materials. In the 2011 DSW RIA, a 5% “rare” future annual frequency assumed in this RIA represents the midpoint of a 0% to 10% range in any given future year of wastes not meeting all 4 legitimacy factors. However, t he 2014 DSW final rule revises Factor 4 to address the majority of cases raised in the public comments where the proposed Factor 4 would not be met but the recycling is still legitimate. Such cases include instances when

o the hazardous secondary material is ret urned to the production process,

o the recycled product has specification for the hazardous constituents and meets those specs, and

o the recycled product is a widely recognized commodity that has no comparable product made from raw materials (e.g., commodity grade scrap metal). Although not enough information is provided in the public comments to make definitive legitimacy determinations on the examples, the revisions to Factor 4 should eliminate the majority of examples of recycled products not meeting Factor 4 and is, therefor e , the basis for reducing the assumed rate of legitimacy documentation required.

 B etween 5,000 and 10,000 facilities conduct recycling/reuse ac tivities under the pre

- 2008

DSW exclusions. The mid

- point of 7,500 facilities is used in the cost calculation. This RIA assumes also that small facilities will have 2 wastes and large facilities will have 20 wastes with pre

- 2008 DSW industrial recycling exclusions affected by the 2014 DSW

r ule. The midpoint of 11 wastes is used in the cost calculation. Overall, 7 5 facilities (or 825 wastes; 7,500 facilities x 11 wastes/facility x 1% requiring legitimacy documentation = 825 wastes) operating under pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions are estimated to be affected by

the 2014 DSW revisions.

For purpose of summary, Exhibit A belo w present s this RIA’s estimated annual industry compliance costs (or net cost savings) for Revision s 1 to 6 listed above

. One of the revision s ( Revision 1 ) reflects a negative value (indicated with parentheses in Exhibit A) whereas the

other revision s are all positive. A negative value indicates the elimination of a cost

associated with one of the conditions of the 2008 DSW rule under this revision of the 2014

DSW rule. Revision s 1 and Revision 5 are modified/ revised versions of the 2008 DSW

offsite transfer recycling exclusion.

### ix Exhibit A

Estimated Baseline Annual Future Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post

- Rule Future Cost Savings 54% Notification Rate with 44 State Adoption Rate Assumption (2012 dollars) *

Item Description 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 0% Discount Rate

A Count of Affected 2008 DSW

Facilities 4,850

B Count of Affected Pre

- 2008 DSW Facilities (assuming mid

point of range of affected facilities)* 7,500

C Future Cost Savings under 2008 DSW Rule (Baseline) ($27,548,907) ($38,660,162) ($49,086,668)

D Revision 1: Replace the 2008

DSW Off

- site Transfer

- Based

Exclusion with the 2014 Verified Recycler DSW

Exclusion ($3,786,9 72 ) ($5,354,5 90 ) ($6,755, 2 89 )

F Revision 2: Revisions to

Generator

- controlled

Exclusions $247 $350 $442

G Revision 3: Revisions to Legitimacy Recycling

Provisions $644,898 $740,076 $815,828

H Revision 4: Revisions to 1985

Variance and 2008 DSW Non

Waste Determination Petition

Process $ 931,9 09 $1,364,208 $1,788,147

I Revision 5: DSW Re

manufacturing Exclusion $12,424 $17,681 $22,393

J Revision 6: Emergency Preparedness & Response $ 1, 161,952 $ 1, 645

, 908 $ 2, 078 ,6 80

K (D+... J ) 2014 DSW Rule Incremental

Compliance Costs (Savings) ($ 1,035

, 5 42 ) ($1

, 586

, 3 68 ) ($ 2

, 049

, 7 99 )

L (C+ K ) Post 2014 DSW Rule Future

Cost Savings ($28, 584

, 4 49 ) ($40, 246

, 5 30 ) ($5 1

, 136

, 4 88 )

* Numbers may not add due to rounding.



### C 2 . C ost Estimation Uncertainty ( 7 Sensitivity Analyse s)

Not revealed in the cost estimates in Exhibit A above are uncertainties in numerical values applied in this RIA as cost computation f actors. As defined in Chapter 6 of this RIA and

summarized in Exhibit B below , there are at least s even cost estimation uncertainty factors which

m ay influence the future actual cost (or cost savings) of each final rule revision in any given

yea r. These s even factors are not necessarily additive (i.e., compounding) in any given year.

### x Exhibit B Sensitivity of Initial Estimate d Industry Cost (or Cost Savings) for Complying with the 2014 Revisions to

the DSW Recycling Exclusions to Seven Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors

Note : Costs (or Cost Savings) in this Exhibit are Incremental to the Cost Savings Estimated for the 2008 DSW

Final Rule Usi ng a 54% Notification Rate and 50

- year period

- of

- analysis 201 4 to 206

3

Type of C ost Uncertainty

Factor* Uncertainty r ange Annual Cost (or Cost Savings) Estimate Range ($millions per year in 2012$ @alternative discount rates )

Low High Low High Low High Low High
Average annualized cost savings without uncertainty applied = ($1. 0 ) @7% ($ 1.6 ) @3% ($2. 0 ) non

- disc.

1 Future fluctuations in annual tonnages of hazardous secondary materials generated destined for recycling - 58% +43% ($0. 4 ) ($ 1 .4 ) ($ 0. 7 ) ($ 2. 3 ) ($ 0.8 ) ($ 2 .9 )

2 Within

- year discrepancy between generation &

management tonnages - 34% +39% ($ 0 .7 ) ($ 1 .4 ) ($1. 1 ) ($ 2. 2 ) ($1. 3 ) ($ 2

. 8 )

3 RCRA SQGs in this RIA +160% +493% ($ 2.6 ) ($ 5 .9 ) ($ 4.2 ) ($ 9 .5 ) ($ 5.2 ) ($ 11.9 )

4 Physical & chemical quality of secondary

materials available for viable recycling - 16% N/A ($ 0.8 ) N/A ($ 1. 3 ) N/A ($2. 3 ) N/A

5 Expected accuracy of impact estimation methodology (e.g., level
of detail & effort) - 30% +50% ($ 0 .7 ) ($ 1.5 ) ($1. 1 ) ($ 2 .4 ) ($ 1. 7 ) ($ 3

. 0 )

6 Incorrect reporting of pre

2008 exclusions data to Biennial Report - 0.6% N/A ($ 1. 0 ) N/A ($ 1 .6 ) N/A ($2. 0 ) N/A

7 Alternate State Adoption

Rate for 2008 DSW Rule

and 2014 DSW Revisions + 1650 % + 2850 % ($ 1 7.5 ) ($ 29.5 ) ($ 2 8.0 ) ($ 47.2 ) ($ 35.0 ) ($ 59.0 )

Range across all 7 factors =

- 58%

- 2850 % ($0. 4 ) ($ 29.5 ) ($0. 7 ) ($ 47.2 ) ($ 0.8 ) ($ 59.0 )
* Note: A potential 8 th cost uncertainty factor is future fluctuations in market prices of recovered commodities from recycled materials. However, t he 8 th factor is not applied in this RIA because it influences the micro

- economic decisions by facilities to switch from disposal to recycling of their hazardous secondary materials, which is only a relatively small fraction of the total industry implementation cost savings estimate for the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions and the 2014 revisions.



## D. Potential Benefits of the 2014 Revisions

Chapter 8 of this RIA identifi es three categories of potential future benefits of the 2014 revisions to DSW recycling exclusions. However, this RIA does not quantify or monetize these benefit categories . The extent of future benefits depends upon the net effect of two opposing

factors compared to the 2008 DSW rule used as the baseline in this RIA: (a) potential decrease in industrial recycling because of the added costs to facilities to comply with the requirements of

the 2014 DSW final rule compared to lesser requirements under the 2008 rule, and (b) potential

increase in the number of state governments which voluntarily adopt the revised exclusions compared to the less stringent (i.e., less protective) conditions of the 2008 DSW rule, thereby making the DSW exclusions available to a wider number of facilities across the U.S

.

### xi

 Benefit #1 : Reduction in future environmental damages associated with industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials ( Revision s 1 and 6 ).

o Although the change in the frequency of releases, types of contaminants released, or the extent of damages likely to be avo ided, cannot be
estimated, it seems apparent that if the rule prevents just a few damage

events at hazardous secondary material recy c ling facilities, then the avoided cleanup costs would further add to the cost

- savings projected

from the rule.

 Benefit #2 : Improved environmental compliance:

o Clearer and more specific regulatory standards may improve envi ronmental compliance ( Revision s 2 and 3 ).

o More stringent recordkeeping provisions may improve environmental compliance
( Revision s 2

, 3

, 5 , and 6 ).

o Self

- repor ting requirements (e.g., notification requirements) may improve environmental compliance ( Revision s 1

, 2

, 4 , and 5 ).

o Increased likelihood of detection and potential penalty for non

- compliance may improve environmental compliance ( Revision s 1

, 2

, 3

, 4

, 5

, and 6 ).

 Benefit #3 : More specific standards may result in reduced liability, less uncertainty for regulated entities , and lower legal and financial credit costs ( Revision s 2 and 3 ).



## E. Findings of Supplemental Analyses

E1. Regulatory Planning & Review (1993 Executive Order 12866)

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258, requires Federal regulatory agencies such as EPA to determine whether a regulatory action is " significant " and therefore subject to Office of Management and B udget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. Based on the cost analyses presented in this RIA, the 2014 DSW revisions are not expected to be “ economically significant ” because in aggregate, the revisions are not expected to have a futur e annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, even when non

dis counted , and even at the upper

- end of the sensitivity analyses . As estimated in this RIA,

a nnual cost savings in 2012 dollars for the 2014 revisions to the pre

- 2008 and 2008 DSW

exclusions are estimated at :

Discount rate Best estimate Sensitivity analysis low

- end (from Exhibit B above)

1. 7% discount rate: ( $1. 0 million/year ) ( $ 0. 4 million/year )

2. 3% discount rate: ( $ 1.6 million/year ) ($0. 7 million/year )

3. Non

- discounted: ( $2 .0 million/year ) ($ 0.8 million/year )

E2. Small Business Impact Analysis (1980 RFA/1996 SBREFA)

According to the requirements of the 1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the

1996 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), Federal regulatory agencies are required to make initial determinations if regulatory actions may have a “ significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ” (SISNOSE).

### xii

T he average annual impact on small businesses is estimated to be significantly less than 1% of annual sales for all small entities. The highest impact as a percentage of sales is estimated at 0.017% of annual sales. The total number of small businesses impacted at this leve l is estimated at 28 small entities under the 54% notification rate which represents 2.6% of the 1,064 small entities which could be impacted by the rule. Based on this analysis, this RIA concludes that the 2014 revisions are not expected to have a “signi ficant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (i.e., “No SISNOSE” determination). E3. Unfunded Mandates Analysis (1995 UMRA)

The Unfunded Mandates R eform Act (UMRA) requires that F ederal agencies assess the effects of federal regulati ons on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. State governments may incur additional costs from paperwork activities associated with Revision 1

, Revision 3

, Revision 4 , and Revision 5 of the 2014 revisions. The maximum state governm ent share of estimated future annual regulatory costs under all revision s is $ 0.3 million based on a 54% notification rate. No impacts are expected for local or tribal governments. Because the impacts of all the regulatory revision s are expected to resul t in expenditures well below the UMRA $100 million threshold for state governments, this RIA concludes that the 2014 DSW rule is not an unfunded mandate according to this UMRA cost threshold.

E4. Federalism Implications (1999 Executive Order 13132)

The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 ( Federal Register , Vol.64, No. 153, 10 Aug 1999) furthers the policies of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state/local government consultation process for the development of Federal regulations that have federalism implications. As mentioned above in the prior (UMRA) section, potential future annual added costs to state governments for paperwork activities associated with Revision 1

, Revision 3

, Revision 4 , and Revision 5 . The state government share of estimate d future annual direct costs is

estimated at $0.3 million per year for the 54% notification rate. No added costs are expected for local or tribal governments. Because these direct costs are well below the $25 million test

thr eshold, this RIA concludes that the 2014 DSW revisions does not meet the Federalism implication “ substantial direct compliance costs” criterion.

E5. Energy Impact Analysis (2001 Executive Order 13211)

Executive Order 13211 “Actions Concerning Regulation s That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) requires Federal regulatory agencies

such as EPA to prepare and submit a “ Statement of Energy Effects ” to OMB for those matters identified as significant energy ac tions. With respect to energy supply and prices, the annualized costs represent a very small fraction of revenue as the total estimated cost savings of the 2014

DSW rule is $ 1. 0 million per year (Exhibit A). This represents no added costs to the $1.408

trillion 4 

### spent on energy in 2008. As a result, any energy consumpt ion changes attributable to

the DSW rule should not significantly influence supply, distribution, or use of energy.

4 US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2010, Table 3.5 Consumer Expenditure Estimates for Energy by Source, 1970

- 2009 available at http://eia.doe.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec3_1 1.pdf

### xiii

E6. Empl oyment Impact Analysis ( Executive Order 13563)

Consistent with requirements under Executive Order 13563 “ Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821; Janu ary 18, 2011), this RIA estimates the potential impact of

the 2014 DSW rule on employ ment

. 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

. ” Based on summation of the annual labor hours

estimated i n Chapter 5 of this RIA for industry compliance with each requirement of the 2014
DSW rule, this RIA estimates a total of 29

, 794 annual labor hours will be required for affected industries to comply with the rule. On a per

- facility basis, if divi ded acros s the approximate
2, 679 average annual affected entities, the annual l abor hours per

- facility is small ( 11 .1 hours per

year ). Thus it is unlikely that any affected faci lity would actually hire a new full

- time employee to assist with regulatory compliance solely as a result of the 2014 DSW rule , rather than a ssign the DSW rule compliance duties to existing personnel.

### 1

- 1 

# C HAPTER 

# 1

Problem Statement (Justification for Regulatory Action)

1A. Purpose of EPA’s 2014 Regulatory Changes

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the industry regulatory compliance requirements (i.e., regulatory revision s) of the recycling exclusions of the “ definition of solid

waste ” (DSW) under Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conservation and R ecovery Act (RCRA). The DSW exclusions involve industrial hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling (i.e., reclamation, recovery, regeneration, or reuse) rather than disposal. Some of the DSW
exclusions date back to 1985, whereas other DSW exc lusions are relatively new (2008).

EPA’s 2014 regulatory revisions are in part, in response to a January 2009 petition submitted to the EPA by the Sierra Club (San Francisco, CA), about potential increases in risks to human

health and the environment asso ciated with recycling of industrial hazardous secondary materials

excluded under EPA’s three 2008 DSW exclusions. These revisions are intended to ensure that the 2008 DSW exclusions encourage recycling in industrial operations under conditions

necessary t o protect human health and the environment from potential mismanagement of hazardous secondary materials, for example, if such hazardous materials destined for recycling instead become discarded or otherwise mismanaged, resulting in potentially harmful

env ironmental releas es of the hazardous materials

. Note : This RIA interchangeably uses the words “ recycling ”, “ reclamation ”, “

recovery ”, “ reuse ” and

“ regeneration ” as synonyms. However, there are distinct RCRA regulatory differences in the usage of these
words ( source: July 1, 2010 version of 40 CFR 261.1(c)) , as follows :

 A material is `` reclaimed '' if it is proce ssed to recover a usable product, or if it is regenerated. Examples are recovery of lead values from spent batteries and regeneration of spent solvents. In addition, for purposes of Sec. Sec. 261.2(a)(2)(ii), 261.4(a)(23), and 261.4(a)(24) smelting, melting

, and refining furnaces are considered to be solely engaged in metals reclamation if the metal recovery from the hazardous secondary materials meets the same requirements as those specified for metals recovery from hazardous waste found in
Sec. 266.100(d)(1)

- (3), and if the residuals meet the requirements specified in Sec. 266.112.

 A material is `` used or reused ' ' if it is either: (i) Employed as an ingredient (including use as an intermediate) in an industrial process to make a product (for example, distillation bottoms from one process used as feedstock in another process). However, a material will not satisfy this condition if distin ct components of

the material are recovered as separate end products (as when metals are recovered from metal

- containing secondary materials); or (ii) Employed in a particular function or application as an effective substitute for a commercial product ( for example, spent pickle liquor used as phosphorous precipitant and sludge conditioner
in wastewater treatment).

 A material is `` recycled '' if it is used, reused , or reclaimed

. Th e 2014 DSW final rule and th is RIA do not include burning wastes for “ energy recovery ” or otherwise “ using wastes as fuel ” as forms of waste recycling. The word “ re

- manufacturing ” has a distinct definition in Revision

5 of this RIA.

### 1

- 2

The revisions affect two sets of existing DSW exclusions for hazardou s secondary materials recycling :

1. Revisions to 2008 DSW exclusions : Revise the 2008 DSW exclusions for certain types

of hazardous second ary materials recycling . EPA promulgated these exclusions in October 2008 to encourage the recovery and reuse of valuable resources as an alternative to disposal (discard) of such materials as waste, while at the same time maintaining protection of human health and the environment. (73 FR 64688; October 30, 2008). All 2008 DSW exclusion recyclers are required to document legitimacy as a condition of the

generator

- controlled exclusion or the non

- waste determination. Modify the 2008 DSW

exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred offsite for the purpose of reclamation with a require ment that materials be transferred to a verified reclamation facility for the purpose of reclamation.

2. Prohibition of sham recycling for all recycling exclusions : Prohibit sham recycling for all hazardous waste recycling exclusions, including the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions and the verified recycler exclusion . Sham recycling is defined as recycling that does not meet the

definition of le gitimate recycling. The definition of legitimate recycling includes four mandatory legitimacy factors

, with built in flexibility for Factor 4 (i.e., the product of the recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate). When Factor 4 is not comparable but recycling is legitimate a condition is added requiring

documentation of le gitimacy (including certification) to be kept on site and notification to be sent to the regulatory agency.



## 1B. Justification for EPA’s Regulatory Changes

EPA’s 2014 revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions are in part a response to a settlement

agreeme nt with the Sierra Club. On January 29, 2009, the Sierra Club submitted an administrative petition under RCRA secti on 7004(a), 42 U.S.C. 6974(a), to the Administrator of EPA requesting that EPA repeal the October 2008 revisions to the DSW and stay the imp lementation of the 2008 DSW rule. The petition argued that the revised regulations are unlawful and that they increase threats to public health and the environment without producing compensatory benefits, and therefore, should be repealed. Among other th ings, the petition singled out the lack of regulatory definitions in the 2008 DSW exclusions for the words

“ contained ” and “ significant release. ” The petition also disagreed with EPA’s findings that the

2008 DSW exclusions would have no adverse environmen tal impacts, including the finding there would be no adverse impact to environmental justice communities (i.e., minority and low

income populations) or children’s health. An excerpt from the petition (page 2) reads as follows:

EPA promulgated the DSW Rul e on October 30, 2008. The Rule exempted 1.5 million tons (over 3 billion pounds) of hazardous waste from stringent regulation under RCRA, relieving companies handling the most dangerous substances regulated by EPA from complying with requirements intended to protect human health and the environment. The Rule is an impermissible abdication of the agency’s statutory mandate to prevent spills, midnight dumping, and poor

### 1

- 3

management practices that contaminate air, soil, and water, especially in the minority and low

- income neighborhoods disproportionately affected by pollution. By EPA’s own analysis the winners are those who wish to “recycle” hazardous waste without the burden of safeguards that have proven effective in reducing

harm. The losers are those communi ties near more than 5,000 chemical companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and industrial waste facilities that handle hazardous waste or through which the billions of pounds of deregulated hazardous materials will be transported.

On March 6, 2009, a coalition of industry associations (“industry coalition”) submitted a letter to the EPA Administrator in response to the January 2009 Sierra Club petition. The industry coalition consisted of the following organizations (listed below in alphabetical order ):

1. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

2. American Chemistry Council (ACC)

3. American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI)

4. American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

5. Metals Industries Recycling Coalition (MIRC)

– this organization is a coalition of the

fo llowing organizations:

a. American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI)

b. Copper & Brass Fabricator's Council

c. Copper Development Association Inc. (CDA)

d. International Metals Reclamation Company, Inc. (Inmetco)

e. Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA)

f. Steel Man ufacturers Association (SMA)

6. National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA)

7. Treated Wood Council (TWC)

8. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA)

This letter requested that EPA deny the Sierra Club's petition on the grounds that the 2008 D SW exclusions comport with prior court cases construing the scope of EPA's jurisdiction to regulate solid waste under RCRA, and that the 2008 DSW exclusions achieve significant economic and conservation benefits, while imposing significant controls on the hazardous secondary material recycling industry that are fully protective of the environment. The letter also responds to each of the specific points raised by the Sierra Club in its petition. An excerpt from the industry coalition letter (page 3) reads as follows:

The conditions imposed under the [October 2008] Rule on the generators, reclaimers, intermediate facilities, and transporters seeking to avail themselves of the Rule's exclusions are significant. These conditions, entirely ignored by Sierra

Cl ub, are based on the evidence in the record, and are designed to ensure that hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the Rule's exclusions, are done so legitimately while protecting public health and the environment from potential

hazards associated with such hazardous seconda ry material recycling. Along with the other conditions, the "reasonable efforts" and "financial assurance" requirements in particular, will prevent, if not entirely eliminate, the types of

### 1

- 4

mismanagement and abandonment EPA identi fied during the rulemaking as having contributed to environmental harm at some recycling facilities.

 June 2009 EPA Public Meeting

In response to the Sierra Club’s administrative petition, EPA issued a May 27, 2009, Federal Register notice (74 FR 25200) describing possible actions and optional paths forward and announcing a public meeting on June 30, 2009, to allow the public and interested stakeholders to provide input to the decision

- making process. EPA’s May 2009 published notice announcing the planned public meeting, described the scope of possible EPA action. The concept of “ discard ” was the main concept governing the realm of action. As stated in RCRA section 1004(27):

[S]olid waste is defined as ‘ any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material ... resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural activities. '

EPA’s May 2009 meeting notice stated EPA did not inte nd to repeal the October 2008 DSW exclusions as requested in Sierra Club’s 2009 petition:

Because the final revisions to the definition of solid waste are closely tied to EPA's interpretation of “discard,'' EPA does not expect to completely repeal the

rul e or stay its implementation, because such an action could result in hazardous secondary materials that are not discarded being regulated as hazardous waste. In particular, EPA said that it does not expect to repeal either the exclusion for

hazardous secon dary materials reclaimed under the control of the generator or

the non

- waste determination petition process. However, the Agency stated that there may be opportunities to revise other parts of the definition of solid waste rule, such as the definition of l egitimacy and the transfer

- based exclusion, in ways that could increase environmental protection, while still appropriately defining when a hazardous secondary material being reclaimed is a solid waste (74 FR
25203).

A total of 33 individuals provided ver bal comments at EPA’s June 30, 2009 public meeting. 5



###  EPA’s Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club

On September 7, 2010, EPA signed a settlement agreement with the Sierra Club under which EPA agreed to propose a rule which would address, at minimum, the issues raised in the Sierra Club’s administrative petition. As announced in the Federal Register (Vo l.74, No.100; May 27, 2009), EPA’s June 30, 2009 public meeting addressed four issue areas for potential revision of the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions:

5 A list of the names of the 33 individuals and the names of their affiliated organizations is available at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/dsw/speaker

- list.pdf

### 1

- 5

1. Definition of “ contained ”

2. Revisions to notification requirements

3. Definition of recycling “ legitimacy ”

4. Revisio ns to the offsite transfer recycling exclusion

The Sierra Club petition also included a request for EPA to immediately stay and revoke the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions. To support this request, the petition asserted that EPA’s

industrial hazardous secondary materials recycling damage case study demonstrates that hazardous waste recycling has caused substantial harm to health and the environm ent and that

the 2008 DSW rule increases the likelihood of greater future harm. The petition also a sserted

t hat the 2008 DSW rule does not account for the instability of recycling markets and that current financial conditions increase the risk of hazardous waste abandonment. In addition, the petition

a sserted that the 2008 DSW rule will not substantially increa se recycling and that the economic benefits are few and will only accrue to deregulated industries. Additionally, the petition claimed that there would be job losses in the hazardous waste treatment industry and increased worker health problems as a result of the 2008 DSW rule.

EPA addressed the Sierra Club’s reque st to revoke the 2008 DSW rule in whole and stay its implementation in the May 27, 2009 public m eeting notice . In that notice, EPA stated at 74 FR

25202:

The scope of possible changes to the definition of solid waste is governed by the concept of “discard.” As discussed in the preamble to the [October 2008] DSW final rule, EPA used the concept of discard as the central organizing idea behind

the October 20 08 revisions to the definition of solid waste. As stated in RCRA section 1004(27), ‘‘solid waste’’ is defined as “. . . any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other dis carded material . . .resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural activities.’’ (emphasis added) Therefore, in the context of the DSW final rule, a key issue relates to the circumstances under which a hazardous secondary material that is recycled by reclamation is or is not discarded (73 FR 64675). In exercising its discretion in the DSW final rule to define what constitutes “discard” for hazardous secondary materials reclamation, EPA included an explanation of how each provision of the final rule relates to discard (73 FR 64676

- 64679).....

.....Because the [October 2008] final revisions to the definition of solid waste are closely tied to EPA’s interpretation of the concept of “discard,” EPA does not plan to repeal the rule in whole or stay its implementation. Such an action could result in hazardous secondary materials that are not discarded being regulated as hazardous waste. In particular, EPA does not expect to repeal either the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed unde r the control of the generator or the non

- waste determination petition process.

### 1

- 6 However, EPA believes that there may be opportunities to revise or clarify

the [October 2008] definition of solid waste rule, particularly with respect to the definition of l egitimacy and the transfer

- based exclusion, in ways that could improve implementation and enforcement of the provisions, thus increasing environmental protection, while still appropriately defining when a hazardous secondary material being reclaimed is a s olid waste and subject to hazardous waste regulation.

EPA’s New Environmental Justice Analysis for DSW Recycling Exclusions

The Sierra Club petition asserted that EPA’s con clusion that the 2008 DSW rule would have no adverse environmental impacts, and th erefore would have no disproportional adverse impacts to minority and low

- income communities, is unsupported by the administrative record. Many commenters (including those at EPA’s 2009 public meeting and those who responded with written comments) express ed strong concerns that EPA did not adequately address environmental justice (EJ) in the rulemaking.

In response to these concerns, EPA committed to perform a more rigorous and thorough analysis of the EJ impacts of the 2008 DS W rule. EPA produced a new EJ analysis to evaluate the potential disproportionat e impacts of the 2008 DSW rule, on both of these two EJ groups (i.e., minority and low

- income populations). EPA’s shared its January 2009 draft methodology 6 

### for the EJ analysis with the public in January 2010, and presented the draft methodology to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC) and discussed it at three public roundtable meetings (January 28, 2010 New Orleans, LA; February 23, 2010 EPA Potomac Yard

Conference Center , Arlington, VA; and February 25, 2010 Web Conference). 7 

### EPA consider ed the public comments from those meetings and conducted the new EJ analysis. EPA completed an EJ analysis for the 2011 DSW proposed rule. The E J analysis is a separate b ackground

docu ment for the 2014 DSW final rule and is not discussed in this RIA.



## 1C. Structure of this RIA

This RIA is structured into seven more chapters:

 Chapter 2: B ackground and scope of this RIA

 Chapter 3: Identifies the baseline industrial entities and materials potentially

affected by th e 2014 DSW revisions

 Chapter 4: Estimates baseline regulatory cost savings to industry for the ex isting

DSW recycling exclusions

 Chapter 5: Estimate of industry costs to com ply with the 2014 DSW revisions

 Chapter 6: S ensitivity analyses for seven cos t uncertainty factors

6 EPA “Draft Enviro nmental Justice Methodology for the Definition of Solid Waste Final Rule: Proposed Methodology for Assessing Potential Disproportionate Impacts From the Hazardous Secondary Material Recycling Regulations On Minority, Low

- Income, and Tribal Population,” Jan uary 13, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/dsw/ej.htm

. 7 Additional information about these three public roundtable meetings is available from EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/dsw/ej

- meet.htm

.

### 1

- 2

 Chapter 7: Six supplemental analyses required under White House Executiv e

Orders and Congressional Laws

 Chapter 8: Potential environmental and economic ben efits of the 2014 DSW rule

### 2

- 1 

# C HAPTER 

# 2

Background and Scope of this RIA

2A. Background (2008 DSW Final Rule & 2011 Proposed Revisions)

This RIA evaluates the potential future impacts of six 2014 DSW final rule revisions (i.e., regulatory revision s) to EPA’s RCRA DSW regulatory exclusions for industrial recycling. The revisions were originally included in EPA’s 2011 proposed revisions to the 2008 DSW rule as new safeguards for recycling hazardous materials to protect public healt h and the environment.

The 2014 DSW final rule modifies EPA’s 2008 DSW rule, which revised hazardous waste regulations to encourage recycling of hazardous materials. The regulatory revision s of the 2014

DSW final rule wi ll improve accountability and oversight of hazardous materials recycling, while allowing for important flexibilities that will promote its economic and environmental

benefits

The 2011 DSW proposed rule included six possible actions: (1) replacement of the transfer

based exclusion with alternative Subtitle C standards for hazardous recyclable materials, (2) retention of the generator

- controlled exclusion with revisions, including a codified contained standard, (3) codification of the legitimacy definition f or all recycling, with revisions (including making all four factors mandatory), (4) addition of new remanufacturing exclusions for certain higher

- value solvents going to remanufacturing, (5) revisions to the solid waste variance and

non

- waste determination process, and (6) addition of new requirements for the pre

- 2008 hazardous waste recycling exclusions.

Based on public comment and additional review, EPA is finalizing f our of the six revisions originally proposed in 2011 with modification s. In addition , instead of replacing the transfer

based exclusion with alternative Subtitle C standards for hazardous recyclabl e materials it is being replaced with a verified recycler exclusion. Also, emergency preparedness and response requirements are being added to the generator

- controlled exclusion, verified recycler exclusion,

and for intermediate facilities and recyclers that do not have a RCRA permit. These changes are being finalized as six regulatory revision s:

 Revision 1 : Modifies the 2008 DSW exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred offsite for the purpose of reclamation with the requirement that materials be transferred to a verified reclamation facility for the purpose

of reclamation (i.e., “ DSW verified recy cler exclusion”) . If it is transferred to a verified recycl er and meets the other conditions of the exclusion it is not a solid waste. Recyclers are subject to obtaining a variance if they do not have a RCRA permit or interim status. Generators recyclin g under this exclusion are subject to recycling only in the United
States, containment standards, notification requirements, and sp eculative accumulation labeling

.

 Revision 2 : R evises the generator

- controlled exclusion of the 2008 DSW rule to include a definition of “contained,” notification as a condition of the exclusion, speculative

### 2

- 2

accumulation recordkeeping and labeling requirements, recordkeeping requirements under the toll manufacturing recycling exclusion and “same company” recy cling exclusion, and a restructuring of the location of non

- land based and land

- based unit operational requirements together in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23).

 Revision 3 : Consists of two components:

o Pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions and 2014 Verified Recycler E xclusion : Appl ies a codified definition to pre

- 2008 DSW industrial recycling exclusions and the verified recycler exclusion which requires that all four legitimacy factors be mandatory for all exclusions, with built in flexibility for Factor 4. In addition, recyclers p reviously operating under the 2008 DSW off

- site transfer exclusion and now operating under the 2014 DSW verified recycler exclusion must meet all four legitimacy factors.

o 2008 DSW exclusions : Requires all 2008 DSW exclusion recyclers to document legitimacy as a condition of the generator

- controlled exclusio n and non

- waste

determinations

.

 Revision 4 : M odifies the 1985 ex isting regulation of DSW variances and 2008 DSW non

waste determinations by requiring re

- certification and re

- application, biennial notification, additional provisions for partially recycled materials, and demonstration by

non

- waste det ermination petitioners.

 Revision 5 : A dd s a new exclusion from the DSW for higher

- value hazardous secondary

materials (18 types of spent solvents) trans ferred from one manufacturer to another. This “remanufacturing” recycling exclusion will extend the useful life of the original material product by keeping such materials in commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original material product, provid ed certain conditions and eligibility criteria are met.

 Revision 6 : Adds emergency preparedness and response requirements of 40 CFR 265 Subparts C and D to (1) all generators in the generator controlled exclusion who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of haza rdous secondary material onsite and (2) the

generators who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite in the verified recycling exclusion (VRE) and (3) intermediate facilities and recyclers that do not have a RCRA permit as part of the variance procedure for the verified recyclers

under the VRE (these costs are not estimated separately but are included in the costs of obtaining a variance under Revision 1)

. Generators who accumulate less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary mater ials would be subject to emergency preparedness and response requirements of §262.34(d)(5). For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that LQGs would accumulate more than 6,000 kg onsite (regardless of post

- rule status) while SQGs and CESQG would acc umulate less than 6,000 kg onsite.



## 2B. Summa ry of Public Comments on the RIA for the 2011 Proposed DSW

Revisions

EPA received 42 sets of public comments from 24 organizations (listed in Exhibit 2A below) pertaining to EPA’s July 2011 DSW proposed rule RIA and on related economic analysis sub

-

### 2

- 3

topics associated with ORCR’s compliance with Executive Order 12866 and 13563 a nd the Regulatory Flexibility Act. These 42 comment sets represent 12% of the total 347 “universe” of public comment sets received on all topics pertaining to th e July 2011 DSW proposed rule.

Exhibit 2 A Identity of Public Commenters on the RIA for the 2011 Proposed DSW Revisions

Set Name of Commenter Commenter ID Number* Count of Comments

1 American Chemistry Council (ACC) 2010

- 0742

- 0238 2

2 American Forest & Paper Association 2010

- 0742

- 0168 1

3 American Petroleum Institute (API) 2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0175 2

4 BAE Systems Ordnance Systems Inc. (OSI) 2010

- 0742

- 0216 2

5 Federal Recycling and Remediation Coalition (FRRC) 2010

- 0742

- 0255 2

6 Freeport

- McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. 2010

- 0742

- 0363 1

7 Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. 2010

- 0742

- 0208 3

8 Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. (JCI) 2010

- 0742

- 0196

2010

- 0742

- 0350 2

9 Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA) 2010

- 0742

- 0133 3

10 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) 2010

- 0742

- 0225 2

11 Louisiana Mid

- Continent Oil and Gas Association
(LMOGA) 2010

- 0742

- 0076 1

12 Metals Industries Recycling Coalition 2010

- 0742

- 0198 1

13 National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 2010

- 0742

- 0355 1

14 National Mining Association (NMA) 2010

- 0742

- 0111 1

15 Newmont Mining Corporation TRANS

- PA

- 0001

2010

- 0742

- 0193 4

16 NewPage Corporation 2010

- 0742

- 0171 1

17 Public Interest 2010

- 0742

- 0104 4

18 Rhodia Inc. 2010

- 0742

- 0202 1

19 Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) 2010

- 0742

- 0177 1

21 The Aluminum Association 2010

- 0742

- 0194 2

22 The Dow Chemical Company 2010

- 0742

- 0199 1

23 U. S. Chamber of Commerce 2010

- 0742

- 0154 2

24 United States Business Council for Sustainable Development 2010

- 0742

- 0204 2

Total public comments on 2011 DSW RIA= 42 sets (n=24 organizations)

Note: * Commenter ID number (with prefix EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- ) as assigned by the Federal regulatory docket at: http://www.regulations.gov for docket number EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742.



### Exhibit 2B below presents a summary of the most prevalent sub

- topics contained in the 42 sets of comments pertaining to EPA’s July 2011 DSW proposed rule RIA. These sub

- topics reflect specific excerpts from each comment set as parsed and bracketed. The p arsing and bracketing yielded a total of 27 sub

- topics from the 42 comment sets pertaining to the 2011 DSW RIA.

### 2

- 4 Exhibit 2B

Sum mary of Public Comment s on EPA’s RIA for the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions

Rank Comment Excerpt Sub

- Topic Commenter ID

Number* Non

- duplicative

Commenter Count

1 Underestimated potential future industry costs. 2010

- 0742

- 0111

2010

- 0742

- 0133

2010

- 0742

- 0171

2010

- 0742

- 0177

2010

- 0742

- 0196***

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0202

2010

- 0742

- 0208 (3)

2010

- 0742

- 0104

2010

- 0742

- 0225

2010

- 0742

- 0255

2010

- 0742

- 0350***

2010

- 0742

- 0355

2010

- 0742

- 0363

2010

- 0742

- 0194

2010

- 0742

- 0238 18 comment sets

(representing 15 organizations)

2 Underestimated the pot ential future industry cost of legitimacy

determination process, including the potential costs incurred

d uring th e review period (i.e., (1) the shutdown (whether temporary or permanent) of facilities while operations are revamped, with consequent loss of employment; (2) enormous costs to revamp operations; (3) costs to build and maintain acceptable storage fa cilities for hundreds of tons of in

- process secondary materials while a petition was being considered by EPA or an authorized State: (4) lost revenues from having to send valuable secondary materials for permanent treatment and disposal; and (5) costs incu rred to pay a third party with a RCRA permit to treat, store or dispose of the in

- process secondary materials). 2010

- 0742

- 0104 (2)

2010

- 0742

- 0111

2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0193 

2010

- 0742

- 0194

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0208

2010

- 0742

- 0238

TRANS

- PA

- 0001** **

2010

- 0742

- 0171 12 comment sets (representing 9 organizations)

3 RIA assessment of costs and benefits is flawed, inaccurate, and inadequate because it does not meet requirements for proper cost analysis; construction and conclusions are m isleading; analysis is improperly presented, reduced regulatory compliance costs are presented as cost savings; miscalculates impact on pre

- 2008 exclusions; does not correctly identify major costs and benefits; and it’s based on incorrect data and unsuppor ted assumptions. 2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0202

2010

- 0742

- 0208 (3)

2010

- 0742

- 0225 (2)

2010

- 0742

- 0238

2010

- 0742

- 0363

2010

- 0742

- 0104

2010

- 0742

- 0198

2010

- 0742

- 0199 12 comment sets (representing 9 organizations)

4 Incorrectly characterized the use of the pre

- 2008 exclusions as avoided costs or cost savings

. 2010

- 0742

- 0133

2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0171

2010

- 0742

- 0193 

2010

- 0742

- 0196** *

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0202

2010

- 0742

- 0204

2010

- 0742

- 0238

2010

- 0 742

- 0350***

2010

- 0742

- 0355

2010

- 0742

- 0363 12 comment sets

(representing 11 organizations)

5 Does not adequately identify and characterize all directly 2010

- 0742

- 0111 11 comment sets

### 2

- 5 Exhibit 2B

Sum mary of Public Comment s on EPA’s RIA for the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions

Rank Comment Excerpt Sub

- Topic Commenter ID

Number* Non

- duplicative

Commenter Count affected industries and entities operating with pre

- 2008

exclusions. Under

- estimated the number of facilities (and the

number of waste streams at such facil ities) that are recycling under the pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions and associated costs. 2010

- 0742

- 0133 (3)

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0202

2010

- 0742

- 0204

2010

- 0742

- 0208

2010

- 0742

- 0225

2010

- 0742

- 0238

2010

- 0742

- 0363 (representing 9 organizations)

6 Underestimated cost associated with enhanced notification, recordkeeping and/or labeling requirements proposed for the pre

2008 DSW exclusions. 2010

- 0742

- 0171

2010

- 0742

- 0193****

2010

- 0742

- 0196***

2010

- 0742

- 0208

2010

- 0742

- 0238

2010

- 07 42

- 0255

2010

- 0742

- 0350***

2010

- 0742

- 0355

2010

- 0742

- 0154

2010

- 0742

- 0140 10 comment sets (representing 9 organizations)

7 Underestimated percentage of facilities that potentially will participat e in legitimacy determinations . Incorrectly assumed that only 5% of facilities with pre

- 2008 exclusions potentially

w ill require legitimacy certifications

. 2010

- 0742

- 0111

2010

- 0742

- 0194

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0208

2010

- 0742

- 0238

2010

- 0742

- 0255

TRANS

- PA

- 0001* ***

2010

- 0742

- 0193 

2010

- 0742

- 0140 9 comment sets (representing 8 organizations)

8 Future benefits of proposed rule were over

- estimated, not quantified, assumed, inaccurate, speculative, unreliable,
incorrect, undifferentiated, insufficient, and/or violate the Executive Order requirement that agencies co nsider a range of (true) alternatives to the proposed course of action. 2010

- 0742

- 0104

2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0154

2010

- 0742

- 0168

2010

- 0742

- 0198

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0208

2010

- 0742

- 0255

2010

- 0742

- 0355 9

9 Omitted analyses of potenti al countervailing risks such as: (a) increase in future industrial recycling damage cases and cleanup costs; (b) increased energy consumption associated with use of raw materials and resulting air emissions; (c) reduction in legitimate recycling and/or les s investment in recycling activities; (d) potential impact to market for reclaimed materials; and (e) a shift from secondary materials to virgin materials. 2010

- 0742

- 0076

2010

- 0742

- 0104 (2)

2010

- 0742

- 0194

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0204

2010

- 0742

- 0238

2010

- 0 742

- 0255 8 comment sets (representing 7 organizations)

10 Underestimated potential future industry cost of compliance with legitimacy determination requirements. 2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0111

2010

- 0742

- 0133 (2)

2010

- 0742

- 0133

2010

- 0742

- 0194

2010

- 0742

- 0171

2010

- 0742

- 0196 7 comment sets (representing 6 organizations)

11 Inadequately addressed requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 2010

- 0742

- 0140**  7 comment sets

### 2

- 6 Exhibit 2B

Sum mary of Public Comment s on EPA’s RIA for the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions

Rank Comment Excerpt Sub

- Topic Commenter ID

Number* Non

- duplicative

Commenter Count

13563 and/or 13132. 2010

- 0742

- 0154 (2)

2010

- 0742

- 0175**

2010

- 0742

- 0208 (2)

2010

- 0742

- 0238 (representing 4 organizations)

12 Incorrectly assumed that the information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the four legitimacy criteria was readily available and that no new information would need to be generated. 2010

- 0742

- 0171

2010

- 0742

- 0355

2010

- 0742

- 0196***

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0204

2010

- 0742

- 0350***

2010

- 0742

- 0104 7 comment sets (representing 6 organizations)

13 Did not adequately assess adverse impacts on small businesses, including distributional impacts. 2010

- 0742

- 0104 (3)

2010

- 0742

- 0208 (2) 5 comment sets (representing 2 organizations)

14 Incorrectly assumed that the avoided RCRA regulatory costs for facilities operating under the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions, will on a

per

- facility average annual basis, be the same as the 14 RCRA regulatory requirements avoided for the 2008 DSW exclusions. 2010

- 0742

- 0133

2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0199

2010

- 0742

- 0204

2010

- 0742

- 0363 5

15 Did not adequately account for potential impacts on state government agencies (e.g., unemployment and social welfa re costs resulting from manufacturers going out of business due to proposed rule’s restrictions on on

- site recycling and pre

- 2008 exclusions; and administrative and financial burden to manage the petition process, legitimacy determinations and other requi rements of the proposed rule). 2010

- 0742

- 0177

2010

- 0742

- 0194

2010

- 0742

- 0216

2010

- 0742

- 0225

2010

- 0742

- 0238 5

16 Did not adequately address uncertainty of states adopting proposed rule nor calculate impacts of a state adoption rate lower

than 100%. 2010

- 0742

- 0104 (2)

2010

- 0742

- 0363

2010

- 0742

- 0171 4 comment sets (representing 3 organizations)

17 Incorrectly asserted that making the four “legitimacy criteria” positive regulatory requirements for which all recyclers would have to demonstrate compliance would increase recycling under the pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions and consequently result in economic benefits to industry, including increased employment. 2010

- 0742

- 0171

2010

- 0742

- 0196***

2010

- 0742

- 0350***

2010

- 0742

- 0355 4 comment sets (representing 3

org anizations)

18 Incorrectly assumed 100% of facilities operating with pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions would adopt 2011 proposed revisions. 2010

- 0742

- 0104

2010

- 0742

- 0238

2010

- 0742

- 0255 3

19 Wrongly concluded 2011 DSW proposed rule is not economically significant. 2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0154 2

20 Underestimated the potential future cost of removing the 2008

DSW rule transfer

- based exclusion. 2010

- 0742

- 0140

2010

- 0742

- 0238 2

21 Underestimated the potential future cost to obtain a RCRA permit and be subject to comprehensive and significant regulation, including the substantial RCRA financial assurance and corrective action requirements in event newly proposed conditions for a recycling exclusion are not met. 2010

- 0742

- 0363 1

22 Inappropriately assumed that the transfer

- based and generator

based exclusi ons codified by the 2008 DSW r ule are applicable to all waste streams reported in EPA’s RCRA Biennial Hazardous Waste Report. These exclusions only apply to the reclamation of spent materials, listed sludges and li sted 2010

- 0742

- 0238 1

### 2

- 7 Exhibit 2B

Sum mary of Public Comment s on EPA’s RIA for the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions

Rank Comment Excerpt Sub

- Topic Commenter ID

Number* Non

- duplicative

Commenter Count byproducts; a sliver of the universe of waste streams addressed in the RCRA Biennial Report. This erroneous assumption, along with other erroneous assumptions and predictions, throws the entire cost calculation into question.

23 Used inappropriate unitized cost s (e.g., recordkeeping and reporting burden estimates from ICR are based on assumptions and not based on empirical data). EPA failed to obtain credible estimates of labor time burdens and costs by not surveying industry. 2010

- 0742

- 0154 1

24 Incorrectly referred to EPA’s proposed changes as "options." 2010

- 0742

- 0140 1

25 Omitted analyses of disproportionate impacts on low income populations. 2010

- 0742

- 0104 1

26 Did not include compliance costs for new business owners whe n rule is adopted by States. 2010

- 0742

- 0104 1

27 Did not estimate initial implementation costs 2010

- 0742

- 0133 1
Explanatory Notes:

* P ublic comments are avail able by c om menter ID number (with the prefix EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- ) in the Federal regulatory

docket at: http://www.regulations.gov for docket number EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742.

** American Petroleum Institute has two ID numbers: 2010

- 0742

- 0140 and 2010

- 0742

- 0175. *** Johnson Control Battery Group Inc. (JCI) has two ID n umbers: 2010

- 0742

- 0196 and 2010

- 0742

- 0350. **** Newmont Mining has two ID numbers: TRANS

- PA

- 0001and 2010

- 0742

- 0193.



## 2C. 2014 DSW Final Rule Regulatory Revision s Evaluated in this RIA

The scope of 2014 revisions to the RCRA DSW exclusion regulations evaluated in this RIA, include the following revision s.

Revision 1: Replace the 2008 DSW Off

- si te Transfer

- Based Exclusion with the 2014

DSW Verified Recycler Exclusion Modify the 2008 DSW exclusion at 40 CF R 261.4(a)(24) for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred offsite for the purpose of reclamation the with a require ment that materials be transferred to a verified reclamation facility for the purpose of reclamation. If transferred to a

verified re cycler it is not a solid waste. The following revision s of the off

- site transfer

- based

exclusion are being modified to reflect the new verified recycler DSW exclusion:

( 1 A) Reasonable Efforts : Eliminate costs associated with the “ reasonable e fforts ” requirement under the off

- site transfer based exclusion for the generator to audit recyclers that do not have a permit.

(1B) Varian ce : Recyclers that do not have a RCRA Part B permit or interim status must obtain a variance under 260.31(d) that addresses the management of hazardous secondary

materials

.

(1C) Domestic Recycling : Hazardous secondary material generators must transport their hazardous secondary materials to a verified reclamation facility located in the United

States.

### 2

- 8

(1D) Definition of “Contained” : The 2014 DSW final rule codifies the performance

based standard for container storage. A hazardous secondary material is contained if it is managed in a unit, including a land

- based unit, which meets the following criteria:

1. The unit is in good condition, with no leaks or other continuing or intermittent unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary materials to the environment, and is designed, as appropriate for the hazardous secondary material, to prevent releases of

the hazardous secondary materials to the environment. Such releases may include, but are not limited to, releases through surface transport by precipitation runoff, releases to groundwater, wind

- blown dust, fugitive air emissions, and catastrophic unit

failure s;
2. The unit is properly labeled or otherwise has a system (such as a log) to immediately identify the hazardous secondary materials in the unit; and

3. The unit does not hold incompatible materials and addresses any potential risks of fires or explosions.

Hazardous secondary materials in units that meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR

264 or 265 are considered to be contained.

(1E) Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) : The 2014 DSW final rule revises the

2008 DSW rule to include notification as a condition of the verified recycler exclusion. Notification is essential to keep regulators and the public informed about hazardous secondary materials activity and to al low monitoring for compliance.

(1F ) Speculative Accumulation Recordkeeping & Labeling : Generators of hazardous secondary materials are required to label the storage start date on each container (or post accumulation dates or enter dates in inventory logs in other types of units not amenable to labeling) to ensure against speculati ve accumulation.

Revision 2 : Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Generator

- Controlled Recycling The five revisions to the generator

- controlled exclusion of the 2008 DSW rule include:

( 2 A) Definition of “Contained” : The 2014 DSW final rule codifies the p erformance

based standard for container storage. A hazardous secondary material is contained if it is managed in a unit, including a land

- based unit, which meets the following criteria:

4. The unit is in good condition, with no leaks or other continuing or intermittent unpermitted releases of the hazardous secondary materials to the environment, and is designed, as appropriate for the hazardous secondary material, to prevent releases of the hazardous secondary materials to the environment. Such releases may include, but are not limited to, releases through surface transport by precipitation runoff, releases to groundwater, wind

- blown dust, fugitive air emissions, and catastrophic unit
failures;

5. The unit is properly labeled or otherwise has a system (such as a log) to immediately identify the hazardous secondary materials in the unit; and

### 2

- 9

6. The unit does not hold incompatible materials and addresses any potential risks of fires or explosions.

Haza rdous secondary materials in units that meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR

264 or 265 are considered to be contained.

( 2 B) Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) : The 2014 DSW final rule revises the

2008 DSW rule to include notification as a c ondition of the generator

- controlled exclusion. Notification is essential to keep regulators and the public informed about hazardous secondary materials activity and to al low monitoring for compliance.

( 2 C) Speculative Accumulation Recordkeeping & Label ing : Generators of hazardous secondary materials are required to label the storage start date on each container (or post accumulation dates or enter dates in inventory logs in other types of units not amenable to labeling) to ensure against speculative ac cumulation.

( 2 D) Recordkeeping Requirements under the Toll Manufacturing Recycling Exclusion and the “Same Company” Recycling Exclusion : Generators of hazardous secondary materials are required to maintain records of shipments sent and received for thre e years under both the toll manufacturing and the “same com pany” recycling exclusions.

( 2 E) Re

- structure the Location of the Non

- land Based and Land

- based Unit Operational Requirements in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) : The 2014 DSW final rule will re

- structure the

location of the non

- land based and land based unit operational requirements such that these requirements will be located together in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23).

Revision 3 : Prohibition of “Sham Recycling”

This revision c odif

ies a prohibition on “sham recycling”, which is defined as recycling that does not meet the definition of legitimate recycling. Under the new definition for legitimate recycling, all four legitimacy factors are mandatory , and would apply to all recycling exclusions

, including pre

- 2008 DSW industrial recycling exclusions and the verified recycler exclusion . In
addition, the final rule appl ies legitimacy documentation requirements to two 2008 DSW

exclusions . The revisions and associated requirements for th is revision are described as follows:

( 3 A) Codify a prohibition on “sham recycling”, defined as recycling that does not meet the definition of legitimate recycling

. Under the new definition for legitimate recycling,

a ll four legitimacy factors are mandat ory, with built in flexibility for Factor 4 (i.e., the product of the recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate). Factor 4 is met when the product of recycling does not have an analogous product from raw material but :

1. T he product is a generally recognized commodity that meets recognized com mercial specifications, or

2. T he hazardous secondary materials being recycled are returned to the original process or processes from which they were generated to be reused (e.g., closed loop recycling).

### 2

- 10

When Factor 4 is not comparable but recycling is legitimate a condition is added requiring documentation of legitimacy (including certification) to be kept on site and notification to be sent to the regulatory agency.

( 3 B) Four Legitimacy Factors Documentation Applied to 2008 DSW Exclusions : 2008 DSW exclusion recyclers are required to document legitimacy as a condition of the

generator

- controlled excl usion and the non

- waste determinations . The document ation

would consist of a written narrative outlining how their recycling meets each of the four factors of legitimacy as described in 40 CFR 260.34 and would be kept onsite for the duration of the recycling and for three years after recycling cease s

.

Unlike the existing pre

- 2008 DSW waste

- specific and process

- specific exclusions where EPA considered the legitimacy of the recycling in the rulemaking process, the 2008 DSW exclusions are generic exclusions that apply to a variety of hazardous secondary materials being recycled i n different ways. EPA believe s it is appropriate to require the generator

controlled and non

- waste determination recyclers to document how their recycling practice meets the legitimate recycling standard and maintain the documentation for oversight and co mpliance purposes.

Revision 4 : Revise the 1985 Partial Recycling Variance and 2008 DSW Non

- Waste

Determination Petition Processes The Agency modified the existing regulation of solid waste variances at 40 CFR 260.31(c), 40

CFR 260.33 and 40 CFR 260.34 t o foster greater consistency on the part of implementing agencies and help ensure the protectiveness of the implementation of the solid waste variances

and non

- waste determinations. The Administrator may grant requests for a variance from classifying as a solid waste those materials that have been partially reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed, if the partial reclamation has produced a commodity

- like material. A determination that a partially

- reclaimed material for which the variance is sought is commodity

- like will be based on whether the hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled as specified in § 260.43 and on whether all of the following decision

criteria are satisfied:

1. Whether the degree of partial reclamation the material has undergone is substantial;

2. Whether the partially

- reclaimed material has sufficient economic value that it will be purchased for final reclamation;

3. Whether the partially

- reclaimed material is a viable substitute for a product or

intermedia te produced from virgin or raw materials which is used in subsequent production steps;

4. Whether there is a guaranteed market for the partially

- reclaimed material as demonstrated by known customers and proof of demand (e.g., records of sales and/or

contracts ); and

5. Whether the partially

- reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss.

### 2

- 11

Modified procedures for variances and no n

- waste determinations include:

( 4 A) Requirement that an Applicant Re

- certify in the Event the Material No Longer

Meets the Relevant Cr iteria and Re

- apply for a Variance at Least Every 10 Years : Under the current regulatory framework, 40 CFR 260.30 provides the Administrator with the authority to grant a variance from the definition of solid waste or a non

- waste

determination on a case

- b y

- case basis if materials are recycled in a particular manner. The practical effect of both the solid waste variances and the non

- waste determinations is the same; once a petition is granted by EPA or the authorized state, the hazardous secondary material is not regulated as a solid or hazardous waste. The procedures for

these variances and non

- waste determinations are found in 40 CFR 260.33.

EPA is making two changes to 40 CFR 260.33. First, EPA will make all variances subject to the provision in 40 CFR 260.33(c) requiring an applicant to re

- certify for a variance in the event that the material no longer meets the relevant criteria. Second, EPA is requiring facilities to re

- apply for a variance at least every 10 years.

The 2008 DSW rule noted that once a non

- waste determination has been granted, the applicant is obligated to ensure the hazardous secondary material continues to meet the

criteria of the non

- waste determination, including any conditions specified therein by the regulatory authority. I f a change occurs that affects how the hazardous secondary materials meet the relevant criteria and (if applicable) any conditions as specified by the regulatory authority and the applicant fails to re

- apply to the Administrator for a formal
determination, the hazardous secondary materials may be determined to be solid and hazardous waste and subject to the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements (73

FR 64712

– 13, October 30, 2008). This requirement was codified at 40 CFR 260.33(c).

The requirement tha t the hazardous secondary materials determined to not be a solid

waste must continue to meet the relevant criteria of a solid waste variance or non

- waste determination is inherent in the regulations. Failure to meet the criteria could indicate

that the ha zardous secondary materials are discarded and a solid waste and would trigger

the need to re

- examine the circumstances of the recycling. The 2008 DSW rule codified this requirement in order to enhance clarity and assist in its implementation, but only

foc used on the non

- waste determination provisions because that was the scope of that rule. EPA is now explicitly applying 40 CFR 260.33(c) to all the solid waste variances,

as well as the non

- waste determination provisions listed in 40 CFR 260.30 to ensure t hat if there are changes that may impact how hazardous secondary materials meet the relevant criteria, that such changes be considered by the regulatory authority to ensure that those criteria continue to be met. Codifying this requirement will help ensure clarity and consistency by providing an administrative procedure for reconsidering a variance in the event that the hazardous secondary material no longer meets the relative criteria for

the variance.

( 4 B) Biennial Notification : A provision will be add ed at 40 CFR 260.33(d) stating that facilities receiving a variance or non

- waste determination must provide notification as required by § 260.42 of this chapter. Facilities will be required to submit initial and

### 2

- 12

biennial notification if operating under va riances and non

- waste determinations. Submittal of a notification using EPA Form 8700

- 12 will be required prior to operating and thereafter biennially. In addition, facilities will be required to update and submit

notification that the hazardous secondar y materials are no longer managed in accordance

with the solid waste variances and non

- waste determination.

( 4 C) 1985 D SW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials : The 2014 DSW rule will modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.3(c) DSW variance for partially recycl ed materials. The revisions include: (a) specifying that the variance applies at the point at which the hazardous secondary material must be commodity

- like; (b) requiring that all criteria must be met; and (c) removing the sixth “catch all” criterion that other relevant factors may be

considered.

( 4 D) Demonstration by 2008 DSW Non

- Waste Determination Petitioners : The 2014

DSW rule requires non

- waste determination petitioners to demonstrate why they cannot or should not meet existing DSW recycling exclus ions.

Revision 5 : Add a “ Remanufacturing ” DSW Recycling Exclusion The Agency is adding a remanufacturing exclusion from the definition of solid waste for higher

value hazardous secondary materials transferred from one manufacturer to another for the

purp ose of extending the useful life of the original material product by keeping such materials in commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original material product, provid ed certain

conditions are met.

This remanufacturing revision applies to spent s olvent “processing aids” which may be sent offsite for remanufacturing (distillation) by another company, for continued use as processing aids. This exclusion is a specific type of offsite transfer exclusion referred to as the remanufacturing exclusion. Generators and re

- manufactures must meet the following eligibility criteria and conditions to qualify for the remanufacturing DSW recycling exclusion.

( 5 A) Four E ligibility Criteria for the Remanufacturing DSW Recycling Exclusion : The following criteria must be met to be eligible for the remanufacturing DSW recycling

exclusion:

1. The generator or re

- manufacturer must be recycling one of the following 18 spent solvents: toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, 1,2,4

- trimethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, n

hexane, cycloh exane, methyl tert

- butyl ether, acetonitrile, chloroform, chloromethane, dichloromethane, methyl isobutyl ketone, N,N

- dimethylformamide, tetrahydrofuran, ethanol, n

- butyl alcohol, and methanol.

2. The spent solvent must be generated (i.e., originate from use as processing aid) from commercial grade solvent used for reacting, extracting, pur ifying, or blending

chemicals.

3. The continued use of the solvent after manufacturing is limited to that of a processing aid in reacting, extracting, purifying, or blending ch emicals. The continued use cannot involve cleaning or degreasing oil, grease, or similar material from textiles, glassware, metal surfaces, or other articles.

### 2

- 13

4. The solvent must originate from one of the following four industries: basic organic

chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325199), plastics/resins manufacturing (NAICS 325211), pharmaceutical manufacturing (NAICS 325412), or paints/coating manufacturing (NAICS 325510).

( 5 B) Five C onditions for the Remanufacturing DSW Recycling Exclusion : Generators

and re

- manufacturers of hazardous secondary materials must meet five conditions to qualify for the remanufacturing DSW recycling exclusion. These con ditions include the following:

1. Notification . Generators and re

- manufactures are required to submit notif ication prior to operating under the exclusion and update notification every 2

- years using

EPA form 8700

- 12. Additionally, notification must be submitted within 30 days of stopping management of hazardous secondary materials under this exclusion.

2. Reman ufacturing Plan . Generators and re

- manufacturers must prepare and maintain a remanufacturing plan to demonstrate that they meet the conditions of the exclusion. The plan must be jointly developed by the hazardous secondary material generator

and re

- manuf

acturer before claiming the exclusion.

3. Record of Shipments and Confirmation of Receipts . Generators and re

- manufacturers must maintain records of shipments of hazardous secondary materials for a period of three years at the facility. Generators also must maintain confirmation of receipt for

all off

- site shipments of hazardous secondary materials for a period of three years at the facility.

4. Prevent Hazardous Air Emissions . Generators and re

- manufacturers must ensure

effective control of hazardous air emi ssions by complying with all applicable NESHAP standards and with the requirements of RCRA subparts AA, BB, and CC of 40 CFR part 26 during remanufacturing and during storage of hazardous secondary materials prior to remanufacturing.

5. Prohibition on Specula tive Accumulation . Hazardous secondary materials are subject to the speculative accumulation restrictions in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8), which includes both a time limitation and a requirement that generators and re

- manufactures be able

to show there is a feasibl e means of recycling/recovering the hazardous secondary

material.

( 5 C) Petition Process for the Remanufacturing DSW Recycling Exclusion : Generators

and re

- manufacturers may petition to add certain chemicals, industries, and/or chemical

function uses to t he remanufacturing criteria under the remanufacturing exclusion.

In addition to the criteria and conditions detailed above, the Agency requires that at the time the remanufacturing exclusion is terminated, generators and re

- manufacturers must

manage any remaining hazardous secondary materials and remove or decontaminate all hazardous residues and contaminated containment system components, equipment structures, and soils within a timeframe established for analogous activities. Additionally, the Agency ma y subject generators and remanufacturers to enforcement actions if they fail to meet the exclusion’s requirements while operating under the

exclusion.

### 2

- 14

Revision 6: Add Emergency Preparedness and Response to DSW Generator

- Controlled Exclusion, Verified Rec ycler Exclusion, and VRE Intermediate Facilities and Recyclers

Without a RCRA Permit

Add emergency preparedness and response requirements of 40 CFR 265 Subparts C and D to (1) all generators in the generator controlled exclusion who accumulate more than 6 ,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite and (2) the generators who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite in the verified recycling exclusion (VRE) and (3) intermediate facilities and recyclers that do not have a RCRA p ermit as part of the variance procedure for the verified recyclers under the VRE (these costs are not estimated separately but are included in the costs of obtaining a variance under Revision 1)

. Generators who accumulate less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials would be subject to emergency preparedness and response requirements of §262.34(d)(5). For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that LQGs would accumulate more than 6,000 kg onsite (regardless of post

- rule status) while SQGs

and CESQG would accumulate less than 6,000 kg onsite.

The change adds the cost of hazardous waste training and preparation of emergency plan requirements for those generators who are conditionally ex empt small quantity generators
(CESQGs) operating under the generator controlled exclusion and VRE

. Small quantity generators (SQGs), Large quantity generators (LQGs) and TSDFs already incur these costs under

these exclusions and incur no added costs for this revision

. Former LQGs that accumulate more
than 6,000 kg of secondary material onsite and changed generator status to SQG or CESQG

under the 2008 DSW Rule will incur full LQG

- level costs for hazardous waste training and preparation of contingency plan and emergency plan requirements.

(6A) Hazardous Waste/Materials Training : LQGs under §265.16 and SQGs under §262.34(d)(5) are currently required to have manifesting, hazardous materials handling, and emergency procedures training. This training requirement will continue to be required for LQGs and SQG s under the requirements of Revision 6. Revision 6 adds personnel training requirements under §262.34(d)(5) to CESQGs who are accumulating less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials and recycling them under the DSW

generator

- controlled exclusion and verified recycler exclusion.

(6B) Contingency Plan : LQGs under 40 CFR 265 Subpart D are currently required to prepare and implement a contingency plan. Under Revision 6, generators who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material o nsite (assumed to be LQGs in this analysis) are continued to require a contingency plan if recycling under the

generator

- controlled exclusion, verified recycler exclusion, or are intermediate facilities and recyclers that do not have a RCRA permit.

(6C) Emergency Preparedness Plan : LQGs under 40 CFR 265 Subpart C and SQGs under §262.34(d)(5) are currently required to be prepared for emergencies (i.e., an emergency preparedness plan). This requirement will continue to be required for LQGs and SQGs under the requirements of Revision 6. Revision 6 adds emergency preparedness requirements under §262.34(d)(5) to CESQGs who are accumulating less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials and recycling them under the DSW

generator

- controlled exclusion and verified recycler exclusion.

### 3

- 1 

# C HAPTER 

# 3

Baseline Industria l Entities and Materials Potentially Affected by the 2014 Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

This chapter identifies the types and associated counts/quantities of industrial facilities, hazardous secondary materials, and hazardous wastes potentially affected by the 2014 revisions to the DSW exclusions. These counts/quantities form the physical basis in this RIA for estimating potential industry costs from the 2014 revisions. Because some of the 2014 revisions

potent ially affect the 2008 DSW rule recycling exclusions, whereas other 2014 revisions potentially affect the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions, this chapter presents two separate populations of potentially affected facilities/materials/wastes, each based on different databases.



## 3A. 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions: Baseline Industrial Recyc ling Potentially Affected

The RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report 8 

### (BR) is a census of the company identity, location, industrial sources, waste types, waste quantities, and methods of hazardous waste generation, shipment, receipt, and TSDR management (i .e., treatment, storage, disposal, recycling) at two classes of RCRA

- regulated facilities:

 Generators: RCRA hazardous waste large quantity generators (i.e., LQG sites which

generate 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) or more of hazardous waste in any single calendar month). LQGs are required to complete a single

“ Form GM ” for each hazardous waste generated in each data year. In
2009, 16,220 generators (14,710 LQGs) submitted about 207,000 GM

forms to the RCRA Biennial Report The count of GM forms indicates the count of waste streams generated by LQGs in each data year.

 Receivers: RCRA hazardous waste TSDR facilities are required to complete a

“ Form WR ” for all hazardous wastes received in the data year. Each Form WR contains separate “waste blocks” (i.e., data fields) for reporting data on separate waste streams received from different generators. In

2009

, 589 waste receivers submitted about 1,039,000 WR form waste

blocks . The count of WR form waste blocks indicates the count of waste streams received by TSDRFs in each year.

The BR includes both one

- time generated industrial wastes (e.g., equipment closu re, corrective action site cleanup) as well as annually recurring generated industrial process wastes. This database is the primary source used in this RIA to identify the 2008 DS W rule current (i.e., baseline) hazardous secondary materials generated that could be affected by technical provisions

under the 2014 DSW rule. These hazardous secondary materials were reported as hazardous

8 The RCRA Biennial Report is available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm

### 3

- 2

wastes in the 2009 BR. Small quantity generators (i.e., SQGs which generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per month) and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (i.e., CESQGs which generate less than 100 kilograms per month) are not required to submit hazardous waste data to the BR. However, SQG waste quantities may be reflected in the BR because SQGs typically rely on offsite commercial TSDRFs for management of their hazardous wastes.

The BR is the most complete set of data on industrial hazardous waste generation available given it is a census of LQGs and TSDRFs. It is the best existing database for evaluating cha nges to RCRA regulations, given the fact that data are reported on the waste stream level by single facilities (some facilities may generate multiple and different waste streams within any given year). As mentioned previously, the Biennial Report does not explicitly include data for SQGs and CESQGs. Consequently, the regulatory cost savings estimates might be expected to increase if the universe of SQGs and CESQGs were explicitly included in this RIA. However, this increase would mostly occur from additi on of SQG data because CESQGs are already excluded from most RCRA regulations. 9

9 SQGs: The omission of SQGs from this analysis r eflects the RCRA statutory exclusion of SQGs from reporting to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report. Consequently, EPA does not collect regularly updated data on RCRA waste volumes generated by SQGs. Omission of explicit data on SQGs does not necessa rily mean that this analysis omits small and medium size companies for the following reasons:

 Not all SQGs necessarily represent small or medium size companies, and not all LQGs represent large companies, based on either (a) company employee count or (b) company annual sales revenues, two alternative measures used by the Small Business Administration to define “small business”
( http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/ officials/size/index.html )

.

 Furthermore, many SQGs are not in the same industries and markets with LQGs; for example, the top

- 5 largest LQG industries in 2003 based on annual tons of waste generated are (1) NAICS 3251 Basic Chemical Mfg, (2)

NAICS 3241 Pet roleum & Coal Products Mfg, (3) NAICS Waste Treatment & Disposal, (4) NAICS 3252 Resin, Synthetic Rubber, Synthetic Fibers & Filaments Mfg, and (5) NAICS 3311 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloy Mfg, all of which are capital

- intensive industries predominantly populated with relatively larger size companies (source: Exhibit 1.9 at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/national03.pdf). In contrast, SQGs are predominantly in different industries; for example, the top

- 5 SQG industries in aggregate

consti tuting 98.3% SQGs and only 1.7% LQGs are (1) NAICS 8111 Automotive Repair & Maintenance, (2) NAICS 3231 Printing & Related Support Activities, (3) NAICS 332 Fabricated Metal Product Mfg , (4) NAICS
4411 Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers, and (5) NAICS 5111 Pri nt Publishing Industries, based on estimated establishment counts in OSW’s July 2003 economic impact analysis for the RCRA spent solvent industrial wipes proposed rule (see page 90 of document ID nr. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2003

- 0004

- 0004 at http://www.regulations.gov )

.

 Although there is not necessarily a high degree of correlation in any single industry between RCRA regulatory status (i.e., LQG, SQG, CESQG) and facility size measured by employee count or annual revenues, comparison of respective RCRA biennial hazardou s waste generation volumes (i.e., tons per year) indicate that SQGs are probably much smaller in average size than LQGs. Consequently, most SQGs send their wastes offsite for treatment, disposal or recycling by commercial hazardous waste management facili ties because they lack

economy

- of

- scale to manage the wastes themselves, and for other business reasons. Based on 1997 data (source: Steven Brown, Margaret James & Gary Light, ICF Consulting, “SQG Up

- Date” 31 July 2000 memorandum to Peggy Vyas, OSW), ther e are about 114,000 SQGs which generate a total of between 600,000 to 930,000 tons/year of RCRA hazardous waste, which represents an average SQG waste size of 5.3 to 8.2 tons/year. As an example, if this average SQG volume consisted of spent solvents, it would be equivalent to 24 to 37 barrels per year, or 2 to 3 barrels per month (@8 lbs/gallon and @55 gallons/barrel). Compared to the 17,700 LQGs which generate 30,176,000 tons for an average LQG waste size of 1,705 tons/year (as of 2003)

--- which repres ents 7,750 barrels per year or 646 barrels per month of spent solvent as an example waste material

-

-- SQGs are only 0.3% to 0.5% the size of an average LQG. EPA does not expect SQGs will experience an

### 3

- 3

Pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions under RCRA regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 261.2(3) and 261.4(a)) provided 32 DSW exclusions for recycling of certain types of industrial hazardous sec ondary materials (Exhibit 2A). The earliest DSW exclusion dates back to 1985. The respective counts of industries, facilities, and waste streams potentially affected by the 2008 DSW rule did not apply to these pre

- 2008 excluded industries and hazardous s econdary materials. The 2014 DSW rule does affect these excluded hazardous secondary materials. Accurate data on the nationwide annual quantities of pre

- 2008 excluded hazardous secondary materials are not readily available because they are not subject to biennial reporting to the EPA under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. Data that EPA has identified for pre

- 2008 excluded hazardous secondary materials are presented at the end of the chapter.

Exhibits 3A to 3G below summarize the Biennial Report (BR) dataset for baseline hazardous waste recycling for 2009 for wastes affect ed by the 2008 DSW rule. The BR database contains only the primary NAICS code for each waste generator and waste management facility. Many

industrial facilities have mor e than one NAICS code corresponding to different types of industrial operations within a single facility, but the entire quantity of hazardous waste undergoing recycling is reported under a single NAICS code for each single facility in the BR

dataset.

For each historical BR data year available as of 2014 (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001,
2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 , and 2011 ) the BR national total “management” quantity (tons) does not necessarily equal the national total “generation” quantity (tons) because:

1. Some hazardous waste tonnages may be double

- counted in “management” because they undergo two or more management steps in a management train.

2. Some wastes may have been generated near year

- end but managed (i.e., treated, recycled or disposed) in t he next year.

3. Export of generated wastes for management in other countries affects totals.

4. Import of wastes generated in other countries for management in the US affects totals.

Exhibit 3A summarizes the three types of recycling included in the RCRA Bienn ial Report, and their associated 2009 count of facilities and hazardous waste management tonnages, distinguished between onsite and offsite recycling.

adverse disproportional effect of the 2014 DSW rule i f SQGs lack economy

- of

- scale to justify capital investment in new generator controlled recycling operations, because SQGs are alternatively eligible for DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion and the associated technical revisions.

N ote : Data year 2009 is used in this RIA to represent the current (i.e., baseline) year of affected industrial waste streams because EPA had to launch this RIA in early 2012 before the more recent BR data year

2011 became available in late 2012.

### 3

- 4

Exhibit 3B compares the 2009 baseline recycling data (Columns E & F) to data on hazardous

waste total generation (Columns A & B) and to total management (Columns C & D), according

to 2

- digit NAICS code economic sub

- sector.

Exhibit 3C presents the 2009 data for the three recycling methods (i.e., H010, H020, and H039 ) according to 2

- digit NAICS economic sub

- sector.

Exhibit 3D presents the same 2009 recycling data according to the types of industrial processes (i.e., Biennial Report Gxx codes) which generated the hazardous wastes being recycled.

Exhibit 3E presents the same 2009 recycling data according to the types of chemical/physical forms of the wastes (i.e., Biennial Report Wxxx codes) being recycled.

Exhibit 3F presents the same 2009 recycling data according to the types of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste designation regulatory codes (i.e., Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx codes) being recycled.

### 3

- 5 Exhibit 3A Three Categories of RCRA Hazardous Waste Baseline Recycling (2009)*

Hazardous Waste Recycling Category

(Biennial Report management code**) A B C D E (C+D) F G H (F+G)

2009 count of

facilities generating

wastes that are recycled 2009 count

of waste

streams that

are recycled*** 2009 Count of Facilities Recycling 2009 Quantity Recycled (tons per year)

Onsite Offsite

(Received
from offsite) Total

Unique

Count of

facilities Onsite Offsite (Received
from offsite) Total

(tons/year) H010: Metals recovery : high temperature metals recovery, retorting, secondary smelting, & other metals recovery (e.g., ion exchange, reverse osmosis, acid leaching). 1,922 4,195 48 87 119 268,841 960,428 1,229,269

H020: Solvents recovery : fractionation/ distillation, thin film evaporation, &

solvent extraction. 2,016 4,245 354 69 415 81,661 155,673 237,334

H039: Other recovery : acid regeneration, waste oil recovery, non

solvent organic liquids recovery, & other miscellaneous recovery methods except energy recovery or use as fuel. 1,067 2,199 41 40 80 30,029 251,383 281,412

Non

- duplicative totals = 4,368 10,603 436

(74%) 176

(30%) 584

(100%) 380,531

(24%) 1,367,484

(76%) 1.748

million (100%)

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm . Some facilities recycled wastes in more than one management method, and some facilities both generated onsite and received from offsite. Thus, the facility counts and percentages will s um to more than 100%. Appendix F presents two 2009 BR records identified as data

outlie rs. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit. ** Beginning with BR data year 2001, EPA changed the BR hazardous waste management codes. For a comparison of the new waste management codes with pre

- 2001 codes, see p.81 of “2001

Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms”: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/brs01/ins

- frms01.pdf

. *** 615 wastes are recovered onsite and 9,988 wastes are recovered offsite.

### 3

- 6 Exhibit 3B Identity of Industries Generating & Recycling RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Recycled (2009)*

Item Economic Sub

- Sector

(2

- digit NAICS Code) A B C D E F G (F/D)x100 H (100%

- G)

Waste Generation Waste Management Waste Recycling

Count of

Generators Tons Per Year

Generated Count of

Managers Tons Per Year

Managed Count of

Recyclers Tons Per Year

Recycled % Recycled % Not Recycled

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 20 4,052

- - - - - - 2 21 Mining 118 12,050 2 638 2 3 0.4% 99.6%

3 22 Utilities 553 37,275 11 134,587 1 0 0.0% 100.0%

4 23 Construction 351 55,640 8 368 5 10 2.8% 97.2%

5 31 Manufacturing 183 46,707 6 1,724 4 53 3.0% 97.0%

6 32 Manufacturing 3,884 27,334,102 395 27,786,566 176 458,210 1.6% 98.4%

7 33 Manufacturing 5,569 3,607,109 407 3,256,823 213 1,002,167 30.8% 69.2%

8 42 Wholesale Trade 594 112,314 18 473,910 8 1,143 0.2% 99.8%

9 44 Retail Trade 246 2,086

- - - - - - 10 45 Retail Trade 521 30,216

- - - - - - 11 48 Transportation 720 51,378 19 224,824 7 12 0.0% 100.0%

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing 325 87,892 8 28,641 1 3,183 11.1% 88.9%

13 51 Information 49 1,031

- - - - - - 14 52 Finance & Insurance 7 102

- - - - - - 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 85 36,213 8 6,026 2 0 0.0% 100.0%

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 577 25,818 29 49,736 11 77 0.2% 99.8%

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 12 257 1 148,750

- - - - 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation 665 3,659,299 210 6,411,060 98 283,049 4.4% 95.6%

19 61 Educational Services 482 15,415 36 95 21 34 35.5% 64.5%

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 365 7,608 33 257 23 57 22.3% 77.7%

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 48 1,804

- - - - - - 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 7 401

- - - - - - 23 81 Other Services 353 14,630 8 1,003 3 3 0.3% 99.7%

24 92 Public Administration 486 174,206 53 23,534 9 14 0.1% 99.9%

25 ?? NAICS code not provided**

- - - - - - - - Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 16,220 35,317,605 1,252 38,548,540 584 1.748 million 4.5% 95.5%

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm ; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short

- ton"). Append ix F presents two 2009 BR records identified as outliers that are excluded from totals in this exhibit. (

- ) Indicates no management reported in 2009. Recycling cannot be determined for wastes that have no management information (except management by storage). ** NAICS code was required for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions.

### 3

- 7 Exhibit 3C Annual Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Recycled by Type of Generator Industry (2009)*

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item Generator Industry

2

- digit NAICS Code Managed by H010 Metals Recovery (tons per year) Managed by H020

Solvents Recovery (tons per year) Managed by H039 Other Recovery (tons per year) Row Totals Managed by Recovery (tons per year)

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting

- - - - - 2 21 Mining

- - 3 3 <0.05%

3 22 Utilities

- <0.5

- <0.5 <0.05%

4 23 Construction

- 10

- 10 <0.05%

5 31 Manufacturing

- 53

- 53 <0.05%

6 32 Manufacturing 222,445 105,991 129,773 458,210 26.2%

7 33 Manufacturing 992,054 4,532 5,580 1,002,167 57.3%

8 42 Wholesale Trade 117 1,018 7 1,143 0.1%

9 44 Retail Trade

- - - - - 10 45 Retail Trade

- - - - - 11 48 Transportation 6 6 12 <0.05%

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing

- - 3,183 3,183 0.2%

13 51 Information

- - - - - 14 52 Finance & Insurance

- - - - - 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing

- <0.5

- <0.5 <0.05%

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 3 69 5 77 <0.05%

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises

- - - - - 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation 14,640 125,561 142,849 283,049 16.2%

19 61 Educational Services 2 31 <0.5 34 <0.05%

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 1 53 3 57 <0.05%

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation

- - - - - 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services

- - - - - 23 81 Other Services

- 3

- 3 <0.05%

24 92 Public Administration 1 5 8 14 <0.05%

25 ?? NAICS code not provided** 0 0 0 0 0.0% Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 1,229,269 237,334 281,412 1.748 million 100.0%

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm ; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short

- ton"). Appendix F presents two 20 09

BR records identified as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit. (

- ) Indicates no management reported in 2009. Recycling cannot be determined for wastes that have no management information (excluding management by s torage). ** NAICS code is required for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions.

### 3

- 8 Exhibit 3D Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item Industrial Process/Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year) H020 Solvents

Recovery (tons/year) H039 Other

Recovery (tons/year) Total Recovery

(tons/year)

1 G01 Dip, flush or spray rinsing 2,999 1,856 185 5,040 0.3%

2 G02 Stripping and acid or caustic cleaning 86

- 150 235 <0.05%

3 G03 Plating & phosphating 6,007

- 31 6,038 0.3%

4 G04 Etching

- - 42 42 <0.05%

5 G05 Metal forming & treatment 1,314 123

- 1,438 0.1%

6 G06 Painting & coating

- 4,421 250 4,671 0.3%

7 G07 Product & by

- product processing 181,048 39,262 14,236 234,546 13.4%

8 G08 Removal of spent process liquids or catalysts 35 3,293 4,897 8,225 0.5%

9 G09 Other production or service

- related processes 513 3,298 4,666 8,478 0.5%

Subtotal daily production, service or maintenance processes = 192,003 52,254 24,457 268,714 15.4%

10 G11 Discarding off

- spec or out

- of

- date chemicals or products 621 342 1 963 0.1%

11 G12 Lagoon or sediment dragout and leachate collection

- - - - - 12 G13 Cleaning

- out process equipment 17 15,545 120 15,683 0.9%

13 G14 Removal of tank sludge, sediments or slag 96 12 109 <0.05%

14 G15 Process equipment change

- out or discontinuation of use

- 101 20 122 <0.05%

15 G16 Oil changes and filter or battery replacement 3

- - 3 <0.05%

16 G17 Subpart K Laboratory Clean

- Out Waste

- - - - - 17 G19 Other one

- time or intermittent processes 5

- 1 6 <0.05%

Subtotal one

- time or intermittent events or processes = 743 16,001 142 16,886 1.0%

18 G21 Air pollution control devices 26,159 26,159 1.5%

19 G22 Lab analytical wastes 7 113 18 139 <0.05%

20 G23 Wastewater treatment 244

- - 244 <0.05%

21 G24 Solvent or product distillation or recovery

- 3,841 2,752 6,593 0.4%

22 G25 Hazardous waste management 39,903 9,346

- 49,249 2.8%

23 G26 Leachate collection

- - - - - 24 G27 Residual from treatment or recovery of universal waste 7,916

- 1,942 9,858 0.6%

Subtotal pollution control & waste management residuals = 74,228 13,301 4,712 92,241 5.3%

25 G31 Accidental contamination of materials, containers 478 3 480 <0.05%

26 G32 Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not routine)

- - <0.5 <0.5 <0.05%

27 G33 Leak collection & floor sweeping ongoing, routine) 3

- - 3 <0.05%

28 G39 Other cleanup of current contamination

- - - - -

### 3

- 9 Exhibit 3D Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item Industrial Process/Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year) H020 Solvents

Recovery (tons/year) H039 Other

Recovery (tons/year) Total Recovery

(tons/year)

Subtotal spills & accidental releases = 480 3 <0.5 483 <0.05%

29 G41 Closure of haz waste management unit under RCRA 1

- - 1 <0.05%

30 G42 Correction action at solid waste mgmt unit under RCRA

- - 440 440 <0.05%

31 G43 Remedial action or emergency response under CERCLA

- - - - - 32 G44 State program or voluntary cleanup 93

- - 93 <0.05%

33 G45 Underground storage tank cleanup

- - - - - 34 G49 Other remediation 442 442 0.0% Subtotal remediation of past contamination = 536

- 440 976 0.1%

35 G61 Received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer 633 103 54 790 <0.05%

36 G63 to G75 Imported from a foreign country 436 448 442 <0.05% Subtotal not physically generated onsite = 1,069 103 502 1,232 0.1%

37 G?? Source code not provided** 960,428 155,673 251,383 1,367,484 78.2%

Column totals ( totals may not add due to rounding) = 1,229,487 237,334 281,636 1.748 million 100.0%

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm ; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short

- ton"). Appendix F presents two 2009 BR

records identified as data outliers. These records were ex cluded from the totals in this exhibit. (

- ) Indicates no management reported in 2009. Recycling cannot be determined for wastes that have no management information (excluding management by storage). ** Source code is required on Form GM for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions. However, source code is not collected on Form WR.

### 3

- 10 Exhibit 3E Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year) H020 Solvents

Recovery (tons/year) H039 Other

Recovery (tons/year) Total Recovery (tons/year)

1 W001 Lab packs w/out acute haz waste 77 48 19 143 <0.05%

2 W002 Contaminated debris 1,403 1,104 30 2,537 0.1%

3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste <0.5 9 <0.5 9 <0.05%

4 W005 Waste Pharmaceuticals Managed as Hazardous

Waste - - - - -

5 W301 Contaminated soil 938 1 45,377 46,316 2.6%

6 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings 559,930 1 22,237 582,168 33.3%

7 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent

carbon 413 1,448 9,235 11,097 0.6%

8 W320 Electrical devices 2,682

- 1,147 3,830 0.2%

9 W406 Dried Paint (paint chips, filters, air filters, other)

- - - - - 10 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds

- - 291 291 <0.05%

11 W801 Compressed gases 606

- 26 632 <0.05%

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices = 566,050 2,611 78,363 647,024 37.0%

12 W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water 3,031 30 771 3,832 0.2%

13 W103 Spent concentrated acid 21,968 743 5,157 27,869 1.6%

14 W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 728 79 2,972 3,779 0.2%

15 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 644

- - 644 <0.05%

16 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters 5,327 1 4,783 10,110 0.6%

17 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters 8,991 4,852 1,516 15,359 0.9%

18 W117 Waste liquid mercury 93

- 3 96 <0.05%

19 W119 Other inorganic liquid 5,256 150 4,306 9,712 0.6% Subtotal inorganic liquids = 46,038 5,855 19,509 71,401 4.1%

20 W200 Still bottoms liquid form

- 648 122 769 <0.05%

21 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent <0.5 16,982 17 17,000 1.0%

22 W203 Concentrated non

- halogenated solvent <0.5 114,055 633 114,688 6.6%

23 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non

- halo solvent mixture 1 10,354 529 10,884 0.6%

24 W205 Oil

- water emulsion/mixture 106 745 11,623 12,474 0.7%

25 W206 Waste oil 1 57 99,762 99,819 5.7%

26 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish 3 10,296 241 10,539 0.6%

27 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives

- 724 1,580 2,304 0.1%

### 3

- 11 Exhibit 3E Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year) H020 Solvents

Recovery (tons/year) H039 Other

Recovery (tons/year) Total Recovery (tons/year)

28 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates

- 20,616 2 20,618 1.2%

29 W219 Other organic liquid 111 25,704 19,408 45,223 2.6% Subtotal organic liquids = 222 200,180 133,918 334,319 19.1%

30 W303 Ash 22,950

- 20 22,970 1.3%

31 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues 166,744

- 114 166,858 9.5%

32 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums) 1,119 16 49 1,183 0.1%

33 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts,

chems 8

- - 8 <0.05%

34 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide 533

- <0.5 533 <0.05%

35 W319 Other inorganic solids 394,426 350 25,860 420,636 24.1% Subtotal inorganic solids = 585,780 366 26,043 612,188 35.0%

36 W401 Pesticide solids

- 1 1 <0.05%

37 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics 2 152 29 183 <0.05%

38 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids

- - - - - 39 W409 Other organic solids 362 10,969 11,647 22,977 1.3% Subtotal organic solids = 364 11,122 11,675 23,161 1.3%

40 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 27,273

- - 27,273 1.6%

41 W503 Gypsum sludges from wastewater or air treatment

- - 97 97 <0.05%

42 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment 1,056

- - 1,056 0.1%

43 W505 Metal bearing sludges 1,430 6 4 1,439 0.1%

44 W506 Cyanide

- bearing sludges 870

- - 870 <0.05%

45 W519 Other inorganic sludges 187 6 1,077 1,270 0.1% Subtotal inorganic sludges = 30,815 12 1,178 32,005 1.8%

46 W603 Oily sludge

- 179 8,324 8,503 0.5%

47 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms <0.5 1,414 1,414 0.1%

48 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sludge <0.5 105 166 271 <0.05%

49 W609 Other organic sludge

- 169 2,210 2,379 0.1% Subtotal organic sludges = <0.5 1,867 10,700 12,567 0.7%

50 UNKN Unknown or not provided for 2009 cycle** <0.5 15,321 27 15,349 0.9%

51 W??? Physical form code not provided**

- - - - - Totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 1,229,269 237,334 281,412 1.748 million 100.0%

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm ; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short

- ton"). Appendix F presents two 2009

### 3

- 12 Exhibit 3E Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year) H020 Solvents

Recovery (tons/year) H039 Other

Recovery (tons/year) Total Recovery (tons/year)

BR records identified as data outliers. These records were ex cluded from the totals in this exhibit. (

- ) Indicates no management reported in 2009. Recycling cannot be determined for wastes that have no management information (excluding management by storage). ** Form code is required for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions. The code "UNKN" is an allowed value submitted for all 2009 Michigan data.

### 3

- 13 Exhibit 3F RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Waste Codes Assigned to Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D E F (C+D+E)

Item RCRA Waste Code H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year) H020 Solvents

Recovery (tons/year) H039 Other

Recovery (tons/year) Total Recovery (tons/year)

1 Dxxx 1 or more toxicity leaching test waste codes only 665,038 95,444 102,592 863,073 49.4%

2 Fxxx 1 or more non

- specific industrial source waste codes

only 21,851 23,613 12,576 58,040 3.3%

3 Kxxx 1 or more specific industrial source waste codes only 499,964 0 29,118 529,082 30.3%

4 Pxxx 1 or more “acutely hazardous” discarded or off

- spec
commercial chemical products, container residues & spill residues thereof <0.5 71 4 74 <0.05%

5 Uxxx 1 or more “toxic waste” commercial chemical

products, manufacturing intermediates, or off

- spec commercial chemical products <0.5 28,407 775 29,182 1.7%

6 Mixed Assigned with 2 or more waste code categories above 41,626 88,290 35,565 165,481 9.5%

7 ???? Waste code not provided** 791 1,509 100,783 103,083 5.9%

Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 1,229,269 237,334 281,412 1.748 million 100.0%
Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm ; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short

- ton"). Appendix F presents two 2009 BR records identified as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit. ** Indicates waste that was included in the EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report that was not described by a federal waste code. A waste not described by a federal waste code typically indicates a state

- regulated waste not regulated by US EPA.

### 3

- 14

Exhibit 3G below indicates the respective fractions (i.e., associated tonnages and percentages) for each of the three recycling metho ds which involve recycling “acute” hazardous wastes. Solid

wastes shall be listed under RCRA Subtitle C as “ acute hazardous wastes ” if they either:

 Have been found to be fatal to humans in low doses, or

 Have been shown in studies to have an oral LD 50 to xicity (rat) of less than 50 milligrams per kilogram, an inhalation LC 50 toxicity (rat) of less than 2 milligrams per liter, or a dermal LD 50 toxicity (rabbit) of less than 200 milligrams per kilogram, or

 Are otherwise capable of causing or significantly contributing to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness (Source: 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)).

As codified in the 01 July 2010 version of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), RCRA " acute hazardous wastes ” are designated with the hazard code (H) and include:

 All 124 Pxxx codes in the table at 40 CFR 261.33(e) are designated as " acute hazardous
(H) " wastes.

 Six of the 28 Fxxx codes in the table at 40 CFR 261.31 are designated as " acute hazardous (H) " wastes: F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027.

Exhibit 3G

Prevalence of RCRA " Acute Hazardous " Waste Recycling (2009)*

Recycling method (Biennial Report management code) Recycling method definition 2009 BR annual total tons recycled
(onsite + offsite
tons) 2009 Quantity of

" acute hazardous " waste recycled*
(onsite + offsite tons) % of RCRA hazardous waste recycling involving

" acute hazardous " wastes (onsite + offsite tons)
H010: Metals recovery 1,229,269 4 <0.005%
H020: Solvents recovery 237,334 126 0.05%

H039: Other recovery 281,412 239 0.09%

Column totals = 1.748 million 369 0.02%
Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report based on selecting recycling data corresponding to (a) all of the Pxxx codes and (b) six of the 28 Fxxx codes which are designated as “acute” hazardous wastes in the Code of Federal Regulations ( 40 CFR .261.33 and 261.31, respectively): http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm ; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short

- ton"). Appendix

F presents two 2009 BR records identi fied as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in

this exhibit.



## 3B. Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions: Baseline Industrial Recycling

Pre

- 2008 hazardous waste recycling exclusions under RCRA regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 261.2(3) and 261.4(a)) provided 32 DSW exclusions for recycling of certain types of industrial hazardous secondary materials. These pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions span b ack to 1985. The respective counts of industries, facilities, and waste streams potentially affected by the 2008 DSW rule did not make any changes to these pre

- 2008 excluded industries and hazardous secondary materials.

### 3

- 15

Comprehensive data on the nationwi de counts of facilities and associated annual quantities of

pre

- 2008 excluded hazardous secondary materials are not readily available because RCRA

excluded industrial recycling is not subject to reporting under the RCRA hazardous waste

“ Biennial Report” (B R). EPA’s “ Toxic Release Inventory ” (TRI) requires annual reporting of industrial recycling activities involving +/

- 650 toxic chemicals in certain NAICS code industries over certain annual threshold quantities. The TRI can be used to attempt to identify some of the affected population of pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities but it cannot be used to determine the total affected population.

The TRI database is very limited because some of the common pre

- 2008 exclusions (e.g., direct

use/ reuse) wil l be considered “reuse” and not “recycling” and are therefore not included in the

TRI. In a TRI guidance document 10 

### “reuse” is not included in the TRI database and reported under “recycli ng”. The TRI states the following d efinition of “recycling”:

EPA co nsiders the direct recirculation of a toxic chemical within a process or between processes without any reclamation to be "reuse" of the toxic chemical rather than “recycling.” The direct use, direct further use, or direct reuse of the toxic chemical is not "recycling" provided that there is no reclamation of the chemical prior to that continued

use or reuse.

In addition, the TRI database is capturing many recycling activities associated with 26 of the 32

total pre

- 2008 DSW exclusio ns not affected by the DSW rule. The TRI data are underreporting because of the definition used for “recycling” and o n the other hand the TRI data is overestimating the number of affected facilities because it cannot identify which pre

- 2008 DSW exclusion the facility is recycli ng under.

Many of the recycling activities reported in the TRI are not exempted solid wastes or they are being recycled under pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions not affected by the DSW rule which will cause

over

- estimating of facility counts. Many of the “reuse” ex emptions are not reported as recycling activities in the TRI which will cause underestimating of facility counts. Pre

- 2008 DSW exclusion facility counts usi ng TRI data are very uncertain.

For pu rpose of estimating the baseline population for the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions, the RIA assumes the following NAICS codes are affiliated with the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions:

 NA ICS 31 + 32 + 33 manufacturing

 NAICS 5622 wa ste treatment and disposal

 NAICS 5629 remediation and other waste management services

Counts of industrial facilities in the affiliated NAICS codes that reported the appropriate onsite and/or offsite recycling activity were obtained for data year 2 009 from two EPA databases:

10 Source: Page 7 of t he TRI guidance document “Interpretations of Waste Management Activities: Recycling, Combustion for Energy Recovery, Treatment for Destruction, Waste Stabilization and Release,” Revised August 1999, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention &Toxics, Washington, D C at http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide_docs/pdf/1999/waste_doc.pdf

### 3

- 16

1. TRI : EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory database: Facility counts ass ociated with either onsite or offsite (as appropriate to each of the pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions) recycling

are used in this RIA as an estimate of total DSW

- excluded plus non

- DSW excluded industrial recycling.

2. BR : EPA’s RCRA Biennial Report database: Fa cility counts associated with either onsite or offsite (as appropriate) recycling are used in this RIA as an estimate of non

DSW excluded industrial recycling.

The TRI data year 2009 is appli ed in this analysis because it is comm on to the BR data year

ap plied in Section 3A of this RIA above.

Exhibit 3H below displays an estimate of 8,071 TRI

- reported facilities that are involved in industrial recycling of wastes and are affiliated with the NAICS codes (a mix of 2

- digit and 4

- digit codes) assigned in this RIA as rep resentative of the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. These

facilities are within 622 6

- digit NAICS code industries as listed in Appendix A . Exhibit 3I displays an estimate of 3,240 BR

- reported facilities involved in non

- DSW excluded RCRA

regulated haza rdous waste recycling for those same NAICS co des. As displayed in Exhibit 3J , a total of 4,848 facilities have been identified using TRI data as operating recycling activities that are not reported in the BR. Because of the uncertainty in this TRI facili ty count, this RIA

assume s that between 5,000 and 10,000 facilities conduct recycling/reuse ac tivities under

the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions . The midpoint of 7,500 facilities is used in the cost

calculations of this RIA

.

Finally, the count of affected wastes must be estimated to evaluate post

- rule legitimacy criteria

document ation costs ( Revision 3 B of this RIA) . However, there is no comprehensive data source to provide estimates. One commenter on the 2011 DSW proposed revisions (Louis iana

Chemical Associati on; comment nr. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0133

- 20 ) said that one

company operates 88 facilities and claims to have 7,300 recycling points (~83 waste exclusions per facility). The commenter indicated that 90% related to closed

- loop recycling and direct

use/reu se [§261.4(a)(8) (closed

- loop recycling) or §2 61.2(e)(i) (direct use/reuse)]. These

common pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions are not captured under reported “re cycling” activities in the

TRI. This company also said they had a significant number of recycling points related to other exclusions, such as §261.4(a)(7) (spent sulfuric acid), §261.4(a)(13) (excluded scrap metal collection), §261.4(a)(22) (used CRT collection), §261.4(b)(12) (used ref rigerant), §261.6(a)(2)(ii) and 266 Subpart H (boilers and industrial furnaces), §261.6(a)(2)(iii) (precious metals), §261.38 (comparable fuel or syngas), §266 subpart G (lead

- acid battery collection), and §261.39 (used CRT). Of the pre

- 2008 exclusions li sted by the commenter only §261.2(e)(i) is affected by the 2014 DSW final r ule and roughly 4 5% of their recycling points.

Facilities reporting recycling non

- DSW excluded hazardous wastes in the 2009 Biennial Report on average report 2.4 wastes (Form GMs) recycled per facility (Exhibit 3A). In general, a very small facility can have one or two wastes with pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions while very large facilities could have approximately 3 7 wastes (45% of 83). This RIA assume s that small

### 3

- 17

facilities will have 2 wastes and large facilities will have 20 wastes 11 

### with pre

- 2008 DSW industrial recycling exclusions affected by the 2014 DSW final r ule. The percentage of these wastes that may incur post

- rule legitimacy criteria documentation costs is disc ussed in Chapter 5 of this RIA.

Exhibit 3H

2009 TRI Count of Facilities Recycling Industrial Wastes*

Items NAICS codes used for

TRI data query to

represent pre

- 2008

RCRA

- excluded recycling Count o f 6

-

digit NAICS
codes (see Appendix A for complete list) 2009 TRI

Onsite Recycling Facility

Count 2009 TRI

Offsite Recycling Facility

Count Non

- Duplicative 2009

TRI Total Count Recycling Facilities (Onsite + Offsite)

1 31 42 62 115 173

2 32 106 1,135 1,348 2,101

3 33 219 694 5,490 5,715

4 Sub

- total 31+32+33 = 367 1,891 6,953 7,989

5 5622 3 26 65 73

6 5629 2 6 7 9 Total rows 4 through 6 = 372 1,923 7,025 8,071
Explanatory Notes:

* Source: EPA 2009 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Data v1.0: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/data/basic/index.html



### Exhibit 3I 2009 RCRA Biennial Report Count of Facilities Recycling Hazardous Waste in

pre

- 2008 Excluded Recycling Industries

A B C D E F G H I J

Facility Primary

NAICS code H010 Metals

Recycling H020 Solvents

Recycling H039 Other

Materials Recycling (e.g.,
acids) Row

Total

Onsite Row

Total

Offsite Row Total

Onsite +
Offsite (non

duplicative) Onsite Offsite Onsite Offsite Onsite Offsite

31 0 12 4 24 0 5 4 37 40

32 14 396 136 613 29 253 175 1,089 1,209

33 45 986 152 661 16 403 212 1,751 1,893
Sum (31,32,33) 59 1,394 292 1,298 45 661 391 2,877 3,142

5622 27 53 22 33 15 31 50 75 90

5629 3 0 3 0 3 0 8 0 8

Column total s

= 89 1,447 317 1,331 63 792 449 2,952 3,240

Explanatory Notes:

* Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report at http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm Appendix F presents two 2009 BR records identified

as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit.

11 The approximate mid

- point of the range of 2 to 37 wastes per facilities that may operate under the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions affected by the 2014 DSW final rule.

### 3

- 18 Exhibit 3J Count of Industrial Facilities Reportin g Recycling Activities in 2009*

for the Affiliated NAICS Codes

Associated with the Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions

A B C D (B

– C)

Affiliated NAICS Codes 2009 TRI Count of Industrial Facilities Reporting Recycling
(from Exhibit 3H ) 2009 BR Count

of Industrial

Facilities Repo rting Recycling (from Exhibit

3I ) Non

- Duplicative

Count of

Facilities

Assumed to Have

Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions Only Onsite Offsite Non

duplicative
Count (on + offsite)

31 manufacturing 62 115 173 40 133

32 manufacturing 1,135 1,348 2,101 1,209 892

33 manufacturing 694 5,490 5,715 1,893 3,822 Sum 31 +32 + 33 manufacturing 1,891 6,953 7,989 3,142 4,847 5622 waste treatment and disposal 26 65 73 90 0** , +

5629 remediation and other waste management services 6 7 9 8 1

C olumn totals = 1,923 7,025 8,071 3,240 4,848
Explanatory Notes:

* 2009 is selected for this data analysis because 2009 corresponds to both the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and the RCRA Biennial Report (BR) databases. ** If 2009 BR count is greater than the 2009 TRI count, the TRI facilities are assumed to be a subset of the li st

of BR facilities.



## 3C. Annual Rate of Future Notification of the DSW Exclusions

3C.1 2008 DSW Rule Annual Rate of Future Notification

The baseline for this RIA to evaluate the incremental effect of the 2014 revisions to the DSW exclusions must reflect the regulatory exclusions estab lished under the 2008 DSW rule. To incorporate this effect into the baseline for the 2014 DSW rule, this RIA used exclusion

notification dat a for the 2008 DSW rule to estimate the percentage of facilities expected to use the 2008 DSW exclusions during each year in the 50

- year period

- of

- analysis (2014 to 2063 ) applied in this RIA.

Under the 2008 DSW rule, facilities are required to notify their regulatory authority prior to managin g hazardous secondary materials under the DSW rule and every other year thereafter. 12



### A s o f April 2012, 6 7 facilities have submitted notifications to EPA claiming either onsite recycling, same

- company transfer recycling , tolling recycling , and/or offsite transfer recycling

DSW exclusions. 13 

### The 6 7 facilities that claimed one or more of the 2008 DSW exclusions are located in eight states and territories that have adopted the 2008 DSW rule (i.e., AK

, ID , I L, IA,
NJ, PA, PR, & USVI ). The cou nts of facilities that have submitted a DSW recycling exclusion

12 See 73 FR 64668.

13 Notificatio n data are available from EPA’s webpage at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/dsw/notify

- sum.pdf

### 3

- 19

notification by s tate are presented in Exhibit 3K . These data along with the state adoption dates are used to estimate the annual number of notifying facilities per year. Based on the total

estimated number of affe cted facilities for these eight states and territories, the average annual percentage of notifying facilities is 3.2 %.

Exhibit 3K

Baseline Annual Percentage of Faci lities Submitting Notifications

U nder the 2008 DSW Rule Recycling Exclusions

A B C D (C

– B) E F G (F / D)

Adopting State State Adoption

Date Date of

Notification

Data* Count of Years

Rule Went in to

Effect Total Count of

Potentially Eligible

Facilities** Total Count

of Notifying

Facilities* Annual Count

of Notifying

Facilities

1. Alaska*** 12/29/2008 4/11/2012 3.29 11 0 0.00

2. Idaho  7/1/2011 4/11/2012 0.79 10 2 2.53

3. Illinois^ 11/12/2010 4/11/2012 1.42 200 4 2.82

4. Iowa** * 12/29/2008 4/11/2012 3.29 57 18 5.47

5. New Jersey^^ 3/29/2009 4/11/2012 3.21 187 17 5.30

6. Pennsylvania^^^ 12/29/2008 4/11/2012 3.29 230 24 7.29

7. Puerto Rico*** 12/29/2008 4/11/2012 3.29 49 1 0.30

8. U S Virgin Islands*** 12/29/2008 4/11/2012 3.29 1 1 0.30

Totals = 745 67 24.02 Annual p ercentage of n otify ing f acilities (24.02 / 745 ) = 3.2 %
Explanatory N otes: * As of April 11, 2012, 67 facilities have filed an exclusion notification http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/dsw/notify

- sum.pdf

** Number of total facilities in each state estimated to be eventually affected in the future by the 2008 DSW r ule (i.e., to become “notifiers” under the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions)

. *** Indicates those s tates and territory RCRA programs which are admin ist ered by Federal EPA regional offices. The 2008

DSW r ule adoption based on effective date of the rule.

**** On page 3 of Section 005.Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste . 40 CFR Part 261 and all Subparts, except the language “in the Region wher e the sample is collected” in 40 CFR 261.4(e)(3)(iii), are herein incorporated by reference as provided in 40 CFR, revised as of July 1, 2011. http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/5 8/0105.pdf ^ "Amended at 34 Ill. Reg. 18611, effective November 12, 2010" http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/035/035007210A01020R.html ^^ NJ automatically adopts EPA RCRA rules pertaining to 261.2. See page 2 which states "(l) On or after November 5, 2007, new Federal rules, amendments, supplements, and other changes, brought about through administrative or judicial action, automatically incorporated throug h the prospective incorporation by reference process shall be effective upon publication in the Federal Register and operative 90 days from the publication date or o n the operative date cited by EPA in the relevant Federal Register Notice, whichever is lat er." EPA published t he 2008 DSW rule on October 30, 2008 and it s effective date was two

months later on December 29, 2008. Assuming operative date means effective date, 90 days after the effective date is March
29, 2009. http://www.nj.gov/dep/dshw/resource/08_Rules/NJAC%2026G.pdf ^^^ The state regulation equivalent for 261.2 provides June 2, 2001 as the overall adoption date for this part of the 40 CFR , so it appears that PA alr eady automatically incorporates by reference whatever changes EPA makes to 261.2 (Definition of Solid Waste). If so, PA's adoption date would be the same as the December 29, 2008 effec tive date of the 2008 DSW rule. http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter261a/chap261atoc.html#261a.2

### 3

- 20

Based on the data displayed in Exhibit 3K above , this RIA assumes that 67 industrial facilities

will have submitted DSW exclusion noti fications under the 2008 DSW rule by the end of 2012.

This RIA also assumes that the eight states and territories that already have adopted the 2008 DSW rule will continue to notify at an average annual rat e of 24 facilities per year ( from Exhibit

3K above ) in 2013, 2014 , and 2015 . This RIA further assumes the following time interval assumptions:

 Federal Register publication and lagging effective date for the 2014 DSW final rule both

occur in 2014

.

 State g overnment adoption of the 2014 DSW final rule is expected to begin two years in

2016 after its 2014 effective date (this 2

- year lag after the effective date recognizes the fact that state governments need time to change their state regulations and statutes).

 This RIA applies a 50

- year future period

- of

- analysis (POA) span ning from 2014 to 2063

.

This future DSW exclusion notification rate is based on recent actual notification data, rather than the simple 100% immediate adoption assumption applied in the RIA for the 2008 DSW rule. The future year

- by

- year facility notification timeline for the 2008 DSW r ule is presented in

Exhibit 3L . Public comm ents indicate that as few as 31 states would likely adopt the 2008 DSW

offsite transfer

- based recycling ex clusion in the baseline , assuming all states that commented negatively would not adopt the rule (see Appendix I)

. However, given the uncertainties behind

future state adoption decisions , which are not necessarily made by the same state officials who

comme nted on the rule, the number of states adopting the transfer

- based exclusion could be

lower or higher. For basel ine estimates, this RIA assumes that 44 states/ territories will adopt the

2008 DSW offsite transfer

- based recycling exclusion (from Exhibit 3L ) . Similarly, this RIA

assumes that 44 states/territories will adopt the 2014 DSW Verified Recylcer Exclusion (VRE) under the policy scenario. The sensitivity analysis found in Section 6G analyzes the impact of varying the state adoption rate assumptions fo r both the 2008 DSW exclusions baseline scenario

and the 2014 DSW VRE policy scenario

.

UPDATE NOTE :
Based on more recent (February 24, 2014) notification data for the 2008 DSW final rule , the count of eight states/ territories which adopted the 2008 DSW final rule has not increased. However the April 2012 count of 67 notifyin g facilities has increased to 96 facilities as of February 201 4 . The table below recalculates the annual percentage of notifying facilities based on the more recent February 2014 data. The recalculated annual rate decreased to 2.7%, although the calculations in this RIA are still based on the initially calculated 3.2% annual rate. Consequently, the estimate of 50

- year future baseline cost savings in this RIA for the 2008 DSW

final rule may be overstated.

B C D (C

- B) E F G (F / D)

Adopting State Adoption Date Date of

Notification

Data Count of

Years Rule

Went into

Effect Count of

Potentially Eligible

Facilities Total Count

of Notifying

Facilities Annual Count

of Notifying

Facilities

1. Alaska 12/29/2008 2 /2 4 /201 4 5.17 11 0 0.00

2. Idaho 7/1/2011 2/24 /201 4 2.67 10 2 0.75

3. Illinois 11/12/2010 2/24 /201 4 3.29 200 10 3.04

4. Iowa 12/29/2008 2/24 /201 4 5.17 57 19 3.68
5. New Jersey 3/29/2009 2/24 /201 4 4.92 187 26 5.29 6. Pennsylvania 12/29/2008 2/24 /201 4 5.17 230 37 7.16

7. Puerto Rico 12/29/2008 2/24 /201 4 5.17 49 1 0.19 8. US Virgin Islands 12/29/2008 2/24 /201 4 5.17 1 1 0.19

Column totals = 745 96 20.30

Annual percentage notifying (Col. G total / Col. E total) = 2.7%

### 3

- 21

### 3

- 22 Exhibit 3L

Baseline Cumulative Percentage of 2008 DSW Exclusion Notifications Based on Percent of

Facilitie s Notifying per Year Assuming 44 States & Territories Adopt the 2008 DSW Rule

A B C D

Period

of Analysis Year Count of Not ifying Industrial Facilities in 44 Adopting States & Territories*

Annual Count Cumulative Count



### - 2 2012** 67 67

- 1 2013*** 24 91

1 2014*** 24 115

2 2015*** 24 139

3 2016^ 121 260

4 2017 121 381

5 2018 121 502

6 2019 121 623

7 2020 121 744

8 2021 121 864

9 2022 121 985

10 2023 121 1,106

11 2024 121 1,227

12 2025 121 1,348

13 2026 121 1,469

14 2027 121 1,590

15 2028 121 1,711

16 2029 121 1,832

17 2030 121 1,953

18 2031 121 2,073

19 2032 121 2,194

20 2033 121 2,315

21 2034 121 2,436

22 2035 121 2,557

23 2036 121 2,678

24 2037 121 2,799

25 2038 121 2,920

26 2039 121 3,041

27 2040 121 3,162

28 2041 121 3,282

29 2042 121 3,403

30 2043 121 3,524

31 2044 121 3,645

32 2045 121 3,766

33 2046^^ 99 3,865

34 2047 0 3,865

35 2048 0 3,865

36 2049 0 3,865

### 3

- 23 Exhibit 3L

Baseline Cumulative Percentage of 2008 DSW Exclusion Notifications Based on Percent of

Facilitie s Notifying per Year Assuming 44 States & Territories Adopt the 2008 DSW Rule

A B C D

Period

of Analysis Year Count of Not ifying Industrial Facilities in 44 Adopting States & Territories*

Annual Count Cumulative Count



### 37 2050 0 3,865

38 2051 0 3,865

39 2052 0 3,865

40 2053 0 3,865

41 2054 0 3,865

42 2055 0 3,865

43 2056 0 3,865

44 2057 0 3,865

45 2058 0 3,865

46 2059 0 3,865

47 2060 0 3,865

48 2061 0 3,865

49 2062 0 3,865

50 2063 0 3,865

Cumulative p ercentage of f acilities that n otify for a 2008 DSW

e xclusion out of a total of 4,850 potentially affected facilities ( total is

from column E of Exhibit 4E) = 80 %

Average a nn ual cumulative count of f acilities n otifying from 2014 to

206 3 = 2, 604

Average annual p ercentage of f acilities that n otify for a 2008 DSW

e xclusion out of a total of 4,850 potentially affected facilities ( total is

from column E of Exhibit 4E) = 54%

Explanatory Notes: * 52 states and territories indicated they would adopt the 2008 DSW rule gener ator

- controlled exclusion and

44 states indicated they would adopt the transfer

- based exclusion (s ee Exhibit 12A of the 2008 DSW r ule RIA making correction tha t New Jersey has since adopted the rule). This baseline estimate a ssumes that the 44 states and territories that indicated they would adopt the transfer exclusion will also adopt the generator

- based
exclusion. AL, CO, CT, FL, GA, KY, MA, MO, NC, NJ, RI, and VT are assumed not to adopt based on

comm ents received for the 2008 DSW r ule (source: Exhibit 12A of the 2008 DSW rule RIA)

. ** As of April 11, 2012, 67 facilities have filed an exclusion notification http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/dsw/notify

- sum.pdf

. *** As displayed in Exhibit 3K of this RIA, t he average rate of no tification for the 2008 DSW final rule up to April 2012

--- accounting for the timing of rule adoption for each of the eight adopting states and territories
( AK, ID, IL, IA, NJ, PA, PR, and VI)

--- is 24 per year. These eight states and territories have a total of 745 potentially DSW exclusion eligible hazardous waste recycling facilities. The a verage annual percentage rate

o f DSW exclusion notification is 3.2 % based on these eight

.

^ For purpose of establishing a future period

- of

- analysis, this RIA assumes that state governments begin adoption of the 2014 DSW rule in 2014 and require two years (2014 & 2015) to account for adequate time for state governments to make legislative changes to their hazardous waste statutes and regulations. 3.2 % of the
3,865 identifi ed affected facilities in the 44 adopting states and territories are assumed to adopt the 2008 DSW

exclusions and the as sociated revisions of the 2014 DSW rule every year. ^^ A maximum of 3,865 affected facilities have been identified as possibly notifying under the generator

controlled a nd transfer exclusions in the 44 adopting states and territories. Exhibit 12A of the 2008 DS W rule

RIA identifies the 44 states and territories which indicate d they would likely adopt the 2008 DSW exclus ions

.

### 3

- 24



## 3C.2 Pre

- 2008 DSW Exclusions

For the population of b aseline hazardous secondary material indust rial recycling a ssociated with

the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions, 100% of the facilities will have made a determination they are conducting legitimate recycling under the current non

- codified criteria and under baseline preparation of documentation and certification a re not required. Under the 2014 DSW Rule, compliance with all four factors of legitimate recycling are mandatory for all recycling exclusions, including pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions identified previously ( Revision 3 A) . Costs

associated with do cumentation (including certification) that recycling is legitimate are incurred only when the recycled product:

1. D oes not have an analogous product from raw materials.

2. I s not a gen erally recognized commodity, or

3. I s not returned to the original process or processes from which it was generated to be

reused.

Chapter 5 of this RIA estimates t hese post

- rule costs and the percentage of facilities that may

incur these cos ts

.



## 3D. Baseline Industrial Waste Disposal Which May Switch to DSW Excluded Recycling

3D.1 2009 Hazardous Waste Disposal

The 2008 DSW rule may induce more recycling of hazardous wastes that are currently disposed. The potential for net cost savings under the new DSW exclusions if wastes are recycled may provide an economic incentive for some facilities to switch from disposal to recycling, either by using offsite commercial recyclers, or by investing in and operating onsite recycling operations.

The 2014 DSW rule adds technical p rovisions to the 2008 DSW rule that will increase costs for regulated entities to improve Agency enforcement capabilities, which will slightly reduce the economic incentives for some facilities to switch over from disposal to recycling. This RIA only evaluates the possibility of disposal switchover to commercial offsite recycling. The entire quantity of each waste potentially switching over to recycling is used to estimate total cost savings post

- rule, not just the valuable portion (i.e., constituent) of the material. The ge nerator sends along all the material to the recycler and then the recovery facility extracts the valuable constituent. Therefore, when calculating cost savings to the generators, it’s the entire quantity (i.e., the “waste matrix” mass) that is relevant.

The disposal baseline forms the basis in this RIA for evaluating the potential for disposed wastes to switch from disposal to recycling, based on (a) the market value of the primary constituent material (e.g., metal or organic solvent) in the disposed wast e, in comparison to (b) their current estimated average annual cost for disposal. This RIA estimates the future potential for switchover by applying a “ breakeven test ” which determines on a micro

- level waste stream

- by

waste stream basis (i.e., not on eith er a facility

- by

- facility basis nor industry

- by

- industry basis),
whether the net annual market value of the recovered metal, solvent or other material, would at

### 3

- 25

least offset by a minimum of $0.01, the current average annual cost for disposing the waste

str eam.

The series of Exhibits 3M to 3Q below provide an overview of the 2009 RCRA hazardous waste disposal baseline. As display ed in rows 1 and 2 of Exhibit 3M below, the two beneficial disposal

methods (i.e., H050 onsite burning waste as fuel, and H061 bl ending waste for use as fuel offsite) are ineligible methods for the DSW recycling exclusions, although these two methods are displayed in this exhibit only for the purpose of evaluating them for potential switchover to future recycling. 14

14 In its comments to the Docket on OSW’s 26 March 2007 DSW re

- proposal (comment ID nr. 2002

- 0031

- 0548), the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) specifically requested that OSW analyze “the degree to which the [DSW revisions final] rule will adversely af fect this desirable practice [of energy recovery from hazardous wastes in cement kilns]” and “would encourage energy

- bearing hazardous secondary materials to move away from energy recovery in cement kilns and towards other less

- regulated forms of recycling .”

### 3

- 26 Exhibit 3M Summary of Total Baseline Disposal of RCRA Hazardous Wastes by Ultimate** Disposal Method (2009)*

A B C D E F G H I J (H+I)

Ite

m Disposal

Method

Code Disposal Description Count of Disposed

Wastes 2009 Count of Facilities Disposing 2009 Tons Disposed (management quantity)

Onsite Offsite
(Received) Total (non

duplicative) Onsite

(tons/year) Offsite

(tons/year) Total

(tons/year)
A. Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=2):

1 H050 Energy Recovery 5,812 60 40 83 647,933 779,733 1,427,666

2 H061 Fuel Blending 33,165 31 134 141 88,982 518,202 607,185 Unique count subtotal beneficial disposal = +, ++ 38,321 87 160 207 736,916 1,297,935 2,034,851

B. Non

- Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=22):

1 H040 Incineration 59,072 85 69 126 435,811 471,113 906,924

2 H071 Chemical Reduction 1,071 40 22 60 29,085 6,533 35,618

3 H073 Cyanide Destruction 173 13 4 16 9,459 275 9,734

4 H075 Chemical Oxidation 607 6 10 14 3,319 89,472 92,792

5 H076 Wet Air Oxidation 0 0 0 0

- - - 6 H077 Other Chemical Precipitation 4,363 43 27 68 953,098 151,090 1,104,188

7 H081 Biological Treatment 369 19 13 29 4,495,404 181,211 4,676,615

8 H082 Adsorption 103 7 6 13 500,964 4,251 505,214

9 H083 Air Or Steam Stripping 13 2 0 2 223,242

- 223,242

10 H101 Sludge Treatment And/or Dewatering 148 19 10 29 20,563 868 21,431

11 H103 Absorption 24 6 0 6 289,412

- 289,412

12 H111 Stabilization Or Chemical Fixation 11,311 54 66 113 183,461 424,387 607,848

13 H112 Macro

- Encapsulation 635 5 14 19 232 675 908

14 H121 Neutralization Only 2,323 98 48 144 35,504 103,733 139,238

15 H122 Evaporation 94 36 4 39 31,027 8,192 39,219

16 H123 Settling Or Clarification 11 5 1 6 101,975 13,511 115,485

17 H124 Phase Separation 63 7 8 15 25,740 1,355 27,095

18 H129 Other Treatment 2,179 106 48 144 1,722,088 93,325 1,815,412

19 H131 Land Treatment Or Application 305 4 9 13 8,794 1,733 10,527

20 H132 Landfill Or Surface Impoundment 9,691 50 41 71 295,507 1,725,932 2,021,439

21 H134 Deepwell Or Underground Injection 779 39 12 42 19,051,307 621,678 19,672,985

22 H135 Discharge To Sewer/POTW Or NPDES 956 66 29 93 2,372,659 77,689 2,450,348 Unique count subtotal non

- beneficial disposal = +, ++ 92,273 550 235 701 30,788,651 3,977,024 34,765,674

Unique count column totals = +, ++ 128,325*** 605 315 806 31,525,566
(86%) 5,274,959

(14%) 36.8 million**

(100%)

### 3

- 27

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm

. ** Ultimate disposal = Some hazardous wastes undergo one or more sequential treatment methods prior to ultimate disposal. This e xhibit represents ultimate disposal methods from Form GM, Section 2 for onsite disposal and Form WR for offsite disposal. Tonnages for management method code H141 (wastes stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or disposal at the transferring site) are not included in this exhibit because transf er does not represent ultimate disposal.
*** However, waste counts includ e wastes managed by H141 only, of which there were a total of 76,227 Form GMs. 127,071 Form GMs reported wastes managed exclusively by some disposal method (i.e., were not also managed by a recycle method, ignoring null and storage (H141) codes on form). T hus, 1,254 Form GMs reported wastes managed by a mix of recycle and disposal methods. Waste counts are based on Form GM reporting. + Wastes can be managed by multiple disposal methods. Totals may not add due to multiple disposal practices.

++ Facilities m ay use multiple disposal methods. Totals may not add due to multiple disposal practices.

### 3

- 28 Exhibit 3N Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D (B+C) E F G H (F+G)

Item Economic Subsector

(2

- digit NAICS Code) Generation Location of Disposed HW (Tons Per Year)* Disposal Location of Disposed HW (Tons Per Year)*

Count of

Facilities Generation

Disposed Onsite Generation

Disposed

offsite Total Generation

Disposed Count of

Facilities Beneficial

Disposal** Non

- beneficial

Disposal*** Total Disposal

1 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 12

- 3,998 3,998

- - - - 2 21 Mining 97 635 7,427 8,062 2

- 635 635

3 22 Utilities 353 73 25,101 25,174 10 2 134,585 134,587

4 23 Construction 302 357 54,095 54,452 3 1 357 358

5 31 Manufacturing 147 1,672 8,851 10,523 2

- 1,672 1,672

6 32 Manufacturing 3,393 25,932,062 1,631,632 27,563,694 250 1,419,979 25,908,377 27,328,357

7 33 Manufacturing 4,629 2,252,984 862,608 3,115,592 219 267 2,254,389 2,254,656

8 42 Wholesale Trade 469 472,612 99,423 572,034 13 93 472,673 472,767

9 44 Retail Trade 137

- 1,352 1,352

- - - - 10 45 Retail Trade 290

- 473 473

- - - - 11 48 Transportation 584 219,161 44,463 263,624 14 18 224,794 224,812

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers, Storage 270 25,216 41,127 66,343 7 8 25,450 25,458

13 51 Information 25

- 615 615

- - - - 14 52 Finance & Insurance 5

- 75 75

- - - - 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 63 5,513 25,766 31,280 8 1 6,024 6,025

16 54 Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 491 49,528 17,083 66,611 20 2 49,657 49,659

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 8 148,750 173 148,923 1

- 148,750 148,750

18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 586 2,400,996 1,613,354 4,014,350 172 614,449 5,513,562 6,128,011

19 61 Educational Services 398 46 12,001 12,048 21 15 46 61

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 286 200 5,193 5,393 12

- 200 200

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 34

- 1,640 1,640

- - - - 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 7

- 399 399

- - - - 23 81 Other Services 160 987 6,371 7,357 5 1 999 999

24 92 Public Administration 386 14,775 135,043 149,819 47 15 23,505 23,520

Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 13,132 31,525,566
(87%) 4,598,265

(13%) 36.12 million*

(100%) 806 2,034,851
(6%) 34,765,674

(94%) 36.8 million*

(100%)

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm . This exhibit represents generation disposed onsite from Form GM, Section 2, and generation shipped offsite for disposal from Form GM, Section3, compared with ultimate beneficial and non

- beneficial d isposal from Form GM, Section 2 and Form WR. Columns A through D are calculated using Form GM for onsite and Form GM for offsite shipping. Columns E through F are calculated using Form GM for onsite and Form WR for materials rece ived by the offsite dispo sal facility. ** Beneficial disposal = H050+H061; *** Non

- beneficial = H040+H071+H073+H075+H076+H077+H081+H082+H083+H101+H103+H111+H112+H121+H122+H123+H124+H129+H131+H132+H134+H135.

### 3

- 29 Exhibit 3O Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C (A+B)

Item Industrial Process/ Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code Beneficial Disposal** (tons/year) Non

- beneficial

Disposal*** (tons/year) Total Disposal ++

(tons/year)

1 G01 Dip, flush or spray rinsing 12,700 139,217 151,917

2 G02 Stripping and acid or caustic cleaning 6,311 59,856 66,167

3 G03 Plating & phosphating 630 241,230 241,859

4 G04 Etching 257 608,066 608,323

5 G05 Metal forming & treatment 494 86,637 87,131

6 G06 Painting & coating 49,516 26,376 75,892

7 G07 Product & by

- product processing 313,716 10,010,469 10,324,185

8 G08 Removal of spent process liquids or catalysts 149,020 7,015,361 7,164,382

9 G09 Other production or service

- related processes 138,139 1,752,638 1,890,777 Subtotal daily production, service or maintenance processes = 670,783 19,939,851 20,610,634

10 G11 Discarding off

- spec or out

- of

- date chemicals or products 51,146 68,829 119,975

11 G12 Lagoon or sediment dragout and leachate collection 25 21,489 21,514

12 G13 Cleaning

- out process equipment 64,282 508,142 572,423

13 G14 Removal of tank sludge, sediments or slag 32,575 80,664 113,239

14 G15 Process equipment change

- out or discontinuation of use 1,740 49,653 51,394

15 G16 Oil changes and filter or battery replacement 1,794 1,419 3,213

16 G17 Subpart K Laboratory Clean

- Out Waste

- - - 17 G19 Other one

- time or intermittent processes 5,280 172,541 177,821

Subtotal one

- time or intermittent events or processes = 156,842 902,738 1,059,580

18 G21 Air pollution control devices 624 1,077,051 1,077,675

19 G22 Lab analytical wastes 11,607 16,987 28,594

20 G23 Wastewater treatment 47,913 3,557,058 3,604,972

21 G24 Solvent or product distillation or recovery 317,357 1,690,251 2,007,607

22 G25 Hazardous waste management 483,891 1,309,286 1,793,178

23 G26 Leachate collection 231 236,597 236,827

24 G27 Hazardous residual from treatment or recovery of universal waste 5 30,059 30,064 Subtotal pollution control & waste management residuals = 861,628 7,917,290 8,778,917

25 G31 Accidental contamination of products, materials, containers 1,281 1,949 3,230

26 G32 Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not routine) 3,466 54,426 57,893

27 G33 Leak collection & floor sweeping ongoing, routine) 677 5,631 6,309

28 G39 Other cleanup of current contamination 160 12,053 12,213

### 3

- 30 Exhibit 3O Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C (A+B)

Item Industrial Process/ Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code Beneficial Disposal** (tons/year) Non

- beneficial

Disposal*** (tons/year) Total Disposal ++

(tons/year) Subtotal spills & accidental releases = 5,584 74,060 79,645

29 G41 Closure of hazardous waste management unit under RCRA 32 26,933 26,965

30 G42 Correction action at solid waste mgmt unit under RCRA 108 2,943,314 2,943,422

31 G43 Remedial action or emergency response under CERCLA 65 160,257 160,322

32 G44 State program or voluntary cleanup 511 556,701 557,212

33 G45 Underground storage tank cleanup 148 322 470

34 G49 Other remediation 348 1,220,782 1,221,131 Subtotal remediation of past contamination = 1,211 4,908,310 4,909,521

35 G61 Received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite 237,141 444,023 681,165

36 G63 to

G75 Imported from a foreign country 4,358 13 4,370

Subtotal not physically generated onsite = 241,499 444,036 685,535

37 G?? Source code not provided +

- - - Column totals = 1,937,547
(5%) 34,186,285

(96%) 36.12 million*

(100%)
Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm . This exhibit represents ultimate disposal methods from Form GM, Section 2 for onsite disposal, and Form GM, Section 3 for offsite disposal. ** Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061

*** Non

- beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 +

H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135

+ Source code is required for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions.

++ Totals may not add due to rounding.

### 3

- 31 Exhibit 3P Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C (A+B)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code Beneficial Disposal** (tons/year) Non

- beneficial Disposal*** (tons/year) Total Disposal ++ (tons/year)

1 W001 Lab packs w/out acute haz waste 17,086 6,987 24,073

2 W002 Contaminated debris 13,046 95,869 108,915

3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste 256 1,519 1,774

4 W005 Waste pharmaceuticals managed as hazardous waste

- - - 5 W301 Contaminated soil 416 821,404 821,821

6 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings 13 6,495 6,507

7 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon 3,681 41,898 45,579

8 W320 Electrical devices 36 1,075 1,111

9 W406 Dried paint (paint chips, filters, air filters, other)

- - - 10 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds 6 11,402 11,408

11 W801 Compressed gases 3,177 3,842 7,018

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices = 37,717 990,489 1,028,206

12 W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water 6,061 11,035,294 11,041,355

13 W103 Spent concentrated acid 518 1,362,559 1,363,077

14 W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 1,069 4,931,985 4,933,054

15 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 16 15,827 15,844

16 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters 2,211 2,688,819 2,691,030

17 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters 8,729 3,747,889 3,756,618

18 W117 Waste liquid mercury 3 66 69

19 W119 Other inorganic liquid 25,748 538,174 563,922 Subtotal inorganic liquids = 44,355 24,320,614 24,364,970

20 W200 Still bottoms liquid form 117,225 25,588 142,813

21 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent 6,201 20,928 27,129

22 W203 Concentrated non

- halogenated solvent 265,388 109,755 375,143

23 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non

- halo solvent mixture 213,135 49,624 262,759

24 W205 Oil

- water emulsion/mixture 13,798 180,903 194,700

25 W206 Waste oil 20,572 9,792 30,364

26 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish 45,525 712,986 758,510

27 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives 13,277 20,380 33,657

28 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates 37,695 5,120 42,815

29 W219 Other organic liquid 831,337 6,143,029 6,974,365 Subtotal organic liquids = 1,564,152 7,278,105 8,842,257

### 3

- 32 Exhibit 3P Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C (A+B)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code Beneficial Disposal** (tons/year) Non

- beneficial Disposal*** (tons/year) Total Disposal ++ (tons/year)

30 W303 Ash 5 97,078 97,084

31 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues 97 385,413 385,510

32 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums) 96 6,419 6,516

33 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems <0.5 45,357 45,358

34 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide 110 32,923 33,033

35 W319 Other inorganic solids 31,742 474,408 506,150 Subtotal inorganic solids = 32,051 1,041,598 1,073,649

36 W401 Pesticide solids 49 1,514 1,563

37 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics 11,935 9,820 21,755

38 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids 38 16,261 16,299

39 W409 Other organic solids 40,928 69,084 110,013 Subtotal organic solids = 52,951 96,679 149,629

40 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 94 41,545 41,640

41 W503 Gypsum sludges from wastewater or air treatment 21 3,619 3,641

42 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment 3,670 112,176 115,847

43 W505 Metal bearing sludges 216 25,930 26,146

44 W506 Cyanide

- bearing sludges

- 9,744 9,744

45 W519 Other inorganic sludges 450 15,140 15,590 Subtotal inorganic sludges = 4,452 208,156 212,608

46 W603 Oily sludge 59,486 55,272 114,758

47 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms 13,435 7,641 21,076

48 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sludge 25,724 3,721 29,445

49 W609 Other organic sludge 33,637 27,074 60,711 Subtotal organic sludges = 132,282 93,708 225,989

50 W??? Physical form code not provided + 69,588 156,936 226,524 (0.6%) Totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 1,937,547
(5%) 34,186,285
(95%) 36.12 million*

(100%)

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm . This exhibit represents ultimate disposal methods from Form GM, Section 2 for onsite disposal, and Form GM, Section 3 for offsi te disposal. ** Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061; *** Non

- beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 +
H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135

+ Physical form code i s required for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions. However, the state of Michigan did not provide physical form code.

++ Totals may not add due to rounding.

### 3

- 33 Exhibit 3Q Waste Codes Assigned to Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)

Item RCRA Waste Code A B C (A+B)

Beneficial Disposal** (tons/year) Non

- beneficial

Disposal*** (tons/year) Total Disposal (tons/year)

1 Dxxx 1 or more toxicity leaching test waste codes only 759,937 21,483,794 22,243,732 62%

2 Fxxx 1 or more non

- specific industrial source waste codes only 92,538 1,125,273 1,217,812 3%

3 Kxxx 1 or more specific industrial source waste codes only 99,326 1,452,384 1,551,711 4%

4 Pxxx 1 or more “acutely hazardous” discarded or off

- spec commercial chemical products, container residues & spill

residues thereof 21 3,651 3,672 <0.5%

5 Uxxx 1 or more “toxic waste” commercial chemical products,

manufacturing intermediates, or off

- spec commercial chemical products 2,178 39,824 42,002 <0.5%

6 Mixed Assigned with multiple waste codes from 2 or more

categories above 975,200 9,989,067 10,964,267 30%

7 ???? Waste code not provided+ 8,347 92,290 100,637 <0.5%

Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 1,937,547 34,186,285 36.12 million* 100%
Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm . This exhibit represents ultimate disposal methods from Form GM, Section 2 for onsite disposal, and Form GM, Section 3 for offsite disposal. ** Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061

*** Non

- beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 +

H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135 + Indicates waste that was included in the EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report that was not described by a federal waste code. A waste

strea m not described by a federal waste code typically indicates a state

- regulated waste not regulated by US EPA.

### 3

- 34



## 3D.2 Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Wastes Currently Disposed

This section presents the data screening (i.e., data selection) criteria applied in this RIA to the baseline dispos al data displayed in Exhibits 3M to 3Q above. As described below, this screening process involves two steps:

 Step1 : Primary screening criteria to identify disposed wastes containing constituents of potential commodity value

 Step 2 : Secondary screening criteria to identify commodity

- containing wastes of sufficient physical quality for recovery

The purpose of these complementary screening steps is to identify the baseline disposal

quan tities (i.e., 2009 tons per year) that may be physically and chemically sufficient for potential future switch over to recycling under the 2008 DSW rule exclusions. The baseline disposal types and associated annual quantities which remain after applying t his two

- step data screening process are applied in this RIA as inputs to the spreadsheet computations for the disposal switchover breakeven test described in Chapter 8 of the 2008 DSW RIA. The breakeven test is executed in this RIA on a micro (i.e., waste stream

- by

- waste stream) basis, not on a facility

- by

facility basis or industry

- by

- industry basis. The breakeven test represents a micro

- economic financial test to determine if facilities may change their management practices for individual

waste streams to obtain the potential economic benefits of the 2008 DSW rule.

Before presenting the two

- step screening process and results below, there are two possible observations about the baseline dispos al data presented in Exhibits 3O

, 3P and 3Q above. Taken

toge ther these two observations suggest that 74% to 75% of the baseline disposal hazardous wastes should not be expected, a priori , to yield break

- even switchover rec ycling under the 2008

DSW rule. This percentage range represents a lower

- bound and upper

- boun d range produced by alternatively assuming complete overlap and assuming no overlap between the two observations, respectively.

 Disposal Data Observation 1 : Low quality physical form of bas eline disposal hazardous

wastes. Based on the physical f orm data presented in Exhibit 3Q of this RIA , a relatively large 74% segment of the 36.12 million tons of baseline disposal appears to be low quality in terms of potential commodity recovery (recycling) efficiency and market value.

Exhibit 3P Item

12 Disposal of W101 Very dilute aqueous

waste >99% water 11.04 million tons 30.6%

Exhibit 3P Item

14 Disposal of W105 Acidic aqueous

wastes <5% acid 4.93 million tons 13.7%

Exhibit 3P Item

17 Disposal of W113 Other aqueous waste

or wastewaters n.e.c. 3.76 million tons 10.4%

Exhibit 3P Item

29 Disposal of W219 Other organic liquid

n.e.c. 6.97 million tons 19.3%

Subtotal = 26.70 million tons 74%

### 3

- 35

 Disposal Data Observation 2 : Missing codes from baseline disposal hazardous wastes:

Exhibits 3O

, 3P and 3Q reveal that 1% of baseline disposal tonnage does not have associated Gxx source codes, Wxxx physical form codes, or Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxx x, Pxxx, Uxxx hazardous

waste codes:

Exhibit 3O Item 37 Disposal data without Gxx source codes 0 million tons 0%

Exhibit 3P Item 50 Disposal data without Wxxx physical

form codes 0.23 million tons 0.6%

Exhibit 3Q Item 7 Disposal data without Dxxx, Fxxx,

Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx 0.1 million tons 0.03%

Subtotal = 0.33 million tons 0.63 %



### Consequently, approximately 1% of baseline disposal cannot be evaluated in this RIA for

break

- even switchover, because the switch over methodology is based on using these codes as primary screening selection criteria for assigning to recycling commodity groupings as described below in Exhibit 3R

.

 Step 1: Primary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Waste Disposal Data (Commodity Values)

The first data screening step is structured according to each of the three RCRA baseline recycling methods (i.e., metals recovery, solvent recovery, and other recovery). Each materials recovery method is assigned as a “commodity group” according to the respective types of

materials involved in each of these thr ee recovery methods. Exhibit 3R below presents the primary data screening criteria applied in this RIA according to these three commodity groups. The screening criteria consist of three sequentially applied “if then” data selection criteria involving 43 different Biennial Report (BR) and RCRA waste codes:

 Wxxx: 16 BR physical/chemical form codes

 Gxx: 4 BR industrial process/activity source codes

 Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx: 23 RCRA regulatory waste codes

This RIA identified and assigned the screening codes in each criteria based on determining whether each of these codes pertained to metals, solvents, or to other types of materials contained in the wastes which might be amenable for recovery in the three commodity groups. The disposed quantities (i.e., 200 9 tons) presented in Exhibits 3M to 3Q above will not match the disposed qua ntities pres ented in Exhibits 3S to 3W below (which are applied in the breakeven test of this RIA). Exhibits 3M to 3Q present the national baseline disposal picture based on the 2009 BR reporting logic. Given the numbers in Exhibits 3M to 3Q are intended to add

- up t o the totals presented in the 2009 BR, a compatible BR database query logic was used to complete those exhibits. However, the resultant disposed qua ntities presented in Exhibits 3M to 3Q are higher than those used in the breakeven test as presented in Exh ibits 3S to 3W below. The difference in disposed quantities between these two sets of exhibits is due to the following technical reasons pertaining to (a) how the BR data reporting forms are structured/designed and (b) there are different BR data reportin g forms which separately target LQGs (i.e., “Form GM”) and TSDRFs (i.e., “Form WR”):

### 3

- 36

1. The onsite quanti ty disposed totals in Exhibit 3M (column H) from the 2009 BR are sums of the numbers reported in BR Form GM, Sec. 1, F. Quantity Generated in 2009 (see attached 2009 BR Form GM). The onsite quantity disposed totals used in the analysis are those reported in Form GM, Sec. 2, On

- site Proc ess System 1 and Onsite Process System

2. These numbers sometimes do not match because either there is a reporting/data entry error, not all of the quantity generated is recovered (i.e., some may be disposed), or not all of the quantity generated in 2009 was recovered in 2009.

2. Source code G61 (received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite) waste is excluded in the breakeven test of this RIA given the waste is not physically g enerated on site (see Exhibit 3O , Item 35) by the generator.

3. Th e offsite management totals in Exhibit 3N (column H) from the 2009 BR are based on waste receipts (i.e., wastes reported received from off site for management on Form WR). The offsite management totals used in the cost analysis are based on reported shipm ents

on Form GM. The quantities reported shipped for offsite recovery in Form GM, Sec. 3,
Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 are used.

4. Step 2 of this data screening method ology is presented in Exhibit 3R below where screening selection criteria are applied to ba seline disposal data that eliminate much of the disposed qua ntities presented in Exhibits 3L through 3P

.

### 3

- 37 Exhibit 3R Primary Screening Selection Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Data for Evaluating Potential Future Switch Over to Recycling Un der the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

(Note: the three criteria in this exhibit represent “IF THEN” criteria*)

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

BR Physical/Chemical Form Codes** BR Industrial Process/ Activity

Generation Source Codes** RCRA Regulatory Codes** 

### Commodity Group #1: For Possible Metal Recovery:

Include form codes: (n=10)

 W107 wastes containing cyanides

 W117 waste liquid mercury

 W303 ash

 W304 slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues

 W307 metal scale, filings & scrap (metal drums)

 W312 cyanide or metal cyanide solids, chemicals

 W316 metal salts or chemicals w/out cyanides

 W501 lime and/or metal hydroxide sludges/solids

 W505 metal bearing sludges w/out cyanide

 W506 cyanide

- bearing sludges (non cont. soils) For wastes with no reported

form codes include source
codes: (n=2)

 G03 plating & phosphating

 G04 etching For wastes with no reported form codes and no reporting source codes G03
or G04 include RCRA waste codes: (n=14)

 D005 barium

 D006 cadmium

 D007 chromium

 D008 lead

 D009 mercury

 D010 selenium

 D011 silver

 F006, F007, F008 metal electroplating

 F019 sludge from conversion coating of aluminum

 K061 iron & steel mfg emission dust

 K171, K172 petroleum refining spent catalysts 

### Commodity Group #2: For Possible Solvent Recovery:

Include form codes: (n=5)

 W202 concentrated halogenated organic liquids

 W203 concentrated non

- halogenated organic liquids

 W204 concentrated halo/non

- halogenated solvents

 W209 paint, ink, lacquer or varnish

 W211 paint thinner or petroleum distillates For wastes with no reported

form codes include source
codes: (n=2)

 G01 dip, flush or spray rinsing (using solvents)

 G06 painting & coating For wastes with no reported form codes and not reporting G01 or G06
include RCRA waste codes: (n=8)

 F001, F002, F003, F004, F005 spent solvents

 F024, F025 chlorinated aliphatic mfg

 K086 solvent washes of ink equipment



### Commodity Group #3: For Possible Other Recovery (Carbon Regeneration and Sodium Fluoride)*

Include form codes: (n=1)

 W310 filters, solid adsorbents, ion exchange resins and spent carbon (this RIA evaluates carbon only)

 Note: not included are spent acids >5% (W103)*** ---  For wastes with no reported form codes include RCRA waste codes and form code W312 reported with K088 waste code move from Category 1 to Category 3: (n= 1)

 K088 aluminum production spent potliners (sodium fluoride)

Total codes A =16 Total codes B =4 Total codes C =23

### 3

- 38 Exhibit 3R Primary Screening Selection Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Data for Evaluating Potential Future Switch Over to Recycling Un der the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

(Note: the three criteria in this exhibit represent “IF THEN” criteria*)

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

BR Physical/Chemical Form Codes** BR Industrial Process/ Activity

Generation Source Codes** RCRA Regulatory Codes**
Explanatory Notes:

 * IF THEN = The three criteria in this exhibit represent sequential database query criteria within each waste type row. First the form code data were pulled (criterion A), and for remaining data with missing form codes, the generator source code data were pulled (criterion B), then for remaining data with missing form codes, the regulatory waste code data were pulled (criterion C).

 **There are a total 47 Wxxx codes, 47 Gxx codes, 43 Dxxx codes, 28 Fxxx codes, 122 Kxxx, codes, 124 Pxxx codes, and , 247 Uxx x codes defined for data reporting to the RCRA Biennial Report (BR): .for complete lists see pp. 66 to 75 of the 200 9 BR instructions book at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/br09/br2009rpt.pdf

 *** Upon review of W103 spent acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or caustic clean ing, and G05 metal forming and treatment waste streams nearly all the waste

is not suitable for switch over to off

- site other recovery. Much of the waste are dilute acid wastes that are disposed in on

- site wastewater treatment systems followed by POTW/sew er or NPDES discharge or disposed by Class I UIC permitted deep

- well injection. These disposal methods are cheap compared to offsite recovery. It will not be more economical to ship these wastes offsite for other recovery. It is beyond the time and reso urce constraints of this RIA to individually carry these records through the analysis. A small quantity (< 1,000 tons) of spent pickle liquor (K062) was identified. The quantity is too small to carry forward through the analysis.

### 3

- 39

 Step 2: S econdary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Waste Disposal Data (Physical Quality)

Exhibit 3S below presents the secondary screening criteria applied to baseline disposal wastes The purpose of these secondary screening criteria are to introduce a con sideration of the anticipated physical quality of baseline disposed waste streams, prior to evaluating them in the disposal

- switchover

- to

- recycling breakeven test of this RIA. The secondary screening criteria consist of seven step s as follows:

 Step 2A : R emove disposed waste records that were residuals from hazardous waste management processes. Residuals generated by either (a) current materials recovery operations (H010, H020, H039), (b) energy/fuel recovery operations (H050, H061), or (c)

thermal destru ctive treatment processes (H040), are assumed not to have a high content of recoverable material and are assumed will continue to be disposed. This corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records with source code G25. Disposed wastes with

RCRA was te codes F006 and F007 were retained because these potentially recoverable wastes were often reported using this source code because they are derived from

wastewater treatment processes.

 Step 2 B : Remove disposed waste records that were wastes generated from industrial processes that are not continuous (e.g., those generated from remediation or one

- time industrial activities). The material values from these wastes are less likely to be recoverable given they are not generated in a controlled process envi ronment (i.e., remediation wastes involve spills and releases to the environment). Given their one

- time nature of generation, generators are unlikely to go through the notification process for a

DSW exclusion for a one

- time waste generation event. This c orresponds to removing baseline disposal data records corresponding to three sets of non

- continuous source codes: (a) spills and accidental releases G31, G32, G33, G39, (b) remediation of past contamination G41, G42, G43, G44, G45, G49, and (c) non

- periodi c activities G12, G15,

G19.

 Step 2C : Remove disposed wastes with waste descriptions containing the word “debris” from the data set. The material values from these wastes are less likely to be recoverable given they are not generated in a controlled proce ss environment. Given their one

- time nature of generation, generators are unlikely to go through the notification process for a

DSW exclusion for a one

- time waste generation event.

 Step 2D : Remove wastes with waste descriptions indicating they are “rinsewater” or “groundwater” to ensure the physical quality of the waste (i.e., the minimal recoverable material concentration) is technically sufficient for recovery. These dilute aqueous

- based wastes typically do not contain recoverable fractions of va luable materials. This screening criterion was only applied to waste streams with no reported form code. Normally wastes like these would have a reported form code of W101 very dilute aqueous waste containing more than 99% water and W105 acidic aqueous w astes less

than 5% acid.

### 3

- 40

 Step 2E : Remove some miscellaneous disposed wastes:

a. Onsite Commodity Group #2 baseline disposal quantities were primarily disposed by non

- beneficial incineration (H040), or by beneficial energy recovery (H050),

or beneficial fuel blending (H061). For the purposes of this RIA, it is assumed that facilities which both generate and dispose wastes on site via beneficial energy or fuel recovery (i.e., H050 or H061) will not change to a materials recovery process under the DSW final rul e exclusions. All these processes require relatively large onsite capital investments and air pollution control permitting costs, which make it less likely that onsite H040, H050, or H061 disposed wastes will switch over to materials recovery under the DS W exclusions. This corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records for onsite waste generation GM Form Section 2 H040, H050, and H061. However, this RIA subjects the disposal data records corresponding to offsite disposal Form GM involving these t hree waste codes (i.e., H040, H050, and H061 ) to the breakeven test for switch over to recovery/recycling.

b. All records with form code W310 not containing the word “carbon” or “charcoal” in the waste description were deleted from the list of disposed spent carbon wastes. This is necessary because the definition of the W310 physical/chemical form code allows reporting together in this single code, four different types of materials: (1) filters, (2) solid adsorbents, (3) ion exchange resins, and (4) spent

car bons. Because of lack of characterizing data on the other three waste types, only spent carbon from these four waste types is evaluated in this RIA for potential switch over to recovery.

 Step 2F : Because tens of thousands of individual waste streams are reported in the Biennial Report database for any data year, it is beyond the time and resource constraints of this RIA to individually examine each narrative comment for baseline disposed wastes containing these "other" code sub

- categories to determine whe ther they should be included in the breakeven test of this RIA. This corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records for H129 "other treatment". However, this RIA does include the H039 "other recovery or reclamation" catch

- all sub

- category in the baseline recycling data records analyzed elsewhere in this RIA for potential DSW exclusion de

- regulatory cost savings. The “other” form codes already were removed by their exclusion from the “primary” screening selection criteria.

 Step 2G : After completi on of the above six steps, an outlier analysis was conducted that identified 63 waste records with reported quantities greater than three standard deviations

above the mean. These records were inspected individually and a total of seven (7)

additional was te records were removed as not being of sufficient quality for recovery. These seven waste records include five that are incinerator ash or slag, a thermal
treatment residue, and caustic wastewater collected from a landfill.

### 3

- 41 Exhibit 3S Summary of Outc ome of Primary & Secondary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Wastes to be Evaluated for Switch Over to Recycling*

Secondary Selection Criteria Remaining & Removed Disposal
Quantities (2009 tons per year) Total Remaining Baseline Disposal Quantity ** (2009 tons per year) 

### A. Primary Selection Criteria:

Commodity Group 1 Commodity Group 2 Commodity Group 3 Total Baseline Disposed Quantity Remaining 474,310
1,421,755
182,833
2,078,898 2,078,898 

### B. Secondary Screening Criteria:

1. Remove Source Code G25

- 175,217 1,903,681
2. Remove Wastes Generated by Non

- Continuous Processes

- 773,488 1,130,193

3. Remove Debris

- Wastes

- 5,840 1,124,352

4. Remove Rinsewaters and Groundwaters

- 6,187 1,118,166
5. Remove Other Waste Specific Quantity

- 154,299 963,867
6. Remove “Other Treatment” Quantity

- 15,979 947,888
7. Remove Large Outlier Quantity*

- 151,411 0.8 million
Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm

. Appendix F presents seven 2009 BR records

identified as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhi bit. ** Totals may not add due to rounding.



## 3D.3 Resultant Screening Selection Quantities of Baseline Disposal that May Switch Over to Recycling

Exhibits 3T through 3W below present the resultant types and quantities (i.e., tons per year in relation to the baseline data year 2009 applied in this RIA) of the baseline disposed hazardous waste data selected by the 2

- step screening process described above, which are applied in the new recycling “breakeven test” (see Chapter 8 of 2008 DSW RIA).

### 3

- 4 2 Exhibit 3T Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Ultimate** Disposal Method (2009)*

A B C D E F (D+E) G H I (G+H)

Item Disposal

Method

Code Disposal Description 2009 Count of Facilities Disposing 2009 Tons Disposed (management tons/year)

Onsite Offsite

(Shipped) Total

(non

duplicative) Onsite

(tons/year) Offsite

(tons/year) Total

(tons/year)
A. Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=2):

1 H050 Energy Recovery 0 793 793

- 112,546 112,546

2 H061 Fuel Blending 0 4,649 4,649

- 150,785 150,785 Subtotal beneficial disposal =

--- --- --- - 263,331 263,331

B. Non

- Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=23):

1 H040 Incineration 0 2,066 2,066

- 83,602 83,602

2 H071 Chemical Reduction 1 42 42 334 620 954

3 H073 Cyanide Destruction 9 53 62 8,391 769 9,160

4 H075 Chemical Oxidation 1 14 15 1 81 82

5 H076 Wet Air Oxidation 0 0 0

- - - 6 H077 Other Chemical Precipitation 2 111 113 45 7,237 7,282

7 H081 Biological Treatment 4 8 12 1,783 178 1,961

8 H082 Adsorption 0 5 5

- 335 335

9 H083 Air Or Steam Stripping 0 3 3

- 14 14

10 H101 Sludge Treatment And/or Dewatering 12 32 43 313 202 515

11 H103 Absorption 0 2 2

- 10 10

12 H111 Stabilization Or Chemical Fixation 10 719 725 18,175 107,477 125,652

13 H112 Macro

- Encapsulation 0 15 15

- 128 128

14 H121 Neutralization Only 5 45 50 562 2,965 3,527

15 H122 Evaporation 3 4 7 706 71 777

16 H123 Settling Or Clarification 2 3 5 5 5 9

17 H124 Phase Separation 1 8 9 268 20 289

18 H129 Other Treatment 0 0 0

- - - 19 H131 Land Treatment Or Application 1 38 39 5,985 3,223 9,208

20 H132 Landfill Or Surface Impoundment 9 510 517 37,029 118,892 155,921

21 H134 Deepwell Or Underground Injection 1 17 18 50 2,861 2,910

22 H135 Discharge To Sewer/POTW Or NPDES 8 12 20 414 5,351 5,765

23 H141 Site receiving waste stored/bulked &

transferred the waste with no treatment or 140 4,422 4,515 22,679 102,365 125,045

### 3

- 43 Exhibit 3T Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Ultimate** Disposal Method (2009)*

A B C D E F (D+E) G H I (G+H)

Item Disposal

Method

Code Disposal Description 2009 Count of Facilities Disposing 2009 Tons Disposed (management tons/year)

Onsite Offsite

(Shipped) Total

(non

duplicative) Onsite

(tons/year) Offsite

(tons/year) Total

(tons/year) recovery, fuel blending, or disposal at the receiving site.

24 H??? Disposal method not provided*** 0 0 0

- - - Subtotal non

- beneficial disposal (totals may not add due to rounding )= --- --- --- 96,739 436,406 533,146

Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding) =

--- --- --- 96,739
(12%) 699,737

(88%) 0.8 million

(100%)
Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm

. Appendix F presents seven 2009 BR

records identified as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit. * Ultimate disposal = Some hazardous wastes undergo one or more se quential treatment (e.g., chemical neutralization) methods prior to ultimate disposal (i.e., final disposition). Generators report the ultimate disposal of their hazardous wastes on Form GM, Sec. 2 and Sec. 3. ** Management method code is required for al l EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions.

### 3

- 44 Exhibit 3U Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposed Hazardous Wastes for Recycling Breakeven Test By Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Disposed (2009)*

A B C (A+B) D E F (D+E)

Item Economic Subsector

(2

- digit NAICS Code) Location of Generation Tons Per Year Location of Disposal Tons Per Year

Generation Disposed

Onsite Generation

Disposed Offsite (shipped) Total Generation

Disposed Beneficial

Disposal** Non

- beneficial

Disposal*** Total Disposal

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting

- 15 15

- - - 2 21 Mining

- 2,481 2,481

- - - 3 22 Utilities

- 1,211 1,211 <0.5 1 1

4 23 Construction 1 1,572 1,573 <0.5 1 1

5 31 Manufacturing 31 37,353 37,384 <0.5 31 31

6 32 Manufacturing 5,101 249,174 254,275 102,009 67,972 169,981

7 33 Manufacturing 67,471 266,218 333,690 <0.5 69,600 69,600

8 42 Wholesale Trade <0.5 7,083 7,084 351 1,213 1,563

9 44 Retail Trade

- 160 160

- - - 10 45 Retail Trade

- 3 3

- - - 11 48 Transportation 67 2,526 2,593 18 142 159

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers Storage

- 3,510 3,510 <0.5 5 5

13 51 Information

- 89 89

- - - 14 52 Finance & Insurance

- 10 10

- - - 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 62 272 333 <0.5 69 69

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 4 8,080 8,083 14 77 91

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises

- 61 61

- - - 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 6,541 106,182 112,723 150,313 366,084 516,397

19 61 Educational Services < 0.5 3,325 3,325 <0.5 216 216

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 2 3,195 3,198 <0.5 2 2

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation

- 135 135

- - - 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services

- 5 5

- - - 23 81 Other Services 4 849 853 <0.5 5 5

24 92 Public Administration 17,453 6,230 23,683 1 17,541 17,542

25 ?? NAICS code not reported +

- - - 10,626 10,187 20,812 (3.0%)
Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding)= 96,739
(12%) 699,737

(88%) 0.8 million

(100%) 263,331
(33%) 533,146

(67%) 0.8 million

(100%)

### 3

- 45 Exhibit 3U Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposed Hazardous Wastes for Recycling Breakeven Test By Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Disposed (2009)*

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm

. Ap pendix F presents seven

2009 BR records identified as data ou tliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit. ** Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061; *** Non

- beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 +

H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135 + H141

+ Though NAICS code is required for all 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions, NAICS code is not colle cted for shipped

- to facility on Form GM, and is available only if the shipped

- to facility also submitted a Form GM or Form WR for the 2009 reporting cycle.

### 3

- 46 Exhibit 3V Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Industries Generating Disposed Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D

Item Economic Subsector

(2

- digit NAICS Code) Commodity Group 1 Disposal (tons/year) Commodity Group

2 Disposal (tons/year) Commodity

Group 3 Disposal (tons/year) Total Disposal

(tons/year)

1 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting <0.5 15

- 15

2 21 Mining 1,938 529 14 2,481

3 22 Utilities 532 672 7 1,211

4 23 Construction 543 1,030

- 1,573

5 31 Manufacturing 34,780 2,603 1 37,384

6 32 Manufacturing 21,829 229,029 3,418 254,275

7 33 Manufacturing 265,161 65,186 3,343 333,690

8 42 Wholesale Trade 255 6,823 6 7,084

9 44 Retail Trade 2 157 1 160

10 45 Retail Trade 1 2

- 3

11 48 Transportation 426 2,164 3 2,593

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers, Storage 222 3,268 20 3,510

13 51 Information <0.5 62 27 89

14 52 Finance & Insurance

- 10

- 10

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 12 322

- 333

16 54 Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 396 7,686 1 8,083

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises <0.5 61 1 61

18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 41,252 59,324 12,147 112,723

19 61 Educational Services 109 3,207 9 3,325

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 10 3,187 1 3,198

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation

- 135

- 135

22 72 Accommodation & Food Services

- 5

- 5

23 81 Other Services 89 763 1 853

24 92 Public Administration 3,010 20,570 104 23,683

25 ?? NAICS code not provided**

- - - - Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 370,567
(47%) 406,808

(50%) 19,101

(2%) 0.8 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm

. Appendix F presents seven 2009 BR records

identified as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit. ** NAICS code is required for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions.

### 3

- 47 Exhibit 3W Screening Selection Results of Baseline Dispos al for Recycling Breakeven Test by Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D (A+B+C)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code Commodity Group 1 Disposal (tons/year) Commodity Group 2

Disposal (tons/year) Commodity Group 3 Disposal (tons/year) Total Disposal (tons/year)***

1 W001 Lab packs w/out acute haz waste

- - - - 2 W002 Contaminated debris

- - - - 3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste

- - - - 4 W005 Waste pharmaceuticals managed as hazardous waste

- - - - 5 W301 Contaminated soil

- - - - 6 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings

- - - - 7 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon

- - 4,298 4,298

8 W320 Electrical devices

- - - - 9 W406 Dried paint (paint chips, filters, air filters, other)

- - - - 10 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds

- - - - 11 W801 Compressed gases

- - - - Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices =

- - 4,298 4,298

12 W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water

- - - - 13 W103 Spent concentrated acid

- - - - 14 W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid

- - - - 15 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 15,210

- - 15,210

16 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters

- - - - 17 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters

- - - - 18 W117 Waste liquid mercury 104

- - 104

19 W119 Other inorganic liquid

- - - - Subtotal inorganic liquids = 15,313

- - 15,313

20 W200 Still bottoms liquid form

- - - - 21 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent

- 30,579

- 30,579

22 W203 Concentrated non

- halogenated solvent

- 193,155

- 193,155

23 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non

- halo solvent mixture

- 98,586

- 98,586

24 W205 Oil

- water emulsion/mixture

- - - - 25 W206 Waste oil

- - - - 26 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish

- 54,036

- 54,036

27 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives

- - - - 28 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates

- 30,452

- 30,452

29 W219 Other organic liquid

- - - -

### 3

- 48 Exhibit 3W Screening Selection Results of Baseline Dispos al for Recycling Breakeven Test by Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2009)*

A B C D (A+B+C)

Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code Commodity Group 1 Disposal (tons/year) Commodity Group 2

Disposal (tons/year) Commodity Group 3 Disposal (tons/year) Total Disposal (tons/year)*** Subtotal organic liquids =

- 406,808

- 406,808

30 W303 Ash 30,921

- - 30,921

31 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues 208,434

- - 208,434

32 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (incl. drums) 2,360

- - 2,360

33 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems 13,542

- - 13,542

34 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide 30,775

- - 30,775

35 W319 Other inorganic solids 6,666

- 11,665 18,332 Subtotal inorganic solids = 292,699

- 11,665 304,364

36 W401 Pesticide solids

- - - - 37 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics

- - - - 38 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids

- - - - 39 W409 Other organic solids

- - 2,867 2,867 Subtotal organic solids =

- - 2,867 2,867

40 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 38,383

- - 38,383

41 W503 Gypsum sludges from wastewater or air treatment

- - - - 42 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment

- - 271 271

43 W505 Metal bearing sludges 15,055

- - 15,055

44 W506 Cyanide

- bearing sludges 9,116

- - 9,116

45 W519 Other inorganic sludges

- - - Subtotal inorganic sludges = 62,554

- 271 62,826

46 W603 Oily sludge

- - - - 47 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms

- - - - 48 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sludge

- - - - 49 W609 Other organic sludge

- - - - Subtotal organic sludges =

- - - - 50 W??? Physical form code not provided**

- - - - Totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 370,567
(47%) 406,808
(50%) 19,101
(2%) 0 .8 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm

. Appendix F presents seven 2009 BR records identified as data outliers. These

records were excluded from the totals in this exhi bit. ** Physical form code is required for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions. However, the s tate of Michigan did not provide physical form code. *** Totals may not add due to rounding.

### 3

- 49



## 3D.4 Baseline Rate of 2008 DSW Exclusions for Hazardous Wastes Diverted from Disposal to Recycling

As described above in Section 3A, the 2009 RCRA Biennial Report (BR) data indicating that
4,368 facilities recove r 1.748 million tons do es no t reflect the (baseline) diversion of hazardous wastes from disposal to DSW

- excluded recycling which EPA expects may occur in the future

from the regulatory cost savings incentives for recycling under the 2008 DSW rule exclusions

. To quantify the baseline for analysis of the 2014 revisions , this RIA adjusts the 2009 BR data to

reflect the exclusions estimated for the 2008 DSW rule. As discussed in Section 3C, the rate of DSW exclusion notifications (i.e., 3.2 % of facilities subm it notifications for their wastes annually) assumed for baseline industrial recycling will apply to the baseline recovery quantity

of 1.748 milli on tons and the disposal quantit y of 0.8 million tons which may switch over to recycling, as presented in this Section 3D.

### 4

- 1 

# C HAPTER 

# 4

Estimate of Baseline Regulatory Cost Savings to Industry for the Existing DSW Recycling Exclusions

4A. Baseline Cost Savings Estimation Methodology

Prior to the 2008 DSW rule, RCRA facilities engaged in recycling had to comply with 14

element s of RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements, as listed below in Exhibit 4A. This included facilities that were already recycling in 2008 (i.e., reported wastes managed by metals,

sol vent or other recovery in the 2009 BR) and facilities that were not yet recycling but might if costs decreased (i.e., disposed wastes with possible metal, solvent or other material recover y value as defined in Exhibit 3P ). T he 2008 DSW rule provided the o pportunity for industries to

realize future annual de

- regulatory cost savings for current recyclers, and potentially created new recyclers from the population of facilities that were not recycling but might, given decreased

costs.

The 2008 DSW rule create d 12 terms/conditions th at had to be met to obtain a recycling

exclusion. Exhibit 4B below lists the 12 conditions. Industries incur costs to meet these 12

conditions. The RIA for the 2008 DSW rule estimated both costs and cost savings for these changes in recycl ing activities.

For the 2014 revisions these costs must be adjusted for (a) changes in waste generation quantities
since 2008, (b) changes in the number of affected facilities since 2008, (c) price inflation, and (d)

the rate at which facilities have submitted DSW recycling exclusion notifications between December 2008 and April 2012 (i.e., as of the date of this analysis in this RIA) . In addition, the population of industrial facilities potentially eligible for the 2008 DSW exclusions must be

e xpanded to include facilities that are operating under several pre

- 2008 exclusions. These facilities must meet legitimacy documentation requirements under the 2014 DSW revisions to continue operating under the relevant exclusions. This chapter updates fi ndings from 2008 adjusting them to conditions in 2012.

This chapter presents estimates for baseline (i.e., current) regulatory cost savings ass ociated with

the 2008 DSW rule exclusions and the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. Baseline cost savings

associated wit h the DSW exclusions, as defined in this RIA include:

1. Industry cost savings associated with avoiding regulatory compliance costs associated

with the 14 full element s of RCRA Subtitle C administrative burden.

2. Industry costs associated with meeting the 12 c onditions es tablished by the 2008 DSW rule to obtain a DSW exclusion (a cost increase).

3. Industry cost savings resulting from longer accumulation times and de

- regulated management requirements for res iduals under the 2008 DSW rule.

The total of these (1 + 3

- 2) is the net cost savings associated with implementation of the 2008 DSW rule relative to the previous baseline.

### 4

- 2

The technical provisions of the 2014 DSW revisions will add regulatory costs, in effect reducing the baseline future cost savings ass oci ated with the 2008 DSW rule. The specific costs

associated with the 2014 DSW technical provisio ns are presented in Chapter 5.

Baseline RCRA regulatory burden costs

– consisting of administrative paperwork burden plus

technical standards burden

– may be e liminated with changes in RCRA regulatory status of the

industrial materials and industrial facil ities under each 2008 DSW rule exclusion. As itemized in
Exhibit 4A, the 2008 DSW RIA estimated 14 element s of baseline RCRA Subtitle C regulatory

burden on t he regulated community (i.e., industrial hazardous waste generators, waste transporters, and waste TSDFs) such as reporting to RCRA

- authorized state governments, onsite recordkeeping, RCRA permitting of waste management units, waste transport manifesting, and meeting RCRA Subtitle C technical standards for design, construction, operation and closure of hazardous waste management units. These are the baseline costs eliminated by alternatively managing a facility’s RCRA hazardous wastes as DSW

- excluded “ haza rdous secondary

materials ” (HSM) under the 2008 DSW exclusions.

Al so, due to the 2008 DSW rule a facility may change generato r status if recycled wastes are no longer counted as hazardous waste, thereby further reducing or eliminating some RCRA Subtitle

C reporting requirements and baseline burden. The non

- recycled quantity of hazardous waste a facility generates determines its generator status and continued RCRA regulatory burden. For example, if LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs recycle more waste they may further reduce their generator status (i.e., switch from LQG to SQG, or switch from LQG to CESQG, or switch from SQG to CESQG status, or may no longer be a RCRA hazardous waste generator under any of these three regulatory categories). CESQGs already have exclusions from many RCRA regulatory requirements because of their small annual generation rate (i.e., less than 100 kilograms per month which is equivalent to 1.3 tons per year). SQGs and CESQGs have fewer RCRA regulatory administrative requirements than LQGs under 40 CFR Part 262 of RCRA Subtitle C (i.e., relatively less baseline burden for RCRA personnel training, biennial reporting of hazardous waste generation and management activities, and preparation of contingency plans).

As part of the 2008 DSW rule, regulated facilities must meet 12 conditions associated with the

three 2008 DSW rule exclusions to obtain an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for their wastes. For example, one condition is the requirement to notify RCRA

- authorized s tate governments (or EPA regional offices) for excluded materials, which represents an implementation cost for compliance with the de

- regulatory exc lusions under the 2008 DSW rule. Exhibit 4B presents a summary of the 12 baseline conditio ns for the three 2008 DSW rule

exclusions.

Implementation of these conditions, however, may affect facility onsite waste accumulation practices, waste shipping, and waste treatment residual management operations, and may in some cases create additional cost savings, such as:

 Example 1 : Changes in generator status from LQG to SQG, to CESQG, or to non

generator status under the rule will allow longer accumulation times, resulting in larger truckloads for shipment. With larger truckloads minimum management charges may be

### 4

- 3

avoided. Longer accumulation times will result in few er shipments and reduced total shipping costs.

 Example 2 : The 2008 DSW rule may cause residuals (e.g., ash, distillation bottoms) generated from the recycling processes to avoid regulation as “derived

- from” RCRA hazardous wastes (RCRA 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(I)). Management of previously “listed” hazardous residuals may shift from RCRA Subtitle C regulated hazardous waste management to de

- regulated management, although RCRA “characteristic” hazardous

waste residuals will continue to require management as hazardous waste (40 CFR 261 Subpart C of the RCRA regulations defines “characteristic” hazardous wastes according to four classifications: 261.21 ignitability, 261.22 cor r osivity, 261.23 reactivity, and

261. 24 toxicity).

### 4

- 4 Exhibit 4A Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Burden Requirements by Industry Facility Classification

A B C D E F G

Item RCRA Subtitle C

Requirement Facility Regulatory Classification Potential Change in Baseline Regulatory Burden Costs Under the

2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions LQG SQG CESQG TSDRF

1 Obtain EPA ID

Number Required Required Not Required Required Assumed no cost savings because generators already have incurred costs for obtaining EPA ID numbers (i.e., assumed “sunk cost”).

2 Personnel Training Required (40 CFR
262.34) Basic training required
(40 CFR 262.34) Not Required Required Cost savings incurred if generator
becomes a SQG or CESQG with

exclusion.

3 Recordkeeping Required for manifests, exception report, and biennial report. Required for manifests and exception reports Not Required Required for
manifests, exception report,

and biennial

report Cost savings incurred if recycled waste

not defined as a hazardous waste or if generator becomes a SQG or CESQG

with exclusion.

4 Exception Report Required within 45 days of hazardous waste being accepted by initial transporter Required within 60 days

of hazardous waste being accepted by initial

transporter Not Required See Generator Requirements Cost savings incurred if generator

becomes a SQG or CESQG with

exclusion.

5 Biennial Reporting Required Not required Not Required Required Cost savings incurred if generator
becomes a SQG or CESQG with

exclusion.

6 Storage Requirements for

Accumulated

Hazardous Waste Full compliance with

management of

containers or tanks Basic requirements with

technical standards for

containers or tanks None Full compli ance with management

of containers or

tanks Assumed no cost savings if generator

status changes because facilities already have incurred costs (i.e., assumed “sunk cost”).

7 Part B Permit

Renewal None None None Required Cost savings incurred by permitted recycling facilities with exclusion. If they recycle all waste, they will incur facility

- wide permit renewal savings. Otherwise, they will only incur savings associated with the permit renewal for the storage area associated with the recycling process.

8 Use Manifests Required Required, unless the Not Required See Generator Cost savings incurred if recycled waste

### 4

- 5 Exhibit 4A Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Burden Requirements by Industry Facility Classification

A B C D E F G

Item RCRA Subtitle C

Requirement Facility Regulatory Classification Potential Change in Baseline Regulatory Burden Costs Under the

2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions LQG SQG CESQG TSDRF

waste is reclaimed under a contractual agreement Requirements not defined as a hazardous waste or if generator becomes a SQG (with

contract agr eement) or CESQG with

exclusion.

9 Preparedness &

Prevention Required Not Required Not Required Required Cost savings incurred if generator
becomes a SQG or CESQG with

exclusion.

10 Contingency Plan Required Not Required Not Required Permit Requirement Cost savings incurred if generator

becomes a SQG or CESQG with

exclusion.

11 Emergency Plan Required Not Required Not Required Permit Requirement Cost savings incurred if generator

becomes a SQG or CESQG with

exclusion.

12 Facility Closure Not Required Not Required Not Required Required Costs incurred by recycler for obtaining financial assurance for closure/post closure of secondary materials storage containers.

13 Post

- closure Care Not Required Not Required Not Required Required Costs incurred by recycler for obtaining financial assurance for closure/post closure of secondary materials storage containers.

14 Accumulation Time 90 days “Speculative

accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar year the amount of

materi al that is recycled, or transferred

to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or

volume of the material 180 days [or 270 days if transported more than
200 miles] “Speculative

accumulation” provisio ns (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar year

the amount of material that is recycled, or

transferred to a different site for recycling, must None 90 days Cost savings incurred if generator
becomes a SQG or CESQG with exclusion. Cost savings for longer speculative accumulation time limits for recycled materials.

### 4

- 6 Exhibit 4A Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Burden Requirements by Industry Facility Classification

A B C D E F G

Item RCRA Subtitle C

Requirement Facility Regulatory Classification Potential Change in Baseline Regulatory Burden Costs Under the

2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions LQG SQG CESQG TSDRF
at the beginning of the period. equal at least 75% by weight or volume of that material at the beginning of the period.
Column total requirements = 11 7 0 14

### 4

- 7 Exhibit 4B Summary of 12 Baseline Conditions for EPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

Conditions Exclusion 1:

Generator

Controlled Recycling Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion 3:

Case

- by

- Case

Variance Potential Baseline Costs Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclu sions

1 No speculative

accumulation Yes Yes N/A “Speculative accumulation” provisions (see 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar year (beginning January 1) the amount of material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or volume of the amount of that material at the beginning of the period. Impact not estimated in this

RIA.

2 Generator notifies EPA initially & every

2

- years Yes Yes N/A Costs were estimated for generators to complete a notification of RCRA exclusion for their recycled wastes every 2 years.

3 Notification signed by corporate official Yes Yes N/A Additional costs will be incurred in the notification process to brief and obtain the signature of a corporate offic ial.

4 Generator submits petition to EPA to

demonstrate that

materials are not solid

wastes N/A N/A Yes Costs will be incurred to conduct waste characterization (totals and
TCLP) to demonstrate waste has metal, solvent or other material values warranting recovery.

5 Maintain records of all offsite shipments for recycling No (onsite)
Yes (if involving

offsite

company affiliate, or tolling agreement) Yes N/A Costs incurred by generator to maintain records of materials shipments to offsite recycling.

6 Con firmation of shipment receipt Yes Yes N/A Costs incurred by (a) offsite recycler to confirm to generator receipt of shipment, and (b) generator to maintain record of confirmation receipts.

7 Recycler has liability

insurance for accidents No Yes N/A No additional costs incurred because all affected facilities currently have liability insurance for accidents as part of standard industry practice.

8 Recycler has financial

assurance for closure No Yes N/A Costs incurred by recycler for obtaining financial assurance for closure/post closure of secondary materials storage containers.

9 Materials must be

contained Yes Yes Yes No additional costs are assumed because all facilities will ensure containment to avoid CERCLA liability and RCRA corrective action

### 4

- 8 Exhibit 4B Summary of 12 Baseline Conditions for EPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

Conditions Exclusion 1:

Generator

Controlled Recycling Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion 3:

Case

- by

- Case

Variance Potential Baseline Costs Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclu sions

for leaks/spills.

10 Residuals derived from recycling managed in environmentally

protective manner No Yes N/A Assume all entities are currently treating residuals as listed waste, so cost savings will be incurred because “listed” waste definitions will no

lo nger be attached to residuals.

11 Generator exercises due diligence

reasonable efforts to ensure offsite recycling is legitimate No Yes N/A Generator incurs cost for conducting due diligence on offsite recycler.

12 Export of materials for recycling requires

notice & consent and filing of an annual report documenting the

actual number of shipments and quantity of material exported N/A Yes N/A Costs incurred by generator to notify foreign recycling facility of the requirements of the DSW exclusions and file an annual report on materials exported. This RIA does not estimate the annual fraction (percentage) of affected hazardous secondary materials which may be exported for recycling. However, this is a baseline RCRA Subtitle C requirement (40 CFR 262.5 3; 40 CFR 262.56), so no additional cost.

Count of total conditions* = 6 11 2
Explanatory Notes:

 N/A = Not applicable.

 * Total counts of conditions in this Exhibit (a) do not include the four “legitimate recycling” factors (2 mandatory factors, plus 2 non

- mandatory factors) which are common to all three recycling exclusions and are substantively the same as the current legitimacy policy, (b) do no t distinguish and include the five

sub

- elements of item 11 due diligence for Exclusion 2, and (c) do not dis tinguish and include the nine criteria for making a non

- waste determination under

Exclusion 3. This more detailed sub

- itemization of requirements exceeds the impact estimation level

- of

- detail of this RIA Addition of these 18 omitted sub

items would incr ease the total count of conditions to 10 for Exclusion 1, to 20 for Exclusion 2, and to 15 for Exclusion 3.

### 4

- 9

Excluding metals, solvents, and other industrial “hazardous secondary materials” from RCRA regulation should make it more economical for generators and recycling facilities to recover the

market

- valued commodities from these materials, if the materials are recycled rather than

di sposed. For the 2008 DSW rule, EPA estimated the additional future industrial recycling that may be induced by the DSW exclusions. The induced new recycling estimates are based on applying a financial “breakeven test” to estimate the portion of baseline hazardous wastes which might switch over from disposal (either onsite or offsite disposal) to offsite recycli ng. This switchover impact represents a relatively less certain, hypothetical future scenario . It is important to emphasize that this disposal switchover to recycling scenario does not represent a “prediction” or “forecast” in this RIA, but represents a “futures analysis” method often used by

EPA: 15



### “ Scenarios are not predictions. They are stories of how the future might unfold

— plausible stories that reflect information about trends and potential future developments. [Scenarios may be] designed to span a range of potential future conditions. The actual future is not likely to match any one of [alternative] depictions, but it will probably fall somewhere within the range of possibilities that [scenarios] explore. ”

The underlying rationale for this dispos al switchover scenario is that excluding metal

- , solvent

- , and other chemical

- bearing wastes that are recycled from RCRA regulation will make it more economical for waste generators and for waste recycling facilities to recover valuable chemical

constituen ts from these wastes. Therefore, induced new recycling may result in additional savings to generators from at least three sources:

1. Relaxed waste accumulation time limits.

2. De

- regulation of waste management residuals (e.g. ash, sludges, leachates) from

rec ycled materials; i.e., if wastes are no longer considered a listed hazardous waste, the residuals generated by the waste recycling processes may no longer be regulated as

“hazardous waste” under the RCRA "Derived

- from Rule" (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).

Therefo re, the management of these residuals might shift from RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste) to Subtitle D (nonhazardous waste) disposal if the residuals do not test characteristically hazardous (40 CFR 261 Subpart C).

3. Reduction and elimination of baseline cos ts for RCRA regulatory paperwork burden to affected entities (e.g., for manifesting, for maintaining RCRA waste management permits).

However, possibly offsetting a portion of these potential RCRA regulatory cost savings are the

incremental costs to affect ed facilities to comply with the conditions of each 2008 DSW rule exclusion. Induced new recycling costs are a combination of:

 RCRA regulatory paperwork burden costs savings to industry

 New costs to affected industrial facilities to implement (i.e., comp ly with) the 12 DSW

exclusion conditions

15 Source: EPA Office of Chief Financial Officer, http://www.epa.gov/cfo/futures/env_scen.htm.

### 4

- 10

 State government hazardous waste fee cost savings to industry

 Waste management costs (i.e., current waste disposal cost compared to new recycling cost) to industry waste generators

 Potential market value to recyclers of the recovered material commodities (if hypothetically recycled rather than disposed)

All of these revision s are integrated in the micro

- economic (i.e., facility

- and waste

- specific) financial breakeven test to determine which facilities may b e induced to switch from baseline disposal to rec ycling under the 2008 DSW rule exclusions.

B aseline cost estimates are not presented in this RIA for baseline RCRA regulatory requirements which are either (a) “sunk costs” or (b) infrequently occurring reg ulatory requirements such as:

 Obtaining an EPA identification number (this is assumed a “sunk cost” for affected
industries)

 Preparing a RCRA manifest exception report (this is an unpredictable baseline regulatory event that does not frequently occur and is not estimated in this RIA)

 Complying with storage requirements for accumulated hazardous waste (this is assumed a “sunk cost” for affected industries)

A summary of the unitized cost s for the 14 elements of RCRA regulatory burden baseline cost to

affect ed industries can be found in the 2008 DSW RIA. 16 

### The 2008 DSW RIA als o presents a summary of unitized cost s to meet the 12 conditions associat ed with the three 2008 DSW rule

exclusions. 17 

### “ Unitized costs ” are usually referred to as “ unit costs ” but the fo rmer is applied in this RIA to avoid reader confusion between waste management “units” (e.g., equipment sy stems) and the meaning of “unit costs ” in this RIA as referring to “ cost per item ” (e.g., $/facility or
$/waste

- stream) or “ cost per unit of measure ” (e.g., $/ton or $/hour or $/year) . Unitized costs applied in this RIA are from two primary data sources:

1. ICR unitized costs : L abor hour estimates contained in EPA “ Information Collection Request ” (ICR) supporting statements for the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste

program. 18 

### An ICR describes reporting, record keeping, survey, or other information collection requirements imposed on the public (e.g., households, industry) by a Federal agency such as the EPA. ICR supporting statements provide overviews of the information collection, and provide estimates of the costs and labor hours imposed on the public to respond to ICRs. ICR paperwork burden, referred to as RCRA “ administrative

16 See Exhibit 6B of EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule for a listing of the unitized costs. Appendix B to the 2008 RIA provides background data references and computations for these baseline RCRA regulatory unitized costs. Potential market values of recoverable commodities contained in the baseline disposed wastes are presented in Appendix A of the 2008 RIA. Baseline industrial disposal costs and commerci al recycling prices are presented in Appendix D of the 2008 RIA.

17 See Exhibit 7B of EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule for a listing of the unitized costs. Additional unitized cost details are provided in Appendix C of the 2008 RIA.

18 The RCRA hazar dous waste program ICRs from which unitized costs are applied in this RIA are ICR 2106.01, ICR 801, ICR 820, ICR 976, ICR 1189.14, ICR 1572, and ICR 1573. EPA ICRs are available from OMB’s Federal agency ICR inventory at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain

### 4

- 11

requirements ” in this chapter, are evaluated for compliance with 40 CFR 262 generator standards such as manifest, pre

- transport, recordkeeping, reporting, and differences in regulatory requirements for facilities that are LQG, SQG, CESQG, and TSDF regulatory

status.

2. RACER unitized costs : Industrial disposal and recycling cost s are based on RACER 2005

cost estim ating computer software (RACER is an abbreviation for the proprietary

commercial “ Remedial Action Co st Engineering Requirements” c ost e stimating computer

program )

. 19



## 4B. Baseline Regulatory Cost Savings for the 2008 DSW Recycling

Exclusions

4B.1 De

- Regulatory Cost Savings Baseline from the 2008 DSW Final

Rule RIA

This section contains a series of exhibits that present the outcome of the cost savings e stimates

for the 2008 DSW rule exclusions. The average annual, non

- discounted, nationwide de

regulatory cost savings estimated in the 2008 DSW RIA is $95.3 million per year (source: 2008 RIA Exhibit 1B, page 8). The 2008 RIA cost savings represents one part of the baseline defined

in this RIA to serve as the starting point for the incremental analysis of the potential impact of

the 2014 DSW revisions to th e 2008 DSW rule. The other part of the baseline applied in this RIA pertains to the 2014 revision s which may affect pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. The 2008 DSW rule RIA baseline consists of three components, which are related as follows:

 2008 baseline component #1 of 3: Cost s avings from the deregulation of 14 RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements: Annual industry baseline cost savings to LQGs, SQGs, transporters, and TSDRFs for elimination of all 14 regulatory cost elements outlined in Exhibit 4A above are

estimated in the 2 008 DSW R IA for all three 2008 DSW rule exclusions. Up to $106.4 million per year in cost savings were estimated if 100% of the facilities

submitted a notification for exclusion. 20



###  2008 baseline component #2 of 3 : New costs to meet 12 terms/co nditions for the 2008

DSW rule recycling exclusions : Annual industry baseline costs to comply with the paperwork burden conditions

under each of the 2008 DSW recycling exclusion s are es timated in the 2008 DSW RIA. Up to $15.8 million per year in costs were estimated if 100% of the

facilities submitted a notification for exclusion. 21



###  2008 baseline component #3 of 3 : Net market value of recovered hazardous secondary

materials facilities w ould otherwise dispose :

19 Available at http://www.fecpractice.com/Docs/RACER%20Overview.pdf

20 See Exhibit 6C of the 2008 DSW RIA.

21 See Exhibit 7C of the 2008 DSW RIA.

### 4

- 12 Annual industry baseline cost savings for industrial second ary materials recovered from potential switchover of some hazardous waste streams from baseline disposal to new future rec ycling under the 2008 DSW rule exclusions are estimated in the 2008 DSW RIA. Up to $4.7 million per year in cost savings

were estimat ed if 100% of the facilities switched from baseline disposal to new future recycling and submitted a notification for exclusion. 22



### The total net cost savings is calculated by taking component #1 ($106.4 million deregulatory savings), subtracting component #2 ($15.8 million condition costs), and adding component #3
( $ 4.7 million net market value). The total net cost savings is $95.3 million per year.



## 4B.2 Update Factors Applied to the 2008 DSW De

- Regulatory Cost Savings Baseline

The $95.3 million per year average annual cost savings from the 2008 DSW RIA 23 

### is updated in

this RIA to 2012 (the year EPA completed the analyses of this RIA) using four update factors:

1. Update factor #1 of 4: Annual Tonnages : Three tonnage adjustment sub

- factors are used

to reflect changes in industrial output and coinciding waste recycling between the 2005 and 2007 BR reporting cycles and the 2007 and 2009 BR reporting cycles, as well as updating to 2012.

o 1 st 

### sub

- factor : T he reported 2007 BR recycling quantity was compared to the reported 2005 BR recycling quantity to derive a tonnage adjustment factor of

- 2.48% representing a decrease in industrial recycling of hazardous wastes (see

Exhibit 4C o f the 2011 DSW Proposed Rule).

o 2 nd 

### sub

- factor : T he reported 2009 BR recycling quanti ty was compared to the 2007 BR recycling quantity to derive a tonnage adjustment factor of

- 12.36% representing a decrease in industrial recycling of hazardous wastes (see Exhibit

4C of this RIA below ). Only the 1.748 million tons recycling quantiti es (Exhibits 3A to 3F of this RIA) and not the 0.8 million tons disposal quantities (Exhibits 3S

to 3W of this RIA) were used because most (81%) of the estimated annual cost savings from the 2008 DSW RIA are associated with RCRA

- regulated recycling

activit ies (i.e., $77.3 million per year (81% of $95.3 million/year) in cost savings

associated with RCRA

- regulated recycling, compared to $16.7 million per year (<18% of $95.3 million/year) in estimated cost savings from disposal quantities shifting to recycling in the 2008 DSW RIA; the residual $1.3 million/year (<2% of $95.3 million/year) is associated with the case

- by

- case variance exclusion). 24



### o 3 rd 

### sub

- factor : The 2009

- updated baseline hazardous waste recycling tonnage evaluated in this RIA for potential de

- re gulatory cost savings is not the 1.748

million tons as shown in Exhibits 3A to 3G above. The 1.748 million tons is

22 See Exhibit 8B of the 2008 D SW RIA.

23 See Exhibits 9E and 9F in the 2008 DSW RIA.

24 See Exhibit 9F in the 2008 DSW RIA.

### 4

- 13 bas ed on the BR standard data programming logic that totals BR Form GM on

site recycling tonnage data plus BR Form WR waste received tonnage data for offsite recycling. Given the baseline recycling tonnage displayed in Exhibits 3A to 3G are meant to equal the tonnages p resented in Exhibits 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the

2009 BR 25 

### , the same data query logic were used to complete Exhibits 3A to 3G of this RIA. In comparison, the 2012

- updated 1.31 million tons baseline recycling

shown in Exhibits 4F and 4H of this RIA uses an alte rnative BR data programming logic that totals BR Form GM on

- site recycling tonnage data plus

BR Form GM off

- site shipment tonnage data for recycling. Hazardous waste tonnage mass balance does not exist in the BR database for any given year,

between what t he generator reports shipping offsite for recycling on BR Form GM, and what the TSDR facilities report receiving from generators for recycling on BR Form WR. Also note that the recycling tonnages presented in Exhibits 3A through 3G above will not match th e baseline recycling tonnages used in the de

regulatory cost savings analysis. Exhibits 3A through 3G present the national baseline recycling picture based on BR data reporting logic. However, the recycling quantities presented above are higher than thos e used in the cost analysis. The discrepancy is due to the following:

 The on

- site recycling tonnages in Exhibit 3A (column E) are sums of the tonnages reported in Form GM, Section 1F. Quantity Generated in 2009.

The on

- site recycling tonnages used in the cost savings analysis of this RIA are those reported in Form GM, Section 2, On

- site Process System 1

and On

- site Process System 2. These numbers sometimes do not match

because either:

 There is a data reporting or data entry error, or

 Not all of the quant ity generated is recovered (i.e., some may be disposed), or

 Not all of the quantity generated in 2009 was recovered in 2009.

 Source code G61 (received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite waste) is excluded in the cost savings analysis bec ause the waste is not physically generated on site (see Exhibit 3D, Item 35) by the

generator.

 The off

- site recycling totals in Exhibit 3A (column G) are based on Form WR data for wastes received from off site for management. The off

- site recycling tonnag es used in the cost savings analysis are based on Form GM reported shipment tonnages to off

- site recycling (i.e., Form GM, Section 3, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3).

25 Based on the 2009 “National Analysis” BR at http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br09/national09.pdf

### 4

- 14 Exhibit 4C Annual Quantities of RCRA Hazardous Wastes Currently Recycled by Generator Indus try*

A B C D E ((D

- C)/Cx100%)

Item Generator Industry

2

- digit NAICS Code 2007 BR Recycling (tons per year) 2009 BR

Recycling (tons per year) % Change in

Recycling Between

2007 & 2009

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 70

- - 100.00%

2 21 Mining 4 3

- 34.86%

3 22 Utilities <0.5 <0.5 108.33%

4 23 Construction 669 10

- 98.47%

5 31 Manufacturing 136 53

- 61.38%

6 32 Manufacturing 535,749 458,210

- 14.26%

7 33 Manufacturing 1,085,944 1,002,167

- 7.71%

8 42 Wholesale Trade 16,549 1,143

- 93.09%

9 44 Retail Trade 6

- - 100.00%

10 45 Retail Trade

- - 0.00%

11 48 Transportation 31 12

- 60.79%

12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing

- 3,183 NA

13 51 Information 12,106

- - 100.00%

14 52 Finance & Insurance

- - 0.00%

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 1 < 0.5 2.50%

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 71 77 8.13%

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises

- - 0.00%

18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation 342,901 283,049

- 17.45%

19 61 Educational Services 53 34

- 35.99%

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 71 57

- 19.00%

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation

- - 0.00%

22 72 Accommodation & Food Services

- - 0.00%

23 81 Other Services 22 3

- 85.18%

24 92 Public Administration 157 14

- 90.81%

25 ?? NAICS code not provided*

- - - Column totals = 1,994,540 1,748,015

- 12.36%
Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2007 and 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Reports: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br07/index.htm and http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm

. Appendix F presents two 2009 BR records identified as data

outliers. These records were excluded from the 2009 total in this ex hibit. ** NAICS code is required for all EPA 2007 and 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions.

### 4

- 15

2. Update factor #2 of 4: Price Level : An annual US nationwide average price inflation factor is used to reflect changes in labor, equipment, and materials prices between 2007 and 2011 (costs in the 2008 DSW rule RIA are based on 2007$). For the price level adjustment factor, aggregate costs are all inflated from 2007$ to 2012$ using an implicit price deflator of 1.0 784

. 26 

### The implicit price deflator for 2007 is 106.227. The first quarter 2012 implicit price deflator is 114.511. The ratio of these two implicit price

deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.078 (114.511/106.227 =
1.078). 27



### 3. Update factor #3 of 4: Eligible Facility Count : Two facility count adjustment sub

- factors are used to reflect changes in industrial recycling activity between the 2005 and 2007 BR reporting cycles and the 2007 and 2009 BR reporting cycles:

o 1 st 

### sub

- factor: The 2007 BR counts of facilities recycling were compared to the reported 2005 BR recycling facility count to derive a facility count adjustment

factor of

- 10.15% representing a de crease in the number of industrial facilities recycling hazardous wastes ( see Exhibit 4D of the RIA for the 2011 DSW

p ro posed rule).

o 2 nd 

### sub

- factor : T he reported 2009 BR counts of facilities recycling were compared to the reported 2007 BR recycling facilit y count to derive a facility count adjustment factor of 1.09% representing an increase in the number of industrial facilities recycling hazardous wastes (see Exhibit 4D of this RIA below ). Only the reported count of facilities recycling hazardous waste an d not the count of facilities disposing hazardous waste were used because most (81%) of the estimated cost savings from the 2008 DSW RIA are associated with current recycling activities (i.e., $77.3 million per year (81% of $95.3 million/year) in

cost savi ngs associated with RCRA

- regulated recycling, compared to $16.7 million per year (<18% of $95.3 million/year) in estimated cost savings from disposal quantities shifting to recycling in the 2008 DSW RIA; the residual $1.3 million/year (<2% of $95.3 million /year) is associated with the case

- by

- case variance exclusion). 28

26 The implicit price deflator is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product,” last revised April 27, 2012, available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

27 Although not applied in this RIA, it is of macro

- economic interest to indicate that an alternative and relevant price level update index

– the “Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index” (CEPCI)

-- indic ates a 2007:to:June 2011 update multiplier of 1.1209, whereas in comparison the BEA implicit price deflator is 1.0784. Thus, the dollar values (i.e., costs and cost savings) estimated in this RIA are about 4% lower (i.e., (1.0784 / 1.1209) x 100% = 96.21% ) than they would be if this RIA applied the CEPCI rather than the BEA GDP

- IPD. The CEPCI is published monthly by Chemical Engineering magazine. The CEPCI ratio for 2011:to:2007 = (588.9 CEPCI June 2011 preliminary) /
(525.4 CEPCI 2007 annual) = 1.1209 c ost update multiplier. The 2007 and 2011 CEPCI data are from http://www.scribd.com/doc/82434624/CEPCI. The CEPCI is a relative narrow price index comprised of four major price categories: (a) chemical plant equipment, (b) chemical plant construction labo r, (c) chemical plant buildings, and (d) chemical plant engineering and supervision, whereas the BEA GDP IPD is a very broad index comprised of prices for all sectors of the US national economy.

28 See Exhibit 9F in the 2008 DSW RIA.

### 4

- 16

4. Update Factor #4 of 4: Exclusion Notification Rate : A notification rate based on the rate of DSW exclusion notifications for baseline industrial recycling presented later in this

RIA.

Exhibit 4D Count of Facilities** Currently Recycling Hazardous Waste by Three Categories of RCRA Hazardous Waste Baseline Recycling*

Hazardous Waste Recycling Category A B C ((B

- A)/
Ax100%)

2007 count of

facilities generating

wastes that are recycled 2009 count

of facilities generating

wastes that are recycled Percent Change

in Generators Recycling

H010: Metals recovery: high temperature metals recovery, retorting, secondary smelting, & other metals recovery (e.g., ion exchange, reverse osmosis, acid leaching). 2,019 1,922

- 4.80%

H020: Solvents recovery : fractionation/ distillation, thin film evaporation, & solvent extraction. 2,101 2,016

- 4.05%

H039: Other recovery : acid regeneration, waste oil recovery, non

- solvent organic liquids recovery, & other miscellaneous recovery methods except energy recovery or use as fuel. 867 1,067 23.07%

Non

- duplicative totals = 4,321 4,368 1.09%

Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm

. Appendix F presents seven 2009 BR records identified as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this

exhi bit.

** The States of Michigan and California reported a significant increase in the number of facilities recycling in 2009 compared

to 2007.



## 4B.3 Result of Updating the 2008 DSW De

- Regulatory Cost Savings

Baseline to 2011

Exhibits 4E through 4I below present the updated 2008 RIA baseline facility counts, annual recycling tonnages, and annual net de

- regulatory cost savings for the five recycling e xclusions of

the 2008 DSW rule.

 Exclusion 1A Generators who recycle on site.

 Exclusion 1B Offsite transfer recycling at a different facility under the control of the

generator (i.e., same company).

 Exclusion 1C Offsite transfer recycling under a tolling contract. Tolling arrangement

offsite recycling indirectly estimated using baseline offsite recycling for NAICS industry code 32519 Other Organic Chemical Mfg.

 Exclusion 2: Offsite transfer recycling based on all other offsite recycling not covered

under Exclusion 1 (i.e., mutually

- exclusive non

- duplicative impact), plus all baseline disposal estimated to potentially shift to offsite recycling.

### 4

- 17

 Exclusion 3: Case

- by

- case “non

- waste determination” variance. Note that each

exhibit of this chapter does not present Exclusion 3 as a separate exhibit column according to the 2

- digit NAICS code i temization, because Exclusion 3 was estimated in EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW rule, based on a simple methodology outside of the baseline recycling and baseline disposal datasets applied in the de

- regulatory cost savings and disposal

switchover b reakeven test analyses used to estimate impacts for Exclusion 1 and Exclusion 2. For this reason, only the aggregate annual impact estimate for Exclusion 3 is presented as a bottom row of each

exhibit.

 Update Results Based on 100% Eligible Facil ities Adopting Without Future Annual Discounting

The updated 2008 DSW baseline is based on the same simple scenario applied in the 2008 DSW RIA of 100% notification (i.e., notification for exc lusion under the 2008 DSW rule) by all

affected industrial faci lities currently recycling hazardous waste and those projected to switch from baseline disposal of hazardous waste to new future recycling. Results are presented on a 2

- digit NAICS code basis for affected industrial facility counts and affected annual ton nages because costs for the 2014 DSW rule are dependent upon these numbers.

 Exhibit 4E: Presents counts of potentially affected 6

- digit industries (546) &

facilities (4,850) for the three 2008 DSW exclusions

.

o This is a 12.8 % reduction in facility count compared to the 2008 RIA estimate of 5,564 facilities (2008 RIA Exhibit 9B).

 Exhibit 4F: Presents estimated annual tonnages of affected hazardous wastes for the

three 2008 DSW rule exclusions ( 1.31 million ton s total).

o This is a 14.8% reduction in annual recycling tonnage compared to the 2008 RIA estimate of 1.537 million tons (2008 RIA Exhibit 9D).

 Exhibit 4G: Presents two updated values:

o E stimated baseline annual net cost savings to industry according to

2

- digit NAICS sectors for the three 2008 DSW rule exclusions

@100% notification rate ($87.8 million per year).

o This is a 7 .8% reduction in net cost savings compared to the 2008 RIA estimate of $95.3 million per year (2008 RIA
Exhibit 9E).

o Based on the 2014 :to:2008 net cost savings update ratio of 0.921 (i.e., ( 2014 RIA $87.8 million per year) / ($2008 RIA $95.3 million per year)) as a multiplier, the $106.4 million/year pre

- 2008 baseline full RCRA Subtitle C regulatory cost of the 14 Subtitle C requirements plus the $4.7 million/year in net value of mate rials recovered from disposal switchover to recycling, is estimated at
$102.4 million/year (i.e., ($106.4 million/year + $4.7 million/year) x
(0.921 2014 :to 2008 update multiplier)).

 Exhibit 4H: Presents the combined impact for all three exclusions.

### 4

- 18

 Exhib it 4I: Presents the estimated shift in baseline RCRA regulatory generator status

of affected industrial facilitie s for the three 2008 DSW rule exclusions (i.e., pre

- rule and post

- rule estimated counts of affected LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs). This potential c hange in RCRA status is a driver (i.e., determinant) for five of the 14 RCRA regulatory paperwork burden
elements itemized in Exhibit 4A row items 2, 3, 8, 10, 11. To a much lesser extent, RCRA generator status is also a determinant of one of the

12 DSW e xclusion conditions itemized in Exhibit 4B (row item 5).

o The estimate of potential change in generator status in this RIA is in relation to the entire annual tonnage of baseline RCRA hazardous wastes generated or managed at each potentially affected facili ty (i.e., the facility

- wide total annual tonnage for all hazardous waste streams generated or managed at a single facility), not just in

relation to the sub

- set of annual hazardous waste stream tonnage which may be affected by the 2008 DSW rule recovery/re cycling

exclusions.

o Thus, as estimated in this RIA, this potential shift in RCRA regulatory status for generators is potentially more beneficial to the relatively large number of small

- sized facilities (e.g., small businesses) which generate a relatively s mall number (i.e., <5) of small tonnage hazardous waste streams annually, and less beneficial to the relatively small number of large

- sized facilities (e.g. large companies) which generate a large number (i.e., >5) of hazardous waste streams annually.

### 4

- 19 Exhibit 4E

Counts of Industries & Facilities Potentially Affected by the 2008 DSW Exclusions (2009 BR Data) (i.e., Existing Facilities Which May Become Eligible for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions @100% Notification Rate)

Item A. Affected Industries B. Affected Facilities

Industry 2

- digit NAICS Code 2009 Count of 6

- Digit NAICS

Codes Affected
(see full list in Appendix A ) A B C D E

Exclusion

1A
(Generator onsite) Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(Offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

- based) Combined

Exclusions 1+2 (Unique count)

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 3 0 0 0 3 3

2 21 Mining 13 0 0 0 21 21

3 22 Utilities 12 0 2 0 94 94

4 23 Construction 9 1 0 0 20 20

5 31 Manufacturing 22 0 0 0 32 32

6 32 Manufacturing 109 50 5 93 1,259 1,273

7 33 Manufacturing 226 36 9 0 2,234 2,240

8 42 Wholesale Trade 25 1 0 0 103 104

9 44 Retail Trade 3 0 0 0 30 30

10 45 Retail Trade 4 0 0 0 5 5

11 48 Transportation 29 1 0 0 102 102

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 3 0 1 0 28 28

13 51 Information 6 1 0 0 11 11

14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 7 0 5 0 9 13

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 8 1 1 0 155 155

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 1 0 0 0 5 5

18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 17 7 58 0 119 148

19 61 Educational Services 7 2 2 0 158 158

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 8 2 1 0 82 82

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 5 0 0 0 6 6

22 72 Accommod & Food Services 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 81 Other Services 15 0 1 0 79 79

24 92 Public Administration 13 0 1 0 168 168

Column totals = 546 102 85 93 4,722 4,776 Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

- by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 74 Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 4,850

* From Exhibit 3A, 615 wastes are recovered onsite and 9,988 wastes are recovered offsite. Generators are recovering 2.2 wastes onsite per faci lity (615 wastes/280 onsite facilities = 2.2 wastes/onsite facility). Generators are recovering 2.1 wastes offsite per facility (9,988 wastes/4722 offsite facilities = 2.1 wastes/offsite facility)

### 4

- 20 Exhibit 4F

Estimated Tons of Affected Hazardous Wastes in 2009 for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (100% Notification Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS Code A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Exclusion 1A
(Generator onsite) Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

- based) Combined

Exclusions 1+2*

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 0 0 0 10 10

2 21 Mining 0 0 0 107 107

3 22 Utilities 0 1 0 1,243 1,243

4 23 Construction 3 0 0 691 695

5 31 Manufacturing 0 0 0 262 262

6 32 Manufacturing 119,818 1,081 35,522 144,545 300,966

7 33 Manufacturing 241,264 3,507 0 585,574 830,344

8 42 Wholesale Trade 559 0 0 24,056 24,614

9 44 Retail Trade 0 0 0 201 201

10 45 Retail Trade 0 0 0 45 45

11 48 Transportation 16 0 0 1,367 1,383

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 0 1 0 1,027 1,028

13 51 Information 9 0 0 219 227

14 52 Finance & Information 0 0 0 0 0

15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 0 2,917 0 73 2,990

16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 1 11 0 886 897

17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0 22 22

18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 12,567 14,755 0 14,223 41,543

19 61 Educational Services 6 6 0 689 700

20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 71 9 0 444 524

21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 0 0 10 10

22 72 Accommodation & Food Srvcs 0 0 0 0 0

23 81 Other Services 0 1 0 869 870

24 92 Public Administration 0 43 0 1,206 1,249

25 ?? NAICS code not reported*** 0 0 0 0 0

Column totals* = 374,314 22,330 35,522 777,767 1,209,933

Sub

- total offsite tonnage excluded (Columns B+C+D) = 835,619 79,583 shipments** Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

- by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 103,460 Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 1.31 million

Explanatory Notes: * Totals may not add due to rounding. ** Annual offsite shipments (i.e., RCRA manifests) affected estimated by dividing offsite tonnage by range of 10.5 tons average partial load. *** NAICS code is required for all EPA 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report submissions.

### 4

- 21 Exhibit 4G Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (Baseline Recycling Plus Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling* @100% Notification Rate & 2012$)

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS Code A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Exclusion 1A
(Generator onsite) Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(Offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

- based) Combined

Exclusions 1+2*

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $6,921 $6,921

2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $360,164 $360,164

3 22 Utilities $0 $62,436 $0 $1,073,281 $1,135,717

4 23 Construction $14,890 $0 $0 $209,475 $224,365

5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $519,431 $519,431

6 32 Manufacturing $551,429 $68,597 $2,904,782 $20,483,524 $24,008,332

7 33 Manufacturing $1,304,863 $242,256 $0 $40,292,039 $41,839,157

8 42 Wholesale Trade $211 $0 $0 $1,553,345 $1,553,556

9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $166,273 $166,273

10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $82,024 $82,024

11 48 Transportation** ($1,021) $0 $0 $1,708,442 $1,707,421

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $29,984 $0 $490,668 $520,652

13 51 Information $14,797 $0 $0 $208,840 $223,637

14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $25,514 $0 $96,503 $122,017

15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $14,953 $46,184 $0 $2,498,514 $2,559,651

16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $77,377 $77,377

17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $135,711 $630,166 $0 $1,540,713 $2,306,590

18 61 Educational Services $28,266 $60,746 $0 $3,112,240 $3,201,252

19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $12,856 $58,387 $0 $1,251,097 $1,322,340

20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $58,934 $58,934

21 81 Other Services $0 $30,757 $0 $1,006,709 $1,037,466

22 92 Public Administration $0 $30,558 $0 $3,621,779 $3,652,338

Column totals* = $2,076,954 $1,285,585 $2,904,782 $80,418,294 $86,685,616 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $20,416 $15,057 $31,353 $17,030 $18,151 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $6 $58 $82 $103 $72
Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

- by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,179,141
Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $87.8 million

2014 update of pre

- 2008 full RCRA Subtitle C regulation cost if not excluded by either the 2008 or 2014 DSW rules = $102.4 million

* Totals may not add due to rounding. ** Reductions in state fees may influence generator waste management decisions (e.g., disp osal vs. recycling) and are included in the micro

- economic breakeven test. Distributive effects on state governments are not treated as social costs in this RIA for estimating the net economic impact. Government fees often repres ent “transfer payments” no t real resource costs. State fees are taken out from the net economic impact. As a result, cost savings may be negative in this table.

### 4

- 22 Exhibit 4H Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings for Baseline Recycling and Baseline Disposal

for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (@100% Notification Rate and 2012$)

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS Code A B C D E F Impact on Baseline Recycling Impact on Baseline Disposal (Switchover to Recycling)

Facilities Tons/year Net savings Facilities Tons/year Net savings

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 2 8 $5,739 1 3 $1,182

2 21 Mining 15 56 $282,016 7 50 $78,148

3 22 Utilities 83 1,157 $1,004,330 19 85 $130,465

4 23 Construction 14 585 $185,545 10 110 $37,899

5 31 Manufacturing 23 220 $421,357 14 43 $98,075

6 32 Manufacturing 909 296,145 $18,995,877 662 4,821 $4,975,602

7 33 Manufacturing 1,690 817,780 $35,222,641 979 12,565 $6,616,516

8 42 Wholesale Trade 64 24,096 $1,271,337 50 519 $282,218

9 44 Retail Trade 30 201 $166,273 0 0 $0

10 45 Retail Trade 4 42 $72,708 1 3 $9,317

11 48 Transportation 80 1,124 $1,456,290 40 259 $251,131

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 13 937 $340,510 16 91 $180,143

13 51 Information 11 209 $210,060 1 18 $13,585

14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 11 2,982 $102,101 4 8 $19,917

15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 107 559 $2,078,793 86 338 $480,856

16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 4 15 $74,287 1 8 $3,090

17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 134 41,373 $2,025,009 38 171 $281,579

18 61 Educational Services 122 467 $2,584,507 93 234 $616,745

19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 62 358 $1,148,477 35 167 $173,862

20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 5 10 $52,954 1 0 $5,980

21 81 Other Services 71 820 $985,746 11 50 $51,720

22 92 Public Administration 113 778 $2,548,464 147 472 $1,103,874
Column totals (totals may not add due to rounding) = 3,566 1,189,920 $71,235,020 2,216 20,014 $15,411,905

74 103,832 $1,179,141 = Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS not estimated) Baseline recycling + baseline disposal combined impact (Exclusion 1+Exclusion 2+Exclusion 3) = 4,850 1.31 million $87.8 million

### 4

- 23 Exhibit 4I Expected Change in Baseline RCRA Regulatory Generator Status for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (100% Notification Rate)

Note: impacts in this Exhibit based on annual tonnages from both baseline recycling + baseline disposal switchover to recycling

Generator

Status* A B C D E F G H I (H

- D)

Baseline Facility Status Counts Post

- Rule Facility Status Counts

Facilities

Affected by

Exclusion

1 Facilities

Affected by

Exclusion

2 Facilities

Affected by

Exclusion

3 Combined

Exclusion (Unique Facility
Count) Facilities

Affected by

Exclusion

1 Facilities

Affected by

Exclusion

2 Facilities

Affected by

Exclusion

3 Combined

Exclusion (Unique Facility
Count) Incremental

Change in Facility

Status Counts

b/c of 2008

DSW Final

Rule**
LQG 258 3

, 802 Not

estimated 3

, 856 203 2,832 Not

estimated 2,888

- 968

SQG 17 856 Not

estimated 856 60 1,207 Not

estimated 1,207 352

CESQG 5 64 Not

estimated 64 16 683 Not

estimated 680 616

Column

totals** 280 4,722 74 4,776 280 4,722 74 4,776 0

Explanatory Notes: * RCRA generator status is determined by the monthly hazardous waste generation tonnages reported by each facility in the RCR A Biennial Report:

 LQGs = >13.2 tons/year

 SQGs = Between 1.3 and 13.2 tons/year

 CESQG = <1.3 tons per year (note: this RIA counts facilities post

- rule as CESQGs even if they are expected to become non

generators post rule). “Acute hazardous” wastes determinations of generator status are not taken into consideration in this RIA. ** Totals may not add due to rounding.

### 4

- 24

 Update Results Based on 5 4% Facilities Notifying With Future Annual Discounting

Previously in the RIA fo r the 2008 DSW rule, industry implementation cost estimates were presented for a hypothetical scenario in which 100% of eligible facilities submitted notifications

for the 2008 DSW exclusions ( Exhibit 4E of this RIA lists 4,776 facilities eligible for the 2008

exclusions 1 and 2 as of the 2009 Biennial Report data year)

. However , this RIA derives a future

exclusion notification scenario for relative to the actual 3.2% annual percentag e of facilities

which have submitted DSW exclusion notific ations under the 2008 DSW rule as of April 11,

2012. 29 

### See Section 3.C.1 of this RIA for how the average annual rate of future DSW exclusion

notifications was derived. This actual notification rate is applied in this RIA as a most likely

scenario over the 50

- year futur e period of analysis ( i.e., 2014 to 2063 ). 30



### Using this 3.2% average annual notification rate over the future 50 year period, t he cumulative average annual count of facilities assumed notifying unde r the 2008 DSW rule in the baseline is
2,604 or 54% of all 4,850 facilities pote ntially elig ible for the 2008 DSW exclusion s . This 54% cumulative average annual notification rate represents a cumulative count which grows from 67 notifying facilities as of year 2012, to a total 3, 865 notifying facilities by the 2063 end of the 50

-
year period

- of

- analysis in this RIA

. The 3,865 cumulative total count of facilities assumed notifying is 80 % of all 4,850 facilities potentially eligible for the 2008 DSW exclusions The 54% average annual percentage

--- not the 80 % cumulative total percentage

--- is applied

in this RIA as a future scenario to estimate the baseline annual cost savings estimate

ass ociated with the 2008 DSW rule

.

Three alte rnative discount rates (i.e., non

- discounted , 3%, and 7%) are applied to the baseline

costs. These discount rates are prescribed in OMB’s 2003 “Circular A4” regulatory analysis guidance 31 

### for Federal regulatory agencies.

The 54% facility notification rate baseline cost savings for the 2008 DSW rule recycling

exclusions are:

 Non

- discounted : $ 49.1 million per year (see Exhibit 4J below).

 3% discount rate: $ 38.7 million per year (see Exhibit 4K below).

 7% discount rate: $ 27.5 million per year (see Exhibit 4L below).

29 Notification data are available from EPA

- ORCR’s webpage at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/dsw/notify

sum.pdf

30 This RIA evaluates a 50

- year time horizon (2014 to 2063) and assumes the notifications will be distributed proportionally among the four populations of facilities (i.e., onsite, same company transfer, tolling, and offsite

transfer

- based exclusions) over t he long term.

31 OMB “Circular A4” is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a

- 4/

Note : C osts and cost savings associated with the pre

- 2008 and 2008 DSW recycling
exclusions, as well as the 2014 revisions to the DSW exclusions, almost exclusively impact industry rather than government. The higher discount rate (7%) better represents industry opportunity costs associated with regulatory compliance costs, relative to net earnings of

bus iness revenues and investment opportunities by affected industries.

### 4

- 25 Exhibit 4J Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (Baseline Recycling Pl us Disposal Switchover to Recycling @54% Facility Notification Rate, 2012 $, non

- discounted )

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS Code A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Exclusion 1A
(Generator onsite) Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(Offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

- based) Combined

Exclusions 1+2*

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $3,766 $3,766

2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $195,995 $195,995

3 22 Utilities $0 $33,977 $0 $584,062 $618,039

4 23 Construction $8,103 $0 $0 $113,993 $122,096

5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $282,666 $282,666

6 32 Manufacturing $300,079 $37,330 $1,580,736 $11,146,802 $13,064,946

7 33 Manufacturing $710,085 $131,832 $0 $21,926,275 $22,768,192

8 42 Wholesale Trade $115 $0 $0 $845,305 $845,420

9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $90,483 $90,483

10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $44,636 $44,636

11 48 Transportation** ($556) $0 $0 $929,707 $929,151

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $16,317 $0 $267,013 $283,330

13 51 Information $8,052 $0 $0 $113,647 $121,700

14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $13,884 $0 $52,516 $66,400

15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $8,137 $25,132 $0 $1,359,651 $1,392,920

16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $42,107 $42,107

17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $73,852 $342,926 $0 $838,431 $1,255,209

18 61 Educational Services $15,382 $33,057 $0 $1,693,631 $1,742,070

19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $6,996 $31,773 $0 $680,827 $719,596

20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $32,071 $32,071

21 81 Other Services $0 $16,737 $0 $547,835 $564,572

22 92 Public Administration $0 $16,629 $0 $1,970,914 $1,987,543

Column totals* = $1,130,245 $699,595 $1,580,736 $43,762,333 $47,172,908 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $20,416 $15,057 $31,353 $17,030 $18,151 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $6 $58 $82 $103 $72
Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

- by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,913,780
Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $49,086,688
* Totals may not add due to rounding. ** Reductions in state fees may influence generator waste management decisions (e.g., disposal vs. recycling) and are included in the micro

- economic breakeven test. Distributive effects on state governments are not treated as social costs in this RIA for estimating the net economic impact. Government fees often represent “transfer payments” not real r esource costs. State fees are taken out from the net economic impact. As a result, cost savings may be negative in this tab le.

### 4

- 26 Exhibit 4K Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (Baseline Recyclin g Plus Disposal Switchover to Recycling @ 54% Facility Notification Rate, 2012$, 3% Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS Code A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Exclusion 1A
(Generator onsite) Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(Offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

- based) Combined

Exclusions 1+2*

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $2,982 $2,982

2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $155,198 $155,198

3 22 Utilities $0 $26,904 $0 $462,486 $489,391

4 23 Construction $6,416 $0 $0 $90,265 $96,681

5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $223,828 $223,828

6 32 Manufacturing $237,616 $29,559 $1,251,697 $8,826,534 $10,345,406

7 33 Manufacturing $562,277 $104,390 $0 $17,362,202 $18,028,869

8 42 Wholesale Trade $91 $0 $0 $669,350 $669,441

9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $71,648 $71,648

10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $35,345 $35,345

11 48 Transportation** ($440) $0 $0 $736,183 $735,743

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $12,921 $0 $211,433 $224,354

13 51 Information $6,376 $0 $0 $89,991 $96,367

14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $10,994 $0 $41,584 $52,578

15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $6,443 $19,901 $0 $1,076,632 $1,102,976

16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $33,342 $33,342

17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $58,479 $271,544 $0 $663,907 $993,930

18 61 Educational Services $12,180 $26,176 $0 $1,341,092 $1,379,448

19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $5,540 $25,159 $0 $539,109 $569,808

20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $25,395 $25,395

21 81 Other Services $0 $13,253 $0 $433,800 $447,053

22 92 Public Administration $0 $13,168 $0 $1,560,657 $1,573,825

Column totals* = $894,978 $553,970 $1,251,697 $34,652,965 $37,353,611 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $16,167 $11,923 $24,827 $13,485 $14,373 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $4 $46 $65 $82 $57
Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

- by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,306,551
Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $38,660,162
* Totals may not add due to rounding. ** Reductions in state fees may influence generator waste management decisions (e.g., disposal vs. recycling) and are included in the micro

- economic breakeven test. Distributive effects on state governments are not treated as social costs in this RIA for estimating the net economic i mpact. Government fees often represent “transfer payments” not real resource costs. State fees are taken out from the net economic impact. As a result, cost savings may be negative in this table.

### 4

- 27 Exhibit 4L Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (Baseline Recycling Plus Disposal Switchover to Recycling, 54% Facility Notification Rate, 2012$, 7% Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS Code A B C D E (A+B+C+D)

Exclusion 1A
(Generator onsite) Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(Offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

- based) Combined

Exclusions 1+2*

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $2,105 $2,105

2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $109,562 $109,562

3 22 Utilities $0 $18,993 $0 $326,492 $345,485

4 23 Construction $4,530 $0 $0 $63,722 $68,252

5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $158,011 $158,011

6 32 Manufacturing $167,745 $20,867 $883,635 $6,231,088 $7,303,335

7 33 Manufacturing $396,939 $73,694 $0 $12,256,839 $12,727,472

8 42 Wholesale Trade $64 $0 $0 $472,527 $472,592

9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $50,580 $50,580

10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $24,952 $24,952

11 48 Transportation** ($311) $0 $0 $519,708 $519,398

12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $9,121 $0 $149,261 $158,382

13 51 Information $4,501 $0 $0 $63,529 $68,030

14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $7,761 $0 $29,356 $37,118

15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $4,549 $14,049 $0 $760,048 $778,646

16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $23,538 $23,538

17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $41,283 $191,696 $0 $468,685 $701,665

18 61 Educational Services $8,599 $18,479 $0 $946,744 $973,821

19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $3,911 $17,761 $0 $380,584 $402,256

20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $17,928 $17,928

21 81 Other Services $0 $9,356 $0 $306,241 $315,597

22 92 Public Administration $0 $9,296 $0 $1,101,745 $1,111,041

Column totals* = $631,810 $391,075 $883,635 $24,463,246 $26,369,766 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $11,413 $8,417 $17,527 $9,520 $10,146 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $3 $32 $46 $58 $40
Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

- by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,179,141
Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $27,548,907
* Totals may not add due to rounding. ** Reductions in state fees may influence generator waste management decisions (e.g., disposal vs. recycling) and are included in the micro

- economic breakeven test. Distributive effects on state governments are not treated as social costs in this RIA for estimating the net economic i mpact. Government fees often represent “transfer payments” not real resource costs. Stat e fees are taken out from the net economic impact. As a result, cost savings may be negative in this table.

### 4

- 28



## 4C. Baseline for the Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions

Components of two regulatory revision s of the 2014 DSW final rule affect pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions (i.e., Revision s 3 A & 4 C). However, t his RIA assumes zero baseline RCRA regulatory cost saving s for facilities operating under the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions since they are already excluded from RCR A regulation. This assumption is i n contrast to the baseline estimated for the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions in EPA’s RIA for the 2011 DSW proposed

revisions. T his RIA has modified the pre

- 2008 baseline in response to public comments 32 

### that

noted there was an e rr or in the assumption of the 2011 DSW RIA which extended the RCRA regulatory cost savings baseline for the 2008 DSW rule (proj ected over a 50

- year future 2014 to

2063 period

- of

- analysis), to also include an estimate of the regulatory cost savings to industry

associated with the 32 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions in the baseline

.

Because EPA promulgated the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (which span 1985 to 2002) after the initial RCRA hazardous waste regulations were promulgated in 1982, industry has

a lready incurred regulatory cost savings associated with the pre

- 2008 exclusions, in comparison

to the higher cost for compliance with a full RCRA Subtitle C regulatory baseline without the

pre

- 2008 exclusions in place. When estimating the future cost savi ngs from the 2008 DSW rule this RIA does not count the cost savings associated with the pre

- 2008 exclusions, because all of the 32 pre

- 2008 exclusions have been part of the regulatory landscape since 2002. In other words, the savings have already been real ized prior to the 2008 DSW rule. When estimating the
costs of the 2014 DSW rule, the cost

- savings from the pre

- 2008 exclusions (in addition to those from the 2008 DSW rule) are accounted for in the baseline. T he two revisions ( Revision s 3 A &

4 C) the 2014 DSW rule make s to the pre

- 2008 exclusions are direct cost s to facilities already operating under the pre

- 2008 exclusions

.

On the other hand, the future regulatory costs savings to industry for the 2008 DSW rule are still largely based on assumptions of st ate adoption and facility notification. R elatively few industrial facilities have notified and operate under the 2008 DSW exclusions as of the date of thi s RIA

. Thus the potential regulatory cost savings of an option of keeping the 2008 DSW exclusions in place without revisions, must constitute the baseline of this RIA to get a fair understanding of the incremental impact of the 2014 DSW rule

.

Appendix H of this RIA presents a comparison of the baseline estimated in the 2011 DSW RIA

with the baseline e stimated in this RIA, according to both the pre

- 2008 and 2008 DSW exclusion components of the baseline (using the 2011 RIA’s 7% discount rate base case ). Appendix H also displays how the difference in RIA baselines affects “net impact” in relation to the incremental regulatory cost of the 2014 DSW rule as estimated (very similarly) in the 2011 DSW

RIA and this RIA.

32 Row item 4 of Exhibit 2B of this RIA identifies 12 sets of comments submitted by 11 organizations (which are
identified in Exhibit 2A of this RIA) that co mmented EPA’s 2011 DSW RIA incorrectly characterized the use of the

pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions as baseline avoided costs or cost savings.

### 4

- 29



## 4 D. Potential Additional 2008 DSW Rule Baseline Cost Savings from the

“ Remanufacturing ” Revision 5

The cost savings associated with the remanu factu ring DS W recycling exclusion ( Revision 5 ) and

the verified recycler exclusion ( Revision 1 ) are largely limited to the avoided regulatory compliance costs associated with eliminating the need to comply with RCRA Subtitle C

standards. It is possible that additional benefits not considered by the avoided

- cost method in

th is RIA could accrue if upstream manufacturing changes result in avoided virgin material use

and pollutant emissions by companies potentially tak ing additional steps to change proces ses to recover rather than dispose spent solvents. Such lifecycle benefits would be additive to the

baseline cost

- savings which is based only on avoided RCRA regulatory compliance costs unde r the DSW exclusions.

The RIA for the 2008 DSW rule estimated that 3 ,755 tons 33 

### of hazardous waste solvent s may switch from disposal to recycling under the 2008 “offsite transfer” recycling exclusion. That

exclusion is replaced in the 2014 DSW revisions by the verified recycler exclusion ( Revision 1 )

and by the new remanufacturing exclusion designe d specifically for offsite recycling of spent solvents. The cost savings estimated in the 2008 RIA associated with this switch

- over to recycling was based only on the expected reduction in future RCRA regulatory complianc e cost

under the 2008 DSW rule; the 2008 RIA did not estimate lifecycle economic and environmental cost savings associated with the 3,755 tons of spent solvents. Since the 2008 DSW RIA is based on the 2005 RCRA Biennial Report (BR) data for solvents this e stimate is likely to be a lower

bound estimate. The expected total affected volume of disposed spent solvents which may switch to recycling under either the remanufacturing exclusion or under the alternative RCRA

Subtitle C offsite transfer recycling excl usion is likely to be higher than 3,755 tons per year for

two reasons:

1. First, BR data may not identify the total affected population of pre

- 2008 DSW exclusion facilities. Specifically, the BR does not include small quantity generators (SQGs) and

condition ally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) and therefore may underestimate the potential unive rse affected by this exclusion. Furthermore, facilities which operate under DSW recycling exclusions are not subject to BR reporting.

2. Second, BR data do not isolate the specific 18 solvents addressed by the 2014 remanufacturing exclusion. In comparison, it is possible to query the TRI database specifically for 16 of the 18 solvents (ethanol and tetrahydrofuran are not in the TRI).

33 The 3,755 tons is from the 2008 DSW “Commodity Group 2: Solvents” in Exhibit 8A of the 2008 DSW RIA. “Commodity Group # 2” includes a combination of:

 Five chemical form codes (W202, W203, W204, W209, W211)

 Two industrial process/ activity generation source codes (G01, G06)

 Eight hazardous waste codes (F001, F002, F003, F004, F005, F024, F025, K086).

### 4

- 30

In 2011, EPA made preliminar y estimates of additional potential lifecycle environmental and

economic benefits of the DSW remanufacturing exclus ion

. 34 

### A study 35 

### by the Green Engineering P rogram within EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) examined remanufactu r ing scenarios for the 18 solvents covered by the 2014 DSW remanufacturing exclusion

. 36 

### By comparing lifecycle pollutant emissions and materials use

associated with the manufacture of virgin solvents, to substituting with spent solvents which switch from disposal to recycling , use, and disposal o f these solvents , OCSPP estimated environmental impacts associated with avoiding disposal of these 18 solvents.

OCSPP used a mass balance model 37 

### to measure and monetize lifecycle benefits associated wit h solvent recycling . The model uses 2008 pollutant emissions and transfers for the 16 TRI

reported solvents of the 18 solvents covered by the remanufacturing exclusion. OCSPP’s study

reports lifecycle im pact benefits according to both physical and monetized bases:

 Physical lifecycle impacts (displayed in Exhibit 4M below):

o Annual metric tons of avoided g reenhouse g as emissions (GHG, aka CO 2 

### )

o Annual metric tons of avoided p ollutant releases to:

 Air (CO, VOC, NOx, SOx releases avoided)

 Water (TOC, BOD, COD, TDS releases avoided)

 Land (solid waste generation avoided)

o Annual g allons of wate r saved

 Monetized lifecycle impacts:

o A voided hazard ous waste fuel blending costs

o A voided cost f

o r transporting spent solvents u nder hazardous waste manifest s

o A voided transportation costs by transporting spent solvents shorter average

distances for remanufacturing compared to longer distances for disposal

o Using or selling the remanufactured solvents i n lieu of buying virgin solvents. The OCSPP study calculated the resale value for each solvent using market value in 2008, offset by the remanufacturing cost.

o Societal economic va lue of the avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) air emissions (priced in the OCSPP s tudy at $22 per metric ton GHG in 2012$)

34 Mass Balance Model is available to estimate emissions reductions from a process change of disposal to recycling. See Tables 8.1 and 8.2, Appendix 4of Selection of Industry Sectors, Chemicals and Functions in the Remanufacturing Exclusion: Background Document in Support of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule (document ID

No. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0012) at http://www.regulations.gov

35 Source: EPA “Benefits of the Remanufacturing Exclusion: Background Document in Support of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule,” Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics, Economic, Exposure & Technology Division, Pollution Prevention Division, Washington DC, June 16, 2011, document ID No. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0011 at http://www.regulations.gov

36 EPA selected th ese 18 solvents both for the OCSPP study and for the 2014 DSW remanufacturing exclusion because there are existing markets for these solvents to be re

- manufactured to serve similar purposes to those of the original commercial

- grade materials, and TRI repor ting indicates industries use these solvents in large volumes.

37 OCSPP’s mass balance model is a partial life cycle assessment model. The mass balance model does not evaluate impacts from the entire life cycle of the solvents affected by the remanufacturin g exclusion.

### 4

- 31

OCSPP a pplied a 92% rate of commercial

- grade recovery to total spent solvents disposed in 2008, except for spent methanol and ethanol in the calculating the emissions quantities in Exhibit

4M below. 38 

### Additionally, a 75% rate of commercial

- grade recovery was applied to spent

methanol and eth anol disposed in 2008.

In contrast, the analysis of cost savin gs in Chapter 8 and Appendix D of the 2008 DSW rule RIA

used an average recovery rate of 67% across all solvents for wastes currently going to solvent recovery. I n calculation of the 3,75 5 tons of spent solvent estimated to switch from disposal to recovery, the 2008 DSW RIA used a much lower 18 % average recovery rate to reflect waste

matrices with lower amounts of solvent available for recovery

. Appendix B to this RIA

pro vides a comparison of the OCSPP approach to the 2008 DSW RIA approach.

The OCSPP study considers a range of implementation rates to demonstrate that the lifecycle

economic and environm ental benefits of switching spent solvent disposal to recycling co uld be significant

. Purely for illustrative purposes, Exhibit 4M below displays the results of the OCSPP lifecycle analysis based on the 3,755 tons per year of hazardous waste solvents which may switch from disposal to recycling under the 2008 “offsite transfer” exclusion, as estimated in the

2008 DSW rule RIA. Because this is probably an under

- estimate for the reasons explained
above, Exhibit 4M belo w also presents lifecycle benefits for two alternative, hypothetical higher

annual solvent switch

- over tonnages assuming a 25% and 50% implementation rate for facilities switching from spent solvent disposal to remanufacturing.

38 The 92% recovery rate is based on distillation technology for two

- time distillation of solvents. For detailed explanation see the OCSPP study document ID nr. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0011 at http://www.regulations.gov

Note : T his RIA does not integrate these lifecycle benefits into the updated baseline because lifecycle benefits:

 Were not included in the RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule,

 Are based on partial lifecycle calculations, and

 Are only estimated here for one commodity group (i.e., solv ents) of the three commodity groups evaluated in the 2008 DSW RIA for the offsite transfer exclusion.

### 4

- 32 Exhibit 4M

Estimated Baseline Annual Lifecycle Benefit s Not Estimated in the 2008 DSW Final Rule RIA Associated with Switching Spent Solvents fr om Disposal to Remanufacturing *

Pollutant Emission Type A B C

Based on the 2008

DSW rule RIA (metric tons) If 25% of total TRI

solvents r ecovered
(metric tons) If 50% of total TRI

s olvent s r ecovered
(metric tons)
Spent solvent s switching from disposal to recover y = 3,755 /year 136,719 /year 273,439 /year

1. Gree nhouse gas (GHG) air em issions avoided ( carbon dioxide CO 2

e quivalency) 3,763

– 4,725 137,025

– 172,024 274,050

– 344,047

2. Carbon monoxide (CO) air emissions avoided 18.4 669 1,338

3. Volatile organic carbon ( VOC ) air emissions avo ided 2.2 80 161

4. Nitrogen oxides ( N O x ) air emissions avoided 3.4 124 249

5. Sulfur oxides ( SOx ) air emissions avoided 16.8 612 1225

6. Total o rganic c arbon (TOC) wate r releases avoided 2.6 95 191

7. Biological o xygen d emand (BOD) water releases avoided 0.5 17 34

8. Chemical oxygen d emand (COD) wate r releases avoided 10.2 370 742

9. Total d issolved s olids (TDS) water releases avoided 119.4 4,348 8,695

10. Solid waste generation avoided 25.8 941 1882

Annual lifecycle benefit s ** = $1.1

- $1.2 million

per year $41.0

- $41.9 million

per

- year $82.2

- $83.7 million

per

- year

Notes:

*Source: EPA “ Benefits of the Remanufacturing Exclusion: Background Document in Support of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule ”

, Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics, Economic, Exposure & Technology Division, Pollution Prevention Division, Washington DC, June 1 6, 2011,

document ID No. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0011 at http://www.regulations.gov In addition to 25% and 50% displayed in columns B and C of this exhibit, the OCSPP study also evaluated 10% and 75% alternati ve scenarios. ** Lifecycle benefits as monetized in the June 2011 OCSPP study in clude f ive industry cost savings components:

 Avoided hazardous waste fuel blending costs

 Avoided cost for transporting spent solvents under hazardous waste manifests

 Avoided transportation costs by transporting spent solvents shorter average distances for remanuf acturing compared to longer distances for disposal

 Using or selling the remanufactured solvents in lieu of buying virgin solvents. The OCSPP study calculated the resale value for each

sol vent using market value in 2008, offset by the remanufacturing cost.

 Societal economic va lue of the a voided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (priced in the OCSPP study at $22 per metric ton GHG in 2012$)

### 5

- 1 

# C HAPTER 

# 5

Estimate of Industry Costs to Comply with the

2014 Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

This chapter estimates the potential future costs to industry to comply with the five revision s of the rule that revise the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions and the two revisions that revise the pre

2008 DSW recycling exclusions. For estimating potential industry costs, this RIA began by updating and revising the relevant unit (i.e., per

- facility) cost savings as estimated in EPA’s

RIA 39 

### for the 2008 DSW rule. The cost analysis basically involved determining the incremental cost (or cost savings) of each r evision, relative to the requirements pr omulgated in the 2008

DSW rule. In other words, this RIA uses the average annual cost savings estimates from the 2008 RIA, as a “baseline” for the incremental analysis of the 2014 revisions. Appendix C to

this RIA provides background calculations for factors applied in estimating costs in this chapter. To remain consistent with the methodology of the 2008 DSW RIA, costs incurred by state governments are calculated separately from costs to industry. Estimates of st ate government costs can be found Chapter 7C.



## 5A. Revision 1: Replace the 2008 DSW Off

- site Transfer

- Based Exclusion

with the 2014 DSW Verified Recycler Exclusion

The s ix re quirements to the verified recycler exclusion include:

1. Delete “reasonable efforts” requirement

2. R e quire recycler to obtain a variance 3. Require recycling to be conducted in the United States 4. Apply the definition of “contained”

5. M ake notification a c ondition of the exclusion

6. S peculative accumulation recordkeeping & labeling



## 5 A .1 Requirement 1 A: Re asonable Efforts

Under t h e 2014 verified recycler exclusion generators no longer have to make “reasonable efforts” to audit recy clers that do not have a permit to ensure recycling is legitimate as was required under the 2008 off

- site transfer

- based exclusion. The estimated baseline costs under the

39 EPA’s 2008 DSW final rul e RIA is titled “Regulatory Impact Analysis: USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the Industrial Recycling Exclusions of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste” 25 Sept 2008, 204 pages, available

for download as document ID nr. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2002

- 0031

- 0602 at h ttp://www.regulations.gov.

Note : To avoid duplication of text in this RIA, descriptions for each

DSW revision are not re

- produced in th is chapter. Refer to Chapter

2 of this RIA for descript ions and details for each of the 2014

revi sions

.

### 5

- 2

2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion (i.e., 2008 DSW rule “Exclusion 2”) for making reasonable efforts to audit the legitimacy of the recyclers is $12.6 million per year ($2008) (see
2008 RIA, Exh ibit 7C) if 100% of affected facilities notify. Adjusting using the generation adjustment factor and inflation rate results in $13.3 million per year ($2012), This total is adjusted to the notification rate assumed in this RIA in the calculation below. A fter adjusting the
$1 3.3 mi llion per year to reflect the 52 % cumulative notification rate for the transfer

- based exclusion, the annual future cost savings for withdrawing the reasonable efforts requirement

under transfer

- based exclusion is estimated to be $ 3

, 845

, 423 per year calculated as follows:

[($ 13.3 million/year ) x ( 29.00 % cost adjustment reflecting a 5 2 % cumulative notification rate

for the transfer

- based recycling exclusion and reflecting 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of analysis 40 

### ) ].

At a 3% discount rate the cost for this revision is $5, 439

, 356 per year and non

- discounted it is
$ 6

, 863

, 719 per year.



## 5A.2 Requirement 1B: Variance

Hazardous secondary material generators must arrange for transport of hazardous secondary

materials to a verified reclamation facility. A verified reclamation facility is a facility that has been granted a variance under 40 CFR 260.31(d) or a reclamation facility where the management of the hazardous secondary material is addressed under a RCRA Part B p ermit of interim status

standards. R eclamation facilities that do not have a RCRA Part B permit or interim status must obtain a variance under 260.31(d) that addresses the management of hazardous secondary

materials.

This RIA uses labor hour estimates fr om EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.2 4 Identification, Listing and Rulemaking

Pet itions (Renewal)”, January 2012

. 41 

### The variance from “Classification as Solid Waste

Material that are Reclaimed But M ust Be Reclaimed Further” under 40 CFR 260.31(c) is assumed to be similar in scope to preparing a variance for the verified reclamation facility

exclusion. The ICR indicates that 142 hours of technical labor are needed

. Labor rate estimates

reflect EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Proposed Rule) OMB Control No. 2050

- 0202, EPA ICR No. 2310.02,” June 30, 2011. 42



### Labor hours include 142 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour. The unit costs are e stimated to

be $ 9,843 per initial variance application and this RIA assume s it will cost 50% of the initial variance application cost to renew the variance every 10 years or $4,922 (2011$). The total

40 See Appendix C, Exhibit C2 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification

were derived.

41 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 201201

- 2050

- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201201

- 2050

- 001

. 42 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200905

- 2050

- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200905

- 2050

- 001

.

### 5

- 3

initial and renewal variance costs are $9,94 2 and $4,97 1 , respectively, in 2012$

. 43 

### Over the 50

- year period of analysis, the undiscounted average annual cost is $ 59 7 [ ( $9,94 2 + 4 x $4,97 1 )/50].

The unit cost is applied to the 275 non

- hazardous industrial waste recycling facilities

, including damage case facilities (250) and other non

- hazardous waste recycling facilities (25) as identified

in the DSW Environmental Justice analysis

. 44 

### The rate at which recycling facilities submit

variances is assumed to be 3.2% of the recycling facilities per year

– s imilar to the rate at which facilities are notifying under the 2008 DSW Rule. The aggregate annual cost for verified recycler exclusion variances is $ 58,4 5 1 per year, calculated as follows:
[( 275 facilities) x ($ 597 /facility/year) x ( 35.60 54 % cost adjustm ent reflecting the 64 % base case adoption scenario, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of analysis)]. 45



### At a 3% discount rate the cost for this revision is $84,7 66 per year and non

- discounted it is $108,4 30 per year.



## 5A.3 Requirement 1C: Domestic Recycling

Hazardous secondary material generators must transport their hazardous secondary materials to a verified reclamation facility located in the United States. This RIA assumes that domestic recycling options are available under the exclu sion , and are of similar proximity and cost to any international options that would otherwise be available in the absence of this requirement. Therefore, any incremental costs are assumed to be negligible.



## 5A.4 Requirement 1D : Definition of “Contained”

The net cost impact of this revision is zero because this RIA assumes that affected facilities already meet the un

- codified performance

- based standard. Codification is intended to benefit

enforcement.



## 5A.5 Requirement 1E : Notification (Requirement vs. Co ndition)

The net cost impact of this revision is zero because notification costs are already included in

baseline costs as one of the conditions of the 2008 DSW R ule. Making notification a requirement for obtaining the exclusion is intended to benefit enforcement.

43 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 113.361. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01
(114.511/113.361 = 1.01 0). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. 44 Potential Adverse Impacts Un der the Definition of Solid Waste Exclusions (Including Potential Disproportionate Adverse Impacts to Minority and Low

- Income Populations), Volume 2

– Assessment of Disproportionate Adverse
Impacts , U.S. EPA 2014, (available in the docket for the 2014 DSW final rule, EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742)

45 See Appendix C, Exhibit C3 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification

were derived.

### 5

- 4



## 5 A

. 6 Requirement 1F : Speculative Accumulation Labeling

The rule requires the speculative accumulation start date to be labeled on each container, and allowing other procedures (such as posting of accumulation dates or entering dates in inventory logs) to ensure against speculative accumulation in other types of units not amenable to labeling. The rationale is that without a record of a start date for accumulation, this provision is difficult to enforce. While it is p ossible to use 40 CFR 261.2(f) to enforce speculative accumulation provisions, making the recordkeeping explicit would render the provision much more enforceable. The net cost impact of this revision is zero because it is likely that facilities already

ar e placing the accumulation start date on containers to ensure compliance with the one year accumulation limit: “Speculative accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar year (beginning Jan 1) the amount of material that is r ecycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or volume, of material at the beginning of the period.



## 5 A

. 7 Revision 1 Total Cost Savings ( 1 A+ 1 B+ 1 C+ 1 D +1E+1F )

The total cost for industry to comply with the 2014 DSW verified recycler exclusion’s elimination of reasonable efforts, variance, domestic recycling, definition of contained, notification, and speculative accumulation labeling requirements of Revision 1 are estimated as

follows:

 7% discount rate :

o $ 3.85 million in cost savings under Revision 1 A from eliminating the requirement to make “reasonable efforts” to audit recyclers that do not have a permit to ensure recycling is legitimate.

o Costs associated with meeting the other requirements of Revision s 1 B, 1 C, 1 D

, 1E, and 1F are $ 58,45 1 per year.

o Total cost savings = $3. 79 million per year.

 3% discount rate :

o $ 5. 44 million in cost savings under Revision 1A from eliminating the requirement to make “reasonable efforts” to audit recyclers that do not have a permit to ensure recycling is legitimate.

o Costs associated with meeting the other requirements of Revision s 1B, 1C, 1D,
1E, and 1F are $ 84,7 66 per year.

o Total cost savings = $5. 35 million per year.

 Non

- discounted :

o $ 6. 8 6 million in cost savings under Revision 1A from eliminating the requirement to make “reasonable efforts” to audit recyclers that do not have a permit to ensure recycling is legitimate.

o Cost s associated with meeting the other requirements of Revision s 1B, 1C, 1D,
1E, and 1F are $ 108,4 30 per year.

o Total cost savings = $ 6. 76 million per year.



## 5B

. Revision 2 : Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Generator

- Controlled Recycling

### 5

- 5

The five components of the revision to the generator

- controlled exclusion of the 2008 DSW rule

include:

1. A dd a definition of “ contained ”

2. M ake notification a c ondition of the exclusion

3. S peculative accumulation recordkeeping & labeling
4, R ecordkeeping requi rements under toll manufacturing recycling exclusion and the

same compa ny transfer exclusion

5. R estructure the DSW reg ulations.

A n annual cost savings of $ 247 per year is estimated for this revision

.



## 5B .1 Requirement 2 A: Definition of “Contained”

The net cost impact of this revision is zero because this RIA assumes that affected facilities already meet the un

- codified performance

- based standard. Codification is intended to benefit

enforcement.



## 5B .2 Requirement 2 B: Notification (Requirement vs. Condit ion)

The net cost impact of this revision is zero because notification costs are already included in baseline costs as part of the 2008 DSW rule conditions. The revision is intended to benefit

enforcement.



## 5B .3 Requirement 2 C: Speculative Accumulation Recordkeeping & Labeling

The net cost impact of this revision is zero because it is likely that facilities already are placing the accumulation start date on containers to ensure compliance with the one year accumulation limit: “Speculative accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar year the amount of material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or volume, of material at the beginning of the period. This

re quirement is intended to improve enforcement.



## 5B .4 Requirement 2 D: Recordkeeping Requirement for DSW Excluded Recycling Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements and Same Company Transfer

Recordkeeping costs for the toll manufacturing recycling exclusion and same company transfer exclusion in the 2008 DSW rule are included in the baseline cost savings estimate as one of the

12 condi tions of the 2008 DSW rule. 46 

### The net impact of this revision is estimated to be zero. These costs should already be incurred as part of RCRA hazardous waste/hazardous materials

46 See Exhibit 7A, Item/Row 5 of the 2008 DSW RIA.

### 5

- 6

recordkeeping and kept with routine business records.



## 5B .5 Requirement 2 E: Re

- structure the location of the non

- land based

and land

- based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)

The net cost impact of these revisions to the 40 CFR regulations is minimal. Minimal time/cost savings may be incurred by facilities spending less time reading and understanding the regulations , estimated according to two assumptions:

 Time savings of 0.1 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour per facility for having to search for and read only one section of the DSW regulations in the CFR, rather than two sections. The estimated hourly rate for technical labor at hazardous waste generator

facilities is $69.32/hour from EPA’s 2011 DSW ICR, June 30, 2011

. 47 

### Using this rate,

the estimated unitized cost savings is $6.93/facility (i.e., (0.1 hours saved) x ($ 69.32/hour)).

 It is assumed that changeover in staff responsible for compliance and/or refresher w ith the rule every 3 years on average will result in new familiarization with DSW regulations. Average annual cost is $6.93/facility divided by 3 years equals $2.31/facility/year (2011$). The cost for reading the regulation is $2.33/facility in 2012 $

. 48



### T he aggre gate cost savings for this revision is $ 247 per year calculated as follows:

[( 280 generator

- controlled exclusion facilities) x ($2.33 p er facility per year) x (3 7

. 9 % c ost adjustment reflecting the 6 8 % notification rate, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of analysis 49 

### )].

At a 3% discount rate the cost savings for this revision is $ 350 per year and non

- discounted it is
$ 442 per year.



## 5 C

. Revision 3 : Revise the DSW Definition of Recycling “ Legitimacy ”

The Agency is revising the DSW definition of recycling “ legitimacy. ” Revisions to the DSW definition of recycling include the following:

 Codify a prohibition on “sham recycling”, as defined as recycling that does not meet the definition of legitimate rec ycling.

 Requiring four legitimacy factors documentation applied to the 2008 DSW exclusions.

47 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200801

- 2050

- 002 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200801

- 2050

- 002

. 48 The first quarter 2012 BEA impli cit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 113.361. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01 (114.511/113.361 = 1.010). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implic it Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. 49 See Appendix C, Exhibit C4 of this RIA for how the cost adjust ment factor and rate of exclusion notification

were derived.

### 5

- 7



## 5C .1 Requirement 3 A: C odify A Prohibition O n “Sham Recycling”, A s Defined A s Recycling That Does Not Meet The Definition Of Legitimate Recycling

.

The 2008 DSW rule codified a self

- implementing requirement that recycling must be legitimate (40 CFR 260.43) as a condition of the generator

- controlled exclusion, the transfer

- based
exclusion, and the non

- waste determinations created by that rule. The purpose of defin ing recycling legitimacy was to distinguish “legitimate” recycling from “sham” recycling (i.e., waste treatment and/or disposal conducted in the guise of recycling). That recycling must be legitimate to be exempt from RCRA regulation is a long

- standing pa rt of the definition of solid waste with a history that goes back to preamble statements in EPA’s 1980 final rule on the identification and listing of RCRA hazardous waste. Later preambles addressing recycling further explained what

l egitimacy means for r ecycling.

U ntil the 2008 DSW rule, the most comprehensive guidance on legitimate recycling produced by EPA was a policy document known as the “ Lowrance Memo ” which incorporated concepts from earlier rulemaking notices (i.e., Federal Register preambles), a nd provided a list of questions that could be posed about an industrial recycling process to determine if the process constituted legitimate recycling (i.e., “true recycling”). EPA’s Lowrance Memo was not explicit about whether the answer to each question must be answered in making a determination or whether they should be balanced against each other.

Because the codified legitimacy factors apply only to recycling under the 2008 DSW exclusions, all other industrial recycling is still subject to the Lowran ce Memo and other existing legitimacy guidance. The two 2014 revisions to the legitimate recycling provisions include:

1. Codify a prohibition on “sham recycling

, ” which is defined as recycling that does not meet the definition of legitimate recycling. This prohibition applies to all excluded hazardous secondary materials recycling, including hazardous secondary materials recycled under the pre

- 200 8 DSW exclusions

.

2. Revise the definition of legitimate recycling to make all four legitimacy factors be

mand atory, with built in flexibility for Factor 4 (i.e., the product of the recycling process must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate). Factor 4 is met when the product of recycling does not have an analogous pr oduct from raw material but:

a. T he product of recycling is a generally recognized commodity that meets recognized com mercial specifications, or

b. T he hazardous secondary materials being recycled are returned to the original process or processes from which they were generated to be reused (e.g., closed loop recycling). When Factor 4 is not comparable but recycling is legitimate there is an add ed condition requiring documentation of legitimacy (including certification) to be kept on site and notification to be sent to the regulatory agency.

The rationale for c odify ing a prohibition on “sham recycling ” that is applicable to all recycling exclusions, including pre

- 2008 DSW industrial recycling exclusion facilities and verified

### 5

- 8

recycler exclusion , and revising the definition of legitimate recyc ling to make all four legitimacy

factors mandatory, is to improve enforceability and clarity on legitimacy by using the same codified standard across the program. A legitimacy documentation, certification, and notification process would give EPA oversight when F actor 4 is not met.

This analysis uses costs for conducting due diligence and prep aring legitimacy documentation

fro m EPA’s June 30, 2011 ICR for the 2011 DSW proposed rule

. This RIA assumes that 1% of
wastes would incur the documentation, certifi cation and notification costs of legitimacy Factor 4 because products from the recycling of these wastes contain higher levels of hazardous constituents than do prod ucts made from raw materials. In the 2011 DSW RIA, a 5% “rare” (infrequent) future annual frequency assumed in this RIA represents the midpoint of a 0% to 10% range in any given future year of wastes not meet ing all four legitimacy factors. However,

in the 2014 DSW final rule, EPA has revised Factor 4 to address the majority of cases raised in the public comments where the proposed Factor 4 would not be met but the recycling is still legitimate. Such cases include when the hazardous secondary material is returned to the production process, when the recycled product has specification for the h azardous constituents and meets those specs, and when the recycled product is a widely recognized commodity that has no comparable product made from raw materials (e.g., commodity grade scrap metal). Although not enough information is provided in the publ ic comments to make definitive legitimacy determinations on the examples, the revisions to Factor 4 should eliminate the majority of examples of recycled products not meeting Factor 4 and therefore has reduced the assumed rate of legitimacy documentation r equired

.

It is assum ed that these facilities will prepare legitimacy documentation, provide certification, and notify the regulatory agency. For legitimacy documentation, the recycler would evaluate the legitimacy of the ir recycling and prepare a certification statement in one of three ways:

1. In

- house employer audits ($1,919/waste),

2. Outside vendor ($3,714/waste), or

3. Readily available information ($481/waste).

The average cost of these three methods is $2,038/waste (2011$). The cost to maintain for a minimum of three years documentation and certification that reasonable efforts were made is $1.23/waste (2011$), while the cost to make documentation and certifica tion available upon request by a regulatory authority within 72 hours, or within a longer period of time as specified by the regulatory authority is $2.91/waste (2011$). The total cost is $2,042/waste (2011$).

From Revision 4, Requirement 4B , notificatio n costs are $4.71/waste (2012$). The total legitimacy documentation, certification, and notificat ion cost is $2,067/waste in 2012$

. 50 

### It is assumed the facility prepares new documentation every three years either for the same waste, a

variant of the waste , or a new waste being generated by changes to existing production lines/processes or installation of new production lines/processes resulting in an annual cost of $689/waste/year.

50 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 113.361. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an i nflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01 (114.511/113.361 = 1.010). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTa ble/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

.

### 5

- 9

As discussed in Chapter 3, this RIA assumes that between 5,000 and 10,000 facilities conduct recycling/reuse ac tivities under the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. The mid

- point of 7,500 facilities

is used in the cost calculation. This RIA assumes also that small facilities will have 2 wastes and large facilities will have 20 wastes wi th pre

- 2008 DSW industrial recycling exclusions affected by the 2014 DSW Rule. The midpoint of 11 wastes is used in the cost calculation. For the total population of pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities the ag gregate annual cost to prepare legitim acy documentation, certification, and notification will be $493

, 957 per year calculated as

follows:

[(7,500 facilities x 11 wastes per facility ) x ($689/waste per year ) x ( 0.8 6 9 % c ost adjustment reflecting the 1 % of wastes requiring documentation , and 7% discount rate for

the 50

- year future period of analysis ) 51



### .

At a 3% discount rate the cost savings for this revision is $526,213 per year and non

- discounted it is $545,688 per year.

In addition, recyclers previously operating under the 2008 DSW off

- site transfer exclusion and now operating under the 2014 DSW verified recycler exclusion must meet all four legitimacy

factors . This analysis estimates that 4,722 affected “former offsite

- transfer” facilities (from

Column D of Exhibit 4E of this RIA) each recy cle an average 2.2 generated wastes. The aggregate annual cost to prepare legitimacy provisions is $ 2 1

, 779 per year calculated as follows:

[(4,722 facilities x 2.2 wastes/facility x ($689 per waste per year) x ( 0. 3 043 % c ost adjustment reflecting the 5 5 % n otification rate, 1% of wastes requiring legitimacy

documentation and certification

, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of analysis )] 52



### .

At a 3% discount rate the cost savings is $ 3 0

, 846 per year and non

- discounted it is $ 3 8

, 952 per

year.



## 5C .2 Requirement 3 B: Four Legitimacy Factors Documentation

Appl ied to the 2008 DSW Exclusions

2008 DSW exclusion recyclers are required to document legitimacy as a condition of the

generator

- controlled exclusion and the n on

- waste determinations

. This RIA assumes that legitimacy document ation would consist of a written narrative outlining how their recycling meets each of the four factors of legitimacy as described in 260.34 and would be kept onsite for the duration of the recycling and for three y ears after recycling operations cease.

Unlike the existing pre

- 2008 DSW waste

- specific and process

- specific exclusions where EPA considered the legitimacy of the recycling in the rulemaking process, the 2008 exclusions are

51 See Appendix C, Exhibit C5 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification

were derived.

52 See Appendix C, Exhibit C6 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification

were derived.

### 5

- 10

generic exclusions that apply to a variety of hazardous secondary materials being recycled in different ways. EPA believes it is appropriate to require those recyclers to document how their recycling practice meets the legitimate recycling standard and maintain the documentation for

ove rsight and compliance purposes.

All estimated costs apply to generator

- controlled exclusion facilities (Exclusion 1 of the 2008 DSW Rule) . For the non

- waste determination facilities (E xclusion 3 of the 2008 DSW rule), it is

assumed that these facilities made the argument through the non

- waste determination process that the recycling is legitimate. The net cost impact of this revision is zero for non

- waste

determination facilities.

Facilities will incur co sts for conducting an assessment of the legitimac y of its recycling practices (legitimacy documentation and certification). Cost estimates were obtained from

EP A’s 2011 DSW ICR. The assessment can be cond ucted three ways. The generator will need to conduct the necessary assessment of its recycling pra ctices to ensure the recycling is legitimate and prepare a certification statement using either of three methods:

1. In

- house employer assessment ($1,919/waste),

2. Outside vendor ($3,714/waste), or

3. Readily available information ($481/waste).

The average cost of these three methods is $2,038/waste (2011$). The cost to maintain for a minimum of three years documentation and certification that reasonable efforts were made is $1.23/waste (2011$), while the cost to make documentation and certification available up on request by a regulatory authority within 72 hours, or within a longer period of time as specified by the regulatory authority is $2.91/waste (2011$). The total cost is $2,042/waste (2011$).

From Revision 2, Requirement 2B, notification costs are $4.71/waste (2012$). The total legitimacy documentation cost is $2,067/waste in 2012$

. 53 

### It is assumed the facility prepares new documentation every three years at a cost of $689/waste/year.

This analysis estima tes that 280 affected generator

- controlled exclusion facilities (from Exhibit

4E of this RIA ) each recycle an average 2.2 generated wastes. The aggregate annual cost to prepare legitimacy provisions is $ 1 29

, 162 per year calcu lated as follows :

[( 280 facili ties) x (2.2 wastes/facility) x ($68 9 per waste per year ) x (3 0

. 4 32 2 % cost adjustment reflecting the 5 5 % notification rate, and 100% of notifying facilities submitting legitimacy documentations and certification and 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of analysis )] 54



### .

53 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 113.361. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01 (114.511/113.361 = 1.010). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. 54 See Appendix C, Exhibit C7 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification

were derived.

### 5

- 11

At a 3% discount rate the cost savings is $ 18 3

, 017 per year and non

- discounted it is $ 23 1

, 188

per year.



## 5C .3 Revision 3 Total Cost

The total cost for industry to comply with the legitimacy documentation, certification, and notification requirements of Revision 3 are estimated as follows:

 7% discount rate :

o $0.13 million for the 2008 DSW rule generator

- controlled and non

- waste

determination exclusion facilities

o $0.52 million for the pre

- 2008 exclusion facilities and 2014 verified recycler

exclusion facilities

o Total = $ 0.6 4 million

 3% discount rate :

o $0.1 8 million for the 2008 DSW rule generator

- controlled and non

- waste

determination exclusion facilities

o $0.56 million for the pre

- 2008 exclusion facilities and 2014 verified recycler

exclusion facilities

o Total = $ 0.7 4 million

 

### Non

- discounted :

o $0.2 3 million from the 20 08 DSW rule generator

- c ontrolled and non

- waste

determination exclusion facilities

o $0.59 million for the p re

- 2008 exclusion facilities and 2014 verified recycler

exclusion facilities

o 

### Total = $ 0.8 2 million



## 5D

. Revision 4 : Revise the 1985 Partial Recycling Variance and 2008

DSW Non

- Waste Determination Petition Processes

The Agency is modifying the existing regulation of solid waste variances at 40 CFR 260.31(c), 40 CFR 260.33 and 40 CFR 260.34 to foster greater consistency on the part of implementing agencies and help ensure th e protectiveness of the implementation of the solid waste variances

and non

- waste determinations. These modifications include:

1. Revise 40 CFR 260.33(c) to require facilities to re

- certify for a variance in the event of a change in circumstances that affects how a material meets the criteria upon which a solid waste variance has been based. In addition, facilities are required to r e

- apply for a variance at least every 10 years;

2. Add a provision at 40 CFR 260.33(d) stating that facilities receiving a variance or non

waste determination must provide notification as required by § 260.42 of this chapter;

3. Revise the criteria for the par tial reclamation variance in 40 CFR 260.31(c) to more clearly explain when the variance applies and to require, among other things, that the criteria for this variance must be reviewed and evaluated collectively, since each criterion reinforces and support s other criterion; and

4. Revise the criteria for the non

- waste determination in 40 CFR 260.34 to require that

### 5

- 12

petitioners explain or demonstrate why their hazardous secondary materials cannot meet, or should not have to meet, the existing DSW exclusions unde r §§ 261.2 or 261.4.



## 5D .1 Requirement 4 A: Requirement that an Applicant Re

- certify in the Event the Material No Longer Meets the Relevant Criteria

and Re

- apply for a Variance at Least Every 10 Years

Under the current regulatory framework, 40 CFR 260.30 provides the Administrator with the authority to grant a variance from the definition of solid waste or a non

- waste determination on a

case

- by

- case basis if materials are recycled in a particular manner. The practical effect of both

the solid waste varianc es and the non

- waste determinations is the same; once a petition is granted by EPA or the authorized state, the hazardous secondary material is not regulated as a solid or hazardous waste. The procedures for these variances and non

- waste determinations are found in

40 CFR 260.33.

EPA is making two changes to 40 CFR 260.33. First, EPA will make all variances subject to the provision in 40 CFR 260.33(c) requiring an applicant to re

- certify for a variance in the event that the material no longer meets the relevant criteria. Second, EPA is requiring facilities to re

- apply for a variance at least every 10 years.

The 2008 DSW rule noted that once a non

- waste determination has been granted, the applicant is obligated to ensure the hazardous secondary material continues to meet the criteria of the non

waste determination, including any conditions specified therein by the regulatory authority. If a change occurs that affects how the hazardous secondary materials meet the relevant criteria and (if applicable) an y conditions as specified by the regulatory authority and the applicant fails to

re

- apply to the Administrator for a formal determination, the hazardous secondary materials may be determined to be solid and hazardous waste and subject to the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements (73 FR 64712

– 13, October 30, 2008). This requirement was codified at 40
CFR 260.33(c).

The requirement that the hazardous secondary materials determined to not be a solid waste must

continue to meet the relevant criteria of a solid waste variance or non

- waste determination is inherent in the regulations. Failure to meet the criteria could indicate that the hazardous secondary materials are discarded and a solid waste and would trigger the need to re

- examine the

circumstances of the recycling. The 2008 DSW rule codified this requirement in order to enhance clarity and assist in its implementation, but focused only on the non

- waste determination provisions. EPA is now explicitly applying 40 CFR 260.33(c) to all solid waste va riances, as

well as the non

- waste determination provisions listed in 40 CFR 260.30 to ensure that if there are changes that may impact how hazardous secondary materials meet the relevant criteria, that such changes be considered by the regulatory authority to ensure that those criteria continue to be met. Codifying this requirement will help ensure clarity and consistency by providing an administrative procedure for reconsidering a variance in the event that the hazardous secondary material no longer meets the relative criteria for the variance.

According to EPA’s DSW ICR, June 30, 2011, the cost to re

- apply for a non

- waste determination petition if the material no longer meets relevant criteria includes 75 hours of

### 5

- 13

technical labor at $69.32/hour and $25.87 in O&M costs for a total of $5,225/application (2011$). The total re

- application cost is $5,277/waste in 2012 $

. 55 

### This RIA assumes that a non

waste determination application needs to be re

- submitted every 10 years due to changes in the process and to mee t the new requirement for re

- application every 10 years. The aggregate annual cost is approximately $31

, 921 per year, calculated as follows:

[( 7 4 non

- waste determination petition facilities/10 year renewal ) x ($5,277/non

- waste determination petition faci lity) x ( 82

. 5274 % cost adjustment reflecting 7% discount rate for

the 50

- year future period of analysis )] 56



### At a 3% discount rate the averag e annual cost is $ 3 4

, 7 57 per year and non

- discounted it is
$ 36

, 526 per year.

According to the latest (December 2007) OMB approved “ Information Collection Requirement ” (ICR) 1189.20 (Exhibit 3, page 66, bottom row), there is a nationwide average annual count of 10 variance applications under 40 CFR 260.31(c) processed by EPA Regional Offices. The 2011

DSW ICR estim ated an annual paperwork burden cost of $ 8,483 per variance application (2011$). The total variance application cost is $8,568/waste in 2012 $

. 57 

### The cost for a new variance application is assumed to be the same both pre

- and post

- rule. The incremental cos t is zero. However, the 2011 DSW ICR estimates that the cost for the new requirement to re

- apply

for a variance if material no longer meets relevant variance criteria includes 75 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and $25.87 of O&M costs and equals $ 5,225/variance re

- application (2011$). The total re

- application cost is $5,277/waste in 2012 $

. 58 

### The 2011 DSW ICR assumes four (4) re

- applications for variances per year. Th e average annual cost is $18,169 per year, calculated as follows:

[($5,277 per v ariance re

- application ) x (4 variance re

- applications per yea r ) x ( 86. 8993 % cost adjustment factor to discount costs from the first ye ar the rule is in effect in 201 6 to 2012$ at

a 7% discount rate)]. 59



### At a 3% discount rate th e average annual cost is $19,355 per year and non

- discounted it is $20,072 per year.

55 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is

113.361. The r atio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01 (114.511/113.361 = 1.010). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. 56 See Appendix C, Exhibit C8 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification

were derived.

57 The first quarter 2012 BEA impl icit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 113.361. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01 (114.511/113.361 = 1.010). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Impli cit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. 58 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.51 1 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 113.361. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01 (114.511/113.361 = 1.010). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. 59 See Appendix C, Exhibit C9 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor.

### 5

- 14



## 5D .2 Requirement 4 B: Biennial Notification

Facilities will be required to submit initial and biennia l notification if operating under variances

and non

- waste determinations. This provision re quires a notification using EPA Form 8700

- 12 prior to operating, and thereafter biennially. This analysis uses labor hour and O&M cost estimates from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2310.01 Revisions t o the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Final Rule)”,
October 28, 2008. 60 

### Labor rate estimates are from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Proposed Rule) OMB Control No. 2050

- 0202, EPA IC R No. 2310.0 2,” June 30, 2011. This requirement consists of two cost components:

 Initial notification : L abor hours include 0.1 hours of managerial time at $101.68/hour, 0.3 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour, and 0.1 hours of clerical labor at $24.67/hour
with $ 0.44 in postage. The unitized cost s are estimated to be $33.87 per initial

notification/waste. This initial notification cost annualized over a 20

- year fac ility life is $3.20/year/waste.

 Re

- notification : E very two years is estimated to take 0.1 clerical hours and $0.44 in postage for $2.91 for re

- notification/waste (2011$). The total cost is $2.91 for re

notification/waste every two years which equals $1.46/year/waste (2011$) under the

baseline transfer

- based recycling exclusion will transfer over and co ver the cost to re

notify biennially under the alternati ve RCRA Subtitle C regulation.

 The total (initial + re

- notification) annual ized notification cost is $4.71/waste in 2012 $

. 61



### The aggregate annual cost of this provision is $288 per year for non

- waste determination

facilities , calculated as follows :

[ ( 74 non

- waste determination petition facilities ) x ($4.71 per facility per year) x (82 .5 274 % cost adjustment reflecting 7% discount rate for the 50

- yea r future period of analysis )]. 62



### At 3% discount rate the average annual cost is $ 313 per year and non

- discoun ted is $ 329 per

year.

The aggregate annual cost savings for this provision is approximately $546 per year for variance application facilities:

[(235.2 average annual varianc e facilities) x ($4.71 per facility per year) x (49.3 045 % cost adjustment reflecting 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of analysis )]. 63

60 The 2008 ICR document is available as ICR Reference No: 200905

- 2050

- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200905

- 2050

- 001

. 61 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit p rice deflator is 114.511 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 113.361. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01 (114.511/113.361 = 1.010). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Pr ice Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. 62 See Appendix C, Exhibit C10 of this RIA for how the cost adjustmen t were derived.

63 See Appendix C, Exhibit C11 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor were derived.

### 5

- 15

At a 3% discount rate the average annual cost is $829 per year and non

- discounted it is $1,108

per year.

In addition, facilities are required to update and submit notification that the hazardous secondary materials are no longer managed in accordance with the solid waste variances and non

- waste determination. This cost is assumed to be captured through the p rocess of notifying biennially.

Finally, EPA will require public online access to a list of facilities which have received variances

and non

- waste determination. The potential incremental administrative (overhead) cost to EPA for initially posting, and an nually updating, the online list is not estimated in this RIA, because this RIA simply assumes that such additional work task may be assigned to existing IT personnel.



## 5D .3 Requirement 4 C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recyc led Materials

The 2014 DSW Rule will modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.3(c) DSW variance for partially recycled materials. The revisions include: (a) specifying that the variance applies at the point at which the hazardous secondary material must be commodity

- l ike; (b) requiring that all criteria must be met; and (c) removing the sixth “catch all” criterion that other relevant factors may be considered. The midpoint of the lower

- and upper

- bound cost estimates below are:

 Non

- discounted : $1.7 million per year.

 3% discount r ate: $1.3 million per year.

 7% discount rate: $0.9 million per year.

Lower

- Bound Cost Estimate

Despite the 1985 preamble’s text “ may rely on any or all of them to reach a decision " the 40 CFR 260.31(c) regulatory text reads " This determinati on will be based on the following factors ”. This regulatory language implies that all six factors must be applied, which further implies that

Revision 5C will not have any impact relative to the average annual success:to:failure ratio according to the bas eline decision

- making process for these variance applications. This scenario

constitutes the "lower

- bound" $0 per

- year cost estimate for Revision 5C in this RIA.

Upper

- Bound Cost Estimate

On the other hand, some RCRA stakeholders may argue that the phra se “ may rely on any... ” implies that facilities have only had to comply/conform with one of the six factors; which now has been reduced to five factors with the removal of the “catch all” criterion. Therefore, if all five factors now become mandatory, reg ulators may reject as many as 80% (i.e., 4/5 = 80%) of future annual applicants, resulting in higher incurred cost to recycle as hazardous waste under Subtitle C. The ICR’s average annual rate of 10 applicants implies a possible average annual future reje ction of 8 variance applications per year (i.e., (10 average annual varian ce applications) x (80%) = 8).

### 5

- 16

Under this alternative upper

- bound impact scenario, this RIA assigns a higher RCRA

- regulated recycling cost to those rejected variance applicants (i.e ., facilities) in each future year of the 50

- year period

- of

- analysis applied in this RIA. The calculation of this upper

- bound cost estimate is displayed in Exhibit 5 A below, and is estimated at $3.460 million per

- year in average annual future cost (non

- discount ed ). The Exhibit also displays the average annual value of this cost at two alternative discount rates of 3% ($2. 617 million per year) and 7% ($1. 761 million per year).

According to the background information for Revision 4 C provided in EPA’s Fed eral Register notice for the 2011 proposed revisions to DSW, in practical terms, the partial reclamation variance has evolved to include facilities that partially reclaim hazardous wastes into commodity

- like materials, and then ship these materials offsite to facilities that complete the reclamation process. Because the baseline activities which operate under this variance apparently involve offsite waste transfer for recycling, this RIA applies the $17,030 (2012$) average annual per

- facility cost savings associated with the “Exclusion 2” offsite transfer

- based recycl ing exclusion, as estimated in the RIA for the 2008 DSW rule and updated in Exhibit 4G of

this RIA. 64



### Exhibit 5A Upper

- Bound Estimate of Potential Future Cost to Industry for Modifying the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) Variance for Partially Recycled Mate rials for DSW Exclusion (Requirement 4 C) (2012 dollars)

A B C D E F G H

50

- year period of analysis Year Annual new

variance applicants Cumulative

applicants Future baseline

cost savings if all

variances accepted Revision 4 C

upper

- bound annual rejections
(@80% rate) Revision 4 C

upper

- bound

cumulative rejections Reduction in cost

savings if 80% future variance applications rejected

- 2 2012 10 30 $0 0 0 $0

- 1 2013 10 40 $0 0 0 $0

1 2014 10 50 $0 0 0 $0

2 2015 10 60 $0 8 8 $0

3 2016 10 70 $1,192,100 8 17 $282,698

4 2017 10 80 $1,362,400 8 25 $424,047

5 2018 10 90 $1,532,700 8 33 $565,396

6 2019 10 100 $1,703,000 8 42 $706,745

7 2020 10 110 $1,873,300 8 50 $848,094

8 2021 10 120 $2,043,600 8 58 $989,443

9 2022 10 130 $2,213,900 8 66 $1,130,792

10 2023 10 140 $2,384,200 8 75 $1,272,141

11 2024 10 150 $2,554,500 8 83 $1,413,490

12 2025 10 160 $2,724,800 8 91 $1,554,839

13 2026 10 170 $2,895,100 8 100 $1,696,188

14 2027 10 180 $3,065,400 8 108 $1,837,537

15 2028 10 190 $3,235,700 8 116 $1,978,886

16 2029 10 200 $3,406,000 8 125 $2,120,235

17 2030 10 210 $3,576,300 8 133 $2,261,584

18 2031 10 220 $3,746,600 8 141 $2,402,933

64 The $17,030 average annual cost (2012$) is calculated in this RIA by dividing the $80,418,294 nationwide annual cost savings for the “Exclusion 2: Transfer

- based” from Column D of Exhibit 4G, by the 4,722 nationwide facility

count for the “Exclusion 2: Transfer

- based” from Column D of Exhibit 4E.

### 5

- 17 Exhibit 5A Upper

- Bound Estimate of Potential Future Cost to Industry for Modifying the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) Variance for Partially Recycled Mate rials for DSW Exclusion (Requirement 4 C) (2012 dollars)

A B C D E F G H

50

- year period of analysis Year Annual new

variance applicants Cumulative

applicants Future baseline

cost savings if all

variances accepted Revision 4 C

upper

- bound annual rejections
(@80% rate) Revision 4 C

upper

- bound

cumulative rejections Reduction in cost

savings if 80% future variance applications rejected

19 2032 10 230 $3,916,900 8 149 $2,544,282

20 2033 10 240 $4,087,200 8 158 $2,685,631

21 2034 10 250 $4,257,500 8 166 $2,826,980

22 2035 10 260 $4,427,800 8 174 $2,968,329

23 2036 10 270 $4,598,100 8 183 $3,109,678

24 2037 10 280 $4,768,400 8 191 $3,251,027

25 2038 10 290 $4,938,700 8 199 $3,392,376

26 2039 10 300 $5,109,000 8 208 $3,533,725

27 2040 10 310 $5,279,300 8 216 $3,675,074

28 2041 10 320 $5,449,600 8 224 $3,816,423

29 2042 10 330 $5,619,900 8 232 $3,957,772

30 2043 10 340 $5,790,200 8 241 $4,099,121

31 2044 10 350 $5,960,500 8 249 $4,240,470

32 2045 10 360 $6,130,800 8 257 $4,381,819

33 2046 10 370 $6,301,100 8 266 $4,523,168

34 2047 10 380 $6,471,400 8 274 $4,664,517

35 2048 10 390 $6,641,700 8 282 $4,805,866

36 2049 10 400 $6,812,000 8 291 $4,947,215

37 2050 10 410 $6,982,300 8 299 $5,088,564

38 2051 10 420 $7,152,600 8 307 $5,229,913

39 2052 10 430 $7,322,900 8 315 $5,371,262

40 2053 10 440 $7,493,200 8 324 $5,512,611

41 2054 10 450 $7,663,500 8 332 $5,653,960

42 2055 10 460 $7,833,800 8 340 $5,795,309

43 2056 10 470 $8,004,100 8 349 $5,936,658

44 2057 10 480 $8,174,400 8 357 $6,078,007

45 2058 10 490 $8,344,700 8 365 $6,219,356

46 2059 10 500 $8,515,000 8 374 $6,360,705

47 2060 10 510 $8,685,300 8 382 $6,502,054

48 2061 10 520 $8,855,600 8 390 $6,643,403

49 2062 10 530 $9,025,900 8 398 $6,784,752

50 2063 10 540 $9,196,200 8 407 $6,926,101

Present value @ Non

- discntd $249,319,200 $173,011,176

Present value @ 3% $101,433,951 $67,358,133

Present value @ 7% $39,508,803 $24,316,506
Average annual@ Non

- discntd $4,986,384 $3,460,224
Average annual@ 3% $3,942,281 $2,617,907
Average annual@ 7% $2,862,802 $1,761,970



## 5D .4 Requirement 4 D: Non

- Waste Determination Petitioners Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing

DSW Recycling Exclusions

### 5

- 18

This RIA assumes that this cost is included in the preparation of a petition in the baseline. Facilities will have spent the time to make a decision whether they meet existing DSW exclusions as part of determining their need to file a non

- waste determination petition. Thus, for purpose of this RIA, this cost is reflected in baseline cost savings and the net cost impact is zero.



## 5E

. Revision 5 : Add a New “ Remanufacturing ” DSW Recycling Exclusion

This remanufacturing revision applies to spent solvent “processing aids” which may be sent offsite for “remanufacturing” (distillation) by another company, for continued use as processing aids. This exclusion is a specific type of offsite transfer e xclusion. The impact analysis for

R evision 5 is organized into three sections:

5 A. Four eligi bility criteria :
1. 18 solvent chemicals

2. Originate from use as processing aid

3. Re

- manufactured use as processing aid

4. Originate from four industries (basic organic chemical manufacturing, plastics/resin s manufacturing, pharmaceutical manufacturing, paints/coating manufacturing)

5 B. Fiv e eligibility conditions:

1. N otificat ion 2. Remanufacturing plan

3. Three year shipment recordkeeping

4. Store solvents in tanks or containers meeting the RCRA Subtitle C storage

standards and air emission controls

5. N o speculative accumulation).

5 C. Petition process for adding to the eligibility criteria (e.g., adding industries, adding chemicals) of the exclusion.



## 5E .1 Impacts of Rem anufacturing Exclusion Revision 5 Based on Eligibility Cri teria and Conditions ( Revision s 5 A + 5 B)

5E

. 1.1 Revision 5 A: Baseline Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities

The baseline f

or this RIA (the 2008 DSW rule) already includes potential future RCRA de

regulatory annual cost sa vings to industry for participating under the solvent “remanufacturing” DSW exclusion as part of the 2008 DSW offsite transfer

- based exclusion. The “proxy method” used here is to estimate the subset of the baseline future cost savings estimate from Chapte r 4 that is associated with the facilities affected by the remanufacturing exclusion.

### 5

- 19

The two categories of solvent recycling evaluated for future de

- regulatory cost savings in the 2008 RIA, according to the four exclusions of the 2008 DSW rule (i.e., generator onsite recycling, same company offsite recycling, offsite toll recycling, and offsite 2 nd 

### party transfer recycling) were:

1. Solvent recycling : 415 facilities currently recycling 237,334 tons per year (2009) RCRA

regulated spent solvents (consisti ng of 81,661 tons onsite + 155,673 tons offsite), as displayed in Exhibit 3A based on the Biennial Report (BR) H020 solvent recovery code.

2. Solvent disposal : Upwards of 2,066 facilities (shown in Exhibit 3T , row B1, column F) currently disposing 406,808 tons/year (2009) RCRA

- regulated solvents (this tonnage is displayed above in Exhibit 3V for “Commodity Group #2” (possible spent solvent recovery) and identified based on BR data for a combination of (a) five W202, W203, W204, W209, W211 chemical form codes, (b) G01 (dip flush or spray rinsing) and G06 (painting & coating) industrial process/ activity generation source codes, and (c) eight

solvent related hazardous waste codes (F001, F002, F003, F004, F005, F0 24, F025,
K086).

The above two spent solvent management categories (i.e., recycling + disposing) total upwards of 3,021 current facilities involving 0.64 million tons spent solvents per year (i.e., 237,334 tons/year current recycling + 406,808 tons/year c urrent disposal), as updated in this RIA to the 2009 BR data year.

In comparison, based on EPA’s 2009 “Toxics Release Inventory” (TRI) database as displayed in Appendix D to this RIA, the four eligible NAICS code industries reported generating 0.5

million tons/year of 16 of the specific 18 eligible solvents which was either disposed or recycled (2 of the 18 chemicals are not covered by EPA’s TRI database). As displayed in the final table

of Appendix D , based on recent US average market prices for 16 of th e 18 chemicals ranging between $0.13 and $0.82 per pound (which is equivalent to $260 to $1,640 per ton) in 2011$ or $263 to $1,656 per ton inflated to 2012 $ , the annual US market value of these 16 chemicals which could potentially be r emanufactured is $16 6.2 million per year under the 54% notification

rate applied in this RIA

.

The cost saving estimate for offsite spent solvent recycling from the 2008 RIA is used as a

“ proxy method ” in this RIA for estimating the baseline potential future cost savin gs for Revision

5 . Pote ntial cost savings for Revision 5

– already included in the baseline of this RIA

– are calculated as the difference in annual off

- site solvent recovery costs pre

- and post

- exclusion. The 2008 RIA baseline (i.e., “pre

- rule” without the 200 8 DSW exclusions in place) assumed that facilities generating spent solvents would send them offsite for solvent recovery as a RCRA

regulated hazardous waste and incur the associated 14 RCRA Subtitle C burden costs identified

in the baseline cost estimates of the 20 08 DSW rule. 65 

### Under the 2008 DSW “offsite transfer”

65 The 14 RCRA Subtitle C regulatory burden elements are (40 CFR 262, 264 and 265):

1. obtain an EPA ID n umber 2. personnel training in hazardous waste regulations and hazardous waste management procedures 3. hazardous waste management recordkeeping (maintain for three years copies of all manifests, biennial reports, manifest exception reports, and waste test /analysis results)

### 5

- 20

recycling exclusion (i.e., “post

- rule”) the spent solvents are treated as “hazardous secondary materials” and facilities no longer must comply with the 14 RCRA Subtitle C requirements if they m eet the 12 conditions specified by the 2008 DSW rule. 66 

### Pre

- rule annual facility costs were subtracted from the post

- rule annual facility costs to determine the potential incremental

annual cost savings for the 2008 DSW rule exclusions.

The 2008 RIA cost savings estimate for spent solvents consists of the following components according to the three offsite recycling exc lusions from the 2008 DSW rule. The cost savings are alternatively displayed below based on (a) 100% notification rate assumption (upper

- b ound)

, and (b) the 54% notification rate assumed in this RIA:

 100% Notification Rate Assumption (upper

- bound) : If 100% of potentially relevant industrial facilities adopt the 2008 DSW exclusions:

o As displayed in Exhibit 5B below, the cumulative count of industrial facilities which are estimated to potentially benefit from 2008

- excluded offsite spent solvent recycling is estimated to be 386 facilities.

 201 (52%) of the 386 facilities are in the four el igible NAICS codes for

Revision 5

.

o As displayed in Exhibit 5C below, these 386 facilities transfer 71,575 tons of

solvent off site for recovery based on 2005 BR data as analyzed in EPA’s 2008

RIA for the 2008 DSW rule.

 53,960 (75%) of the 71,575 tons pe r year sent offsite is associated with the

four el igible NAICS codes for Revision 5

.

4. hazardous waste transport manifest exception reporting 5. hazardous waste biennial reporting to EPA 6. hazardous waste TSDF Part B permit renewal 7. use manifests for hazardous waste transport 8. emergency preparedness for hazardous waste handling fires, explosions, and unplanned release 9. prevention of hazardous waste handling fires, explosions, and unplanned releases 10. contingency plan to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or unplanned rel eases of hazardous wastes 11. emergency procedures to minimize hazards to human health or the environment from fires, explosions, or unplanned releases of hazardous wastes 12. closure of hazardous waste management units/facilities 13. post closure care of hazardous waste management units/facilities for 30 years 14. accumulation time (LQGs may accumulate hazardous waste onsite for 90 days or less without a permit; SQGs for 180 days or less)

66 The 12 recycling exclusion conditions of the 2008 DSW final rule a re: 1. no speculative accumulation

2. initial notification and biennial notification 3. notification signed by a corporate official

4. non

- waste determination petition 5. maintain records of all shipments to recycling 6. confirmation of shipment receipt

7. recycler has liability insurance 8. recycler has financial assurance for closure

9. materials must be contained 10. residuals derived from recycling managed in an environmentally

- protective manner 11. due diligence conducted on recycler to ensure legitima cy 12. export materials require notice and consent and an annual report

### 5

- 21 o As displayed in Exhibit 5D below, the estimated average annual industry cost savings for offsite solvent recycling under the 2008 DSW exclusions is $4.64 million per year (2007$), of which $3.03 million/year (65%) is for the four eligible NAICS codes.

 The 2007$ baseline cost savings estimate of $4,639,037 may be updated to 2012$ by applying the GDP deflator multiplier as follows: ($4,639,037 per year) x (1.078 year 2012 upd ate multiplier) = $5,000,882 per year cost savings.

 This cost savings estimate represents an average annual de

- regulatory cost savings of:

 Per

- facility: $12,956 per

- year per

- facility sending spent solvents offsite for recycling.

 Per

- ton: $70 per

- ton of s pent solvent recycled offsite.

 65% of the 2012

- updated $5.0 million per year cost savings for the four eligible NAICS codes = $3.25 million/year.

 54% Notification Rate Assumption (applied in this RIA) : 54% of potentially relevant

industrial facilities ado pt the 2008 DSW exclusions and the 2014 revisions :

o 7% discount rate : Applying this 2012

- updated cost saving estimate to the 54% notification rate produces ($5,000,882 per year) x (30.0 249% cost adjustment ) = $1,501,510 per year.

 65% for the four eligible N AICS codes = $975,981/year

o 3% discount rate : $2,136,837 cost savings per year.

 65% for the four eligible NAICS codes = $1,388,944/year

o Non

- discounted : $2,706,267 cost savings per year.

 65% for the four eligible NAICS codes = $1,759,073/year

### 5

- 22 Exhibit 5B Count* of Industrial Facilities Projected to Recycle Solvents Offsite Under the 2008 DSW Exclusions

Which May be Potentially Eligible for Revision 5 (“Remanufacturing” Exclusion)

Item Industry NAICS code A B C D

Exclusion 1B
(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

based) Combined

1B+1C+2**

1 32511 Petrochemical Manufacturing 3 3 1 6

2 325132 Synthetic Organic Dye & Pigment Manufacturing 3 0 0 3

3 325181 Alkalies & Chlorine Manufacturing 2 0 0 2

4 325191 Gum & Wood Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0 0

5 325192 Cyclic Crude & Intermediate Manufacturing 0 3 0 3

6 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing 0 36 2 36

7 325199 Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0 0

8 325211 Plastics Material & Resin Manufacturing 0 0 43 43

9 32532 Pesticide & Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 6 6

10 3254 Pharmaceutical & Medicine Manufacturing 0 0 66 66

11 3255 Paint, Coating, & Adhesive Manufacturing 0 0 92 92

12 3259 Other Chemical Product & Preparation Manufacturing 1 0 42 42

13 3261 Plastics Product Manufacturing 1 0 87 87

Column totals = 10 42 339 386

Subtotal items 7+8+10+11 = 0 0 201 201 (52%)

Notes: *Estimate based on 100% full state adoption and the 2005 Biennial Report data according to the 2008 RIA for EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule methodology. ** Columns A + B + C may not equal Column D because some facilities are counted in more than one column (e.g., a facility con ducts both a same company

transfer and an offsite transfer to a non

- owned facility for recovery).

### 5

- 23 Exhibit 5C Annual Tonnage* of Industrial Solvents Projected to Recycle Offsite Under the 2008 DSW Exclusions

Which May be Potentially Eligible for Revision 5 (“Remanufacturing” Exclusion)

Item Industry NAICS code A B C D (A+B+C)

Exclusion 1B
(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

- based) Combined

1B+1C+2

1 32511 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1 1 954 956

2 325132 Synthetic Organic Dye & Pigment

Manufacturing 135 0 0 135

3 325181 Alkalies & Chlorine Manufacturing 2 0 0 2

4 325191 Gum & Wood Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0 0

5 325192 Cyclic Crude & Intermediate Manufacturing 0 7 0 7

6 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing 0 5,611 1,316 6,927

7 325199 Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0 0

8 325211 Plastics Material & Resin Manufacturing 0 0 10,397 10,397

9 32532 Pesticide & Other Agricultural Chemical

Manufacturing 0 0 1,182 1,182

10 3254 Pharmaceutical & Medicine Manufacturing 0 0 25,232 25,232

11 3255 Paint, Coating, & Adhesive Manufacturing 0 0 18,331 18,331

12 3259 Other Chemical Product & Preparation

Manufacturing 739 0 2,271 3,010

13 3261 Plastics Product Manufacturing 4 0 5,392 5,396

Column totals = 881 5,619 65,075 71,575

Subtotal items 7+8+10+11 = 0 0 53,960 53,960 (75%) *Note: Estimate based on 100% full state adoption and the 2005 Biennial Report data according to the 2008 RIA for EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule methodology.

### 5

- 24 Exhibit 5D

Annual De

- Regulatory Cost Savings* to Industrial Facilities Projected to Recycle Solvents Offsite Under the 2008 DSW Exclusions

Which May be Potentially Eligible for Revision 5 (“Remanufacturing” Exclusion) (2007$)

Item Industry NAICS code A B C D (A+B+C)

Exclusion 1B
(Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

- based) Combined

1B+1C+2

1 32511 Petrochemical Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

2 325132 Synthetic Organic Dye & Pigment Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

3 325181 Alkalies and Chlorine Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

4 325191 Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

5 325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

6 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing $0 $38,200 $8,960 $47,160

7 325199 Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

8 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing $0 $0 $789,380 $789,380

9 32532 Pesticide & Other Agricultural Chemical Mfg $0 $0 $123,724 $123,724

10 3254 Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing $0 $0 $1,086,977 $1,086,977

11 3255 Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing $0 $0 $1,154,960 $1,154,960

12 3259 Other Chemical Product & Preparation Manufacturing $39,284 $0 $816,249 $855,533

13 3261 Plastics Product Manufacturing $956 $0 $580,347 $581,303

Column totals = $40,240 $38,200 $4,560,597 $4,639,037 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $4,024 $910 $13,454 $12,018 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $46 $7 $70 $65

Subtotal items 7+8+10+11 = $0 $0 $3,031,317 $3,031,317
(65%)

* Note: Estimate based on 100% full state adoption and the 2005 Biennial Report data according to the 2008 RIA for EPA’s 2008 DSW fin al rule methodology.

### 5

- 25

For purpose of estimating in this RIA the incremental impact of Revision 5 , the incremental costs

estimated below for Revision 5 B (additional administrative requirements) are subtracted from

the 5 A baseline cost savings.

5E .1.2 Revision 5 B: Five Eligibility Conditions

Future annual costs associated with meeting the five elig ibility conditions were included in the baseline cost savings estimate d as part of the 2008 DSW rule, and are captured in the baseline cost savings estimate presented in 5 A above. Thus, there are no incremental cost for facilities to meet the eligibility criteria (i.e., 1. notification, 2. remanufacturing plan 67



### , 3. shipment recordkeeping, 4. storage standards and air emission controls, and 5. no speculative accumulation) for the 2014 revisions because they were already part of the transfer

- based exclusion cost savings esti mate prepared for the 2008 DSW r ule.



## 5E .2 Revision 5 C: Potential Impact of the Remanufacturing Petition

Process

Although the petition process could hypothetically in the future involve adding other (a) chemicals, (b) industries, and/or (c) chemical functions to the remanufacturing exclusion, the “proxy analysis” method applied in this RIA is based on the offsite solvent recycling results of

the 2008 DS W rule RIA

. This “proxy analysis” method does not consider other chemicals (e.g., spent metals, spent acids) or their associated industries and potential remanufacturing uses (i.e.,

other chemical functio ns). To estimate cost impacts, this RIA assumes that in any giv en future year a relatively small fraction of between 0% and 10% (midpoint 5%) of all the offsite spent solvent recycling facilities identified in the 2008 RIA, may file a petition to add chemicals,
industrial, and/or chemical functions to the remanufactur ing exclusion under 40 CFR 260.20.

The economic impact of the exclusion on facilities using the petition process is the sum of the costs of complying with Revision s 5 B and 5 C of the remanufacturing exclusion as listed above, offset by any de

- regulatory co st savings estimated in the baseline future cost savings from transactions permissible under the exclusion.

5E .2.1 Revision 5 C.1: Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities

The “proxy method” used here is to estimate the subset of the baseline future cost savings estimate from Chapter 4 that is associated with the facilities that may submit a remanufacturing petition.

 100% Notification Rate Assumption (upper

- bound) : If 100% of potentially r elevant

industrial facil ities adopt the 2014 DSW revised exclusions :

o As displayed in Exhibit 5D above the estimated annual industry cost savings for

offsite solvent recycling under the 2008 DSW exclusions is $4.64 million per year (2007$), of which $3.03 m illion/year (65%) is for the four eligible NAICS codes.

67 The proxy for the cost of the reclamation plan is assumed to be equivalent to the “reasonable efforts” requirement under baseline for the generator to audit recyclers.

### 5

- 26  The 2007$ baseline cost savings estimate of $4,639,037 may be updated to 2012$ by applying the GDP deflator multiplier as follows: ($4,639,037 per year) x (1.078 year 2012 update multiplier) = $5,000, 882 per year savings.

 65% of the 2012

- updated $5.0 million per year cost savings for the 4 eligible NAICS codes = $3.25 million/year

 35% of the 2012

- updated $5.0 million per year cost savings for the 9 petition NAICS codes = $1.75 million/year

 RIA 54% Not ification Rate Assumption (applied in this RIA) : 54% of potentially

relevant industr ial facilities notify under the 2014 DSW revisions :

o 7% discount rate : Applying this 2012

- updated cost saving estimate to the 54%

notification rate and 5% filing petitions p roduces ($5,000,882 per year) x
(1.5012% cost ad

justment ) = $75,073 cost savings per year.

 35% for the 9 petition NAICS codes = $26,276/year

o 3% discount rate : $106,834 cost savings per year.

 35% for the 9 petition NAICS codes = $37,392/year

o Non

- discounted : $135,308 cost savings per year.

 35% for the 9 petition NAICS codes = $47,358/year

5 E .2.2 Revision 5 C.2: Future Cost to Submit Petitions

This RIA assumes the cost to file a petition under the remanufacturing exclusion to add certain
chemicals, industri es, and/or chemical functions will be similar in cost t o legitimacy certification proving that all four legitimac y factors are met. Costs for legitimacy certification are assumed to be equivalent to making a non

- waste determination plus conducting a waste characterization test.

Labor h our estimates for a non

- waste determination were obtained from EPA’s ICR for the 2008

DSW rule

. 68 

### Labor rates were obtained from the 2011 DSW ICR. Thi s RIA assumes petitions

are relatively rare applied to 5% of the facilities 69 

### and consist of three cost components:

 Petition preparation : To prepare and submit an application for non

- waste determination assumes 4 hours of legal labor at $133.37/hour, 4 hours of managerial labor at $101.68/hour, 130 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and 5 hours of clerical labor at $24.67/hour and $22.83 in O&M costs which eq uals $10,173/facility (2011$).

 Sampling : From E PA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW rule, characterization of hazardous waste (secondary materials) and recycled material s is estimated to include sampling labor

burden and waste characte rization analytical costs. S ampling is estimated to require a
labor burden of 2 hours of field technician labor at $69.32/hour whi ch equals $138.64/sample. One sample is assumed collected for each waste or recycled materials

.

 Analytical costs : E stimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software at a cost of

68 Source: “Su pporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2310.01 Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Final Rule)”, October 28, 2008, ICR Reference No: 200905

- 2050

- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200905

- 2050

- 001

. 69 5% “rare” future annual frequency assumed in this RIA represents the midpoint of a 0% to 10% range in any given future year.

### 5

- 27

$284 per sample (2007$). 70 

### The 2011 DSW ICR inflated this cost to $306/sample (2011$) using the Bureau of Labor St atistics Consumer Pri ce Index.

 T otal cost : E stimated t o be $10,617/facility (2011$). Assume a petition is submitted every 5 years on average because a facility will either modify its product, chemical use, production process

, or recycling operations. Average annual cost is $ 10,617/facility divided by 5 years equals $2,123/facility/year (2011$). The total annual cost is $2,144/waste in 2012 $

. 71



### As displayed in Exhibit 5B above there are 386 facilities estimated to engage in offsite spent solvent recycling in 13 industries, in cluding the four eligible industries. The aggregate annual cost to prepare a petition is $12,424 per year calculated as follows:

[(386 facilities) x ($2,144 per facility per year) x (1.50 % cost adjustment reflecting the 54% notification rate, only 5% of notifying facilities submitting petitions, and a 7%

discount rate for the 50

- year future period of analysis)].

At 3% discount rate the annual cost is $17,680 per year and non

- discounted is $22,393 per year.

70 RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm.

71 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2011 annual BEA implicit price deflator is

113.361 . The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.01 (114.511/113.361 = 1.010). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is

available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. Note : Althou gh the industrial scope of Revis ion 5 applies only to (a) four specific NAICS codes (i.e., 325199, 325211, 325412, 325510), (b) 18 specific chemical solvents, and (c) “processing aid” solvent uses (i.e., not cleaning or degreasing
solvent uses), this RIA evaluates the potential impact of this revision by using the results of the solvent portion of the 2008 DSW offsite recycling exclusion cost savings evaluation from the 2008 RIA to the 2008 DSW final rule, as a “ proxy analysis ” method

. This method introduces three sources of impact estim ation inaccuracy for Revision 5:

1. T he count of affected facilities, annual solvent tonnages, and cost savin gs could be over

- estimated , because the 2008 RIA evaluated (a) more than four NAICS codes, (b) more than 18 specific solvents, and (c) all types of so lvent uses.

2. On the other hand, the 2008 RIA’s evaluation of potential cost savings associated with future switch over (i.e., diversion) of spent solvent disposal to recycling, applied two analytic limitations which could under

- estimate potent ial

cost savin gs for this revision: (a) it only included two (i.e., G01 & G06) of the four potentially relevant BR industrial source codes (i.e., G06, G07, G08, G09), and (b) it excluded solvents used for onsite incineration or energy recovery because of the large capit al investments a lready made in those processes.

3. This proxy method further under

- estimates cost savings because the method involves subtraction of “pre

- rule” costs from “post

- rule” costs which are based on all 12 “post

- rule” c onditions of the 2008 DSW rule, rather subtraction of “post

- rule” costs based on the smaller set of five (5) conditions included under Revision 5 of this RIA (i.e., 1.
notification, 2. remanufacturing plan, 3. shipment recordkeeping, 4.storage standards & air emission controls, and 5. n o speculative accumulation). However, addition of the cos ts associated with Revision 5C corrects this

- savings

e stimation, because Revision 5B include s conditions similar to the 12 2008 DSW conditions (e.g., financial assurance).

### 5

- 28



## 5E .3 Revision 5 Total Cost ( 5 A+ 5 B+ 5 C)

C ost savings estimates for Revision 5 are as follows under the 54% notificat ion assumption (2012$) :

 7% discount rate : $12,424 per year in costs for Revision 5C.2, the cost savings for

Revision s 5A, 5B, and 5C.1 are includ ed in the baseline future cost savings estimate in Chapter 4.

 3% discount rate : $1 7

, 860 per year in costs for Revision 5C.2, the cost savings for

Revision s 5A, 5B, and 5C.1 are included in the baseline future cost savings estimate in Chapter 4.

 Non

- discounted : $2 2

, 393 per year in costs for Revision 5C.2, the cost savings for

Revision s 5A, 5B, and 5C.1 are included in the baseline future cost savings estimate in Chapter 4.



## 5F

. Revision 6: Add Emergency Preparedness and Response to DSW

Generator

- Controlled Exclusion, Verified Recycler Exclusion, and VRE Intermediate Facilities and Recyclers Without a RCRA Permit

The Agency is adding emergency preparedness and response requirements of 40 CFR 265 Subparts C and D to (1) all generators in the generator controlled exclusion who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite and (2) the generators who

accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite in the verified recycling exclusion (VRE) and (3) intermediate facilities and recyclers that do not have a RCRA permit as part of the variance procedure for the verified recyclers under the VRE (these costs are not estimated separately but are included in the costs of obtaining a variance under Revision 1)

. Generators who accumulate less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials would be subject to emergency preparedness and response requirements of §262.34(d)(5). For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that LQGs would accumulate more than 6,000 kg onsite (regardless of post

- rule status) while SQGs and CESQG would accumulate less than 6,000 kg

onsite.

This revision adds the cost of hazardous waste training and preparation of emergency plan requirements for those generators who are conditionally ex empt small quantity generators
(CESQGs) operating under the generator controlled exclusion and VRE

. Small quantity generators (SQGs), Lar ge quantity generators (LQGs) and TSDFs already incur these costs under

these exclusions and incur no added costs for this revision . Former LQGs that accumulate more than 6,000 kg of secondary material onsite and changed generator status to SQG or CESQG

u nder the 2008 DSW Rule will incur full LQG

- level costs for hazardous waste training and preparation of contingency plan and emergency plan requirements

.

Exhibit 4I presents the number of LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs under baseline and post

- rule

conditions assum ing a 100% notification rate. Under baseline there are 3,865 LQGs, 856 SQGs, and 64 CESQGs identified using Biennial Report data that recycle hazardous wastes. Under post

### 5

- 29

rule conditions assuming 100% of the facilities notify and are recycling under the generator controlled exclusion and VRE there will be 2,888 LQGs, 1,207 SQGs (856 SQGs under baseline plus 352 LQGs who changed generator status under the exclusions), and 680 CESQGs (64 CESQGs under baseline plus 616 LQGs who changed generator status under the exclusion).

Unit cost estimates are presented in Appendices B2, B9, B10, and B11 of the 2008 DSW Rule RIA. These unit costs per generator (in 2007 dollars) are presented in the following table by generator status for the 2008 DSW Rule baseline.

201 4 DSW Revisions Baseline Unit Costs (2007$)

Generator Status Hazardous Waste Training Contingency Plan Emergency Plan

LQG $2,726 $733 $481

SQG $847 $0 $94
CESQG $0 $0 $0
LQG changes to SQG $847 $0 $94
LQG changes to CESQG $0 $0 $0



## 5F.1 Revision 6A : Hazardous Waste/Materials Training

LQGs under §265.16 and SQGs under §262.34(d)(5) are currently required to have manifesting, hazardous materials handling, and emergency procedures training. This training requirement will continue to be required for LQGs and SQGs under the requirements of Revision 6. Revision 6 adds personnel training requirements under §262.34(d)(5) to CESQGs who are accumulating less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials and recycling them under the DSW

generator

- controlled exclusion and verified recycler exclu sion.

For SQGs and CESQGs unit costs are typically lower. Unit costs are lower for hazardous training than LQGs because of fewer staff to train. However, for LQGs changing generator status to either SQG or CESQG the unit costs were kept the same because they are still training the same number of staff for handling of disposed hazardous wastes and recycled hazardous secondary materials.

2014 DSW Revisions Post Rule Unit Costs (2007$)

Generator Status Hazardous Waste Training Contingency Plan Emergency Plan

LQG $2,726 $733 $481
SQG $847 $0 $94
CESQG* $847 $0 $94
LQG changes to SQG $2,726 $733 $481
LQG changes to CESQG $2,726 $733 $481

* Assumed same unit cost as SQG.

352 LQGs whose generator status changed to SQG under the 2008 DSW exclusions are expected

### 5

- 30

to incur additional annual training costs of $1,879 per facility ($2,726

- $847) or $2,026 in
2012$. 72 

### 616 LQGs whose generator status changed to CESQG under the 2008 DSW exclusions are expected to incur additional annual training costs of $2,726 per facility ($2,726

- $0) or $2,939 in 2012$. 64 CESQGs under the 2008 DSW exclusions are expected to incur additional annual training costs of $847 per facility ($847

- $0) or $912 in 2012$.

Th e average annual cost is $ 785,456 per year, calculated as follows:

[ [ ($2,026 per facility ) x ( 352 LQGs whose generator status changed to SQG ) + ( $2,939 per facility) x (616 LQGs whose generator status changed to CESQG) + ($912 per facility) x (64
CESQGs)] x 3 0.42% cost adjustment reflecting a 54% cumulative notification rate for the

generator

- controlled and transfer

- based recycling exclusion and reflecting 7% discount ra te

for the 50

- year future period of analysis ]. 73



### At a 3% discount rate th e average annual cost is $1,112,600 per year and non

- discounted it is
$ 1,405,145 per year.



## 5F.2 Revision 6B : Contingency Plan

LQGs under 40 CFR 265 Subpart D are currently required to prepare and implement a contingency plan. Under Revision 6, generators who accumulate more than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary material onsite (assumed to be LQGs in this analysis) are continued t o require a contingency plan if recycling under the generator

- controlled exclusion, verified recycler exclusion, or are intermediate facilities and recyclers that do not have a RCRA permit.

F or LQGs changing generator status to either SQG or CESQG the unit costs were kept the same as the baseline unit cost estimate for LQGs. T he scale of the contingency plan has not changed because they need to address both the handling of hazardous wastes and hazardous secondary

materials.

352 LQGs whose generator status c hanged to SQG under the 2008 DSW exclusions are expected to incur contingency planning costs of $733 per facility ($733

- $0) or $790 in 2012$. 74 

### 616 LQGs whose generator status changed to CESQG under the 2008 DSW exclusions are expected to incur contingency planning costs of $733 per facility ($733

- $0) or $790 in 2012$.

72 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2007 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 106.227. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of
1.077984 (114.511/106.227 = 1.077984). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic

Product” is available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

. 73 See Appendix C, Exhi bit C1 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor. Calculation may not equal total due to rounding of 2012 unit costs when inflated.

74 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2007 annual BEA implicit price deflator is

10 6.227. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.077984 (114.511/106.227 = 1.077984). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic

Product” is available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

.

### 5

- 31

Th e average annual cost is $ 232,676 per year, calculated as follows:

[[ ($790 per facility) x (352 LQGs whose generator status changed to SQG ) + ( $790 per facility) x (616 LQGs whose generator status changed to CESQG)] x 3 0.42% cost adjustment reflecting a 54% cumulative notification rate for the generator

- controlled and trans fer

- based recycling exclusion and reflecting 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of analysis ]. 75



### At a 3% discount rate the average annual cost is $ 329,586 per year and non

- discounted it is
$ 416,246 per year.



## 5F.3 Revision 6C : Emergency Prepar edness Plan

LQGs under 40 CFR 265 Subpart C and SQGs under §262.34(d)(5) are currently required to be prepared for emergencies (i.e., an emergency preparedness plan). This requirement will continue to be required for LQGs and SQGs under the requirements of Revision 6. Revision 6 adds emergency preparedness requirements under §262.34(d)(5) to CESQGs who are accumulating less than 6,000 kg of hazardous secondary materials and recycling them under the DSW

generator

- controlled exclusion and verified recycler exclusion.

For SQGs and CESQGs unit costs are typically lower. Unit costs are lower for emergency preparedness plans because the facilities are typically smaller and less complex. However, for LQGs changing generator status to either SQG or CESQG the unit costs were kept the same because the scale of the emergency plan has not changed because they need to address both the handling of hazardous wastes and hazardous secondary materials.

352 LQGs whose generator status changed to SQG under the 2008 DSW exclusions are expected to incur additional annual training costs of $387 per facility ($481

- $94) or $417 in 2012$. 76


### 616 LQGs whose generator status changed to CESQG under the 2008 DSW exclusions are expected to incur additional annual training costs of $481 per facility ($481

- $0) or $519 in 2012$. 64 CESQGs under the 2008 DSW exclusions are expected to incur additional annual training costs of $94 per facility ($94

- $0) or $101 in 2012$.

Th e average annual cost is $ 143,821 per year, calculated as f ollows:

[[($417 per facility) x (352 LQGs whose generator status changed to SQG ) + ($519 per facility) x (616 LQGs whose generator status changed to CESQG) + ($101 per facility) x (64
CESQGs)] x 3 0.42% cost adjustment reflecting a 54% cumulative notificat ion rate for the

generator

- controlled and transfer

- based recycling exclusion and reflecting 7% discount rate

75 See Appendix C, Exhibit C1 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor. Calculation may not equal total due to rounding of 2012 unit costs when inflated.

76 The first quarter 2012 BEA implicit price deflator is 114.511 and the 2007 annual BEA implicit price deflator is 106.227. The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of

1.0779 84 (114.511/106.227 = 1.077984). The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic

Product” is available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

.

### 5

- 32

for the 50

- year future period of analysis ]. 77



### At a 3% discount rate the average annual cost is $ 203,723 per year and non

- discounted it is
$ 257,289 per year.



## 5F

. 4 Revision 6 Total Cost ( 6 A+ 6 B+ 6 C)

C ost estimates for Revision 6 are as follows under the 54% notificat ion assumption (2012$) :

 7% discount rate : $ 1,161,592 per year in costs for hazardous waste/material training costs, contingency planning, and emergency preparedness planning.

 3% discount rate : $ 1,645,908 per year in costs for hazardous waste/material training costs, contingency planning, and emergency preparedness planning.

 Non

- discounted : $ 2,078,680 per year in costs for hazardous waste/material training costs, contingency planning, and emergency preparedness planning.



## 5 G

. Summary of Estimated Industry Costs to Meet Revision s 1 to 6

The potential cost savings to industry to meet the six revision s of the 2014 DSW final rule is estimated to be the following (from Exhibit 5 E below) according to the 54% notifi cation

assumed in this RIA (2012$) :

 7% discount rate:

o $1. 0 million per year in cost savings

.

o These incremental compliance cost s avings increase the total estimated baseline future cost savings from $2 7.5 5 million to $ 28. 5 8 million per year.

 3% discount rate:

o $ 1.6 million per year in cost savings

.

o These incremental compliance cost s avings increase the total estimated baseline

future cost savi ngs from $3 8. 66 million to $ 4 0. 25 million per year.

 Non

- discounted :

o $2. 0 million per year in cost savings

.

o These incremental compliance cost s avings increase the total estimated baseline

future cost savi ngs fro m $ 49

. 08 million to $ 5 1. 14 million per year.

The distribution of these estimated total costs among 2

- digit NAICS codes is presented in

Exhibits 5 F , 5 G , and 5 H below based on the discount rates of 7%, 3%, and non

- discounted

, respectiv ely. The manufacturing industries ( i.e

., NAICS 3 2 and 3 3 ) are estimated to incur approximately 66 % of the cost s avings

.

77 See Appendix C, Exhibit C1 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor. Calculation may not equal total due to rounding of 2012 unit costs when inflated.

### 5

- 33 Exhibit 5 E Summary of Estimated Annual Baseline Future Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post

- Rule Future Cost Savings for

Industry to Implement the Six 2014 Revisions to DSW Recycling Exclusions ( Revision s 1 thru 5 ) (54% Notification Rate and 2012 $ )

A B C D E

Item Revisions 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 0% Discount Rate Baseline Future Cost Savings = ($27,548,907) ($38,660,162) ($49,086,688)

1 Revision 1

- Replace the 2008 DSW Off

- site Transfer

- Based Exclusion with the 2014 DSW Verified Recycler Exclusion

1A Requirement 1A Future Cost Savings Withdrawing 2008 DSW Condition Requiring Reasonable Efforts to Audit Recycler Legitimacy ($3,845,423) ($5,439,356) ($6,863,719)

1B Requirement 1B Recycler Variance Costs $58,45 1 $84,7 66 $108,4 30

1C Requirement 1C Domestic Recycling Only Costs $0 $0 $0

1D Requirement 1D Definition of “Contained” Compliance Costs $0 $0 $0

1E Requirement 1E Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) Compliance Costs $0

1F Requirement 1F Speculative Accumulation Labeling $0 $0 $0

Subtotal Revision 1 = ($3,786,9 72 ) ($5,354,5 90 ) ($6,755,2 89 )

2 Revision 2

- Revisions to Generator

- controlled Exclusions

2 A Requirement 2 A Definition of “Contained” Compliance Costs $0 $0 $0

2 B Requirement 2 B Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) Compliance Costs $0 $0 $0

2 C Requirement 2 C Speculative Accumulation Labeling Compliance Costs $0 $0 $0

2 D Requirement 2 D Recordkeeping Requirement for Reclamation Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements and Same Company Transfer Compliance Costs $0 $0 $0

2 E Requirement 2 E Re

- structure the location of the non

- land based and land

- based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 Compliance Costs $247 $350 $442

Subtotal Revision 2 = $247 $350 $442

3 Revision 3

- Revisions to Legitimacy Recycling Provisions

3 A Requirement 3 A Codify a prohibition on “sham recycling

, ” defined as recycling that does not meet the definition of legitimate recycling , and make all four legitimacy factors mandatory, $515,736 $557,059 $584,640

3 B Requirement 3 B Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs Ap plied to

2008 DSW Exclusions $129,162 $183,017 $231,188

Subtotal Revision 3 = $644,898 $740,076 $815,828

4 Revision 4

- Revisions to 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW Non

- Waste

Determination Petition Process

4 A Requirement 4 A Partial Variance and Non

- waste determination re

- applications $ 50

, 090 $ 54

, 112 $ 56

, 598

4 B Requirement 4 B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs $ 834 $ 1,142 $ 1,437

### 5

- 34 Exhibit 5 E Summary of Estimated Annual Baseline Future Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post

- Rule Future Cost Savings for

Industry to Implement the Six 2014 Revisions to DSW Recycling Exclusions ( Revision s 1 thru 5 ) (54% Notification Rate and 2012 $ )

A B C D E

Item Revisions 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 0% Discount Rate

4 C Requirement 4 C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials $880,9 85 $ 1,308,954 $ 1,730,112

4 D Requirement 4 D Non

- waste Determination Petitioner Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing DSW Exclusions Compliance Costs $0 $0 $0

Subtotal Revision 4 = $ 931,9 09 $ 1,364,208 $1,788,147

5 Revision 5

- DSW Remanufacturing Exclusion

5 A Requirement 5 A Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings

5B Requirement 5 B Five Eligibility Conditions Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings

5C .1 Requirement 5C .1 Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings Included in Baseline Future Cost Savings

5C .2 Requirement 5C .2 Petition Process $12,424 $17,681 $22,393

Subtotal Revision 5 = $12,424 $17,681 $22,393

6 Revision 6

– Emergency Preparedness and Response

6A Requirement 6A Hazardous Waste/Materials Training $785,456 $1,112,600 $1,405,145

6B Requirement 6C Contingency Plan $232,676 $329,586 $416,246

6C Requirement 6C Emergency Preparedness Plan $143,821 $203,723 $257,289

Subtotal Revision 6 = $1,161,952 $1,645,908 $2,078,680
Total Compliance Costs = ($1, 035

, 54 2) ($ 1

, 586

, 368 ) ($ 2

, 049

, 799 )
Post Rule Future Cost Savings = ($2 8

, 584

, 449 ) ($40, 246

, 530 ) ($51, 136

, 488 )

### 5

- 35 Exhibit 5F

Estimated Baseline Annual Future Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post

- Rule Future Cost Savings by 2

- Digit NAICS Code (54% Notification Rate and 7% Discount Rate 2012 Dollars )

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS

code A B C D E F G H I J (D+...+I) K (C+J)

Baseline Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Revision 4 Revision

5 Revision 6 Post

- Rule Post

- Rule

Count of

Affected

2008

DSW

Facilities Count of

Affected

Pre

- 2008

DSW

Facilities (assuming

mid

- point of range of

affected

facili ties ) Future Cost

Savings under

2008 DSW

Rule Replace the

2008 Offsite

Transfer

Based

Exclusion

with the 2014

DSW Verified Recycler

Exclusion Revisions

to

Generator

controlled

Exclusions Revisions

to Legitimacy Recycling

Provisions Revisions

to 1985

Variance

and 2008

DSW Non

Waste

Determinat

ion Petition

Process DSW

Remanufa cturing

Exclusion Emergen cy

Preparedness

and Response Incremental

Cost Savings Cost Savings

1 11 Ag, Forestry,

Fishing, Hunting 3 0 ($2,105) ($2,282) $0 $13 $513 $0 $663 ($1,093) ($3,199)

2 21 Mining 21 0 ($109,562) ($17,498) $1 $96 $3,936 $0 $5,083 ($8,382) ($117,944)

3 22 Utilities 94 0 ($345,485) ($79,122) $5 $1,274 $17,796 $0 $22,983 ($37,064) ($382,549)

4 23 Construction 20 0 ($68,252) ($16,737) $1 $512 $3,764 $0 $4,862 ($7,599) ($75,850)

5 31 Manufacturing 32 206 ($158,011) ($26,627) $2 $10,734 $5,989 $0 $7,735 ($2,168) ($160,179)

6 32 Manufacturing 1,273 1,380 ($7,303,335) ($886,092) $58 $202,326 $239,897 $12,424 $309,824 ($121,563) ($7,424,899)

7 33 Manufacturing 2,240 5,913 ($12,727,472) ($1,871,533) $122 $381,039 $421,959 $0 $544,955 ($523,459) ($13,250,932)

8 42 Wholesale Trade 104 0 ($472,592) ($85,969) $6 $893 $19,507 $0 $25,193 ($40,371) ($512,963)

9 44 Retail Trade 30 0 ($50,580) ($25,106) $2 $138 $5,647 $0 $7,293 ($12,027) ($62,607)

10 45 Retail Trade 5 0 ($24,952) ($3,804) $0 $21 $856 $0 $1,105 ($1,822) ($26,774)

11 48 Transportation 102 0 ($519,398) ($85,208) $6 $889 $19,164 $0 $24,751 ($40,399) ($559,797)

12 49 Postal,

Messengers, Storage 28 0 ($158,382) ($23,584) $2 $549 $5,304 $0 $6,851 ($10,879) ($169,261)

13 51 Information 11 0 ($68,030) ($9,129) $1 $470 $2,053 $0 $2,652 ($3,954) ($71,984)

14 53 Real Estate, Rental

& Leasing 13 0 ($37,118) ($7,608) $0 $2,558 $2,396 $0 $3,094 $440 ($36,678)

15 54 Prof, Scientific &

Tech Services 155 0 ($778,646) ($130,094) $8 $1,555 $29,260 $0 $37,789 ($61,482) ($840,128)

16 55 Mgt of

Companies/ Enterprises 5 0 ($23,538) ($3,804) $0 $21 $856 $0 $1,105 ($1,822) ($25,360)

17 56 Admin, Waste, &

Remediation 148 2 ($701,665) ($99,663) $7 $35,761 $27,891 $0 $36,021 $16 ($701,648)

18 61 Educational

Services 158 0 ($973,821) ($132,377) $9 $2,406 $29,773 $0 $38,452 ($61,737) ($1,035,558)

### 5

- 36

19 62 Health Care,

Social Assistance 82 0 ($402,256) ($68,471) $4 $1,635 $15,400 $0 $19,889 ($31,542) ($433,798)

20 71 Arts,

Entertainment,

Recreation 6 0 ($17,928) ($5,325) $0 $29 $1,198 $0 $1,547 ($2,551) ($20,479)

21 81 Other Services 79 0 ($315,597) ($66,188) $4 $784 $14,887 $0 $19,226 ($31,288) ($346,885)

22 92 Public

Administration 168 0 ($1,111,041) ($140,745) $9 $1,194 $31,655 $0 $40,883 ($67,004) ($1,178,045)

Column totals = 4,776 7,500 ($26,369,766) ($3,786,968) $247 $644,898 899,700 $12,424 $1,161,952 ($1,067,751) ($27,437,516)
Impact for Exclusion 3 Non

waste Determinations= 74 0 ($1,179,141) $0 $0 $0 $32,209 $0 $0 $32,209 ($1,146,932)

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 4,850 7,500 ($27,548,907) ($3,786,968) $247 $644,898 $931,909 $12,424 $1,161,952 ($1,035,542) ($28,584,449)

### 5

- 37 Exhibit 5G

Estimated Baseline Annual Future Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post

- Rule Future Cost Savings by 2

- Digit NAICS Code (54% Notification Rate and 3% Discount Rate 2012 Dollars )

Item Industry 2

- digit

NAICS code A B C D E F G H I J (D+...+I) K (C+J)

Baseline Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Revision 4 Revision

5 Revision 6 Post

- Rule Post

- Rule

Count of

Affected

2008 DSW

Facilities Count of

Affected

Pre

- 2008

DSW

Facilities (assuming

mid

- point o f range of

affected facilities) Future Cost

Savings under

2008 DSW

Rule Replace the

2008 Offsite

Transfer

Based

Exclusion

with the 2014

DSW Verified Recycler

Exclusion Revisions

to

Generator

controlled

Exclusions Revisions

to Legitimacy Recycling

Provisions Revisions to

1985

Variance

and 2008

DSW Non

Waste

Determinatio

n Petition

Process DSW

Remanufa cturing

Exclusion Emergency

Preparedness

and Response Incremental

Cost Savings Cost Savings

1 11 Ag, Forestry,

Fishing, Hunting 3 0 ($2,982) ($3,227) $0 $18 $758 $0 $939 ($1,512) ($4,494)

2 21 Mining 21 0 ($155,198) ($24,741) $2 $136 $5,814 $0 $7,200 ($11,590) ($166,787)

3 22 Utilities 94 0 ($489,391) ($111,874) $7 $1,805 $26,290 $0 $32,555 ($51,217) ($540,608)

4 23 Construction 20 0 ($96,681) ($23,666) $2 $725 $5,561 $0 $6,887 ($10,492) ($107,172)

5 31 Manufacturing 32 206 ($223,828) ($37,650) $2 $11,487 $8,847 $0 $10,956 ($6,357) ($230,185)

6 32 Manufacturing 1,273 1,380 ($10,345,406) ($1,252,892) $82 $241,466 $354,403 $17,680 $438,867 ($200,393) ($10,545,799)

7 33 Manufacturing 2,240 5,913 ($18,028,869) ($2,646,257) $173 $416,912 $623,365 $0 $771,930 ($833,876) ($18,862,745)

8 42 Wholesale

Trade 104 0 ($669,441) ($121,556) $8 $1,265 $28,817 $0 $35,685 ($55,780) ($725,221)

9 44 Retail Trade 30 0 ($71,648) ($35,499) $2 $196 $8,342 $0 $10,330 ($16,629) ($88,277)

10 45 Retail Trade 5 0 ($35,345) ($5,379) $0 $30 $1,264 $0 $1,565 ($2,519) ($37,864)

11 48 Transportation 102 0 ($735,743) ($120,480) $8 $1,259 $28,312 $0 $35,059 ($55,842) ($791,586)

12 49 Postal,

Messengers, Storage 28 0 ($224,354) ($33,347) $2 $778 $7,836 $0 $9,704 ($15,027) ($239,380)

13 51 Information 11 0 ($96,367) ($12,909) $1 $665 $3,033 $0 $3,756 ($5,453) ($101,820)

14 53 Real Estate,

Rental & Leasing 13 0 ($52,578) ($10,757) $1 $3,625 $3,539 $0 $4,382 $790 ($51,789)

15 54 Prof, Scientific

& Tech Services 155 0 ($1,102,976) ($183,947) $12 $2,203 $43,226 $0 $53,528 ($84,978) ($1,187,954)

16 55 Mgt of

Companies/ Enterprises 5 0 ($33,342) ($5,379) $0 $30 $1,264 $0 $1,565 ($2,519) ($35,862)

17 56 Admin, Waste,

& Remediation 148 2 ($993,930) ($140,919) $9 $48,907 $41,204 $0 $51,024 $225 ($993,706)

### 5

- 38

18 61 Educational

Services 158 0 ($1,379,448) ($187,174) $12 $3,409 $43,984 $0 $54,467 ($85,301) ($1,464,750)

19 62 Health Care,

Social

Assistance 82 0 ($569,808) ($96,814) $6 $2,317 $22,751 $0 $28,173 ($43,568) ($613,376)

20 71 Arts,

Entertainment,

Recreation 6 0 ($25,395) ($7,530) $0 $42 $1,769 $0 $2,191 ($3,527) ($28,923)

21 81 Other Services 79 0 ($447,053) ($93,587) $6 $1,110 $21,992 $0 $27,234 ($43,245) ($490,298)

22 92 Public

Administration 168 0 ($1,573,825) ($199,007) $13 $1,692 $46,765 $0 $57,910 ($92,627) ($1,666,452)

Column totals = 4,776 7,500 ($37,353,611) ($5,354,590) $350 $740,076 1,329,138 $17,680 $1,645,908 ($1,621,438) ($38,975,049)
Impact for Exclusion 3 Non

waste Determinations= 74 0 ($1,306,551) $0 $0 $0 $35,070 $0 $0 $35,070 ($1,271,481)

Combined impact (Exclusion

1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion

3) = 4,850 7,500 ($38,660,162) ($5,354,590) $350 $740,076 $1,364,208 $17,680 $1,645,908 ($1,586,368) ($40,246,530)

### 5

- 39 Exhibit 5H

Estimated Baseline Annual Future Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post

- Rule Future Cost Savings 

### by 2

- Digit NAICS Code
(54% Notification Rate and Non

- Discounted 2012 Dollars )

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS

code A B C D E F G H I J (D+...+I) K (C+J)

Baseline Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Revision 4 Revision

5 Revision 6 Post

- Rule Post

- Rule

Count of

Affected

2008

DSW

Facilities Count of

Affected

Pre

- 2008

DSW

Facilities (assuming

mid

- point

o f range of

affected

facilities ) Future Cost

Savings under

2008 DSW

Rule Replace the

2008 Offsite

Transfer Based

Exclusion with

the 2014 DSW

Verified Recycler

Exclusion Revisions

to

Generator

controlled

Exclusions Revisions

to Legitimacy Recycling

Provisions Revisions to

1985

Variance

and 2008

DSW Non

Waste

Determinatio

n Petition

Process DSW

Remanufa cturing

Exclusion Emergenc y

Preparedness

and Response Incremental

Cost Savings Cost Savings

1 11 Ag, Forestry,

Fishing, Hunting 3 0 ($3,766) ($4,071) $0 $22 $999 $0 $1,186 ($1,863) ($5,630)

2 21 Mining 21 0 ($195,995) ($31,213) $2 $172 $7,661 $0 $9,093 ($14,286) ($210,281)

3 22 Utilities 94 0 ($618,039) ($141,139) $9 $2,280 $34,639 $0 $41,115 ($63,095) ($681,134)

4 23 Construction 20 0 ($122,096) ($29,856) $2 $915 $7,328 $0 $8,697 ($12,914) ($135,010)

5 31 Manufacturing 32 206 ($282,666) ($47,499) $3 $11,959 $11,658 $0 $13,837 ($10,042) ($292,709)

6 32 Manufacturing 1,273 1,380 ($13,064,946) ($1,580,634) $103 $274,034 $466,967 $22,393 $554,262 ($262,875) ($13,327,821)

7 33 Manufacturing 2,240 5,913 ($22,768,192) ($3,338,487) $218 $442,358 $821,355 $0 $974,900 ($1,099,656) ($23,867,848)

8 42 Wholesale Trade 104 0 ($845,420) ($153,353) $10 $1,597 $37,970 $0 $45,068 ($68,707) ($914,127)

9 44 Retail Trade 30 0 ($90,483) ($44,785) $3 $247 $10,991 $0 $13,046 ($20,497) ($110,980)

10 45 Retail Trade 5 0 ($44,636) ($6,786) $0 $37 $1,665 $0 $1,977 ($3,106) ($47,742)

11 48 Transportation 102 0 ($929,151) ($151,996) $10 $1,590 $37,304 $0 $44,278 ($68,815) ($997,966)

12 49 Postal,

Messengers, Storage 28 0 ($283,330) ($42,070) $3 $983 $10,325 $0 $12,255 ($18,504) ($301,835)

13 51 Information 11 0 ($121,700) ($16,285) $1 $841 $3,997 $0 $4,744 ($6,703) ($128,402)

14 53 Real Estate,

Rental & Leasing 13 0 ($66,400) ($13,571) $1 $4,579 $4,663 $0 $5,535 $1,206 ($65,194)

15 54 Prof, Scientific &

Tech Services 155 0 ($1,392,920) ($232,066) $15 $2,782 $56,955 $0 $67,603 ($104,710) ($1,497,631)

16 55 Mgt of

Companies/ Enterprises 5 0 ($42,107) ($6,786) $0 $37 $1,665 $0 $1,977 ($3,106) ($45,213)

17 56 Admin, Waste, &

Remediation 148 2 ($1,255,209) ($177,781) $12 $60,570 $54,291 $0 $64,440 $1,530 ($1,253,679)

18 61 Educational

Services 158 0 ($1,742,070) ($236,137) $15 $4,306 $57,954 $0 $68,789 ($105,072) ($1,847,142)

### 5

- 40

19 62 Health Care,

Social Assistance 82 0 ($719,596) ($122,140) $8 $2,926 $29,976 $0 $35,580 ($53,649) ($773,245)

20 71 Arts,

Entertainment,

Recreation 6 0 ($32,071) ($9,500) $1 $52 $2,332 $0 $2,767 ($4,348) ($36,419)

21 81 Other Services 79 0 ($564,572) ($118,068) $8 $1,402 $28,977 $0 $34,394 ($53,287) ($617,859)

22 92 Public

Administration 168 0 ($1,987,543) ($251,065) $16 $2,137 $61,618 $0 $73,137 ($114,156) ($2,101,699)

Column totals = 4,776 7,500 ($47,172,908) ($6,755,289) $442 $815,828 $1,751,291 $22,393 $2,078,680 ($2,086,655) ($49,259,563)
Impact for Exclusion 3 Non

waste Determinations= 74 0 ($1,913,780) $0 $0 $0 $36,855 $0 $0 $36,855 ($1,876,925)

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 4,850 7,500 ($49,086,688) ($6,755,289) $442 $815,828 $1,788,147 $22,393 $2,078,680 ($2,049,799) ($51,136,488)

### 6

- 1 

# C HAPTER 

# 6

Sensitivity Analyses (8 Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors)

This chapter d eri ves seven sensitivity analysis factors which are applied in Exhibit 6A below to

the initial average annualized total cost estimate at three alternative discount rates ( i.e., 7%, 3%,

and non

- discounted) . The purpose of these factors is to illustrate the relative de gree by which the industry impact estimates of this RIA

– which are in large part founded on affected industrial facility counts from the 2009 RCRA Biennial Report data year

– may fluctuate in any given

futu re year. These uncertainty facto rs are not addit ive. F or example, sensitivity analysis factor

#2 is a sub

- component of sensitivity an alysis factor #1. A potential 8 th 

### cost estimation uncertainty factor is future fluctuations in market prices of recovered commodities from rec ycled
materials. However, the 8 th 

### factor is not applied in this RIA because it influences the micro

economic decisions by facilities to switch from disposal to recycling of their hazardous secondary materials, which is only a relatively small fraction of the total industry implementation

c ost savings estimate for the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions and the 2014 revisions.

Exhibi t 6A Sensitivity of Estimate d Industry Cost for Complying with the 2014 Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions to Eight Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors

Note : Costs (or Cost Savings) in this Exhibit are Incremental to the Cost Savings Estimated for the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Using a 54% Notification Rate and 50

- year period

- of

- analysis 201 4 to 206 3

Type of Cost Uncertainty Factor* Uncertainty range Annual Cost (or Cost Savings) Estimate Range ($millions per year in 2012$ @alternative discount rates )

Low High Low High Low High Low High

Average annualized cost without uncertainty applied = ($1. 0 ) @7% ($ 1 .6 ) @3% ($2. 0 ) non

- disc.

1 Future fluctuations in annual tonnages of hazardous secondary materials generated and destined for recycling - 58% +43% ($0. 4 ) ($ 1 .4 ) ($0. 7 ) ($ 2. 3 ) ($ 0

. 8 ) ($ 2 .9)

2 Within

- year discrepancy between generation &

management tonnages - 34% +39% ($ 0 .7 ) ($ 1 .4 ) ($1. 1 ) ($2. 2 ) ($1. 3 ) ($ 2 .8)

3 RCRA SQGs in this RIA +160% +493% ($ 2.6 ) ($ 5 .9) ($ 4

. 2 ) ($ 9 .5) ($ 5

. 2 ) ($ 1 1

. 9 )

4 Physical & chemical quality of secondary materials available for viable recycling - 16% N/A ($ 0.8 ) N/A ($1. 3 ) N/A ($2.3) N/A

5 Expected accuracy of impact

estimation methodology (e.g., level of detail & effort) - 30% +50% ($ 0 .7 ) ($ 1.5 ) ($1. 1 ) ($ 2

. 4 ) ($1. 7 ) ($ 3 .0)

6 Incorrect reporting of pre

- 2008

exclusions data to Biennial Report - 0.6% N/A ($1. 0 ) N/A ($ 1

. 6 ) N/A ($2. 0 ) N/A

7 Alternate State Adoption Rate

for 2008 DSW Rule and 2014

DSW Revisions + 1650 % + 28 5 0 % ($ 1 7.5 ) ($ 29.5 ) ($ 2 8.0 ) ($ 47.2 ) ($ 35.0 ) ($ 59.0 )

Range across all 7 factors =

- 58% + 2850 % ($0. 4 ) ($ 29.5 ) ($0. 7 ) ($ 47.2 ) ($ 0

. 8 ) ($ 59.0 )

* Note: A potential 8 th cost uncertainty factor is future fluctuations in market prices of recovered commodities from recycled materials. However, t he 8 th factor is not applied in this RIA because it influences the micro

- economic decisions by facilities to switch from disposal to recycling of their hazardous secondary materials, which is only a relatively small fraction of the total industry implementation cost savings estimate for the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions and the

2014 revisions.

### 6

- 2



## 6A. Sensitivity Analysis #1: Future Annual Fluctuation in Affected Materials Quantities

Because this RIA is based on 2009 RCRA Biennial Report data, it is important to recognize the

year

- to

- year variability (fluctuations) in hazardous waste generation and management tonnage as reported to t he Biennial Report in prior data years (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001,
2003, 2007, 2009). 78 

### This variability is an indicator of the extent to which future year tonnages may fluctuate. In particular, year

- to

- year fluctuations in the tonnages of hazardous waste recycling and hazardous waste disposal affected by the 2014 DSW final rule exclusions

– which

would otherwise be RCRA

- regula ted in absence of the rule

– implies that the actual impacts of

the 2014 DSW final rule will fluctuate in future yea rs, compared to the estimates presented in this RIA based on the 2009 single

- year data snapshot.

To illustrate the potential magnitude of future annual fluctuations in recycling and disposal tonnages, Exhibits 6B and 6C present 1997

- 2009 historical data f or annual facility counts and annual hazardous waste quantities (tons/year) recycled (Exhibit 6B) and disposed (Exhibit 6C). This retrospective is truncated at 1997 rather than extending to 1991 because the RCRA Biennial Report methodology included wastew ater data until 1995. As a result, 1995 and prior years

include both wastewater and non

- wastewater data (i.e., sludge, solids, gases), and are inconsistent with later years. The data in the Exhibits below are from the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report “National Analysis” report. 79 

### Exhibits 6B and 6C provide annual percentage deviations for two sets of historical data (i.e., annual facility counts and annual tonnages), relative to the annual average values for the 1997

- 2009 historical time period. The

1997

- 2009 hazardous waste generation historical data show that:

 Baseline hazardous waste recycling has varied (from Exhibit 6B):

o

- 58% to +40% by annual recycler facility count

o

- 39% to +43% by annual tonnage recycled

 Baseline hazardous waste disposal has v aried (from Exhibit 6C):

o

- 21% to +34% by annual disposal facility count

o

- 18% to +20% by annual tonnage disposed.

If the future is like the past, based on the minimum and maximum annual deviation percentages over these four ranges, the national impacts of the DSW rule in future years could range from

- --

- 58% to +43% compared to the average annualized impact estimates presented in this RIA. This range is not a statistical confidence interval; it represents the overall minimum and maximum range in percentage variation between 1997

- 2009 annual counts of industrial facilities which reported recycling RCRA hazardous waste s to the RCRA Biennial Report, compared to the average count over that 13

- year time period. The purpose of this historical data analysis is to provide an aggregate indicator of how national waste quantities fluctuate year

- to

- year.

There are at least four reasons for annual fluctuations in the quantity of hazardous wastes

78 Prior years are available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.h tm

79 Source: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm

### 6

- 3

reported as disposed and recycled:

1. Within

- year discrepancies between generation tonnage and management tonnage (addressed as Sensitivity Analysis #2 in this RIA).

2. The economic level of industrial activity in any given year (addressed by Sensitivity Analysis #3 of this RIA).

3. Data over

- reporting to the Biennial Report by LQGs and TSDRFs involving reporting of

non

- required data for state

- regulated hazardous wastes.

4. Although not in itself qu antified as a separate factor in this chapter, EPA may add or subtract industrial secondary materials to the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program, such that in any given year, the number and types of wastes covered by the RCRA

program may vary:

a. Adding n ew waste streams to the program using the 40 CFR 261.11 “listing” procedure.

b. Removing waste streams from RCRA regulation using the 40 CFR 260.22 “delisting” procedure.

Such changes may influence the types of industries, industrial facilities, and hazardou s wastes that may be affected in any future year by the DSW rulemaking. EPA publishes in the Federal Register its Regulatory Agenda twice per year. 80 

### Planned future actions for OSWER may affect (i.e., increase or decrease) future annual waste quantities m anaged under the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program for certain industries and waste types.

80 EPA’s current Regulatory Agenda can be found at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/regulations/regagenda.html

### 6

- 4 Exhibit 6B Sensitivity Analysis #1:

13

- Year (1997

- 2009) Period of Historical Biennial Report Data for RCRA Hazardous Waste Recycling (Onsite + Offsite)

Data

Item Year A B C D E F G (A+C+E) H (B+D+F)
Metals Recovery*
(M011 to M019, or H010) Solvent Recovery*
(M021 to M029, or H020) Other Recovery**
(M031 to M039, or H039) Row Total Recovery** (%s represent deviations from average)

Facilities Million tons Facilities Million tons Facilities Million tons Facilities*** Million tons

1 1997 96 1.078 154 0.617 52 0.443 302 (

- 49%) 2.138 (+5%)

2 1999 88 0.720 111 0.368 46 0.152 245 (

- 58%) 1.240 (

- 39%)

3 2001 191 1.462 534 0.425 97 1.026 822 (+40%) 2.913 (+43%)

4 2003 159 1.152 523 0.263 85 0.729 767 (+31%) 2.144 (+6%)

5 2005 137 1.420 493 0.297 74 0.328 704 (+20%) 2.045 (+1%)

6 2007 137 1.330 456 0.329 65 0.335 658 (+12%) 1.995 (

- 2%)

7 2009 119 1.229 415 0.237 80 0.281 614 (+5%) 1.748 (

- 14%)

13

- year average = 587 2.032
Deviation range =

- 58% to +40%

- 39% to +43%
Explanatory Notes: (1) Data source: EPA RCRA Hazardous Waste “National Analysis” Biennial Reports: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm Appendix

F presents two 2009 BR recor ds identified as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit. (2) * EPA RCRA Biennial Report waste management “method codes” changed in 2001 from M

- codes to H

- codes. (3) ** “Other Recovery” in this exhibit excludes (1) energy recovery and (2) fuel blending because they are not eligibl e for the DSW final rule exclusions. (4) *** Facility row total counts overstate actual counts because row totals are duplicative of facilities operating two or m ore recycling methods.

### 6

- 5 Exhibit 6C Sensitivity Analysis #1

13

- Year (1997

- 2009) Period of Historical Biennial Report Data for RCRA Hazardous Waste Disposal (Onsite + Offsite)

Data

Item Year A B C D E F G (A+C+E) H (B+D+F)

Landfill or Surface Impoundment Disposal (M132 & M133, or H132)* Incineration Disposal
(M041 to M049, or H040) Other Disposal**
(M131, or H131, H134, H135) Row Total Disposal (%s represent deviations from avg)

Facilities Million tons Facilities Million tons Facilities*** Million tons Facilities*** Million tons

1 1997 72 2.539 166 1.656 104 26.452 342 (

- 11%) 30.647 (+20%)

2 1999 62 2.115 149 1.454 92 17.473 303 (

- 21%) 21.042 (

- 18%)

3 2001 69 1.807 174 1.646 268 24.177 511 (+34%) 27.630 (+8%)

4 2003 72 1.676 162 1.273 184 17.856 418 (+9%) 20.805 (

- 18%)

5 2005 68 2.038 164 1.564 184 24.225 415 (+9%) 27.827 (+9%)

6 2007 66 1.939 140 1.031 135 22.694 341 (

- 11%) 25.664 (+1%)

7 2009 71 1.920 126 0.907 148 22.134 345 (

- 10% 24.960 (

- 2%)

13

- year average = 382 25.511
Deviation range =

- 21% to +34%

- 18% to +20%
Explanatory Notes: (1) Data source: EPA RCRA Hazardous Waste “National Analysis” Biennial Reports: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm Appendix F prese nts seven 2009 BR recor ds identified as data outliers. These records were excluded from the totals in this exhibit. (2) * EPA RCRA Biennial Report waste management “method codes” changed in 2001 from M

- codes to H

- codes. (3) ** “Other Disposal” includes (1) discharge to sewer/POTW or NPDES, (2) deepwell injection, (3) land application. (4) *** Facility counts for “Other Disposal” overstate actual counts because totals are duplicative of facilities operating t wo or more disposal methods.

### 6

- 6



## 6B. Sensitivity Analysis #2: Within

- Year Discrepancy Between Generation

Tons and Management Tons

This sensitivity factor may be a sub

- component, in part or in whol e, of Sensitivity Analysis #1.

A s displayed in Exhibit 6D below , for any given data year, the total tons of hazardous wastes reported as “generated” in the RCRA Biennial Report (BR) by LQGs does not match the total tons of hazardous wastes reported as “managed” by TSDRFs. This discrepancy may to a large degree result from the fact that typical ly 15% to 24% of hazardous wastes generated in recent years (1997

- 2009) are reported as transported (i.e., shipped) either (1) to another industrial unit with a separate EPA ID number within the same LQG facility or (2) offsite for management at a
TSDRF, r ather than managed onsite by the LQG. Because the economic impacts estimated in this RIA are proportional to the annual tonnage of affected materials, this within

- year discrepancy suggests that the estimated net costs in this RIA based on 2009 BR data, co uld vary

between

- 34% to +39% in any future year. This range is not a statistical confidence inte rval; it represents the minimum and maximum range in pe rcentage variation between 1997 to 2009 generation quantities of RCRA hazardous wastes compared to the within

- year management

quan tities reported to the BR over that same 13

- year period as displayed in Exhibit 6D below.

Exhibit 6D Sensitivity Analysis #2

13

- Year (1997

- 2009) Period of Historical Biennial Report Data on Hazardous Waste Generation & Manageme nt Tonnages

Indicator 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 1. Million tons generated 40.7 40.0 40.8 30.2 38.3 46.7 35.3 2. Million tons managed 37.7 26.3 45.4 42.1 43.9 50.5 38.1 Percent discrepancy indicated by ratio of tons managed:to: tons generated ((2

- 1) / 1) - 7.4%

- 34.3% +11.3% +39.4% +14.6% +7.5 +7.9%

S ource: EPA RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Reports for prior years are available at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm



## 6C. Sensitivity Analysis #3: RCRA SQGs in this RIA

Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, whereas large quantity generators (LQGs) generate more than 1,000 kilograms per month. Because the impact estimates of this RIA are built upon the RCRA Biennial Report (BR)

which conta ins data reported only by LQGs and TSDFs but not by SQGs, the complete SQG facility universe count is not included in this RIA, only the small fraction of TSDFs which are also SQGs. Between 1993 and 2005, a study for EPA estimated th e number of SQGs to ran ge from 84,000 to 236,000. 81 

### This forms an estimate of the total universe of SQGs. Building on this estimate, the number of SQGs potentiall y affected by the DSW rule can be estimated as

follows:

81 Source: page 4 of “Work Assignment 7 Task 5 Quick Response Task 1 Memorandum: “Study of Impact of Imposing Part 262 Manifest Requirements on Generators of HWIR

- Exited Was te,” prepared 01 Feb 1999 by Dynamac Corp for EPA Office of Solid Waste.

### 6

- 7

Step 1: Assuming that the percentage of SQGs who recover wa ste is the same as the

percent of LQGs who recover waste (27% 82 

### ), roughly 22,680 to 62,720 SQGs generate hazardous wastes which are managed by recovery or recycling. Step 2: Subtract the 856 SQGs included in this RIA for the 2008 DSW exclusions

(Exhibit 4I Column D) to produce a range of 21,824 to 62,864 SQGs omitted

from this RIA. Step 3: Assuming that the percentage of SQGs in the pre

- 2008 exclusion population is

the same as the 2008 DSW exclusion population of facilities at a minimum
(27% x 7,500 = 2,025) produces a range of 19,799 to 60,839 SQGs omitted

from this RIA. Step 3: Compare these estimates to the 12,350 facilities estimate ( 4,850 2008 DSW

exclusion facilities + 7,500 pre

- 2008 exclusion facilities) for the 2014 DSW revisions to establish pe rcentage range for this sensitivity analysis factor
[ ( 19

, 799 to 60

, 839 facilities ) / 12,350 facilities ] results in 1 6 0 % to 4 9 3 % in

additional cost savings.



## 6D. Sensitivity Analysis #4: Physical/Chemical Quality of Secondary Materials for Viable Recovery /Recycling

The methodology applied in Chapter 4 of this RIA for identifying baseline disposal wastes for potential switch over to recycling under the DSW final rule, may be overly inclusive in the physical/chemical types and industrial sources identified. Exhibit 6E below identifies nine categories of baseline disposed wastes that may not be suitable for recycling, and their corresponding tonnages in the 2009 Biennial Report, as an indicator of potential industry cost savings over

- estimation in this RIA f rom possible over

- estimation of the baseline disposal tonnage that may switch over to recycling under the DSW final rule.

82 Source: 4,368 recycling LQGs from Exhibit 3A Column A divided by 16,220 total LQGs from Exhibit 3B

Column A.

### 6

- 8 Exhibit 6E Sensitivity Analysis #4 Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switch Over to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed

Hazardous Waste Unlikely Suitable for Recycling Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

2009

Generation
(tons) Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes 1. Probably better suited for energy recovery or use as fuel (e.g., oily wastes, tarry wastes, PAHs, heavy ends, petroleum refining
wastes) For wastes not reporting source

code G61 include:

 W205 oil

- water emulsion

 W206 waste oil

 W403 solid resins, plastics or polymerized organics

 W409 other organic solids

 W603 oily sludge

 W604 paint or ink sludges, still bottoms in sludge form

 W606 other organic sludge For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61, or RCRA

waste codes listed in Exhibit 3R or item 8 below include

RCRA waste codes:

 F024 heavy end, tars reactor clean

- out process wastes

 F032, F034 chlorophenol ic & creosote wood preservative wastewaters

 F037, F038 petroleum refinery oil/water separation sludge

 K001 wood preserving bottom sediment sludges

 K018, K030, K035, K042, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052, K087, K096, K101, K107, K108, K115 heavy
ends, overhead s

 K141, K142, K143, K144, K147, K148 coking operation tars

 K169, K170 oil tank sediment 468,558

2. Likely contains acutely
toxic (dioxins/furans) or multiple mixed hazardous

constituents For wastes with no reported form codes

include source code:

 G26 leachate

collection For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA

waste codes listed in Exhibit 3R or item 8 below include

RCRA waste codes:

 F020, F021, F022, F023 listed for dioxins/furans

 F026, F02 7, F028, F032 listed for dioxins/furans

 F039 land disposal leachate

 K032, K033, K034 listed for carcinogen hexachlorocyclopentadiene

 K174 listed for dioxins/furans

 P001 to P205 (i.e., all Pxxx) acutely hazardous

discarded or off

- spec commercial chemical products,

container residues 0

### 6

- 9 Exhibit 6E Sensitivity Analysis #4 Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switch Over to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed

Hazardous Waste Unlikely Suitable for Recycling Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

2009

Generation
(tons) Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes 3. Explosive or reactive

material For wastes not reporting source

code G61 include:

 W210 reactive or polymerizable organic liquids and adhesives

 W405 explosives or reactive organic solids For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA

waste codes listed in Exhibit 3R or item 8 below include

RCRA waste codes:

 K044, K045, K046, K047 explosives mfg wastewaters, sludge, spent carbon 55,181

4. Already subject

to recovery/ recycling 4a.

Distillation residuals (may

be better

suited for

energy recovery) For wastes not reporting source

code G61 include:

 W200 still bottoms in liquid

form For wastes with no reported form codes

include source code:

 G24 solvent or product distillation

or recovery For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source

codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA

waste codes listed in Exhibit 3R or item 8 below include

RCRA waste codes:

 K009, K010, K015, K016, K019, K020, K022, K023,
K024, K025, K026, K027, K036, K083, K085, K093, K094, K095, K116, K136, K149 chemical mfg product distillation bottoms or solvent recovery

residues 38,056

4b. Acid

recovery
residuals For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA

waste codes listed in Exhibit 3R or item 8 below include

RCRA waste codes:

 K150 hydrochloric acid recovery residuals 0

5. Material unlikely to

contain recoverable constituents of recycling

value For wastes not reporting source

code G61 include:

 W301 contaminated soil

 W512 sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other

muds For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA

wa ste codes listed in Exhibit 3R or item 8 below include

RCRA waste codes:

 F028 residues from incineration of contaminated soil

 K060 ammonia still lime sludge

 K102 residue from use of activated carbon for de

colorization 774,461

6. Materials not eligible

for DSW final rule For wastes not reporting source

code G61 include: 240,570

### 6

- 10 Exhibit 6E Sensitivity Analysis #4 Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switch Over to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed

Hazardous Waste Unlikely Suitable for Recycling Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C

2009

Generation
(tons) Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes

exclusions*  W309 (lead

- acid batteries)

 W320 electrical devices (lamps, thermostats, CRTs) 7. Materials not currently widely recovered/ recycled**  W401 used or discarded pesticide solids

 W503 gypsum sludge For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA

waste codes listed in Exhibit 3R or item 8 below include

RCRA waste codes:

 D004 arsenic 5,588

8. Materials unlikely to be economically

recovered off site*** For wastes not reporting source

code G61 include:

 W103 spent concentrated

acid >5%

 W110 caustic aqueous waste without cyanides For wastes with no

form code include

source codes:

 G02 stripping &

acid or caustic cleaning

 G05 metal forming For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 include RCRA

waste codes:

 K031, K043, K097, K099, K123, K124, K125, K126, K131, K132 pesticide manufacturing wastewaters, sludges, absorbents, solids

 K062 iron & steel spent pickle liquor 4,104,542

9. Mixture of RCRA

Waste Codes Wastes that have multiple RCRA waste codes reported and the fall under more than one of the first seven categories. 0

Column total = 5,686,957 Percentage of total hazardous waste generation (35.331 million tons, Exhibit 1.1 of 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report ) =

- 16%

Explanatory Notes: Some materials identified in this exhibit may contain potential beneficial re

- use market value (e.g., construction fill, soil amendments, and cement additives) which is not covered under the DSW final rule e xclusions, and therefore not included in this RIA for evaluation of potential switch over from baseline disposal to future recycli ng. * Or which may be managed as excluded materials under other RCRA exemptions (e.g., as “universal wastes”). ** As determined by comparison with the physical/chemical types or constituents of RCRA hazardous wastes currently being reco vered/ recycled acco rding to H010, H020, or H039 management method codes in the 2009 Biennial Report. *** Note that these data categories were reviewed from the 2007 BR as part of the 2011 DSW RIA for the proposed rule. Upon review of W103 spent concentrated acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or caustic cleaning, and G05 metal forming and treatment waste streams nearly all the waste is not suitable for switch over to off

- site other recovery. Much of the waste are dilute acid wastes that are disposed in on

- site

wastewater tre atment systems followed by POTW/sewer or NPDES discharge or disposed by Class I UIC permitted deep

- well injection. These disposal methods are less expensive compared to offsite recovery, therefore it should be more costly to ship these wastes offsite for other recovery. In addition, in the review of the 2007 data, a small quantity (< 1,000 tons) of spent pickle liquor (K062) was identified.

### 6

- 11



## 6E. Sensitivity Analysis #5: Expec ted Accuracy of Impact Estimation Methodology

This RIA is based on ratio and semi

- detailed cost data designed to provide planning, feasibility, or preliminary budget type estimates rather than exact engineering cost and benefit estimates for

each of the 622 different industries consistin g of a population of about 4,800 facilities affected by revisions to the 2008 DSW rules and about 7,500 additional facilities affected by revisions to the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. These facilities generate and manage tens of thousands of

individual waste streams that may be affected by the revisions. To classify relative uncertainty, the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines five generic classes of cost estimation accuracy for application in engineering, procurement, and indus try. 83 

### AACE

defined these classes in relation to ANSI standards Z94.0 and Z94.2. 84 

### In the context of this RIA, the purpose of estimation accuracy classification is to indicate the relative degree to which

the “ex

- post” (i.e., post

- rule) actual economic imp acts for the DSW rule may vary from the “ex

ante” (i.e., pre

- rule) impacts estimated in this RIA. The AACE classification scheme expresses five levels of estimation accuracy according to a +/

- percentage range around the point estimate. The five accuracy classes are formulated to reflect varying, relative degrees of four factors :

 Project definition, design, and planning maturity level (e.g., <2% vs. >50% complete),

 End us e purpose of cost estimates (e.g., initial concept screening vs. contract bid),

 Type of estimation methodology (e.g., judgment vs. detailed unitized cost s), and

 Estimate preparation level

- of

- effort (e.g., <200 hours vs. >1,000 hours to prepare).

The five accuracy classifications range from

- 50% :to:+100% for Class 5 “order

- of

- magnitu de” type estimates, to

- 10% to +15% Class 1 “definitive estimates.” Basically, as the level

- of

- detail

and level

- of

- effort given to a cost (or cost savings) estimate increases, the expected accuracy of the estimate tends to improve, as indicated by a tight er +/

- accuracy range assigned to it according to the accuracy classification scheme. The impact estimates of this RIA may be classified as a Class 4 planning, feasibility, or preliminary budget type of estimate with expected accuracy range of

- 30% to +50 % , because this RIA includes ratios and semi

- detailed unitized

cost s

.

83 Source: AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R

- 97 “Cost Estimate Classification System

– As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries”, 2 February 2005; http://www.costengineering.eu/Downloads/articles/AACE_CLASSIFICATION_SYSTEM.pdf

84 ANSI = American National Standards Institute. ANSI standard Z94.0 was originally published in 1972, then

revised as Z94

- 1983 in 198 3, revised as Z94.0

- 1989 in 1990, and revised again as Z94.2 in 1998. The ANSI Z94.2

standard is one element of the set of 17 standards (i.e., Z94.1 to Z94.17) for the field of industrial engineering, which is concerned with the design, improvement, and i nstallation of integrated systems of people, materials, information, equipment, and energy. Industrial engineering draws upon specialized knowledge and skills in the mathematical, physical, and social sciences, together with the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design, to specify, predict and evaluate the results obtained from such systems. Additional background information about ANSI Z94 standards is available from the Institute for Industrial Engineers at: http://www.iienet2.org/Detai ls.aspx?id=2644.

### 6

- 12

Limited data on these materials are available from the 2009 BR. 85 

### The 2009 BR reports on a portion of the material (226,691 tons) managed under the affected pre

- 2008 exclusions. The

fo llowing subsections describe the data from the 2009 BR and outline the methodology this RIA uses to estimate the population of facilities recycling under the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling

exclusions.



## 6F. Sensitivity Analysis #6: Incorrect Reporting of Pre

- 2008 R ecycling

Exclusion Data to the Biennial Report

Some pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusio n data can be obtained from EPA’s RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report ( BR ) . For any given BR data reporting year, some LQG and TSDRF data records in the BR may be inaccur ately or incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily) included in the BR

database for at least three reasons:

1. Misreporting of data

2. State regulatory reporting requirements for hazardous waste data are more stringent than Federal RCRA requirements in some states:

a. Some states require SQGs and CESQGs to report hazardous waste generation data

b. Some states require LQGs to report state

- regulated waste data, in addition to

Federal

- regulated waste data

As summarized in Exhibit 6F below, LQGs or TSDRFs in the 2009 BR may have reported data incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily) for three of the 32 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions affected by the

2014 DSW final rule . Approximately 226,691 tons of hazardous materials from pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions were identified in the 2009 BR

, indicatin g that the 2008 DSW recycling exclusion baseline cost savings estimat e of this RIA may be overstated by 0.6%. Thus, the incremental impact of the 2014 DSW revisions could equally be overstated by 0.6%

, because

both the 2008 DSW rule baseline cost savings, and the incremental impact of the 2014 DSW final rule, are estimated in relation to annual tonnages of hazardous secondary materials affected by each rule

. The incorrectly submitted pre

- 2008 tonnage data are included with the 2 008 DSW recycling exclusion data and thus in the baseline cost savings for the 2008 DSW rule . These data categories were identified based on QA/QC random visual inspection of waste descriptions supplied by the LQGs (Form GM, Section 1A) and by the TSDRFs (Form WR, Section A) reporting to the BR database appli ed in the prior 2003, 2007, 2008 , and 2011 DSW RIAs. 86

85 While updated limited data on these materials are available from the 2011 BR, this analysis was conducted prior to its release, when only 2009 BR data were available.

86 The prior DSW RIAs are available at http://www.regulations.gov according to their docket document IDs: 2003 DSW RIA (274 pages) document ID = EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2002

- 0031

- 0002 2007 DSW RIA (284 pages) document ID = EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2002

- 0031

- 0357 2008 DSW RIA (204 pages) document ID = EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2002

- 0031

- 0602 2011 DSW RIA (262 pages) document ID = EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0002

### 6

- 13 Exhibit 6F Sensitivity Analysis #6: Three Industrial Secondary Materials Already

- Excluded from the DSW Pre

- 2008

Type of Excluded

Material Description Biennial Report Data Code to Identify the Excluded Material 2009 Recycling (tons/year)*
1. Recycled By

products Exhibiting

Characteristic of

Hazardous Waste Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded

under the existing DSW exclusion for “ by

- products ” exhibiting a

characteristic of hazardous waste that are not solid wastes when
reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).  D001 (ignitability characteristic) or

 D002 (corrosivity characteris tic) or

 D003 (reactivity characteristic) or

 D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and

 G07 source code “Product & by

- product processing” 206,873**

2. Recycled Sludge Exhibiting

Characteristic of

Hazardous Waste Reported wastes quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded

under the existing DSW exclusion for “ sludges ” exhibiting a

characteristic of hazardous waste that are not solid wastes when reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).  D001 (ignitability characteristic) or

 D002 (corrosivity charact eristic) or

 D003 (reactivity characteristic) or

 D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and

 W5xx or W6xx sludges physical form code 18,855

3. Recycled

Commercial

Chemical Products Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded

under the existing DSW exclusion for “ commercial chemical products ” when reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).  G11 source code “Discarding off

- spec or out

- of

- date chemicals or products: unused chemicals or products

– corresponds to P and U hazardous waste codes”) 963

Column total = 226,691
Percentage of 2009 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report total hazardous waste generation (35.331 million tons, Exhibit 1.1) =

- 0.6%
Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br09/index.htm ; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short

- ton"). ** One waste stream accounts for 180,460 tons with the waste description “spent lead/acid batteries and lead bearing scrap dismembered for metals recovery and recycling.” A second waste stream accounts for 14,096 tons with the waste description "edc heavy ends from ethylene dichloride manufacturin g; mixture of 1,2

- dichloroethane, 1,1,2

- trichlo roethane, tetrachloroethane and other"

### 6

- 14



## 6G. Sensitivity Analysis #7: Alternate State Government Adoption Rate

Purpose of this Adjustment

After completion of the initial estimates of industry compliance costs and incremental cost savings shown in Exhibit A of the Executive Summary , EPA conducted further analysis of comments to EPA from state governments in 2009 and 2011 since the publication of the 2008

DSW final rule (notes and sources are presented in Appendix I)

.

 Original data : Based o n state government comments to EPA on the 2007 proposed DSW
rule, EPA assumed that 44 of the 56 RCRA

- regulated state and territory governments 87


### were likely to adopt the 2008 DSW final rule. The other 12 were assumed not to adopt

based on adverse comments m ade on the 2007 proposed rule. The 44 likely adopting states accounted for 77% of nationwide annual tonnage of RCRA hazardous wa ste recycling as of 2009, and 80 % of nationwide facilities involved in RCRA hazardous waste recycling. For the main case used in this RIA, EPA assumed that only these 44 states would adopt the 2008 DSW rule.

 New data applied in Sensitivity Analysis #7 : As shown in Exhibits 6G to 6 K below, after publication of the 2008 DSW rule, EPA received additional comments from state

governmen ts on the 2011 proposed revisions to the 2008 DSW rule. Combined with the prior state government comments from 2007, the additional comments revealed that a larger count of 25 state governments opposed the “offsite transfer” recycling exclusion of

the 2008 DSW rule and therefore as few as 31 states may adopt it . The 31 likely adopting states accounted for 47% of nationwide annual tonnage of RCRA hazardous waste

recy c ling as of 2009. This RIA uses 31 states as a lower

- bound sensitivity analysis.

In contrast, because the 2014 DSW rule addresses the adverse comments raised by the states, state adoption rates for the 2014 DSW rule may be much higher , possibly as high

as 100%

. This assumption is confirmed by EPA’s experience with state adoption of the

U niversal Waste Rule. The Universal Waste rule, like the 2014 DSW rule, reduced requirements for generators while regulating off

- site management. The Universal waste rule has been adopted by 100% of the states and territories, implying that a 100% adoptio n rate is a reasonable assumption for the 2014 DSW rule. 88 

### Therefore this RIA

uses an upper

- bound sensitivity analysis of 56 states and territories implementing the

2014 DSW rule.

87 56 state and territory governments covered by EPA’s RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program include six territories (DC, Guam, Navajo Nation, Puerto Rico, Trust Territo ries, and the US Virgin Islands) in addition to the

50 states.

88 See “Where you live: State Specific Universal Waste Regulations,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency http:/ /www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/universal/statespf.htm , retrieved February 11, 2014.

### 6

- 15

Adjusted Cost Savings Estimates

 Current estimate : Based on the original d ata th is RIA estimate s that the 2014 DSW rule

w ill result in a small increase in cost savings ( $ 2 million , at 0% discount rate ) compared

to the 2008 DSW rule baseline , if 44 states and territories were assumed to adopt both the 2008 and 2014 DSW rules equa lly.

 Upper

- bound state adoption sensitivity estimate : T he 2014 DSW rule could actually increase cost savings compared to the 2008 DSW rule if only 31 states and territories adopt the 2008 DSW rule ($33 million per year on cost savings)

. As displayed in the exhibit below, under the assumption of full adoption by the states of the 2014 DSW rule 89 

### ($9 2 million per year in cost savings) , the 2014 rule would result in a large a nnual regulatory cost savings ($59 million) relative to the status quo of low state adoption of the 2008 DSW rule. The details of these calculations are presented below.

 Lower

- bound state adoption sensitivity estimate : Calculations us e conservative state adoption rate assumptions for both the 2008 and 2014 DSW rules. This scenario assumes: that no additional states will join the 8 states & territories which have already adopted the 2008 DSW rule ($1 1 million per year in cost savings) a nd that only the 31

states & territories that indicated they would adopt the 2008 DSW rule will adopt the

2014 DSW rule ($3 5 million per year in cost savings) . As displayed in the exhibit below, this adoption scenario results in a moderate annual net regu latory cost savings ($2 4

million per year ) relative to the status quo of low state adoption of the 2008 DSW rule.

89 EPA anticipates that adoption of the 2014 DSW rule would be analogous to adoption of EPA’s Universal Waste rule, which similarly reduced requirements for generators while keeping off

- site management under RCRA Subtitle C permitting. The Universal waste rule has been adopted by 100% of the states and territories, and therefore a 100% adoption rate assumption is reasonable for the 2014 DSW rule. Information regarding the Universal Waste Rule can

be found at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/universal/statespf.htm

### 6

- 16 Current Estimate Net Savings Increase for 2014 DSW Rule Applies the assumption from 2008 RIA that both

the 2008 and 2014 rules would be adopted and

effective in 44 states & territories. Upper

- bound Sensitivity Estimate Net Savings Increase for 2014 DSW Rule Revises state adoption assumptions based on
more recent state comments, with the 2008 rule presumed effective in 31 states & territories, and

the 2014 rule effective in 56 states & territories. Lower

- bound Sensitivity Estimate Net Savings Increase for 2014 DSW Rule Revises state adoption assumptions based on more
recent state comments, with the 2008 rule presumed effective in 8 states & territories, and

the 2014 rule effective in 31 states & territories.

Note: Height of bars below not necessarily to exact scale in relation to dollar amounts.

2008 DSW Rule 2014 DSW

Rule

2008 DSW

Rule 2008 DSW

Rule

$9 2 million/year cost savings

(@56 states & territories adopting) 2014 DSW

Rule

$5 1 million/year cost savings

(@44 states & territories adopting) $49 million/year cost savings

(@44 states & territories adopting) 2014 DSW

Rule

$3 5 million/year cost savings

(@31 states & territories adopting)

$33 million/year cost savings

(@31 states & territories adopting) $1 1 million/year cost savings

(@8 states & territories adopting)

### 6

- 17

Calculations for Adjusted Cost Savings:

o $ 49 million/year : From rounding

- do wn the current estimate of $49.1 mill ion /year cost

savings from the 2008 DSW rule (from Exhibit 4J).

.

 Note that the 44 state adoption assumption applied in both the 2008 DSW RIA and the initial estimates for this RIA numerically translates into a 54% average annual facility adoption rate as displayed in the bottom row of Exhibit 3L . This is why the title of Exhibit 4J indicates “54% facility notification rate ” rather than “44 state adoption rate.” This is necessary because all calculations are performed on an average annual basis; therefore the draft RIA needed to create an average annualized equivalent of the 44 state adoption rate assumption (i.e., 44 states would be an ultimate future “cumulative” adoption total count, not an average annual count).

 Note that in Exhibit 3L although the 44 state sub

- total count of RCRA

- regulated facilities potentially eligible for the DSW exclusions is 3,865 (which is 80 % of t he nationwide total 4,850 potentially eligible facilities in all 56 states/territories), the 3.2% annual facility adoption phase

- in (based on Exhibit 3K) results in an average annual participation over 50

- years 2014

- 2063 of 2,604 facilities as displayed in the next to bottom row of Exhibit 3L. Thus, (2,604 average annual facilities participation in 44 states) / (4,850 total facilities in 56 states) = 54% average annual facility participation rate over the 50

- years 2014

- 2063.

o $ 5 1 million/year : From rounding

- down t he current estimate of $ 5 1. 1 mill ion /year net cost savings from the 2014 DSW rule, in Section 5G (see sub

- bullet of text in the “Non

discounted” bullet) which is based on the result displayed in the bottom row of column J of

Exhibit 5I.

o $33 million /year : From scaling the $49.1 mill ion /year from Exhibit 4J (as referenced in the

1 st 

### bullet above) by the ratio of annual (2009 Biennial Report data year) RCRA hazardous waste recycling tonnage associated with 31 states now assumed to adopt the 2008 rule divided by that of the 44 states initially assumed to adopt the 2008 rule:

 Scaling fa ctor: (53% nationwide recycling tonnage in 31 states) / (77% nationwide recycling tonnage in 44 states) = 0.68 scaling factor.

 Scaling calculation: ($ 49.1 mill ion /year cost savings for 44 states from Exhibit 4J) x (0.68 scaling factor from above) = $3 3.4 m ill ion /year cost savings for 31 states (rounded

- down to $3 3 mill ion /year as displayed in the bar chart below).

 This scaling method is a very simple example of what is formally named the “ratio method”, “factor method”, or “parametric method” order

- of

- magni tude cost estimation method in the professional cost estimation literature (see Chapter 2 of “Skills & Knowledge of Cost Engineering,” 4 th 

### edition, 1999, Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International).

o $9 2 million/year : This cal culation began with (a) the $87.8 mill ion /year cost savings for the 2008 DSW rule from Exhibit 4G (which is based on the 100% state adoption assumption and updated to 2012$ non

- discounted), then (b) the $5.2 mill ion /year revised cost saving s for the

2014 D SW rule modified to a 100% state adoption assumption is add ed.

### 6

- 18

 The (a) + (b) calculation is: ($87.8 mill ion /year 2008 DSW rule cost savings) + ($ 3.7

mill ion /year revised cost savings for the 2014 DSW rule) = $ 9 1.5 (round

- up to $92)

mill ion /year net cost sa vings for the 2014 DSW rule, relative to before the 2008 DSW rule, and assuming 100% state adoption (i.e., all 56 states/territories adopt).

 The $ 3.7 million/year revised cost savings for the 2014 DSW rule under a 100% (56) state adoption assumption appli ed above, was estimated by scaling the $2. 0 million/year cost savings of the 2014 DSW rule @54% average annual facility adoption (i.e., 44 states adopting) as displayed in the “Non

- discounted” 3 rd 

### bullet of

Section 5G text which is the result from the bott om row of column I of Exhibit 5I, by a 1.85 scaling factor calculated as follows: (100% adopting facilities for 56 states/territories) / (54% average annual adopting facilities for 44 states) = 1.85 scaling factor:

 ($2. 0 mill ion /year cost savings for the 2014 DSW rule @44 states) x (1.85 scaling

- up factor to 56 states) = $ 3.7 mill/year revised cost savings for 2014

DSW rule.

 Sensiti vity analysis applied to the $93 million/year estimate:

 Note that the $9 2 mill ion /year calculation result above may represent an “upper

- bound” because in reality not all 56 states/territories may adopt the 2014 DSW rule in the same year after its implementation, so the average annual equivalency of the cumulative 100% number applied in the above calculations would probably be som ething less than 100%. The final cost

numbers are somewhat sensitive to alternative ratio or factor methods and the

assumed scale

- up ratio, but are still within the rough “order

- of

- magnitude” range. If we alternatively begin with the $ 5 1 million/year figu re then we could

scale

- up that number by a 56/44 state scale

- up factor:

 Using an average annualized scale

- up ratio of (100% facilities for 56 states) / (54% average annual adopting facilities for 44 states) = 1.85, we get an estimate of $ 5 1 million/year x 1.85 = $ 9 4 million/year.

 Using an average annualized scale

- up ratio of (100% nationwide recycling tonnage for 56 states) / (77% sub

- total annual recycling tonnage for 44 states) = 1.30, we get an estimate of $5 1 million/year x
1.30 = $ 6 6 million/year.

 This range in results ($6 6 million/year to $ 9 4 million/year) illustrates the rough “order

- of

- magnitude” range in possible results by using the

ratio or factor method of estimation.

 The main approach above this sensitivity analysis which resulted in the
$ 9 2 mil lion/year estimate is a superior approach because it involves a

two

- step incremental calculation; it directly estimates (a) the cost of the baseline cost savings of the 2008 DSW rule @56 states assumption, then add s (b) the cost savings of the 2014 DSW rul e @56 state assumption, which is consistent with the RIA’s overall incremental methodology.

o $1 1 million/year : From scaling the $ 49.1 mill ion /year from Exhibit 4J (as referenced in the

1 st 

### bullet above) by the ratio of annual (2009 Biennial Report data year) RCRA hazardous waste recycling tonnage associated with 8 states divided by 44 states:

### 6

- 19

 Scaling factor: (18% nationwide recycling tonnage in 8 states) / (77% nationwide recycl ing tonnage i n 44 states) = 0.23 scaling factor.

 Scaling calculation: ($ 49.1 mill ion /year cost savings for 44 states from Exhibit 4J) x
(0. 23 scaling factor from above) = $ 11. 3 mill ion /year cos t savings for 8 states (rounded down to $1 1 mill ion /year)

.

 This scaling meth od is a very simple example of what is formally named the “ratio method” or “factor method” or “parametric method” order

- of

- magnitude cost estimation method In the professional cost estimation literature (see Chapter 2 of “Skills & Knowledge of Cost Engine ering,” 4 th 

### edition, 1999, Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International).

o $3 5 million/year : From scaling the $ 5 1. 1 mill ion /year from Exhibit 5F by the ratio of annual (2009 Biennial Report data year) RCRA hazardous waste recycl ing tonnage associated with 31 states divided by 44 states:

 Scaling factor: (53% nationwide recycling tonnage in 31 states) / (77% nationwide recycling tonnage in 44 states) = 0.69 scaling factor.

 Scaling calculation: ($ 51. 1 mill ion /year cost savings for 4 4 states from Exhibit 5F) x
(0.69 sc aling factor from above) = $35

. 2 mill ion /year cost savings for 31 states (rounded

- down to $3 5 mill ion /year as displayed in the bar chart above).

 This scaling method is a very simple example of what is formally named the “ratio method” or “factor method” or “parametric method” order

- of

- magnitude cost estimation method In the professional cost estimation literature (see Chapter 2 of “Skills & Knowledge of Cost Engineering,” 4 th 

### edition, 1999, Association for the

Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International).

### 6

- 20 Exhibit 6G: Analysis of State Government Comments to EPA from 2007, 2009, & 2011 Regarding the 2008 DSW Final Rule “Offsite Transfer” Recycling Exclusion

# State 2011 Proposal Comments 2009 Public Meeting Comments 2007 Proposal Comments

1 Alabama Supports withdrawal

2 Arizona No comments specific to

exclusion

3 Arkansas Supports withdrawal Did not support exclusion as proposed

4 ASTSWMO Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion Did not support exclusion as proposed

5 Colorado Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion Did not support exclusion as proposed

6 Connecticut Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion

7 Florida Did not support exclusion as proposed

8 Georgia Supports withdrawal Support unclear, but submitted

comments

9 Illinois Supports withdrawal No comments specific to exclusion

10 Kentucky Supports withdrawal

11 Louisiana Does not support withdrawal

12 Maine Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion Did not support exclusion as proposed

13 Massachusetts Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion Did not support exclusion as proposed

14 Michigan Generally supports exclusion, with changes

15 Minnesota Resubmitted 2007 comments Generally supports exclusion, with changes

16 Missouri Did not support exclusion as proposed

17 Nebraska Generally supports exclusion, with

concerns
18 New Hampshire Supports withdrawal

19 New Jersey Did not support exclusion as proposed

### 6

- 21 Exhibit 6G: Analysis of State Government Comments to EPA from 2007, 2009, & 2011 Regarding the 2008 DSW Final Rule “Offsite Transfer” Recycling Exclusion

# State 2011 Proposal Comments 2009 Public Meeting Comments 2007 Proposal Comments

20 New Mexico Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion

21 NEWMOA Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion Did not support exclusion as proposed

22 New York Likely supports withdrawal No comments specific to exclusion Support unclear, but submitted

comments

23 Ohio Does not support withdrawal

24 Oklahoma Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion

25 Oregon No comments specific to

exclusion Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion

26 Pennsylvania Does not support withdrawal Likely supports exclusion

27 Rhode Island Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion

28 South Carolina No comments specific to

exclusion

29 Tennessee Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion Did not support exclusion as proposed

30 Texas Likely supports withdrawal No comments specific to exclusion

31 Utah Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion

32 Vermont Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion

33 Washington Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion

34 West Virginia Supports withdrawal

35 Wisconsin Supports withdrawal Significant concerns /revise/withdraw

exclusion Did not support exclusion as proposed

### 6

- 22 Exhibit 6H : 2011 DSW Proposal Comment Summary The docket for this rulemaking is EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

Total states commenting 22, plus ASTSWMO, NEWMOA States supporting or likely supporting withdrawal 16, plus ASTSWMO, NEWMOA States not supporting withdrawal 3 States with no comments specific to exclusion 3

Exhibit 6I : 2009 Public Meeting Notice Comment Summary The docket for this rulemaking is EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0315

Total states commenting 15, plus ASTSWMO, NEWMOA States supporting significant revision or repeal of rule/exclusions 13, plus ASTSWMO, NEWMOA States resubmitting 2007 comments 1

States with no comments specific to exclusion 1

Exhibit 6 J : 2007 Proposal Comment Summary The docket for this rulemaking is EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2002

- 0031

Total states commenting 17, plus ASTSWMO, NEWMOA States not supporting exclusion as proposed 9, plus ASTSWMO, NEWMOA States generally or likely supporting exclusion, with changes 4 States with unclear support, but submitted comments 2

States with no comments specific to exclusion 2

Exhibit 6 K : Aggregated Comment Summary (2007, 2009, 2011 comments, no double counting)

Total states commenting 33, plus ASTSWMO, NEWMOA States not supporting transfer

- based exclusion 25, plus ASTSWMO, NEWMOA

States generally or likely supporting transfer

- based exclusion 6 States with no comments specific to exclusion 2

### 7

- 1 

# C HAPTER 

# 7

Supplemental Analyses

This chapter addresses the special analytic topics, evaluative criteria, supporting data, and analytic results, associated with the Federal regulatory agency evaluations required under four White House Executive Orders and two Congressional laws, spanning 1980 to 2012:

7A. Regulatory Planning & Review (199 3 Executive Order 12866)

7B. Impact Analysis (1980 RFA/1996 SBREFA)

7C. Unfunded Mandates Analysis (1995 UMRA)

7D. Federalism Implications (1999 Executive Order 13132)

7E. Energy Impact Analysis (2001 Executive Order 13211)

7F. Employment Impact Analysis ( Executive Order 13563)



## 7A. Regulatory Planning & Review (1993 Executive Order 12866)

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258, requires Federal regulatory agencies such as EPA to determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. As defined in Executive Order 12866, a " significant regulatory action " is any regulato ry action that is likely to result in a rule that may:

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 budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, President's priorities, or principles set forth in the Executive Order. Note : This chapter does not address or present supporting data or analytic results for three other Federal regulatory agency evaluations required by the following Whit e House Executive Orders (EOs):
(1) 1994 EO

- 12898 Federal Act ions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

Income Populations.
(2) 1997 EO

- 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risk & Safety Risks.
(3) 1998 EO

- 13084 Consultation & Coordination w ith Indian Tribal Governments. EPA’s supporting data and analyses addressing these three Executive Orders are presented in EPA’s environmental justice (EJ) analysis document in support of the 2012 DSW revisions. See EPA’s 201 2 Federal Register notice for the

DSW revisions for informat ion about these other analyses and the EJ reference document.

### 7

- 2

Based on the cost estimates presented in this RIA, this RIA concludes that the 2014 revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions do not constitute an “ economically significant ” regulatory action, as defined under the first factor listed above (i.e., the $100 million annual effect threshold),

because the revisions are not expected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The industry compliance cost s estimated in this RIA assuming a 54% notification rate show that the future average annualized cost s avings are expected to be approximately (2012$ ):

 7% discount rate: $1. 0 millio n per year in cost savings

 3% discount rate: $ 1.6 millio n per year in cost savings

 Non

- discounted: $2

. 0 million per year in cost savings



## 7B. Small Business Impact Analysis (1980 RFA/1996 SBREFA)

According to the requirements of the 1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the 1996 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), Federal regulatory agencies are required to make initial determinations if proposed regulatory actions may have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SISNOSE). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies are required to conduct a Regulatory Flexibility Screening Anal ysis (RFSA) to make this determination. This section presents the methodology and findings for the RFSA conducted for the rule. Unless Agencies are able to certify that a particular regulatory action is not expected to have a SISNOSE, the RFA/SBREFA requ ires a formal analysis of the potential adverse economic impacts on small entities, completion of a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), preparation of a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage), and Agency review of the rule within 10 years of promulgation. The small business impact analysis of this RIA follows the four analytic steps described in EPA’s November 2006 RFA/SBREFA compliance final guidance: 90



### Step 1: Determine which small entities are subject to the rule’s requirements. Step 2: Select appropriate measures for determining economic impacts on these small entities and estimate those impacts. Step 3: Determine whether the rule may be certified as not having a significant impact on small entities (SISNOSE). Step 4: Document the screening analysis and include the appropriate RFA statements in the preamble.

Step 1: Identification of Small Entities

Based on the baseline and impact analyses presented in this RIA, the 2014 revisions to the DSW could potentially affec t between 5,000 and 10,000 facilities currently (as of 2009) operating under pre

- 2008 RCRA recycling exclusions plus upwards of 3,865 facilities currently recycling or disposing hazardous waste regulated which could eventually operate under the 2008 DSW

re cycling exclusions and the 2014 DSW revisions. This range of 8,865 to 10,865 potentially

90 EPA’s RFA/SBREFA guidance: “EPA’s Action Development Process: Fin al Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act”, EPA Office of Policy, Economics & Innovation, Nov 2006. http://www.epa.gov/rfa/documents/Guidance

- RegFlexAct.pdf

### 7

- 3

affected facilities is in a wide range of 622 industries (as listed in Appendix A ). For purpose of

t his RFA/SBREFA analysis only the sub

- set of 6

- digit NAICS code in dustries with more than

100 facilities (of all business sizes) potent ially affected were evaluated, as identified according to

two steps:

4. Examined the count of facilities by 6

- digit NAICS for the current population of facilities

recoveri ng RCRA

- regulated hazardous waste based on the 2005 Biennial Report data from the 2008 DSW RIA. This data analysis was a further refinement of the facility counts presented in Exhibit 4E of this RIA by six

- digit NAICS.

5. Expanded the resultant list of industries to capture t he largest industries in the list of affected pre

- 2008 DSW exclu sion facilities (from Exhibits 3H to 3J of this RIA ) identified in the 2009 TRI database. This data analysis was a further refinement of the facility counts presented by six

- digit NAICS.

The above two industry identification steps and the 100 facility count threshold resulted in a list

of 27 6

- digit NAICS code industries. Exhibit 7A below presents small business siz e standards

for the 27 industries expected to be affected by the DSW rule and evaluated for small business impact

.

As presented in Section 3C of this RIA the number of businesses choosing to be subject to the rule (aka “notifiers”) is assumed to be equal to the estimated annual percentage of notifying facilities ( 3.2%) in the eigh t states and territories (AK, ID, IL, IA, NJ, PA, PR, and VI) that have adopted the DSW rule as of April 2012 . I t is assumed in this RIA that 44 states and territories are likely to adopt the 2008 DSW r ule based on state government comments EPA received fo r the 2007 DSW proposed r ule. A total of 3,865 affected facilities have been identified in these 44

states and territories. Based on the 3.2 % annual notification rate, b y 204 6 all 3,865 facilities in

the 44 adopt ing states and territories are assumed t o have notified under the DSW recycling

exclusions.

The numbers of small businesses that are expected to notify are estimated based on an analysis of

actual not ifiers under the 2008 DSW rule, as presented in Appendix E of this RIA. Of the 67

industrial f

acilities which have notified under the 2008 DSW rule during the notification data period analyzed (as of April 11, 2012) , a total of 18 of the 67 facilities are owned by small businesses, which is 27% of all notifiers (i.e., 18/67 = 27%). Thus, for those facilities adopting

the 2014 DSW recycling exclusions, this RIA assumes that 27% are small businesses.

### 7

- 4 Exhibit 7A Small Business Size Standards for 27 Major Industries Potentially Affected by the 2014 DSW Revisions

Item NAICS Industry Description 2007 Count of Companies in Industry* 2007 Count of

Establishments in Industry* SBA small business size standards

in number of employees

or annual revenues**

1 323110 Commercial Lithographic Printing 12,614 13,239 500

2 324110 Petroleum Refineries 98 195 1,500

3 325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Mfg 396 632 1,000

4 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Mfg 540 696 1,000

5 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 803 1,062 750

6 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 763 991 750

7 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 1,132 1,370 500

8 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Mfg 1,087 1,261 500

9 326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 6,272 7,311 500

10 331111 Iron and Steel Mills 235 352 1,000

11 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining & Alloying of Nonferrous Metal

(except Copper, Aluminum) 205 233 750

12 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing <3,698 3,698 500

13 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and

Allied Services to Manufacturers 2,370 2,579 500

14 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing and Coloring 2,622 2,731 500

15 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Mfg 3,567 3,636 500

16 333415 Air Conditioning, Warm Air Heating Equipment, and

Commercial & Industrial Refrigerator Equipment Manufacturing <902 902 750

17 334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 681 716 500

18 334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 871 972 500

19 334418 Printed Circuit Assembly Manufacturing <1,021 1,021 500

20 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 1,315 1,555 750

21 336412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 333 440 500

22 336413 Other Aircraft Part and Auxiliary Equipment Mfg 770 890 1,000

23 541710 Research & Development in Physical, Engineering, Life Sciences 11,382 14,457 750

24 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal <751 751 $12.5 million

25 611310 Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools 2,419 NA $7 million

26 622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals <5,159 5,159 $34.5 million

27 928110 National Security No data No data No data

Explanatory Notes:

* N umber of companies and establishments are the totals reported in the 2007 Census of Manufacturers; o nly a subset of the se should be affected by the 2014 DSW revisions.

** Source: US Small Business Administration. Table of Small Busi ness Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Effective November 5, 2010.

### 7

- 5

Step 2: Select appropriate measures for determining economic impacts on these small entities and estimate those impacts

According to Exhibit 5G of EPA’s 2006 RFA/SBREFA small business impact guidance, there are three numerical tests that EPA may use to determine if small entities may be significantly impacted by a rule:

 Sales test: Annualized compliance costs as a percent age of sale s

 Cash f

low test: Debt

- financed compliance costs relative to current cash flow

 Profit test: Annualized compliance costs as a percentage of profits

For purposes of this RIA, the sales test method was used to determine if small entities may be

s ignificantly impacted by the rule.

Step 3 & Step 4: Determine and document whether the rule may be certified as having “ No SISNOSE ”

This RIA determines if the 2014 DSW revisions may have a “ significant impact on a substantial number of small entities ” (i .e., SISNOSE) which may become subject to the requirements of the rule. This determination involved comparing the average estimated regulatory compliance costs for each entity in each industry with the respective annual revenues for each entity. The

perc entage results calculated for each small entity were compared to the three impact thresholds defined in Table 2 of EPA’s November 2006 RFA/SBREFA guidance as reproduced in Exhibit 7B below, regarding the appropriate SISNOSE determination category.

Exhibit 7B Reproduction of Table 2 “ Example SISNOSE Certification Decision Process ” from

EPA’s November 2006 RFA/SBREFA Guidance *

Impact Threshold Number of Small Entities Subject to the Rule and Experiencing Given Economic Impact Percent of All Small

Entities Subject to the

Rule That are Experiencing Given Economic Impact SISNOSE Determination Category

Less than 1% for all

affected small entities Any number Any percent Presumed No SISNOSE

1% or greater for one or

more affected small

entities Fewer than 100 Less than 20% Presumed No SISNOSE

Fewer than 100 20% or more Uncertain

- No Presumption

100

- 999 Less than 20% Presumed No SISNOSE

100

- 999 20% or more Uncertain

- No Presumption

1,000 or more Any percent Uncertain

- No Presumption 3% or greater for one or

more affected small

entities Fewer than 100 Less than 20% Presumed No SISNOSE

Fewer than 100 20% or more Uncertain

- No Presumption

100

- 999 Less than 20% Uncertain

- No Presumption

100

- 999 20% or more Presumed Ineligible for

### 7

- 6 Certification

1,000 or more Any percent Presumed Ineligible for

Certification

* Source: Table 2 (page 24) in “EPA’s Action Development Process: Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as

amen ded by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act,” OPEI Regulatory Development Series, November 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/rfa/documents/Guidance

- RegFlexAct.pd f 

### Because most of the provisions of the 2014 DSW rule result in cost savings based on voluntary participation in one of the new solid waste exclusions, the average annual impact per facility affected by the rule would be a small cost savings of $868 per year and therefore there would be no adverse impacts on these facilities. However, for facilities that do not choose to participate in

one of the new exclusion s , they could still incur costs of documenting legiti macy in the case where the recycled product does not otherwise meet Factor 4 (i.e., is not comparable to an analogous product, or does not have an analogous pr oduct from raw material and is not a generally recognized commodity , or does not result from hazardous secondary materials being recycled are returned to the original process or processes from which they were generated to be

reused (e.g., closed loop recycling). EPA estimates only 1% of wastes would incur the

documentation . Therefore, for the pu rpose of this RFA, EPA assumes that the average per facility cost for those facilities that would be impacted by this provision is $689 (the cost for documenting one wastestream,).

The estimated impacts on small entities are presented below in Exhibit 7C (54% notification rate). As shown in the Exhibit 7C, the average annual impact on small businesses is estimated to be significantly less than 1% of annual sales for all small entities

. The highest impact as a percentage of sales is estimated at 0.017 % 

### of annual sales. The total number of small businesses impacted at this level is estimated at 28 small entities under the 54% notification rate which represents 2.6% of the 1,064 small entities which could be impacted by the rule . Based on this analysis, th is RIA concludes that the 2014 revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions are not expected to have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (i.e., “No SISNOSE” determination).

Limitations of RFA/SBREFA Determination

The as sumption of this RIA that 27% of recycling exclusion notifiers will be small businesses was based on data from actual notifiers under the 2008 DSW rule in the 3.3 years of its effective period to date (i.e., December 2008 to April 2011), and may not be rep resentative of future notifiers, nor of facilities operating under pre

- 2008 RCRA recycling exclusions.

This RIA did not evaluate annual revenue data specific to small businesses. Instead, this RIA developed a proxy for annual revenues based on establishm ent data from the Census of Manufacturers. For example if the small business size standard was 1,000 employees, the average value of shipmen ts for those facilities with 10 to 500 employees was used as a proxy for small business revenues. This value may n ot be an accurate representation of actual notifiers

under the rule.

This RIA estimates that under the 54% notification rate 1,064 small entities could be affected by today's rule out of a total 3,940 affected small plu s non

- small entities (i.e., 27 %; fro m Exhibit 7C). These facility counts include facilities currently operating under the affected pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (6 exclusions), plus additional current RCRA hazardous waste

### 7

- 7

recyclers which in the future could potentially operate under the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions plus 2014 revisions. However, these facility count estimates are based on analyses presented in EPA's RIA involving EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database for the pre

- 2008 exclusions,

and EPA's RCRA Hazardous Waste Bien nial Report database for potential adoption of the 2008 DSW exclusions, and both databases have limitations which may make these facility count estimates inaccurate. Specifically, some of the facilities identified using the TRI database may

be RCRA condit ionally

- exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) which will not be affected by today's proposal (and thus may contribute to over

- estimating in the RIA both small and total small plus non

- small entities affected under the pre

- 2008 exclusions), and the BR d atabase does not include comprehensive data on RCRA small quantity generators (SQGs) which may

contribute to under

- estimating in the RIA both small and total small plus non

- small entities.

Small business impacts were only estimated for 27 of the industrie s that will have the largest

number o f impacted facilities out of 622 6

- digit NAICS code industries (as listed in Appendix

A ) that may be affected by the pre

- 2008 and/or 2008 DSW exclusions. This RIA assumes that these 27 largest impacted industries represent the largest potential impact to small entities for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA impact evaluation. There may be significant impacts to small

businesses in some of the industries that were not evaluated.

### 7

- 8 Exhibit 7C Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2014 DS W Revisions on Small businesses

(54% notification rate, 3% discount rate) 1/

A B C D E F G H I 

### J

Item NAICS Industry Small Company Average Annual

Revenue (2012$/yr) 2/ Average

Annual Cost Impact Per Facility (2012$/yr) Annual Cost

Impact as a

Percent of

Annual

Revenue 3/ Total

Number of

Businesses Impacted in

Year 2016 4/ Number of

Small

Businesses Impacted in

Year 2016 5/ Total

Number of

Businesses Impacted

in Year

2063 6/ Number

of Small

Businesses Impacted

in Year

2063 7/

1 323110 Commercial Lithographic Printing $8,161,602 $689



### 0.00844% 3 1 43 12

2 324110 Petroleum Refineries $1,537,248,716 $689 

### 0.00004% 7 2 83 23

3 325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical

Manufacturing $49,023,390 $689 

### 0.00141% 4 1 43 12

4 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing $118,588,973 $689 

### 0.00058% 7 2 86 23

5 325211 Plastics Material and Resin

Manufacturing $94,751,550 $689 

### 0.00073% 5 1 64 17

6 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation

Manufacturing $94,154,056 $689 

### 0.00073% 6 1 77 21

7 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing $31,468,344 $689 

### 0.00219% 7 2 86 23

8 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical

Product and Preparation Manufacturing $28,444,332 $689



### 0.00242% 4 1 51 14

9 326199 All Other Plastics Product

Manufacturing $13,246,157 $689 

### 0.00520% 3 1 34 9

10 331111 Iron and Steel Mills $145,513,720 $689 

### 0.00047% 4 1 47 13

11 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and

Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) $55,535,573 $689



### 0.00124% 2 0 18 5

12 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal

Manufacturing $13,709,787 $689 

### 0.00503% 2 0 9 2

13 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except

Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied

Services to Manufacturers $11,729,470 $689



### 0.00587% 6 2 75 20

### 7

- 9 Exhibit 7C Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2014 DS W Revisions on Small businesses

(54% notification rate, 3% discount rate) 1/

A B C D E F G H I 

### J

Item NAICS Industry Small Company Average Annual

Revenue (2012$/yr) 2/ Average

Annual Cost Impact Per Facility (2012$/yr) Annual Cost

Impact as a

Percent of

Annual

Revenue 3/ Total

Number of

Businesses Impacted in

Year 2016 4/ Number of

Small

Businesses Impacted in

Year 2016 5/ Total

Number of

Businesses Impacted

in Year

2063 6/ Number

of Small

Businesses Impacted

in Year

2063 7/

14 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing,

Anodizing and Coloring $4,751,901 $689 

### 0.01450% 18 5 235 63

15 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated

Metal Product Manufacturing $9,300,367 $689 

### 0.00741% 3 1 32 9

16 333415 Air

- Conditioning and Warm Air

Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing $22,934,067 $689



### 0.00300% 2 0 9 3

17 334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board

Manufacturing $3,959,633 $689 

### 0.01740% 9 2 104 28

18 334413 Semiconductor and Related Device

Manufacturing $29,146,505 $689 

### 0.00236% 4 1 57 15

19 334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic

Assembly) Manufacturing $13,273,845 $689 

### 0.00519% 3 1 20 5

20 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts

Manufacturing $18,009,218 $689 

### 0.00383% 3 1 30 8

21 336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts

Manufacturing $29,103,856 $689 

### 0.00237% 3 1 30 8

22 336413 Other Aircraft Part and Auxiliary

Equipment Manufacturing $25,126,126 $689 

### 0.00274% 4 1 54 15

23 541710 Research and Development in the

Physical, Engineering, and Life

Sciences $6,662,747 $689



### 0.01034% 6 1 82 22

24 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and

Disposal $6,966,571 $689 

### 0.00989% 2 1 32 9

25 611310 Colleges, Universities and Professional

Schools $8,352,604 $689 

### 0.00825% 8 2 115 31

26 622110 General Medical and Surgical

Hospitals NA $689 NA 3 1 47 13

### 7

- 10 Exhibit 7C Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2014 DS W Revisions on Small businesses

(54% notification rate, 3% discount rate) 1/

A B C D E F G H I 

### J

Item NAICS Industry Small Company Average Annual

Revenue (2012$/yr) 2/ Average

Annual Cost Impact Per Facility (2012$/yr) Annual Cost

Impact as a

Percent of

Annual

Revenue 3/ Total

Number of

Businesses Impacted in

Year 2016 4/ Number of

Small

Businesses Impacted in

Year 2016 5/ Total

Number of

Businesses Impacted

in Year

2063 6/ Number

of Small

Businesses Impacted

in Year

2063 7/

27 928110 National Security NA $689 NA 8 2 114 31

28 All Other Industries NA NA NA 200 54 2261 610

29 Grand Total Number of Facilities Impacted =

- - - 335 90 3940 1064

Explanatory Notes: 1/ The 54% notification rate is based on the assumption that 3.2% of facilities notify under the 2008 DSW exclusions as revis ed under the 2014 DSW rule each year. By year

2063 a total of 3,865 facilities will have notified under one of the 2008 DSW recycli ng exclusions. In addition 1% of 7,500 facilities (midpoint between 5,000 and 10,000 facilities) or 75 facilities that operate under pre

- 2008 exclusions may be affected. Annual cost impact per facility is discounted by 3% to reflect change in price level from 2016
to 2012. The total number of affected facilities is 3,940 (3,865 + 75). 2/ Small company annual revenue is approximated using the average establishment value of shipments from Census of Manufacture rs Data. For example the number is the

average establishment value of shipments for small establishments (e.g., for industries with an SBA small business size standard of 1 ,000 employees, the number is the average value of shipments for facilities with less than 500 employees). This estimate is inten ded to serve as a conservative value of annual revenue for small businesses. 3/ Column E divided by Column D times 100. 4/ In the first three years and four mont hs following the effective date of the 2008 DSW final rule (as of April 11, 2012) 67 facilities have notified (3.2% of affected facilities located in adopting states per year) under one of the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions. A rate of 24 facilities notifying per y ear is continued up through 2015. Starting in 2016 an additional 3% of facilities will notify under one of the DSW recycling exclusions every year. 5/ Based on industry notifi cations under the 2008 DSW rule, approximately 27% of notifiers were small businesses. Calculated as Column G * 0.27.

6/ Total n umber of b usinesses impacted in 2063 is based on the assumption discussed in footnote 1. 7/ Based on industry notific ations under the 2008 DSW rule where approximately 27% of notifiers were small businesses. Calculated as Column I * 0.27.

### 7

- 11



## 7C. Unfunded Mandates Analysis (1995 UMRA)

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires that federal agencies assess the effects of federal regulations on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. In particular, UMRA requires that agencies prepare a written statement t o accompany any rulemaking that “includes 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 (annually adjusted for inflation) in any one year” (Section 202(a)). Potential future annual added direct costs to state, local, and tribal governments could include the following paperwork activities

associated with Revision 1

, Revision 3

, Revision 4 , and Revision 5 of the 2014 revisions:

1. Receive, revi ew and file biennial notifications ( Revision 4 ) 91



### 2. Receive, review and file verified recycler exclusion variance ( Revision 1 )

3. Evaluate legitimacy documentation and certification kept on site in facility records, upon request ( Revision 3 )

4. Receive, review, and file re

- application for variance or non

- waste determination
( Revision 4 )

5. Review, receive, and file partial reclamation variance ( Revision 4)

6. EPA provides online public access to a list (including documentation) of facilities receiving non

- waste determinat ions ( Revision 4 ).

7. Petition process for re

- manufacturing exclusion ( Revision 5 )

The state government share of estimated future average annualized direct costs is displayed
below in Exhibit 7D, which indicates that the maximum annual cost to state governments is $ 0.3 million for the 54% notification rate. No impacts are expected for local or tribal governments. Because the impacts of all the regulatory options are expected to result in state government expenditures well below the $100 million UMRA threshold, this RIA concludes that the 2014

DSW revisions is not an unfunded mandate based on this UMRA cost criterion.

91 Notification is a requirement of the generator

- controlled exclusion and transfer

- based exclusion of the 2008 DSW Rule (revised to be the 2014 DSW verified recycler exclusion). The cost to noti fy under Revisions 1, 2, and 5 are covered by the 2008 DSW Rule cost estimates and not the 2014 DSW Revisions and not evaluated in this RIA. The 2014 DSW revision makes notification a condition of the exclusion rather than a requirement of the exclusion.

### 7

- 12 Exhibit 7D

Estimated Maximum Annual State Cost Burden Associated with 2014 DSW Revisions (2012$) 1/

Item Type of Direct Compliance Cost 54% Notification Rate

Notes Count of

Submissions per Year State Cost

per Submission Total

Annual

Cost

1 Receive, Review and File Biennial Notifications ( Revision 3 Requirement 3A, Revision 3 Requirement 3B, Revision 4 Requirement 4B, Revision 4 Requirement 4C) 921 $6.34 $5,843 2

2 Receive, Review and File Verified Recycler Exclusion Variance
( Revision 1 Requirement 1B) 14 $6,257.93 $87,611 7

3 Evaluation of Legitimacy Documentation ( Revision 3 Requirement 3A and 3B) 45 $2,158.76 $97,144 3, 4

4 Receive, Review and File Re

- application for Variance or Non

waste Determination ( Revision 4 Requirement 4A) 11 $8,635.06 $94,986 5

5 Review Partial Reclamation Variance ( Revision 4 Requirement
4C) 4 $6,254.05 $25,016 6

6 EPA provides online public access to a list (including supporting documentation) of facilities receiving non

- waste determinations
( Revision 4) 7 $76.07 $533 6

7 Petition Process for Remanufacturing Exclusion ( Revision 5 Requirement 5C) 1 $13,774.58 $6,887 6

Total Annual Costs = $318,019
Explanatory Notes: 1/ Data depict the estimated annual costs that will be incurred by states in any one year. The cost is overestimated for t he earlier years of the period of performance evaluated (2014 through 2063) and reflective of the maximum number of submissions

in later years. 2/ 50% for the total number of wastes covered under the rule submit notifications every year. State cost estimate obtained f rom the "Supporting Statement for Revisions to the RCRA Defini tion of Solid Waste (Proposed Ru le), June 30, 2011 (i. e., 2011 DSW ICR) inflated to 2012 dollars. The notification agency costs under Revision 1, Revision 2, and Revision 5 are covered by

the 2008 DSW Rule and not the 2014 DSW Revisions. The estimated number of notifications under Revision 3 is 1% of 7,500 facilities recovering 11 wastes each for pre

- 2008 exclusion facilities and 1% of 3,821 RCRA recycling facilities recovering 2.2

wastes each. The estimated number of notifications under Revision 4 is 74 non

- waste determinations, 4 variances, and 4 partial

reclamation variances. 3/ Assumes that legitimacy documentation is prepared for 1% of affected pre

- 2008 wastes and 2008 DSW transfer

- based

exclusion wastes (revised to be the 2014 verified recycler exclusion) and revised every three years. Assume State re views legitimacy documentation for 5% of wastes every year. State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR inflated to 2012

dollars. 4/ Assumes that legitimacy documentation is prepared for all 2008 DSW generator

- controlled exclusion wastes. Non

- waste

de termination exclusion waste agency costs are assume d to be covered under the determination process. Assume State reviews legitimacy documentation for 5% of wastes every year. State costs obtained from 2011 DSW ICR inflated to 2012 dollars.

5/ Assumes non

- waste dete r mination is resubmitted every 10 years (74/10 = 7 per year) resulting in 7 non

- waste determination applications per years. Every year 4 variances are filed. State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR inflated to 2012

dollars.

6/ State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR inflated to 2012 dollars.

7/ This RIA uses agency burden estimates from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.24 Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal)”, January 2012. The variance from “Classification as Solid Waste Material that are Reclaimed But Must Be Reclaimed Further” under 40 CFR 260.31(c) is assumed to be similar in scope to preparing a variance for the verified rec ycler exclusion. Labor rate estimates reflect estimated

from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Proposed Rule) OMB

Control No. 2050

- 0202, EPA ICR No. 2310.02,” June 30, 2011. State costs are inflated to 2012 dolla rs.

### 7

- 13



## 7D. Federalism Implications (1999 Executive Order 13132)

The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 ( Federal Register , Vol.64, No. 153, 10 Aug 1999) furthers the policies of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state/local government consultation process for the development of Federal regulations that have federalism implications. Federalism implications refers to 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 th e distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For purpose of complying with the Section 6 consultation process of EO 13132,

this section of the RIA evaluates whether the 2014 revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions may “ impose substantial direct compliance costs ” on state/local governments. EPA’s 2008 guidance 92 

### for compliance with EO 13132 describes two numerical methods (i.e., numerical tests) for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications wit h respect to the

“ substantial direct compliance costs ” criterion:

 $25 million test : Annualized direct compliance costs to state/local governments in aggregate of $25 million or more 93



###  1% test : Annualized direct compliance costs to state/local governments equal or exceed 1% of state/local government annual revenues

As listed above in the prior (UMRA) section of this RIA, potential future annual added costs to state governments could include the following paperwork activities associated with Revision 1

, Rev ision 3

, Revision 4 , and Revision 5 :

1. Receive, review and file biennial notifications ( Revision 4) 94



### 2. Receive, review and file verified recycler exclusion variance ( Revision 1)

3. Evaluate legitimacy documentation and certification kept on site in facility reco rds, upon request ( Revision 3 )

4. Receive, review, and file re

- application for variance or non

- waste determination
( Revision 4 )

5. Review, receive, and file partial reclamation variance ( Revision 4)

6. EPA provides online public access to a list (including documentation) of facilities receiving non

- waste determinations ( Revision 4 ).

7. Petition process for re

- manufacturing exclusion ( Revision 5 )

As also displayed in the prior (UMRA) section of this RIA in Exhibit 7D, the state government

92 The two methods are from page 6 of “EPA’s Action Development Process

-- Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism,” OPEI Regulatory Development Series, Nov 2008, 62 pages at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/documents/federalismguide11

- 00

- 08.pdf

93 Although one of the stated purposes of EO 13132 in its first paragraph is “to further the policies of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), EPA’s $25 million annual direct cost trigger is 75% lower than the $100 million annual direct cost trigger prescribed in Section 202 of UMRA.

94 Notification is a requirement of the generator

- controlled exclusion and transfer

- based exclusion of the 2008 DSW Rule (revised to be the 2014 DSW verified recycler exclusion). The cost to notify under Revisions 1, 2, a nd 5 are covered by the 2008 DSW Rule cost estimates and not the 2014 DSW Revisions and not evaluated in this RIA. The 2014 DSW revision makes notification a condition of the exclusion rather than a requirement of the exclusion.

### 7

- 14

share of estimated fut ure annual direct costs indicates that the maximum annual direct cost to state governments is $ 0.3 million per year for the 54% notification rate. No added costs are expected for local or tribal governments. Because these direct costs are well below the $25
million test threshold, this RIA concludes that the 2014 DSW revisions does not meet the Federalism implication “ substantial direct compliance costs” criterion.



## 7E. Energy Impact Analysis (2001 Executive Order 13211)

Executive Order 13211 “Actions Co ncerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) requires Federal regulatory agencies such as EPA to prepare and submit a “ Statement of Energy Effects ” to OMB for those matters identified as

si gnificant energy actions. As defined in Executive Order 13211, a “significant energy action” is any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of 

### proposed rulemaking that:

1. Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy;

or
2. Is designated by OMB as a significant energy action.

With respect to energy supply and prices, the annualized costs represent a very small fraction of

revenue as the total estimated cost savings of the 2014 DSW rule is $1. 0 million per year (Exhibit 5F, Chapter 5). This represents no added costs to th e $1.408 trillion 95 

### spent on energy in

2008. As a result, any energy consumpt ion changes attributable to the DSW rule should not significantly influence supply, d istribution, or use of energy.



## 7F. Empl oyment Impact Analysi s (2011 Executive Order 13563)

Consistent with requirements under Executive Order 13563 “ Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821; Janu ary 18, 2011), this RIA estimates the poten tial impact of

the 2014 DSW rule on employ ment

. 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

. ” Exhibit 7E below displays an estim ate of 29

, 794 average annual labor hours required for affected industries to comply with the DSW rule . On a

per

- facility basis, if divi ded across the average annual 2, 679 affected entities, the annual labor

hours for compliance per

- facilit y is small ( 11

. 1 hours per year ). Thus it is unlikely that any

affected faci lity would actually hire a new full

- time employee to assist with regulatory compliance solely as a result of the 2014 DSW rule , rather than a ssign the DSW rule complia nce duties to existing personnel

.

However, this RIA does not provide a n an alysis of labor market effects

. 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

95 US Energy Information Ad ministration, Annual Energy Review 2010, Table 3.5 Consumer Expenditure Estimates for Energy by Source, 1970

- 2009 available at http://eia.doe.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec3_11.pdf

### 7

- 15

factors of production (including labor) available to the economy. However, the regulated sector generally has to rely on revenues generated by their market outputs to cover the costs of supplying incr eased environmental quality. Within their budget constraints, in providing an increased supply of environmental quality , industries may reduce their demand for other factors of production. In general, the net effect of an environmental regulation on empl oyment in regulated sectors and the ov erall economy is indeterminate according to Mo rgenstern, Pizer and
Shih (2002 ). 96



### Exhibit 7E

Summary of Annual Industry Labor Hours Estimated in this RIA for Compliance with the Requirements of the 2014 DSW Rule

Revision s
of 2014 DSW r ule A B C D E (A x B x C x

D )

Average annual labor hours per f

acility or per waste Average

annual

c ount of

affected

facilities Count

m odifier

#1 Count

modifie

r #2 Total average

a nnual industry

labor h ours (all

affected
facilities)

1A: Future cost sa vings from withdrawing 2008 DSW condition requiring reasonable efforts to audit recycler legitimacy (6) to (20) 4,722 30.4 % (8

, 613 ) to (28

, 710 ) (m.p. ( 1 8

, 662 ) )

1B: Recycler Variance 142 275 35.6% 13,902 1C: Domestic Recycling Only 0.00*

1D: Definition of “Contained” 0.00*

1E : Notification 0.00*

1F : Speculative accumulation labeling 0.00*

2 A: Definition of “c ontained” 0.00*

2 B: Notification (r equirement vs.

c ondition) 0.00*

2 C: Speculative accumulation recordkeeping & l abeling 0.00*

2 D: Recordkeeping r equirement s
for r eclamation u nder t oll

m anufacturing agreements &

s ame c ompany t ransfer 0.00*

2 E: Re

- structure the location of

the non

- land based and land

- based unit operational requirements in

40 CFR 261 (0.033) 178 37.9 % (2)

3 A: Apply codified legitimacy definition to p re

- 2008 DSW

e xclusions 6 to 20 7,500 11 1% 4,950 to 16, 500 (m.p.
10,725)

3 A: Apply codified legitimacy

definition to 2008 DSW transfer

based exclusions (revised to be the 2014 DSW verified recycler 6 to 20 4,722 2.2 1% 623 to 2,077 (m.p. 1, 350 )

96 Source: Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer, and Jhih

- Shyang S hih. (2002) “Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry

- Level Perspective,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 412

- 436.

### 7

- 16 Exhibit 7E Summary of Annual Industry Labor Hours Estimated in this RIA for Compliance with the Requirements of the 2014 DSW Rule

Revision s
of 2014 DSW r ule A B C D E (A x B x C x

D )

Average annual labor hours per f

acility or per waste Average

annual

c ount of

affected

facilities Count

m odifier

#1 Count

modifie

r #2 Total average

a nnual industry

labor h ours (all

affected
facilities)
exclusion)

3 B: Legi timacy documentation

a pplied to 2008 DSW generator

controlled and non

- waste

determination e xclusions 6 to 20 280 2.2 30.4 % 1,1 24 to 3, 745 (m.p. 2, 435 )

4A: Partial variance & n on

- waste

determination re

- applications 7.5

75 73.5

4 82.5 %

86.9% 4 54

261

Total = 715

4 B: Biennial n otification

c ompliance 0.075

0.075 73.5

235.2 82 .5%

49.3% 5

9

Total = 14

4 C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR
260.31(c) DSW v ariance for

p artially r ecycled m aterials 0 to

122 0 to

10 0 to

80% 0 to

976 (m.p. 488)

4 D: Non

- waste d etermination

p etitioner s m ust d emonstrate w hy

t hey c annot or s hould n ot m eet

e xisting DSW e xclusions 0.00*

5 A: Remanufacturing: f

uture c ost

s avings for e ligible f

acilities 0.00*

5 B: Remanufacturing: five

e ligibility c onditions 0.00*

5 C: Remanufacturing p etition

p rocess 29 386 1.5% 168

6A: Hazardous Waste/Materials Training 0. 00* f or LQGs with no change in

generator status

31.93 for LQG s who change status to SQG

51.27 for LQGs who changes status to
CESQG

0. 00* f or S QGs with no change in

generator status

1 9.27 CE SQG 2,8 88

352

616

856

64 30.4% 0

3, 417

9

, 601

0

3 75

Total = 1 3

, 393 6B: Contingency Plan 0. 00* f or LQGs with no change in

generator status

11.36 for LQGs who change status to SQG 11.36 for LQGs who 2,8 88

352

616 30.4% 0

1,216

2,127

### 7

- 17 Exhibit 7E Summary of Annual Industry Labor Hours Estimated in this RIA for Compliance with the Requirements of the 2014 DSW Rule

Revision s
of 2014 DSW r ule A B C D E (A x B x C x

D )

Average annual labor hours per f

acility or per waste Average

annual

c ount of

affected

facilities Count

m odifier

#1 Count

modifie

r #2 Total average

a nnual industry

labor h ours (all

affected
facilities) change status to
CESQG

0. 00* f or S QGs with no change in

generator status

0. 00* f or CES QGs with no change in

generator status 856

64 0

0
Total = 3,343

6C: Emergency Preparedness Plan

0. 00* f or LQGs with no change in

generator status

5.7 for LQG s who change
status to SQG 6.9 for LQGs who change status to

CE SQG

0. 00* f or S QGs with no change in

generator status

1.2 CE SQG 2,8 88

352

616

856

64 30.4% 0

610

1,292

0

23
Total = 1,925

Column total = 29

, 794

Notes:

 Column A labor hours derived from “Information Collection Request” (ICR) documents referenced in Chapter 5 of this RIA. Becau se this RIA applies a 50

- year period

- of

- analysis whereas ICRs typically apply a 3

- year period, the average annual labor hour estima tes displayed in this Exhibit do not necessarily match the average annual labor hour estimates in the ICR reference documents.

 Columns B, C and D are the numerical factors applied in Chapter 5 of this RIA.

 *The RIA accounts for labor hours associated with this revision in the analytic baseline (i.e., current industry practices or are already included in the 2008 DSW rule) and does not predict the 2014 DSW rule will require additional labor hours above the baseline.

### 8

- 1 

# C HAPTER 

# 8

Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits

For the 2014 Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

This chapter provides qualitative descriptions of three categories of potential future
environmental and economic benefits, which could be associated with the 2014 DSW revisions. This chapter identifies at least one benefit for each of the si x revision s pr esented in the 2014 revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions. Some revision s have multiple potential benefits associated with multiple components (requirements). The three potential benefit categories discussed in this chap ter and the 2014 revisions to the 2008 DSW rule that provide these benefits are the following:

8A. Potential r eduction in future environmental damages associated with industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials ( Revision 1 , 5 and 6 ).

8B. Potential improvement in environment al compliance:

1. Clearer and more specific regulatory standards improve environmental compliance
( Revision s 2

, 3 ).

2. More stringent recordkeeping provisions improve environmental compliance
( Revision s 2

, 3

, 5 , 6 ).

3. Self

- reporting requirements (e.g., notification requirements) improve environmental compliance ( Revision s 1

, 2

, 4

, 5 ).

4. Increased likelihood of detection and potential penalty for non

- compliance improves environmental compliance ( Revision s 1

, 2

, 3

, 4

, 5 , 6 ).

8C. More specific standards resu lt in reduced liability, less uncertainty for the regulated entity, and lower legal and credit costs ( Revision s 2

, 3 ).

One commenter 97 

### on the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recyc ling exclusions expressed concern that the proposed revisions would decrea se recyclin g causing more manufacturing from

vi rgin materials, thereby hindering the resource conservation and sustainable materials

management objectives of RCRA . However, this RIA does not anticipate there will be a

decrease in current recycling because EPA has significantly reduced the likelihood of facilities incurring legitimacy documentation costs through its revisions to Factor 4 and eliminated legitimacy petition and containment standard costs for the pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions in the

2014 DSW f

inal rule. EPA estimates that less than 1% of recycled wastes streams would incur these costs and that the cost would not be high enough to discourage recycling.

Moreover, EPA is replacing the transfer

- based exclusion with the verified recycler exclusion

, which reduces the cost of recycling for generators, thus increasing the likelihood that they will

97 Source: Pages 5 and 10 of comment submitted October 20, 2011 by Susan Parker Bodine of the Barnes an d Thornburg law firm (Washington DC) on behalf of the Federal Recycling and Remediation Coalition (FRRC), on EPA’s 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions (commenter ID nr. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0255 available at http://www.regulations.gov )

### 8

- 2

recycle. While the verified recycler exclusion increases costs on the recycler, these are generally sunk costs for RCRA permitted facilities, so EPA antic ipates that recycling will increase under the verified recycler exclusion.

Finally, EPA is finalizing an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for certain higher

- value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another, for the purpose of extending the useful life of the solvent by remanufacturing the spent solvent back into the commercial grade solvent. This remanufacturing exclusion will help promote sustainable materials management by extending the productive use of these materials, whic h reduces the need for raw materials used and the environmental impacts associated with production of these materials. Further discussion of the remanufacturing exclusion can be found in sections VII and XVI of the preamble, and a lifecycle analysis in Ch apter 4 of the “regulatory impact analysis” (RIA) for this rule.



## 8A. Reduction in Future Environmental Damage Cases Associated With Recycling Hazardous Secondary Materials

8A.1

. Introduction to Historical Recycling Damage Cases

As noted in the Federal Register notice to the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions final rule (74 FR 64675), generators of hazardous secondary materials which do not reclaim these materials themselves often ship the materials to be reclaimed to a commercial facility or another

manufact urer in order to avoid the costs of disposing of the material. The generator typically pays the reclamation facility to accept the materials or receives a salvage fee that only partially offsets the cost of transporting and managing the hazardous secondar y materials. In such situations, the generator has relinquished control of the hazardous secondary materials . T he entity receiving such materials may not always have financial incentives to manage them as useful products , because of low and volatile comme rcial value

.

This behavior is evidenced by the results of EPA’s 2012 i ndustrial recycling h istorical d amages

s tudy. 98 

### The study identified a total of 250 historical environmental damage cases for which some form of environmental damage occurred between 19 82 and 2011 at facilities that recycle industrial hazardous secondary materials. Based on 199 of the 250 cases with damage start year data, 57% of the cases actually started damages before 1982 (an average of 3.8 cases per year

from 1914

- 1981) and 43% of the cases started damages after 1982 (an average of 1.3 cases per year from 1982

- 2011). The study selected year 1982 as the historical cut

- off year because EPA published the bulk (i.e., base program) of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations between 1980 and

1982

. A sub

- total 229 (92%) of the recycling damage cases were associated with off

- site third

party commercial recyclers, with clear instances of recyclable materials discard resulting in risks to human health and the environment, including cases of large

- sca le soil and ground water

contamination.

98 “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials,” EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, December 31, 2012, available from the docket for the 2014 DSW
revisions final rule (docket ID nr. EPA

- H Q

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742) at http://www.regulations.gov

### 8

- 3

8A.2. Types of Damage Cases

The types and prevalence of environmental damages associated with the 250 damage cases included (source: p.7 of EPA’s 201 4 damage case study):

 Soil conta mination 75%

 Groundwater cont amination 46%

 Abandoned ma terials 44%

 Surface water contamination 27%

 Air pollution 26%

 Sediment contamination 14%

 Unknown 6%

As displayed in Exhibit 8 A below, an average count of eight historical recycling damage cases per year have been identified in EPA’s 201 4 damage case study over the period 1982 to 2011.

The historical cases come from 33 states (AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, LA,
MA, M D, MI, MO, MS, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, V A, UT, WA, WI) and Puerto Rico.

8A.3

. Damage Case Cleanup Costs

As summarized in Exhibit 8 A below, EPA’s 2012 historical recycling damage case study provided cleanup cost data for 115 (46%) of the 250 historical cases. The summary of cleanup costs displayed in Exhibit 8 A is based on a mix of price levels during the 1982 to 2011 data collection period updated to year 2012 (i.e., 201 2 $) , prior to being incorporated into the exhibit.

The cost data are also presented according to two additive categories:

 Pre

- 1994 costs : Actual historical cleanup expenditures up to the 1994 date of each damage case file record (for a subset of cases for which this data is available).

 Post

- 1994 costs : Projected f uture additional cleanup costs for damage cases which were not completely remediated as of the 1994 dates of the damage case file records (for a

subset of cases for which this data is available.

On a 2012$ inflation adjusted basis, the cleanup costs for a ny single damage case are

summarized as follows:

 Cleanup costs ranged between $7,700 and $112.8 million per damage case.

 Average cleanup cost per damage case = $7.8 million.

 Median cleanup cost per damage case = $2.2 million.

 Average count of recycling da mage cases causing environmental damages during the 30

- year study period = 8.3 cases per year (i.e., (250 total cases) / (1982

- 2011 post

- RCRA base program 30

- year study period).

 Average annual cleanup cost = $64.7 million per year (i.e., ($7.8 million aver age per damage case) x (8.3 cases per year)).

### 8

- 4

Exhibit 8 B below breaks out historical and projected expentitures from Exhibit 8 A by state or US territory where the damage cases occurred. Exhibit 8 B is based on the same subset of 115

cases as Exhibit 8 A.

Exhibit 8 C below lists the subset of 115 damage cases from which cleanup cost data for Exhibits

8 A and 8 B were derived. Both unadjusted and adjusted (2012$) price data are displayed for each

case. The 2012$ updated cleanup cost data were used to populate Exhibits 8 A and 8 B.

### 8

- 5 Exhibit 8 A Estimate of Average Annual Historical Cleanup Costs and Related Expenditures

For 115 of the 2 50 Industrial Recycling Environmental Damage Cases Between 198 2

- 201 1 *

A. Summary of Cleanup Cost Data for 115 of the 250 Damage Cases With Cost Data:

Cleanup c ost range bin A B C D E F (B+D)

Count of

historical damage cases Total actual

historical cleanup

cost expended for each cost range up to year 1994 (2012$) Count of

historical damage cases with projected cleanup costs Total future

projected cleanup

cost for each cost range beyond 1994 (2012$) Count of

projected future

& actual

historical damage cases Total projected

future plus historical cleanup costs (2012$)

1 $10,000 $100,000 13 $632,78 6 0 13 $632,78 6

2 $100,000 $250,000 7 $1,257,903 0 7 $1,257,903

3 $250,000 $500,000 10 $3,714,26 3 0 10 $3,714,26 3

4 $500,000 $1,000,000 8 $5,781,9 60 2 $1,624,649 10 $7,406,60 9

5 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 18 $29,901,91 2 6 $10,846,45 6 24 $40,748,36 8

6 $2,500,000 $5,000,000 18 $57,199,32 9 1 $1,372,54 9 19 $58,571,877

7 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 12 $82,131,382 5 $29,563,517 17 $111,694,899

8 $10,000,000 $100,000,000 10 $194,904,767 9 $260,598,400 19 $455,503,16 8

9 $100,000,000+ 2 $40,087,94 3 2 $174,905,233 2 $214,993,17 6

Column t otal s = 98 $ 415,612,244 25 $478,910,805 115 $894,523,049
Average cleanup cost per damage case (2012$) = $7.8 million 

### B. Extrapolation of Average Cleanup Cost Based on 115 Cases to All 250 Historical Damage Cases:**

Total industrial recycling damage cases over 31

- year period (198 2 to 201 1 ) = 250

Average count of damage cases per year (198 2 to 201 1 ) = 8.3 Average annual cleanup cost over 30

- year period 198 2 to 20 11 (2012$ ) = $ 64.7 million
Explanatory Notes:

 * Source: Based on historical data from EPA’s December 31, 2012 industrial recycling damage case study “An Assessment of Enviro nmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials, Appendix A.” Costs in this table are derived from mix ed price levels in the 2012 study which

spa n across 30 years (1982 to 2011), which ORCR updated to 2012$ for the exhibit above.

 ** Interpretive note about the extrapolated cleanup cost estimate:

“ It is entirely possible that these cost data are not a truly accurate representation of actual cleanup costs for the entire sample of cases. For one thing, cost data were much easier to find for CERCLA cleanups than cleanups done under other programs. Since CERCLA cleanups are likely to be skewed toward addressing relatively large, high

-

priority, expensive contamination sites, the actual cleanup costs for all cases are likely to be somewhat lower than these da ta suggest .” Source: page 13 of EPA’s report “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycl ing of Hazardous Secondary Materials,” January 11, 2007,

document ID nr. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2002

- 0031

- 0355 at http://www.regulations.gov which is a precursor to EPA’s 2012

- updated recycling damage study.

### 8

- 6 Exhibit 8 B

State

- by

- State Summary of Cleanup Costs Associated with 115 of the 250 Industrial Recycling Environmenta l Damage Cases Between 1982

- 2011 (2012$)

A B C D E F (D+E) G (F / C)

Row State Count

of Cases Historical Cleanup

Expenditures Projected Cleanup

Expenditures Total Cleanup

Expenditures Av erage Cleanup

Cost Per Case

1 AL 2 $24,785,990 $86,056,671 $110,842,661 $55,421,331

2 AK 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 AZ 1 $950,226 $0 $950,226 $950,226

4 AR 1 $2,369,295 $0 $2,369,295 $2,369,295

5 CA 14 $37,751,013 $1,859,374 $39,610,387 $2,829,313.36

6 CO 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 CT 1 $2,021,894 $0 $2,02 1,894 $2,021,894

8 DE 3 $38,890,538 $108,632,175 $147,522,713 $49,174,238

9 FL 9 $9,626,290 $5,626,682 $15,252,972 $1,694,775

10 GA 1 $0 $8,984,589 $8,984,589 $8,984,589

11 HI 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 ID 1 $0 $12 ,870,645 $12,870,645 $12,870,645

13 IL 1 $308,919 $0 $308,919 $308,919

14 IN 2 $5,234,022 $77,229,861 $82,463,882 $41,231,941

15 IA 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 KS 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 KY 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 LA 2 $15,518,882 $20,322,072 $35,840,954 $17,920,477

19 ME 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 MD 1 $0 $11,244,691 $11,244,691 $11,244,692

21 MA 1 $343,971 $0 $343,971 $343,971

22 MI 6 $16,685,574 $49,171,769 $65,857, 343 $10,976,224

23 MN 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 MS 1 $2,404,227 $0 $2,404,227 $2,404,227

25 MO 1 $0 $14,485,219 $14,485,219 $14,485,219

26 MT 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 NE 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 NV 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 NH 1 $22,508,302 $56,863,080 $79,371,382 $79,371,382

30 NJ 11 $29,488,211 $9,728,131 $39,216,342 $3,565,122

31 NM 2 $0 $4,710,469 $4,710,469 $2,355,235

32 NY 7 $9,467,350 $9,861,694 $19,329,044 $2,761,292

33 NC 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 ND 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

35 OH 9 $1,971,535 $1,971,535 $219,059

36 OK 2 $3,372,362 $3,372,362 $1,686,181

37 OR 4 $20,974,748 $20,974,748 $5,243,687

38 PA 4 $24,230,811 $24,230,811 $6,057,703

39 RI 1 $1,023,130 $1,023,130 $1,023,130

40 SC 2 $3,705,460 $3,705,460 $1,852,730

41 SD 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

42 TN 3 $22,087,458 $22,087,458 $7,362,486

43 TX 7 $102,129,561 $102,129,561 $14,589,937

44 UT 3 $592,324 $592,324 $197,441

45 VT 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

46 VA 1 $6,537,519 $6,537,519 $6,537,519

47 WA 4 $6,605,054 $6,605,054 $1,651,263

### 8

- 7 Exhibit 8 B

State

- by

- State Summary of Cleanup Costs Associated with 115 of the 250 Industrial Recycling Environmenta l Damage Cases Between 1982

- 2011 (2012$)

A B C D E F (D+E) G (F / C)

Row State Count

of Cases Historical Cleanup

Expenditures Projected Cleanup

Expenditures Total Cleanup

Expenditures Av erage Cleanup

Cost Per Case

48 WV 0 $0 $ 0 $0 $0

49 WI 1 $7,665 $7,665 $7,665

50 WY 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

51 PR 2 $3,460,799 $3,460,799 $1,730,400

52 Unknown 3 $559,114 $1,263,684 $1,822,798 $607,599

Column totals = 115 $415,612,244 $478,910,805 $894,523,049 $372,051,806
Nationwide average cleanup expenditure per historical recycling damage case (2012$) = $7.8 million

### 8

- 8 Exhibit 8 C 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Da mage Cases Between 1982 and 2011 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

1 ALD041906173 Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO) AL $13,596,768.92 2004 $16,107,378.25 $60,000,000.00 1994 $86,056,671.05 $102,164,049.30

2 ALD981868466 American Brass AL $7,325,902.41 2004 $8,678,611.94 $8,678,611.94

3 AR0000605322 Red River Aluminum AR $2,000,000.00 2004 $2,369,294.99 $2,369,294.99

4 AZD009015389 Romic Environme ntal Technologies

- Chandler AZ $900,000.00 2008 $950,226.08 $950,226.08

5 CA0001562370 Enviropur West Corporation CA $2,490,000.00 2004 $2,949,772.26 $2,949,772.26

6 CAD008387250 Alco Pacific CA $236,844.33 2004 $280,577.04 $280,577.04

7 CAD009134636 Federated Metals CA $100,000.00 2003 $121,801.16 $121,801.16

8 CAD009452657 Romic Environmental Technologies

- E. Palo Alto CA $2,500,000.00 2008 $2,639,516.89 $2,639,516.89

9 CAD029295706 Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co. CA $1,970,000.00 1993 $2,885,006.83 $2,885,006.83

10 CAD042245001 Omega Chemical Corp. CA $5,510,784.78 2004 $6,528,337.39 $6,528,337.39

11 CAD050096163 Mobile Smelting CA $1,600,000.00 2004 $1,895,435.99 $1,895,435.99

12 CAD055753370 Cooper Drum Co. CA $5,360,000.00 2002 $6,665,494.93 $6,665,494.93

13 CAD070215355 Davis Chemical Company CA $20,000.00 2002 $24,871.25 $24,871.25

14 CAD093459485 Safety

- Kleen Corporation, Reedley Recycling Center CA $2,500,000.00 2004 $2,961,618.74 $2,961,618.74

15 CAD980887350 John Alexander Research CA $405,000.00 2003 $493,294.72 $493,294.72

16 CAD981402522 Commodity Refining Exchange CA $200,000.00 2004 $236,929.50 $236,929.50

17 CAL000338569 SA Recycling CA $2,930,000.00 2011 $2,963,395.03 $2,963,395.03

18 CAR000177709 Halaco Engineering Inc. CA $6,800,000.00 2009 $7,104,961.36 $1,800,000.00 2010 $1,859,373.99 $8,964,335.35

19 CTD162235782 National Oil Service CT $1,600,000.00 2001 $2,021,894.50 $2,021,894.50

20 DE0000122218 Diamond State Salvage DE $11,900,000.00 2004 $14,097,305.20 $16,700,000.00 2004 $19,783,613.18 $33,880,918.38

21 DED041212473 Standard Chlorine of

Delaware DE $20,242,784.80 2004 $23,980,564.32 $75,000,000.00 2004 $88,848,562.19 $112,829,126.51

22 DED98071414 Chem

- Solv, Inc. DE $686,000.00 2004 $812,668.18 $812,668.18

23 FL0001093103 Danmark, Inc. FL $516,374.57 2000 $667,303.46 $667,303.46

24 FL0002072882 Romarc Industries FL $1,035,000.00 2004 $1,226,110.16 $1,226,110.16

25 FLD062794003 Schuylkill Metals Corp. FL $612,421.63 2004 $725,503.75 $725,503.75

26 FLD070864541 Tri

- City Oil Conservationist,

Inc. FL $205,000.00 1985 $381,394.34 $381,394.34

27 FLD980798946 Holloway Waste Oil FL $1,719,803.00 2000 $2,222,476.77 $2,222,476.77

### 8

- 9 Exhibit 8 C 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Da mage Cases Between 1982 and 2011 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

28 FLD982085003 Progressive Marketing Group, Inc. (PMG Finishing) FL $26,469.00 1994 $37,963.90 $37,963.90

29 FLD984184127 Florida Petroleum Reprocessors FL $4,200,000.00 1998 $5,626,681.78 $5,626,681.78

30 FLD984243923 Rowe Paint and Plas

- Chem Coatings (Wilmer Rowe) FL $400,000.00 2004 $473,859.00 $473,859.00

31 FLR000033514 43rd St. Bay Drum and Steel Company FL $3,285,094.17 2004 $3,891,678.58 $3,891,678.58

32 GAD070330576 Exide Technologies (formerly GNB Technologies, Inc.) GA $8,089,570.00 2006 $8,984,588.59 $8,984,588.59

33 IDD081830994 P4 Production LLC

– Monsanto ID $9,500,000.00 1997 $12,870,645.44 $12,870,645.44

34 ILD087157251 Environmental Waste

Resources, Inc. IL $260,768.89 2004 $308,919.21 $308,919.21

35 IND001213503 Continental Steel Corp. IN $2,903,100.00 2004 $3,439,150.15 $61,000,000.00 2002 $75,857,311.76 $79,296,461.90

36 INN000509942 Hassan Barrel Company Inc IN $1,700,000.00 2008 $1,794,871.49 $1,300,000.00 2008 $1,372,548.78 $3,167,420.27

37 LAD052510344 Delatte Metals LA $13,100,000.00 2004 $15,518,882.20 $15,518,882.20

38 LAD981057706 Marine Shale Processors LA $15,000,000.00 1997 $20,322,071.75 $20,322,071.75

39 MAN000103183 Zimble Drum MA $300,000.00 2005 $343,971.08 $343,971.08

40 MDD000218008 Spectron, Inc. MD $9,492,014.00 2004 $11,244,690.62 $11,244,690.62

41 MID005510805 Dearborn Refining Company MI $2,600,000.00 2006 $2,887,660.32 $2,887,660.32

42 MID044567162 Thermo

- Chem, Inc. MI $24,000,000.00 1991 $36,775,942.26 $36,775,942.26

43 MID060975844 EQ Resource Recovery (also

known as Chemical Recovery System s Inc. ) MI $34,843.93 2005 $39,951.01 $39,951.01

44 MID980274179 Carter Industrials, Inc. MI $12,000,000.00 2010 $12,395,826.58 $12,000,000.00 2010 $12,395,826.58 $24,791,653.15

45 MIN000508651 Pellestar Limited MI $118,328.00 2003 $144,124.88 $144,124.88

46 MIR000022400 Sybill Oil MI $1,000,000.00 2003 $1,218,011.64 $1,218,011.64

47 MOD980965982 Missouri Electric Works MO $9,130,000.00 1990 $14,485,218.85 $14,485,218.85

48 MSD985972983 Industrial Pollution Control MS $1,821,000.00 1999 $2,404,226.64 $2,404,226.64

49 43055NWRKP1367E Newark Processing NJ $3,100,000.00 2007 $3,345,934.93 $3,345,934.93

### 8

- 10 Exhibit 8 C 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Da mage Cases Between 1982 and 2011 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

50 NHD018958140 Beede Waste Oil NH $19,000,000.00 2004 $22,508,302.42 $48,000,000.00 2004 $56,863,079.80 $79,371,382.22

51 NJD000540062 Pittsburgh Metal & Equipment NJ $2,864,000.00 2000 $3,701,106.16 $3,701,106.16

52 NJD002153922 Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems Company NJ $4,510,000.00 2000 $5,828,208.37 $5,828,208.37

53 NJD014623854 Martin Aaron, Inc. NJ $2,127,078.29 2004 $2,519,837.97 $2,519,837.97

54 NJD091397299 Boro Auto Wreckers, Inc. NJ $500,000.00 2004 $592,323.75 $592,323.75

55 NJD980663678 Horseshoe Road Complex NJ $522,021.00 2000 $674,600.26 $674,600.26

56 NJD981558430 Atlantic Resources Corp. NJ $863,890.00 2000 $1,116,392.67 $1,116,392.67

57 NJD986570992 Franklin Burn NJ $8,765,961.70 2005 $10,050,790.98 $10,050,790.98

58 NJD986630747 South Brunswick Asphalt NJ $995,000.00 2000 $1,285,824.24 $1,285,824.24

59 NJD986643153 Zschiegner Refining Co. NJ $6,700,000.00 2004 $7,937,138.22 $7,937,138.22

60 NJD991304072 Matteo Iron and Metal NJ $1,189,000.00 1986 $2,164,184.62 $2,164,184.62

61 NMD097960272 Cal West Metals NM $1,557,000.00 1992 $2,330,641.49 $2,330,641.49

62 NMD980749980 Pagano Salvage NM $1,500,000.00 1990 $2,379,827.85 $2,379,827.85

63 NOT PROVIDED Helms Drum Service NO $145,000.00 1995 $203,719.29 $203,719.29

64 NOT PROVIDED United Metal Recovery NO $300,000.00 2004 $355,394.25 $355,394.25

65 NOT PROVIDED K & D Salvage Yard NO $1,000,000.00 2001 $1,263,684.06 $1,263,684.06

66 NY0001392463 Hudson Technologies Inc. NY $1,000,000.00 2004 $1,184,647.50 $1,184,647.50

67 NY0002455756 Consolidated Iron & Metal NY $4,376,309.28 2004 $5,184,383.83 $5,184,383.83

68 NYD013703632 Bern Metals NY $1,860,000.00 2002 $2,313,026.23 $2,313,026.23

69 NYD013721907 Feldman Barrel & Drum NY $780,000.00 2003 $950,049.08 $950,049.08

70 NYD030485288 Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation of NJ NY $3,669,665.00 1995 $5,155,734.75 $5,155,734.75

71 NYD048148175 Mercury Refining, Inc. NY $2,615,392.88 2004 $3,098,318.63 $3,098,318.63

72 NYD991291782 ENRX, Inc. (formerly Voelker Analysis) NY $1,006,000.00 1994 $1,442,883.52 $1,442,883.52

73 OH0001887454 County Line Auto Parts
(Imthurn Drum Site) OH $59,571.50 2001 $75,279.55 $75,279.55

74 OHD004291654 Columbus Steel Drum Co. OH $28,100.00 2005 $32,218.62 $32,218.62

75 OHD004477634 Queen City Barrel Co. OH $26,625.00 2004 $31,541.24 $31,541.24

76 OHD048782049 Midwest Guardian OH $30,557.00 2001 $38,614.39 $38,614.39

77 OHD051413078 Century 21 Paints OH $120,000.00 2001 $151,642.09 $151,642.09

78 OHD097613871 Master Metals, Inc. OH $309,300.98 2004 $366,412.63 $366,412.63

### 8

- 11 Exhibit 8 C 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Da mage Cases Between 1982 and 2011 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

79 OHD980587364 Safety

- Kleen (Hebron) OH $945,018.00 2002 $1,175,188.94 $1,175,188.94

80 OHD986976348 Agmet Metals, Inc. OH $23,240.00 2007 $25,083.72 $25,083.72

81 OHR000041657 Re

- Gen Incorporated OH $70,000.00 2007 $75,553.37 $75,553.37

82 OK0000605385 Chief Supply/Greenway

Environmental OK $175,000.00 2003 $213,152.04 $213,152.04

83 OKD062270590 Parawax Reclaiming, Inc. OK $2,500,000.00 2001 $3,159,210.15 $3,159,210.15

84 ORD980977334 E nvironmental Pacific Corp OR $259,171.68 1997 $351,127.03 $351,127.03

85 ORD991281460 Bergsoe Metal Corporation OR $16,026,056.45 2004 $18,985,227.64 $18,985,227.64

86 ORQ000010405 Grant Warehouse OR $1,200,000.00 2000 $1,550,742.80 $1,550,742.80

87 ORQ000021402 High

- Tech Now OR $71,962.00 2003 $87,650.55 $87,650.55

88 PAD003009362 Gettysburg Foundry Specialties Company PA $5,533,100.00 2000 $7,150,345.84 $7,150,345.84

89 PAD004372363 Horsehead Corporation PA $6,800,000.00 2010 $7,024,301.73 $7,024,301.73

90 PAD073613663 Tonolli Corporation PA $3,625,983.96 2004 $4,295,512.82 $4,295,512.82

91 PAD098732118 Industrial Solvents and

Chemical Co. PA $4,300,000.00 1998 $5,760,650.39 $5,760,650.39

92 PRD987366101 V&M/Albaladejo PR $2,400,000.00 2000 $3,101,485.61 $3,101,485.61

93 PRR000004655 The Battery Recycling Co. PR $295,000.00 2003 $359,313.43 $359,313.43

94 RID980732135 Metals Recycling, LLC RI $840,000.00 2003 $1,023,129.78 $1,023,129.78

95 SCD058754789 Aqua

- Tech Environmental,

Inc. SC $1,927,901.08 2004 $2,283,883.19 $2,283,883.19

96 SCD987566908 Huff Battery Salvage SC $1,200,000.00 2004 $1,421,577.00 $1,421,577.00

97 TND034692632 Dixie Barrel & Drum TN $1,200,000.00 2004 $1,421,577.00 $1,421,577.00

98 TND096070396 Ross Metals, Inc. TN $9,990,564.07 2004 $11,835,296.71 $11,835,296.71

99 TNSFN0406979 College Grove Battery Chip TN $7,250,000.00 2003 $8,830,584.42 $8,830,584.42

100 TX0001861731 Lyon Property TX $60,717.33 2004 $71,928.63 $71,928.63

101 TXD008083404 Many Diversified Interests TX $6,600,000.00 2004 $7,818,673.47 $7,818,673.47

102 TXD008117186 Encycle/Texas Inc. TX $15,000,000.00 2004 $17,769,712.44 $17,769,712.44

103 TXD06637964 Rockwool Industries, Inc. TX $3,122,434.09 2004 $3,698,983.73 $3,698,983.73

104 TXD099387474 Agrifos Fertilizer TX $2,500,000.00 2011 $2,528,494.05 $2,528,494.05

105 TXD980626987 Baldwin Waste Oil TX $1,635,504.01 2004 $1,937,495.73 $1,937,495.73

106 TXD990757486 Air Products, LLC TX $61,500,000.00 2006 $68,304,273.07 $68,304,273.07

107 UT0001277359 Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery UT $598,200.00 2006 $664,384.00 $664,384.00

### 8

- 12 Exhibit 8 C 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Da mage Cases Between 1982 and 2011 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

108 UTD093119196 Petrochem Recycling Corp/

Ekotek Plant UT $4,032,359.38 2004 $4,776,924.44 $4,776,924.44

109 UTD982589848 OMG Air Emissions UT $900,000.00 2003 $1,096,210.48 $1,096,210.48

110 VAD003064490 Bingham & Taylor VA $500,000.00 2004 $592,323.75 $592,323.75

111 WAD980978142 Reflex Recycling WA $150,000.00 2002 $186,534.37 $186,534.37

112 WAD981766884 SafCo Environmental WA $625,000.00 2002 $777,226.55 $777,226.55

113 WAD988477501 Basin Oil WA $80,000.00 2008 $84,464.54 $84,464.54

114 WASFN1002182 CleanCare Corporation WA $4,300,000.00 2000 $5,556,828.38 $5,556,828.38

115 WID990829475 Waste Research &

Reclamation Co. WI $6,470.32 2004 $7,665.05 $7,665.05

Column Totals (2012$)= $415,612,244 $478,910,805 $894,523,049

* Explanatory Notes:

 The expenditures listed in this table for each case may not solely reflect the costs of remediating environmental damages (ak a cleanup costs). Although the cleanup costs may include federal, state and private (PRP) money, the cost data for any single case may also include (a) fines and penalties related to the discharge of hazardous secondary material, (b) attorney’s fees related to court settlements; and/or (c) capital costs to bring facilities within compliance with RCRA regulations.

 F or purpose of updat ing the historical damage costs to 2012 price level, the historical costs are inflated to 2012$ using an implicit price defla tor based on data from "Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product," Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). At th e date this update was executed for this RIA, Table 1.1.9 was last revised April 27, 2012 and was available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 The implicit price deflator for the first quarter 2012 is 114. 511. The ratio of the implicit price deflator value for first quarter 2012 as numerator and the respective annual value for each of the historical cost data as denominator was used as a price inf lation adjustment multiplier.

### 8

- 13

8A.4. Potential Impact of 2014 DSW Rule on Future Recycling Damages

The 2008 DSW rule attempted to address the pattern of adverse impacts to human health and the environment from hazardous secondary material transferred to offsite third

- party recyclers, by setting conditions for the 2 008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. The intent of those

conditions was to define when transfers to offsite third

- party recyclers would not result in discard. However, as explained in EPA’s 2011 DSW environmental justice analysis (available

fro m the docket for the 2011 DSW proposed revisions), EPA failed to take into account how the conditions of the 2008 DSW offsite recycling exclusion would work when implemented. EPA’s analysis of the 2008 DSW rule assumed that compliance with the DSW offsite recycling exclusion conditions would be the same as compliance with the traditional RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste recycling regulations.

However, the traditional RCRA Subtitle C recycling regulations have several implementation provisions that are miss ing from the 2008 DSW offsite recycling exclusion. These provisions ensure a greater level of EPA regional office and state government oversight of the Subtitle C requirements, thereby potentially improving industry compliance:

 Recycling operating permit s : Most important of which is the Subtitle C recycling permit requirement which ensures that an EPA regional office or state government agency has reviewed a facility’s planned recycling operations before recycling begins, and allows public participation i n the permit review and approval/rejection process.

 Recycling inspectio ns : Subtitle C recycling requirements also include a statutory provision that such facilities be inspected every two years by an EPA regional office or

state government agency.

When Co ngress enacted these RCRA Subtitle C recycling provisions, it was based on their finding that the placement of inadequate controls on hazardous waste management will result in
substantial risks to human health and the environment. Furthermore, the 1976 RC RA statute and its legislative history suggest that Congress expected EPA to regulate as solid and hazardous
wastes, certain industrial hazardous materials that are des tined for recycling. T he evidence of EPA’s 2012 industrial recycling historical damage case study and EPA’s 2006 recycling market forces study, suggest that transfers of hazardous s econdary material to commercial recyclers can

still involve discard . This is particularly true in cases where the commercial value for recycling

a hazardous seco ndary material is relatively low and volatile. Hence, the same perverse economic incentives that exist among the historical damage cases discussed above can also exist for facilities operating under the transfer

- based exclusion of the 2008 DSW rule.

At th e same time, some specific types of hazardous secondary materials may be more like valuable commodities than solid wastes, and the act of transferring them to a third

- party recycler

does not often involve discard. Many of the other DSW recycling exclusion s in 40 CFR 261.4(a)

were granted for specific materials or process es that EPA studied on an individual basis. Further,

the 2008 DSW non

- waste determination procedures under 40 CFR 260.34(c) provide an administrative process for determining that additional hazardous secondary materials are indistinguishable from a product and therefore are not waste. The 2014 DSW rule also contains

a “re

- manufacturing” exclusion for cer tain high

- value hazardous secondary materials (i.e.,

### 8

- 14

solvents used as chemical processing aids) whose management is more like manufacturing than waste management. However, the 2008 DSW offsite “transfer

- based” recycling exclusion applies equally to all ha zardous secondary materials intended for recycling, and is not limited to materials that are indistinguishable from products. Materials falling under this more general exclusion may be more susceptible to the same perverse economic incentives associated wi th previous damage cases at recycling facilities.

Given the evidence of past industrial recycling damage cases that could pose risks to human health and the environment, and the underlying perverse incentives of the commercial recycling

market to over

- ac cumulate hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling, which ultimately could result in discard of the materials, modifying/replacing the offsite transfer

- based recycling exclusion with the verified recycler exclusion, adding a re

- manufacturing rec ycling

exclusion in the 2014 draft DSW rule, and adding emergency preparedness and response requirements may serve to reduce the future frequency and cleanup costs of environmental damage cases associated with industrial hazardous secondary materials recyc ling.

EPA’s 2012 hazardous secondary materials recycling da mage case study illustrates environmental damages can occur at hazardous secondary material recycling facilities. It does not, however, estimate the impact that the 2014 DSW rule may have on reducing future damage

cases. To conduct such an analysis

, two key pie ces of information are needed.

 First, one would compare hazardous secondary material commercial recycling facilities operating under a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste treat ment permit to those operating under some type of DSW exclusion. One would then compare the percent of commercial recycling facilities in each of those subgroups where environmental damage occurred. In comparing differences in the rate of damage cases amo ng these two subgroups, one could infer whether less damage cases occur under more str ingent Subtitle C requirements.

 Second, in order to estimate the future impact of the 2014 DSW rule , one would need to project the future number of damage cases that woul d occur at hazardous secondary

material commercial recycling facilities operating under the current 2008 DSW “transfer

based” exclusion (i.e., the baseline), and compare that to the predicted damage cases that may still occur in the future after the 2014 D SW rule

.

Unfortunately, there is insufficient data to fully identify damages at hazardous secondary

material commercial recycling facilities operating with and without a 2008 DSW recycling

exclusion. Additionally, due to the lack of data

, it is difficult to analyze current trends in damage cases, and thus even more difficult to project what the number of future damage cases migh t be

under different scenarios. Exhibit 8 D below displays the start year for the subset of historical damage cases which are recorded as starting in the years 1982

- 2011 during which the RCRA Subtitle C base program was operating. The overall start rates are as f ollows:

Result based on 199 of 250 cases with start year data Rate if e xtrapolated to all 250 damage cases

 113 of 19 9 (57%) cases started 1914

- 1981  142 starts per year over 68 years = 2.1/year

 86 of 199 (43%) cases started 1982

- 2011  108 starts per year over 30 years = 3.6/year

 If assume all 250 (100%) cases started 1914

- 2011  250 starts per year over 98 years = 2.6/year

### 8

- 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Count of Damage Cases



### Year in Which Damages Started at Damage Case Site Exhibit 8D

Damage Start Year for Recycling Damage Cases Which Began Between 1982

- 2011

(not shown are damage cases which started 1914 to 1981)

2008 DSW final rule became operational in only eight states/ territories

between 2009 and 2012

### 8

- 16

Exhibit 8D above indicates that five recycling damage cases were discovered in four states (CA, OH, PA (2 cases), and VA) as starting in the three years (2009

- 2011) after the 2008 DSW rule became implemented in eight states/territories. These five post

- 2008 damage cases indicates an average rate of 1. 7 damage cases started per year (i.e., (5 cases) / (3 years 2009, 2010, 2011)), and one of those four states (PA) with two of the five post

- 2008 damage cases had implemented the 2008 DSW rule. In comparison, in the 10 years (1999

- 2008) prior to the 2009

i mplementation of the 2008 DSW rule, an average rate of 1.9 damage cases started per year (i.e., (19 cases started 1999 to 2008) / (10 years 1999 to 2008)), which is not a significant or conclusive difference given only three years of comparison data for th e post

- 2008 DSW rule period.

As reported in EPA’s June 2011 Correlation Study 99 

### which evaluated 223 of the 250 damage cases, 118 (53%) of the damage cases were found to be likely correlated with one or more RCRA regulatory exclusions, exemptions, or altern ative standards. According to the findings of the

201 4 d amage c ase s tudy which evaluated 250 damage cases

, a much smaller count of 51 (20%) damage cases occurred at commercial recycling facilities operating under a RCRA hazardous waste treatment permit at the time of damage. 100 

### Thus, the majority of the damage cases were operating outside of RCRA under an exclusion, exemption, or alternate standard. Since damages

do occur at hazardous secondary material commercial recycling f acilities operating under a DSW

exclusion

, it seems reasonable to presume that the requirements included in the 2014 DSW

revision s may reduce future damage cases associated with recycling of hazardous secondary

material

.

8A.4 Market Forces & Recycling Damages

EPA’s 2006 industrial recycling market forces study 101 

### in th e docket for the 2008 DSW rule supports the conclusion that the pattern of discard at off

- site, third

- party recyclers (e.g., commercial recyclers) is a result of inherent differences between commercial recycling and

norm al manufacturing. As opposed to manufacturing where the cost of raw materials or intermediates (or inputs) is greater than zero, and revenue is generated primarily from the sale of the output, hazardous secondary materials recycling can involve generating revenue primarily from receipt of the hazardous secondary materials. Recyclers of hazardous secondary materials in this situation may thus respond differently than traditional manufacturers to economic forces and incentives, accumulating more inputs (haz ardous secondary materials) than can be recycled, which could potentially lead to environmental contamination (e.g., ground water leaching, container leaks) during protracted storage periods if not sufficiently contained.

99 Source: page 10 of “Correlation of Recycling Damage Cases with Regulatory Exclusions, Exemptions or Alternative Standards,” EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste

Man agement Division, June 2011, available as document ID number EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0010 at http://www.regulations.gov

100 Source: page 8 of “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials,” December 31, 201 2, available from the DSW revisions rulemaking at docket number EPA

HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742 at http://www.regulations.gov

101 “A Study of Potential Effects of Market Forces on the Management of Hazardous Secondary Materials Intended for Recycling,” November 21, 20 06, 91 pages, document ID nr. EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2002

– 0031

– 0358 is available at http://www.regulations.gov

### 8

- 17

The 2008 DSW rule attempted to ad dress this pattern of adverse impacts to human health and the

environment from discarded material transferred to offsite third

- party recyclers, by setting conditions for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. The intent of those conditions

was to define when transfers to offsite third

- party recycling would not result in discard. However, as expla ined in EPA’s 201 1 DSW environmental justice analysis (available from the docket for the 2011 DSW proposed revisions), EPA failed to take into accoun t how the conditions of the 2008 DSW offsite recycling exclusion would work when implemented. EPA’s environmental justice analysis of the 2008 DSW rule assumed that compliance with the DSW offsite recycling exclusion conditions would be the same as compli ance with traditional RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste recycling regulations.

However, the traditional RCRA Subtitle C recycling regulations have several implementation provisions that are missing from the 2008 DSW offsite recycling exclusion. These provi sions ensure a greater level of EPA regional office and state government oversight of the Subtitle C requirements, thereby potentially improving industry compliance and reducing the likelihood of future damage cases :

 Recycling operating permits : Most impo rtant of which is the Subtitle C recycling permit requirement which ensures that an EPA regional office or state government agency has reviewed a facility’s planned recycling operations before recycling begins, and allows public participation in the permit review and approval/rejection process.

 Recycling inspectio ns : Subtitle C recycling requirements also include a statutory provision that such facilities be inspected every two years by an EPA regional office or

state government agency.

The 2014 DSW revisions will add a variance application requirement for non

- hazardous

industrial waste recyclers to obtain a verified recycler exclusion which will allow an EPA regional office or state government agency an opportunity to review a facility’ s planned recycling operations before recycling begins.

8A.5. Potential Impact of 2014 DSW Rule on Future Recycling Damages

G iven the evidence of past industrial recycling damage cases that could pose risks to human
health and the environment, and the un derlying perverse incentives of the recycling market to

over

- accumulate hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling ultimately resulting in
discard of the materials, modifying the offsite recycling exclusion by requiring verified recycler

exclusio ns ( Revision 1 ), adding a re

- manufacturing recycling exclusion ( Revision 5 ), and adding emergency preparedness and response requirements ( Revision 6) may serve to reduce the future frequency and cleanup costs of environmental damage cases associated with industrial hazardous secondary materials recycling. However, this RIA does not estimate the magnitude of this potential reduction.

EPA’s 2012 hazardous secondary materials recycling da mage case study illustrates environmental damages can occur at recycli ng facilities. It does not, however, estimate t he impact that the 2014 DSW rule may have on reducing damage cases. To conduct such an analysis two key pie ces of information are needed.

### 8

- 18

 First, one would compare the recycling facilities operating under a RC RA Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment permit to those operating under some type of exclusion. One would then compare the percent of facilities in each of those subgroups where environmental damage occurred. In comparing differences in the rate of damage cases among these two subgroups, one could infer whether less damage cases occur under more stringent Subtitle C requirements

.

 Second, in order to estimate the fu ture impact of the 2014 DSW rule , one would need to project the future number of damage cases that would occur at recycling facilities operating under the current exclusions (i.e., the baseline), and compare that to the predicted damage cases that may still occur in the future after the revisions.

Unfortunately, there is insufficient data to full y identify damages at recycling facilities operating with and without a DSW recycling exclusion. Additionally, due to the lack of data it is difficult to analyze current trends in damage cases, and thus even more difficult to project what the

number of fut ure damage cases might be under different scenarios. Instead, based on the available data, the Damage Case Study demonstrates that damages have occurred at 208 facilities where recycling activities were taking place.

As reported in EPA’s June 2011 Correla tion Study which evaluated 223 of the 250 damage

cases

, 118 (53 %) of the damage cases were found to be likely correlated with one or more RCRA regulatory exclusions, exemptions, or alternative standards

. According to the 2012

- updated findings of the Damag e Case Study which evaluated 250 dama ge cases , a much smaller count of
51 (20 %) damage cases occurred at facilities operating under a RCRA hazardous waste treatment permit at the time of damage. Thus, the majority of the damage cases were op erating outside of

RCRA under an exclusion, exemptio n, or alternate standard

. Since damages do occur at recycli ng facilities operating under an exclusion it seems reasonable to presu me that more stringent requirements for the DSW exclusions may reduce future damage case s associated with recycling of hazardous secondary materials

.



## 8B. Improved Environmental Compliance 102



### The potential benefits of improved environmental compliance are not improved compliance rates

per se , but the positive environmental and human health protection and risk reduction outcomes resulting from improved compliance. This second potential environmental benefits category consists of four components:

8B.1. Clearer & More Specific Regulatory Standards Improve Environmental Compliance

102 This benefit category is based on a 2010 unpublished EPA white paper on the potential RCRA regulatory compliance

- related benefits which may be associated with EPA’s 2014 revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions: “Definition of Solid Waste Rulemaking Compliance Research Background Document” November 17, 2010, 10 pages, Jon Silberman, Attorney

- Advisor, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA)

– Of fice of Compliance

– Planning, Measures and Oversight Division.

### 8

- 19

There is evidence that clearer and less complicated regulations would improve environmental compliance by making it easier for industry to comply with and for regulators to enforce the provisions. David B. Spence, using evidence from behavioral psychology, the co urts, and elsewhere, concludes that regulated entities that intend to comply with environmental regulations may often inadvertently violate such regulations because they do not fully understand the regulatory requirements. He cites the case of Rollins Env ironmental Services Inc. v. US EPA (937 F.2d 649), where the court determined that Rollins’ violation of TSCA was based on “EPA’s misleading imprecision, not Rollins’ lack of acuity.” 103



### In the paper “Rational or Confused Polluters? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Compliance” S.

Stafford 104 

### found the following: “In support of the complexity critique, the results show that larger facilities and facilities of multi

- plant companies are less likely to violate, while facilities that are subject to more complex regul ations are more likely to violate. Also in support of the complexity critique, facilities learn from past inspections and facilities in states with programs directed toward reducing complexity are less likely to violate.” One specific case example provid ed in the Stafford article indicated: “... an analysis by the Colorado Department on Public Health and the Environment found that a number of facilities were frequently violating hazardous waste storage requirements because they were unaware of their regulat ory status.” 105



### A number of the DSW revisio ns, including Revision s 2 A, 3 A, and 3 B, should result in clearer and more specific regulatory requirements, which in turn should improve environmental compliance:

 Revision 2 A codifying the word “contained,” should improve environmental compliance because it reduces the need by the generator and the enforcement staff to interpret the provision. The codification makes the provision more enforceable than the undefined term, while still providing the generator with so me flexibility, including land

- based

storage.

 Revision 3 A applies the same codified standards of legitimate recycling to all recycled hazardous secondary materials. This should provide greater clarity to recyclers and should make enforcement more straigh tforward and easier, thereby increasing

environmental co mpliance, by providing the same legitimacy definition standard throughout the program.

 Revision 3 B requires all four legitimacy factors be met to be considered a legitimate recycler, with fle xibility built into Factor 4 . This provision should make enforcement
easier, thus ensuring greater compliance. The legitimacy documentation and certification process will give the EPA oversight whe n Factor 4 is not met , which should also help improve compliance and enforcement.

103 Spence, David B. 2001. “The Shadow of the Rational Polluter: Rethinking the Role of Rational Actor Models in Environmental Law,” California Law Review, Vol.89, pp. 917

- 998.

104 Stafford, S. 2 006. Rational or Confused Polluters? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Compliance. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 5 : Issue. 1, Article 21.

105 Ibid.

### 8

- 20

8B.2. More Stringent Recordkeeping Provisions Improve Environmental Compliance

Although no studies were found indicating that recordkeeping improves environmental compliance, a study of OSHA’s recordkeeping rules found that changes to t he recordkeeping standard in 1995 and 2001 were responsible for a significant decline in the number of workplace injuries and illnesses observed from 1992

- 2003. 106 

### The observed declines corresponded with two major OSHA rule changes requiring recordkeeping. The precipitous declines could not be explained by changes in employment, productivity, OSHA enforcement activity, reporting bias,

and other factors which were adjusted for in the study.

Recordkeeping requirements in the 2014 DSW revisions should increase awareness of overall regulatory requirements and also increase the likelihood of detecting noncompliance, both of which serve to promote compliance. Revision s 2 C, 3 A, 3 B, and 5 B would use recordkeeping to improve environment al compliance:

 Revision 2 C and 5 B would require the speculative accumulation start date to be labeled on each container to ensure against speculative accumulation. Without the labeled start date, the speculative accumulation provision would be difficult to enforce.

 Revision s 3 A and 3 B would requi re documentation of legitimacy f o r the generator

controlled exclusion , the non

- determination petition process, and pre

- 2008 industrial recycling exclu sions when the recycling i s still legitimate even though F act or 4 is not met. This should ensure that recycling taking place under the exclusions would be examined closely and would not necessitate required documentation of legitimacy for all recycling.

 Revision s 6A, 6B, and 6C will require personnel training and preparation of emergency preparedness pla ns and contingency plans. Training and preparation of these plan will

increase staff awareness of overall regulatory requirements and preventing or controlling

releases.

8B.3. Self

- Reporting Requirements (e.g., N otification Requirements) Improve Environmental Compliance

A 1998 study by Ruhnka and Boerstler 107 

### found that government incentives for corporate self

regulation are succeeding based on the number of Fortune 1000 implementing voluntary corporate codes of co nduct. An example of the type of government

- private program outlined in the report is the EPA’s national Environmental Performance Track Program. Performance Track was a voluntary approach to recognize and drive environmental excellence among private and public facilities by encouraging facilities with strong environmental records to go above and

106 Friedman and Forst. 2007. “The Impact of OSHA Recordkeeping Regulation Changes on Occupatio nal Injury

and Illness Trends in the Us: a Time

- series Analysis”. Occupational and Environmental Medicine

. Volume 64:pgs.

454

– 460

107 Ruhnka and Boerstler. 1998. “Governmental Incentives for Corporate Self

- Regulation.” Journal of Business

Ethics 17 : 309

– 326.

### 8

- 21

beyond their legal requirements. In partnership with EPA, members voluntarily set measurable goals to improve the quality of our nation’s air, water, and land. The Performance Track program ended in March 2009. Based on results from 2000

- 2007 (the most recent year for which data are available), “Performance Track members reported that they collectively reduced their water use by 2.87 billion gallons, conserved more than 24,860 acres of land, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 367,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.” 108 

### The members also prevented the generation of 1,261,006 tons of non

- hazardous waste and 6 8,146

tons of hazardous waste.

A 2010 stud y on the Performance Track program by the RAND Corporation found that the program had mixed success and the study concluded that they “believe that the significant environmental challenges that the United States faces require that EPA continue to seek out new approaches that can complement and enhance traditional regulatory approaches.” 109 

### The problem with the program was the lack of clarity in its purpose and the RAND report indicated “[t]he lack of specificity in the program concept, the deferment and non

- implementation of the second component of the originally proposed program, and ambiguous announcements about the program’s membership contributed to stakeholders developing different understandings and expectations for the program.” RAND Corporation recom mended that future programs should strive for program concepts and expectations that are clear for all stakeholder groups, tightly focused on specific environmental programs, and protect the EPA’s brand. In defense of the Performance Track program, RAND f ound that “ Performance Track members reported that the program’s requirements to have and use EMSs, set continuous improvement goals, and increase community outreach led to beneficial changes in corporate culture, including improved employee

engagement, m orale, recruiting, and retention. EPA should continue to experiment with providing positive recognition and other strategies that encourage changes in corporate culture.”

Revision s 1 E, 2 B, 4 B, and 5 B would require biennial notification and would enable RCRA

authorized state government agencies and EPA regional offices to monitor environmental compliance at industrial facilities.

8B.4. Increasing the Likelihood o f Detection and Potential Penalty f or Non

Compliance Improves Environmental Compliance

Many studies have found that increasing penalties for non

- compliance not only improve compliance of the facilities inspected, but act as a deterrent for all facilities in the area. From the

State

- of

- Sci ence White Paper by Jay Shimshack: “Most recently, Glicksman and Earnhart [2007] analyzed both qualitative and quantitative evidence of specific deterrence for water discharges in the chemical industry. The statistical database analysis examined how plant s’ composite BOD and TSS discharges responded to EPA/state enforcement actions. The survey component covered 267 of the 1,003 originally solicited chemical facilities (a 27% response rate). Glicksman and Earnhart [2007] established that inspections and fi nes both produced significant deterrence effects. Nearly 75% of survey respondents reported that fines were an effective deterrent and

108 RAND Corporation. 2010. An Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Environmental Performance Track Program

. 109 Ibid.

### 8

- 22

approximately 87% reported that inspections definitely or probably effectively induced water pollution compliance. Simi larly, the statistical results indicated that both inspections and enforcement actions resulted in decreased aggregate conventional water pollution emissions.” 110



### Stafford studied the response of 8,411 hazardous waste

- generating facilities to a rule change that significantly increased financial penalties for violation. 111 

### The 10

- to 20

- fold increase in potential fine magnitudes generated an approximately 15% reduction in regulated plants’ violation probabilities.

Shimshack and Ward found that levying fines r esulted in a significant reduction in the statewide water pollution violation rate in the year following the fines. 112 

### Nearly all of this was attributable to spillover effects, as the average deterrence impact on each of the other plants in a state was

almos t as strong as the impact on the sanctioned facility. The authors also showed that general deterrence increased consistently with the amount of the penalty. In other words, larger fines induced fewer subsequent violations by other plants in the state. O ther results included the finding that non

- monetary enforcement responses like notices of violation alone had little influence on plant

- level compliance.

Revision s 1

, 2

, 3

, 4

, 5 , and 6 of the 2014 DSW revisions should help enforcement personnel

more readi ly identify violations. For example, the absence of required records , plans, and notifications can easily be identified and enforced. Both the magnitude of penalties and the increased likelihood of detection should result in benefits of improved complian ce.

110 Shimshack, Jay. 2007. Monitoring, Enforcement, & Environmental Compliance: Understanding Specific &

General Deterrence

. State

- of

- Science White Paper p repared for the EPA ORD and OECA.

111 Stafford, Susan. 2002. “The Effect of Punishment on Firm Compliance with Hazardous Waste Regulations.”
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , Vol.44, pgs. 29 0

- 308.

112 Shimshack and Ward. 2005. “ Regulator Reputation, Enforcement, & Environmental Compliance.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.3, nr.50, pp. 519

- 540.

### 8

- 23



## 8C. More Specific Standards Result in Reduced Liab ility, Less Uncertainty for Regulated Entities , and Lower Legal & Credit Costs 113



### While more specific regulatory requirements are believed to improve environmental compliance, more specific standards are also expected to reduce facilities’ liability, resulting in lower legal

and other costs. For example, one of the most frequently iden tified root causes of noncompliance was where the facility was unaware of the applicability of a regulation. 114 

### In another study of pulp and paper mills in Canada, Laplante, et al., found that the presence of clear and strong standards accompanied with a si gnificant and credible penalty system does send appropriate signals to the regulated community which responds by lowering pollution

emissions. 115



### Clearer regulatory requirements should result in higher compliance rates. In turn, higher levels of complianc e should likely lower legal costs and potentially more favorable investment and credit markets. For example a nalysts have examined the reaction of capital markets to the release of information pertaining to environmental performance. Several studies have shown that capital markets react significantly to the release of information: upward when the information reveals a superior performance, and downward when a poor performance is

revealed. 116 

### Moreover, i n recent years, the importance of investor interest ha s increased and suppliers of financing, industrial equipment, and engineering services are increasingly reluctant to do business with firms experiencing problems with environmental regulations. 117



### Revision s 2 A, 3 A, and 3 B would all reduce uncertainty for re gulated entities.

 Revision 2 A, codifying the word “contained” would create a specific standard with which entities must comply, therefore reducing regulatory uncertainty.

 Revision 3 A applies the same codified standards of legitimate recycling to all recy cled

hazardous sec ondary materials. This measure should make compliance more

s traightforward and ensure consistency across state programs. Furthermore, Revision 4A, which codifies the legitimacy definition, should provide greater clarity and less

uncerta inty by having the same definition throughout the program.

113 This benefit category is based on a 2010 unpublished EPA white paper on the potential RCRA regulatory compliance

- related benefits which may be associated with EPA’s 2014 revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions: “Definition of Solid Waste Rulemaking Compliance Research Background Document” November 17, 2010, 10 pages, Jon Silberm an, Attorney

- Advisor, Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA)

– Office of Compliance

– Planning, Measures and Oversight Division.

114 EPA, (1999). “EPA/CMA Root Cause Analysis Pilot Project: An Industry Survey.” EPA

- 305

- R

- 99

- 001,

available at htt p://www.epa.gov/nscep/index.html

115 Laplante, Lanoie & Foulon. 2000. Incentives for Pollution Control

- Regulation and Public Disclosure ; No 2291, Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank.

116 Ibid.

117 For a thorough review of these studies see Cohen, M. 1999. Monitoring and Enforcement of Environmental Policy

. International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1999/2000 . Tom Tietenberg and Henk Folmer, ed.; Edward Elgar Publishers.

### 8

- 24

 Revision 3 B requires all four legitimacy factors be met to be considered a legitimate recycler, with added flexibility for Factor 4, unless the facility prepares legitimacy

documentation with ce rtification and notification to the implementing agency. Th e state agencies will have notice of these facilities and this should help oversight and compliance.

# A PPENDICES

### A

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# A

2009 Count of 6

- Digit NAICS Code Industries Potentially Affected

Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

1 111120

2 113110

3 115114

4 211111

5 211112

6 212210

7 212220

8 212221

9 212222

10

11 212234

12 212299

13 212312

14 212391

15 213111

16 213112

17 213114

18 221110

19 221111

20 221112

21 221113

22 221119

23 221120

24 221121

25 221122

26 221210

27 221310 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

28 221320

29 221330

30 233310

31 234110

32 235910

33 235990

34 236118

35 236220

36 237310

37 237990

38 238320

39 311111

40 311119

41 311221 311221 Overlap

42 311222

43 311223

44 311225 311225 Overlap

45 311311

46 311312

47 311313

48 311411

49 311412

50 311423

51 311511

52 311512

53 311513

54 311514 311514 Overlap 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

55 311520

56 311611

57 311612

58 311613

59 311615

60 311712

61 311812

62 311822

63 311919

64 311920

65 311930 311930 Overlap

66 311942 311942 Overlap

67 311999 311999 Overlap

68 312111

69 312113

70 312120 312120 Overlap

71 312140

72 312221 312221 Overlap

73 312229

74 313111

75 313112

76 313210

77 313221

78 313230

79 313310

80 313311 313311 Overlap

81 313312 313312 Overlap

### A

- 2 Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

82 313320 313320 Overlap

83 314110

84 314912

85 314991

86 314992

87 314999 314999 Overlap

88 315992

89 316110 316110 Overlap

90 316211

91 316213

92 321110

93 321113 321113 Overlap

94 321114 321114 Overlap

95 321210

96 321211

97 321212

98 321213

99 321219 321219 Overlap

100 321910

101 321911 321911 Overlap

102 321912

103 321918 321918 Overlap

104 321991

105 321992

106 321999 321999 Overlap

107 322110 322110 Overlap

108 322120

109 322121 322121 Overlap

110 322122

111 322130 322130 Overlap

112 322210

113 322211 322211 Overlap

114 322212 322212 Overlap 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

115 322221 322221 Overlap

116 322222 322222 Overlap

117 322223

118 322224

119 322225

120 322226

121 322231

122 322232

123 322291 322291 Overlap

124 322299 322299 Overlap

125 323110 323110 Overlap

126 323111 323111 Overlap

127 323112 323112 Overlap

128 323113 323113 Overlap

129 323115

130 323119 323119 Overlap

131 323121

132 323122 323122 Overlap

133 324110 324110 Overlap

134 324121 324121 Overlap

135 324122 324122 Overlap

136 324191 324191 Overlap

137 324199 324199 Overlap

138 325110 325110 Overlap

139 325120 325120 Overlap

140 325131 325131 Overlap

141 325132 325132 Overlap

142 325180

143 325181 325181 Overlap

144 325188 325188 Overlap

145 325190

146 325191 325191 Overlap

147 325192 325192 Overlap 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

148 325193

149 325199 325199 Overlap

150 325210

151 325211 325211 Overlap

152 325212 325212 Overlap

153 325220

154 325221 325221 Overlap

155 325222 325222 Overlap

156 325310

157 325311 325311 Overlap

158 325312 325312 Overlap

159 325314

160 325320 325320 Overlap

161 325410

162 325411 325411 Overlap

163 325412 325412 Overlap

164 325413 325413 Overlap

165 325414 325414 Overlap

166 325510 325510 Overlap

167 325520 325520 Overlap

168 325610

169 325611 325611 Overlap

170 325612 325612 Overlap

171 325613 325613 Overlap

172 325620 325620 Overlap

173 325910 325910 Overlap

174 325920 325920 Overlap

175 325990

176 325991 325991 Overlap

177 325992 325992 Overlap

178 325998 325998 Overlap

179 326110

180 326111

### A

- 3 Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

181 326112 326112 Overlap

182 326113 326113 Overlap

183 326121 326121 Overlap

184 326122 326122 Overlap

185 326130 326130 Overlap

186 326140 326140 Overlap

187 326150 326150 Overlap

188 326160

189 326190

190 326191 326191 Overlap

191 326192 326192 Overlap

192 326199 326199 Overlap

193 326211 326211 Overlap

194 326220 326220 Overlap

195 326290

196 326291 326291 Overlap

197 326299 326299 Overlap

198 327111 327111 Overlap

199 327112 327112 Overlap

200 327113 327113 Overlap

201 327121

202 327122

203 327123

204 327124

205 327125 327125 Overlap

206 327210

207 327211 327211 Overlap

208 327212 327212 Overlap

209 327213 327213 Overlap

210 327215 327215 Overlap

211 327310 327310 Overlap

212 327320 327320 Overlap

213 327331 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

214 327332

215 327390

216 327420 327420 Overlap

217 327910 327910 Overlap

218 327991

219 327992

220 327993 327993 Overlap

221 327999 327999 Overlap

222 331110

223 331111 331111 Overlap

224 331112 331112 Overlap

225 331210 331210 Overlap

226 331220

227 331221 331221 Overlap

228 331222 331222 Overlap

229 331311

230 331312 331312 Overlap

231 331314 331314 Overlap

232 331315 331315 Overlap

233 331316 331316 Overlap

234 331319 331319 Overlap

235 331411 331411 Overlap

236 331419 331419 Overlap

237 331421 331421 Overlap

238 331422 331422 Overlap

239 331423 331423 Overlap

240 331491 331491 Overlap

241 331492 331492 Overlap

242 331510

243 331511 331511 Overlap

244 331512 331512 Overlap

245 331513 331513 Overlap

246 331520 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

247 331521 331521 Overlap

248 331522 331522 Overlap

249 331524 331524 Overlap

250 331525 331525 Overlap

251 331528 331528 Overlap

252 332111 332111 Overlap

253 332112 332112 Overlap

254 332114 332114 Overlap

255 332115 332115 Overlap

256 332116 332116 Overlap

257 332117 332117 Overlap

258 332211 332211 Overlap

259 332212 332212 Overlap

260 332213 332213 Overlap

261 332214 332214 Overlap

262 332311

263 332312 332312 Overlap

264 332313 332313 Overlap

265 332321 332321 Overlap

266 332322 332322 Overlap

267 332323 332323 Overlap

268 332410 332410 Overlap

269 332420 332420 Overlap

270 332430

271 332431 332431 Overlap

272 332439 332439 Overlap

273 332510 332510 Overlap

274 332611

275 332612 332612 Overlap

276 332618 332618 Overlap

277 332710 332710 Overlap

278 332721 332721 Overlap

279 332722 332722 Overlap

### A

- 4 Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

280 332810

281 332811 332811 Overlap

282 332812 332812 Overlap

283 332813 332813 Overlap

284 332911 332911 Overlap

285 332912 332912 Overlap

286 332913 332913 Overlap

287 332919 332919 Overlap

288 332990

289 332991 332991 Overlap

290 332992 332992 Overlap

291 332993 332993 Overlap

292 332994 332994 Overlap

293 332995 332995 Overlap

294 332996 332996 Overlap

295 332997

296 332998

297 332999 332999 Overlap

298 333111 333111 Overlap

299 333112 333112 Overlap

300 333120 333120 Overlap

301 333131 333131 Overlap

302 333132 333132 Overlap

303 333210 333210 Overlap

304 333220 333220 Overlap

305 333291 333291 Overlap

306 333292 333292 Overlap

307 333293 333293 Overlap

308 333294 333294 Overlap

309 333295 333295 Overlap

310 333298 333298 Overlap

311 333311

312 333312 333312 Overlap 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

313 333313

314 333314 333314 Overlap

315 333315 333315 Overlap

316 333319 333319 Overlap

317 333411

318 333412 333412 Overlap

319 333414 333414 Overlap

320 333415 333415 Overlap

321 333511 333511 Overlap

322 333512 333512 Overlap

323 333513 333513 Overlap

324 333514 333514 Overlap

325 333515 333515 Overlap

326 333516 333516 Overlap

327 333518

328 333610

329 333611 333611 Overlap

330 333612 333612 Overlap

331 333613 333613 Overlap

332 333618 333618 Overlap

333 333911 333911 Overlap

334 333912 333912 Overlap

335 333913

336 333921 333921 Overlap

337 333922

338 333923 333923 Overlap

339 333924 333924 Overlap

340 333991 333991 Overlap

341 333992 333992 Overlap

342 333993

343 333994

344 333995 333995 Overlap

345 333996 333996 Overlap 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

346 333997

347 333999 333999 Overlap

348 334110

349 334111 334111 Overlap

350 334112 334112 Overlap

351 334113

352 334119 334119 Overlap

353 334210

354 334220 334220 Overlap

355 334290 334290 Overlap

356 334310 334310 Overlap

357 334410

358 334411 334411 Overlap

359 334412 334412 Overlap

360 334413 334413 Overlap

361 334414 334414 Overlap

362 334415 334415 Overlap

363 334416

364 334417 334417 Overlap

365 334418 334418 Overlap

366 334419 334419 Overlap

367 334510 334510 Overlap

368 334511 334511 Overlap

369 334512 334512 Overlap

370 334513 334513 Overlap

371 334514 334514 Overlap

372 334515 334515 Overlap

373 334516 334516 Overlap

374 334517 334517 Overlap

375 334519 334519 Overlap

376 334612 334612 Overlap

377 334613 334613 Overlap

378 335110 335110 Overlap

### A

- 5 Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

379 335121 335121 Overlap

380 335122 335122 Overlap

381 335129 335129 Overlap

382 335211

383 335212

384 335221

385 335222 335222 Overlap

386 335224 335224 Overlap

387 335228

388 335311 335311 Overlap

389 335312 335312 Overlap

390 335313 335313 Overlap

391 335314 335314 Overlap

392 335910

393 335911 335911 Overlap

394 335912 335912 Overlap

395 335921 335921 Overlap

396 335929 335929 Overlap

397 335931 335931 Overlap

398 335932

399 335991 335991 Overlap

400 335999 335999 Overlap

401 336110

402 336111 336111 Overlap

403 336112 336112 Overlap

404 336120 336120 Overlap

405 336210

406 336211 336211 Overlap

407 336212 336212 Overlap

408 336213 336213 Overlap

409 336214 336214 Overlap

410 336310

411 336311 336311 Overlap 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

412 336312 336312 Overlap

413 336321 336321 Overlap

414 336322 336322 Overlap

415 336330 336330 Overlap

416 336340 336340 Overlap

417 336350 336350 Overlap

418 336360 336360 Overlap

419 336370 336370 Overlap

420 336390

421 336391 336391 Overlap

422 336399 336399 Overlap

423 336410

424 336411 336411 Overlap

425 336412 336412 Overlap

426 336413 336413 Overlap

427 336414 336414 Overlap

428 336415 336415 Overlap

429 336419 336419 Overlap

430 336510 336510 Overlap

431 336610

432 336611 336611 Overlap

433 336612 336612 Overlap

434 336990

435 336991 336991 Overlap

436 336992

437 336999 336999 Overlap

438 337110 337110 Overlap

439 337121 337121 Overlap

440 337122 337122 Overlap

441 337124 337124 Overlap

442 337127 337127 Overlap

443 337211 337211 Overlap

444 337212 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

445 337214 337214 Overlap

446 337215 337215 Overlap

447 337920

448 339110

449 339111 339111 Overlap

450 339112 339112 Overlap

451 339113 339113 Overlap

452 339114 339114 Overlap

453 339115 339115 Overlap

454 339910

455 339911 339911 Overlap

456 339912 339912 Overlap

457 339913

458 339914 339914 Overlap

459 339920 339920 Overlap

460 339941 339941 Overlap

461 339942

462 339943

463 339944

464 339950 339950 Overlap

465 339990

466 339991 339991 Overlap

467 339992 339992 Overlap

468 339993 339993 Overlap

469 339995 339995 Overlap

470 339999 339999 Overlap

471 421120

472 421490

473 421620

474 421830

475 421930

476 422690

477 422720

### A

- 6 Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

478 423110

479 423120

480 423310

481 423320

482 423410

483 423450

484 423490

485 423690

486 423710

487 423830

488 423930

489 423990

490 424210

491 424610

492 424690

493 424710

494 424950

495 425120

496 446110

497 447110

498 447190

499 452990

500 453998

501 454110

502 454111

503 481111

504 481112

505 481211

506 482110

507 482111

508 483112

509 483210

510 483211 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

511 484110

512 484121

513 484122

514 484220

515 484230

516 485111

517 485112

518 485113

519 485990

520 486110

521 486210

522 486910

523 488111

524 488119

525 488190

526 488210

527 488320

528 488390

529 488490

530 488990

531 488999

532 492110

533 493110

534 493190

535 511110

536 511140

537 512110

538 512120

539 512191

540 512199

541 531120

542 531312

543 531390 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

544 532120

545 532299

546 532411

547 532412

548 541330

549 541380

550 541420

551 541512

552 541620

553 541710

554 541720

555 541940

556 541990

557 551114

558 561210

559 561439

560 561499

561 561790

562 561990

563 562110

564 562111

565 562112

566 562119

567 562210 562210 Overlap

568 562211 562211 Overlap

569 562212 562212 Overlap

570 562213 562213 Overlap

571 562219 562219 Overlap

572 562910 562910 Overlap

573 562920 562920 Overlap

574 562998 562998 Overlap

575 611110

576 611210

### A

- 7 Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

577 611310

578 611519

579 611610

580 611699

581 611710

582 621111

583 621112

584 621491

585 621511

586 621512

587 622110

588 622210

589 622310

590 711212

591 712190

592 713110

593 713930

594 713990

595 811111

596 811120

597 811121

598 811191

599 811211

600 811219

601 811310

602 811490

603 812310

604 812320

605 812331

606 812332

607 812921

608 812922

609 814110 

### Appendix A

2009 Count of Affected Industries

2009 non

duplicative

count 2009 BR

NAICS

code 2009 TRI

NAICS

code Code

overlap

count

610 921120

611 921140

612 921190

613 922120

614 922140

615 922190

616 923110

617 924110

618 926110

619 926120

620 926130

621 927110

622 928110

Count = 546 393 305 (56% overlap)

Note s:

 Jointly

- shaded NAICS codes indicate those

NAICS codes specifically queried in the TRI database to represent the 6 pre

- 2008 RCRA industrial recycling exclusions.

 Non

- overlapping NAICS code count =

546 + 393

– 305 = 634.

### B

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# B

Comparison of OSCPP and this RIA Benefit Estimates

for the 2014 DSW Re

- Manufacturing Exclusion

The table below summarizes four main factors which explain the d ifference between the lower

benefit estimate of this RIA compared to OCSPP's high er benefit estimate for the 2014 DSW

final rule "re

- manufacturing " exclusion:
Appendix B

Spent solvent re

- manufacturing

benefit calculation factors OCSPP (Source: June 16, 2011 white paper * )
Benefit estimate = $16.4 to $125.6

million/year This RIA Benefit estimate = $3.0 million/year

1. Data source for spent solvent disposal tonnage (for future potential switch

- over to re

manufacturing)  Source: 2008 TRI solvent disposal of 18 specific solvents (

 Quantity = 219,610 tons/year disposed : 112,083 tons/yr incinerated 107,527 tons/yr burned as fuel  Source: 2005 BRS disposal of “ liquid
organics ” using BRS hazardous waste disposal method “ H050 energy recovery ”

 Quantity = 681,928 tons/year disposed
( source: Exhibit s 5J & 5K of 2008 DSW RIA)

2. Assumed concentrations of spent solvents in disposed waste

streams  TRI methodology: tonnage represents 100% spent solvent mass  BRS methodology: tonnage represents mass of entire waste matrix (spent solvents plus other matter such as water, soil, etc. in the disposed
waste streams)

 BRS tonnage reduced based on OSW' s 1996 National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey (NHWCS) average concentration of spent

solvents in entire waste matrix = 18% (122,747 tons/year) (source: rows 2A & 2B column B tonnage weighted average of rows
2A & 2B percentages in columns C and D of

Ex hibit 8B of 2008 DSW RIA)
3. Assumed solvent recovery

rate if re

- manufactured rather than disposed  92% spent solvent recovery rate for 16 of the 18 spent solvents (75% recovery rate for ethanol & methanol solvents)

 Applied four illustrative (hypothetical)

future switch

- over rates: 10% = 21,961 tons/year
25% = 54,902
50% = 109,805
75% = 164,708  Apply waste stream specific micro

- economic

break

- even test to compare disposal cost to cost of switching to recycling

 Result: 3,755 tons/year met break

- even test (so urce: Exhibit 8A & Exhibit 8B of 2008
DSW RIA)

4. Type of benefit monetized  Pollutant emissions reduction (GHG,
CO, VOC, NOx, SOx, TOC, BOD, COD, TDS, solid waste)

 Business cost savings (avoided RCRA manifests, energy savings, market

value of recovered solvents, shorter transport cost)  Reduction in RCRA regulatory burden compared to recycling spent solvents und er the 2008 DSW rule offsi te transfer recycling
exclusion (source; Section 5F.3 of this RIA)

 Plus extrapolation of OCSPP benefits to the
3,755 ton s/year break

- even test quantity
(source: column A of Exhibit 4M of this RIA) * OCSPP white paper: “Benefits of the Remanufacturing Exclusion: Background Document in Support of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule,” prepared by: US EPA Office of Pollution Pr evention & Toxics (now called OCSPP = Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention), Economic, Exposure & Technology Division, Pollution Prevention Division, June 16, 2011, 12 pages,

available as document ID nr. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0011 at http://www .regulations.gov

### C

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# C

Calculation of Cost Adjustment Factors

Appendices C1 to C 11 below present how the cost adjustment factors applied in Chapter 5 of this RIA were calculated. The cost adjustment factors are used to modify c ost estimates assuming

100% of the facilities or wastes are affected ( e.g.

, 100% rate of 2008 DSW exclusion

notifica tion) to reflect the 54% notification rate under the 2008 DSW Exclusions 1 and 2 applied
in this RIA, the rate of non

- waste determinations under 2008 DSW Exclusion 3, the rate of partial variance applications, the percentage of wastes requiring recycling l egitimacy
documentation, and applying either a 7%, 3%, or non

- discounted discount rate. The following

informa ti on is presented in Ap pendices C1 to C 11 :

 The 1 st 

### column in each exhibit represents the year of the analysis up through 2062.

 The 2 nd 

### column in each exhibit is a count of the year included in the analysis.

 The 3 rd 

### column indicates the number of facilities operating under a DSW exclusion notification in that year.

o Appendix C 1: Assumes that 24 facilities notify for a 2008 DSW Exclusion 1 or 2

in 201 3 through 201 5 and 3.2 % of the facilities notify every year after up until the

maximum number of affec ted facilities located in the 44 states and territories likely to adopt the 2008 DSW r ule (3,865 facilities) for the baseline savings adjustment factor ca lculation.

o Appendix C2: Same as Appendix C 1 except limited to Exclusion 2 with a
maximum of 3,6 31 affected facilities in the 44 state s likely to adopt the 2008

DSW r ule.

o Appendix C3 : Assumes 3.2% of the facilities submit a variance every year starting in 2016 until the maximum number of affected facilities (non

- hazardous waste industrial recyclers) reaches a maximum of 275 affected facilities

.

o Appendix C4 : Same as Appendix C1 except limited to Exclusion 1 with a

maximum of 280 affected faciliti es likely to adopt the 2008 DSW rule.

o Appendix C5 : Assume that 7,500 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusion facilities each generate 11 wastes that are recycled under these exclusions and 1% of these wastes require legitimacy documentation

.

o Appendix C6 : Assume that 23.8 f acilities notify under 2008 DSW Exclusion 2 (now notifying under the 2014 DSW verified recycler exclusion) in 2013 through

201 5 and 3.2% of the facilities notify every year after up until the maximum

number of affected facilities located in the 44 states a nd territories likely to adopt the 2008 DSW rule (3,8 21 facilities) for the compliance cost adjustment factor

calculation.

o Appendix C7 : Assume that 1. 4 facilities notify under 2008 DSW Exclusion 1 in

2013 through 201 5 and 3.2% of the facilities notify ever y year after up until the

maximum number of affected facilities located in the 44 states and territories likely to adopt the 2008 DSW rule ( 227 facilities) for the compliance cost adjustment factor calculation.

o Appendix C 8 : Assume that 10% of the facilitie s that notify under the 2008 DSW

Exclusion 3 non

- waste determination re

- apply in 2016 through 20 63 for the

### C

- 2 compliance cost adjustment factor calculation.

o Appendix C 9 : Assume that 4 facilities re

- apply under the 1985 partial variance in

2016 through 20 63 for the compliance cost adjustment factor calculation.

o Appendix C10 : Assume that 10% of the facilities that notify under the 2008 DSW

Exclusion 3 non

- waste determination submit notifications in 2016 through 20 63

for the compliance cost adjustment factor c alculation.

o Appendix C11 : Assume that 10 variance application facilities submit notifications

in 2016 through 20 63 for the compliance cost adjustment factor calculation.

 The 4 th 

### column in each Appendix C1 to C1 1 is either the aggregate savings or costs for each year which is calculated by multiplying the number of facilities /wastes by the average savings/facility or average costs/facility or average cost/waste.

 The 5 th 

### , 6 th 

### and 7 th 

### c olumns in each Appendix C1 to C11 estimate the aggregate or total

present w ort h savings or costs over the 201 4 through 206 3 using discount rates of 7%,
3%, and non

- discounted , respectively.

### C

- 3 Appendix C 1 Baseline: Exclusion 1 & 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual

Savings (Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Aggregate Present

Value Savings @

7% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 3% Aggrega te PV

Savings @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 67 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 91 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 115 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 139 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 260 $4,716,962 $3,850,446 $4,316,688 $4,716,962

2017 4 381 $6,911,039 $5,272,398 $6,140,368 $6,911,039

2018 5 502 $9,105,115 $6,491,821 $7,854,152 $9,105,115

2019 6 623 $11,299,192 $7,529,129 $9,462,895 $11,299,192

2020 7 743 $13,493,269 $8,402,930 $10,971,262 $13,493,269

2021 8 864 $15,687,345 $9,130,178 $12,383,735 $15,687,345

2022 9 985 $17,881,422 $9,726,309 $13,704,621 $17,881,422

2023 10 1106 $20,075,498 $10,205,365 $14,938,056 $20,075,498

2024 11 1227 $22,269,575 $10,580,115 $16,088,015 $22,269,575

2025 12 1348 $24,463,652 $10,862,154 $17,158,313 $24,463,652

2026 13 1469 $26,657,728 $11,062,010 $18,152,616 $26,657,728

2027 14 1590 $28,851,805 $11,189,227 $19,074,442 $28,851,805

2028 15 1710 $31,045,882 $11,252,456 $19,927,170 $31,045,882

2029 16 1831 $33,239,958 $11,259,524 $20,714,043 $33,239,958

2030 17 1952 $35,434,035 $11,217,508 $21,438,174 $35,434,035

2031 18 2073 $37,628,112 $11,132,800 $22,102,550 $37,628,112

2032 19 2194 $39,822,188 $11,011,167 $22,710,038 $39,822,188

2033 20 2315 $42,016,265 $10,857,801 $23,263,387 $42,016,265

2034 21 2436 $44,210,341 $10,677,376 $23,765,237 $44,210,341

2035 22 2557 $46,404,418 $10,474,088 $24,218,118 $46,404,418

2036 23 2678 $48,598,495 $10,251,701 $24,624,456 $48,598,495

2037 24 2798 $50,792,571 $10,013,584 $24,986,579 $50,792,571

2038 25 2919 $52,986,648 $9,762,746 $25,306,718 $52,986,648

2039 26 3040 $55,180,725 $9,501,872 $25,587,011 $55,180,725

2040 27 3161 $57,374,801 $9,233,348 $25,829,508 $57,374,801

2041 28 3282 $59,568,878 $8,959,291 $26,036,172 $59,568,878

2042 29 3403 $61,762,955 $8,681,575 $26,208,885 $61,762,955

2043 30 3524 $63,957,031 $8,401,851 $26,349,450 $63,957,031

2044 31 3645 $66,151,108 $8,121,570 $26,459,593 $66,151,108

2045 32 3766 $68,345,185 $7,842,004 $26,540,966 $68,345,185

2046 33 3865 $70,150,734 $7,522,593 $26,448,668 $70,150,734

2047 34 3865 $70,150,734 $7,030,461 $25,678,318 $70,150,734

2048 35 3865 $70,150,734 $6,570,524 $24,930,406 $70,150,734

2049 36 3865 $70,150,734 $6,140,677 $24,204,278 $70,150,734

2050 37 3865 $70,150,734 $5,738,950 $23,499,299 $70,150,734

2051 38 3865 $70,150,734 $5,363,505 $22,814,853 $70,150,734

2052 39 3865 $70,150,734 $5,012,621 $22,150,343 $70,150,734

2053 40 3865 $70,150,734 $4,684,693 $21,505,187 $70,150,734

2054 41 3865 $70,150,734 $4,378,218 $20,878,823 $70,150,734

2055 42 3865 $70,150,734 $4,091,792 $20,270,702 $70,150,734

### C

- 4 Appendix C 1 Baseline: Exclusion 1 & 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual

Savings (Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Aggregate Present

Value Savings @

7% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 3% Aggrega te PV

Savings @ non

discounted

2056 43 3865 $70,150,734 $3,824,105 $19,680,293 $70,150,734

2057 44 3865 $70,150,734 $3,573,930 $19,107,080 $70,150,734

2058 45 3865 $70,150,734 $3,340,121 $18,550,564 $70,150,734

2059 46 3865 $70,150,734 $3,121,609 $18,010,256 $70,150,734

2060 47 3865 $70,150,734 $2,917,391 $17,485,685 $70,150,734

2061 48 3865 $70,150,734 $2,726,534 $16,976,394 $70,150,734

2062 49 3865 $70,150,734 $2,548,162 $16,481,935 $70,150,734

2063 50 3865 $70,150,734 $2,381,460 $16,001,879 $70,150,734

Average annual

number of

facilities in 2014

- 2063 and average
annual savings per facility 2604 $18,150

Total Present Worth Cost Savings $363,921,688 $960,988,184 $2,358,645,412

Annualized Savings $26,369,766 $37,353,611 $47,172,908

Exclusion 1 & 2 Total Annual Cost Savings if 100% Notification (Average Savings/Facility x Exclusion 1 & 2
Affected Facilities) $86,685,616 $86,685,616 $86,685,616

Exclusion 1 & 2

Affected Facilities 4776

Percent of Facilities Notify 54% Cost Adjustment Factor
(Annualized Savings/Total Annual Cost Savings 100%
Notification Rate) 30.4200% 43.0909% 54.4184%

### C

- 5 Appendix C 2

Revision 1: Off

- site Transfer Exclusion 2 “Reasonable Efforts” Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of

Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual

Savings (Number

of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Aggregate

Present

Value Savings @

7% Aggregate

PV Savings

@ 3% Aggregate

PV Savings

@ non

discounted

2012

- 2 67 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 91 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 115 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 139 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 252 $708,490 $578,339 $648,369 $708,490

2017 4 366 $1,026,714 $783,275 $912,222 $1,026,714

2018 5 479 $1,344,938 $958,922 $1,160,156 $1,344,938

2019 6 592 $1,663,162 $1,108,235 $1,392,872 $1,663,162

2020 7 706 $1,981,386 $1,233,908 $1,611,048 $1,981,386

2021 8 819 $2,299,610 $1,338,394 $1,815,334 $2,299,610

2022 9 932 $2,617,834 $1,423,928 $2,006,352 $2,617,834

2023 10 1046 $2,936,058 $1,492,543 $2,184,703 $2,936,058

2024 11 1159 $3,254,282 $1,546,086 $2,350,963 $3,254,282

2025 12 1272 $3,572,506 $1,586,236 $2,505,684 $3,572,506

2026 13 1386 $3,890,730 $1,614,515 $2,649,398 $3,890,730

2027 14 1499 $4,208,954 $1,632,305 $2,782,615 $4,208,954

2028 15 1612 $4,527,178 $1,640,858 $2,905,824 $4,527,178

2029 16 1726 $4,845,402 $1,641,305 $3,019,495 $4,845,402

2030 17 1839 $5,163,626 $1,634,672 $3,124,079 $5,163,626

2031 18 1952 $5,481,851 $1,621,882 $3,220,009 $5,481,851

2032 19 2066 $5,800,075 $1,603,769 $3,307,701 $5,800,075

2033 20 2179 $6,118,299 $1,581,085 $3,387,554 $6,118,299

2034 21 2292 $6,436,523 $1,554,504 $3,459,948 $6,436,523

2035 22 2406 $6,754,747 $1,524,635 $3,525,252 $6,754,747

2036 23 2519 $7,072,971 $1,492,021 $3,583,816 $7,072,971

2037 24 2632 $7,391,195 $1,457,149 $3,635,978 $7,391,195

2038 25 2746 $7,709,419 $1,420,454 $3,682,061 $7,709,419

2039 26 2859 $8,027,643 $1,382,324 $3,722,376 $8,027,643

2040 27 2973 $8,345,867 $1,343,103 $3,757,218 $8,345,867

2041 28 3086 $8,664,091 $1,303,098 $3,786,873 $8,664,091

2042 29 3199 $8,982,315 $1,262,579 $3,811,613 $8,982,315

2043 30 3313 $9,300,539 $1,221,785 $3,831,699 $9,300,539

2044 31 3426 $9,618,763 $1,180,924 $3,847,381 $9,618,763

2045 32 3539 $9,936,987 $1,140,181 $3,858,900 $9,936,987

2046 33 3631 $10,194,655 $1,093,221 $3,843,652 $10,194,655

2047 34 3631 $10,194,655 $1,021,702 $3,731,701 $10,194,655

2048 35 3631 $10,194,655 $954,861 $3,623,011 $10,194,655

2049 36 3631 $10,194,655 $892,394 $3,517,486 $10,194,655

2050 37 3631 $10,194,655 $834,013 $3,415,035 $10,194,655

2051 38 3631 $10,194,655 $779,451 $3,315,568 $10,194,655

2052 39 3631 $10,194,655 $728,459 $3,218,998 $10,194,655

2053 40 3631 $10,194,655 $680,803 $3,125,241 $10,194,655

2054 41 3631 $10,194,655 $636,264 $3,034,215 $10,194,655

2055 42 3631 $10,194,655 $594,640 $2,945,840 $10,194,655

2056 43 3631 $10,194,655 $555,738 $2,860,038 $10,194,655

### C

- 6 Appendix C 2

Revision 1: Off

- site Transfer Exclusion 2 “Reasonable Efforts” Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of

Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual

Savings (Number

of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Aggregate

Present

Value Savings @

7% Aggregate

PV Savings

@ 3% Aggregate

PV Savings

@ non

discounted

2057 44 3631 $10,194,655 $519,381 $2,776,736 $10,194,655

2058 45 3631 $10,194,655 $485,403 $2,695,860 $10,194,655

2059 46 3631 $10,194,655 $453,648 $2,617,340 $10,194,655

2060 47 3631 $10,194,655 $423,970 $2,541,107 $10,194,655

2061 48 3631 $10,194,655 $396,234 $2,467,094 $10,194,655

2062 49 3631 $10,194,655 $370,312 $2,395,237 $10,194,655

2063 50 3631 $10,194,655 $346,086 $2,325,473 $10,194,655
Average annual number of

facilities in 2014

- 2063 and average annual savings per facility 2450 $2,808

Total Present Worth Cost Savings $53,069,59

6 $139,937,1

27 $343,185,94

2 Annualized Cost Savings $3,845,423 $5,439,356 $6,863,719

Exclusion 2 Total Annual Cost Savings 100% Notification Rate $13,257,82

4 $13,257,82

4 $13,257,824

Exclusion 2 Affected Facilities 4722

Percent of Facilities Notify 52% Cost Adjustme

nt Factor (Annualiz

ed Savings/T

otal

Annual

Cost Savings

100%

Notificati

on Rate 29.0049% 41.0275% 51.7711%

### C

- 7 Appendix C 3

Revision 1 Requirement 1 B Verified Recycler Exclusion Variance Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Variance

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/waste) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 9 $5,292 $4,320 $4,843 $5,292

2017 4 18 $10,585 $8,075 $9,404 $10,585

2018 5 27 $15,877 $11,320 $13,696 $15,877

2019 6 35 $21,169 $14,106 $17,729 $21,169

2020 7 44 $26,462 $16,479 $21,516 $26,462

2021 8 53 $31,754 $18,481 $25,067 $31,754

2022 9 62 $37,046 $20,151 $28,393 $37,046

2023 10 71 $42,338 $21,523 $31,504 $42,338

2024 11 80 $47,631 $22,629 $34,409 $47,631

2025 12 89 $52,923 $23,498 $37,119 $52,923

2026 13 98 $58,215 $24,157 $39,642 $58,215

2027 14 106 $63,508 $24,629 $41,986 $63,508

2028 15 115 $68,800 $24,936 $44,160 $68,800

2029 16 124 $74,092 $25,098 $46,172 $74,092

2030 17 133 $79,385 $25,131 $48,029 $79,385

2031 18 142 $84,677 $25,053 $49,739 $84,677

2032 19 151 $89,969 $24,877 $51,308 $89,969

2033 20 160 $95,261 $24,617 $52,744 $95,261

2034 21 168 $100,554 $24,285 $54,053 $100,554

2035 22 177 $105,846 $23,891 $55,240 $105,846

2036 23 186 $111,138 $23,444 $56,313 $111,138

2037 24 195 $116,431 $22,954 $57,276 $116,431

2038 25 204 $121,723 $22,427 $58,136 $121,723

2039 26 213 $127,015 $21,871 $58,896 $127,015

2040 27 222 $132,308 $21,292 $59,563 $132,308

2041 28 230 $137,600 $20,695 $60,142 $137,600

2042 29 239 $142,892 $20,085 $60,636 $142,892

2043 30 248 $148,185 $19,467 $61,050 $148,185

2044 31 257 $153,477 $18,843 $61,389 $153,477

2045 32 275 $164,175 $18,838 $63,755 $164,175

2046 33 275 $164,175 $17,605 $61,898 $164,175

2047 34 275 $164,175 $16,454 $60,095 $164,175

2048 35 275 $164,175 $15,377 $58,345 $164,175

2049 36 275 $164,175 $14,371 $56,646 $164,175

2050 37 275 $164,175 $13,431 $54,996 $164,175

2051 38 275 $164,175 $12,552 $53,394 $164,175

2052 39 275 $164,175 $11,731 $51,839 $164,175

2053 40 275 $164,175 $10,964 $50,329 $164,175

2054 41 275 $164,175 $10,246 $48,863 $164,175

2055 42 275 $164,175 $9,576 $47,440 $164,175

### C

- 8 Appendix C 3

Revision 1 Requirement 1 B Verified Recycler Exclusion Variance Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Variance

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/waste) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2056 43 275 $164,175 $8,950 $46,058 $164,175

2057 44 275 $164,175 $8,364 $44,717 $164,175

2058 45 275 $164,175 $7,817 $43,414 $164,175

2059 46 275 $164,175 $7,306 $42,150 $164,175

2060 47 275 $164,175 $6,828 $40,922 $164,175

2061 48 275 $164,175 $6,381 $39,730 $164,175

2062 49 275 $164,175 $5,964 $38,573 $164,175

2063 50 275 $164,175 $5,573 $37,449 $164,175

Average annual

number of facilities

in 2014

- 2063 1 82
Avg. Cost/waste $ 597
Total Present Worth Costs Based on One Waste per Facility $806,724 $2,181,175 $5,423,268

Annualized Costs Based on One Waste per Facility $58,455 $84,782 $108,465

Total Annual Costs if 100% Notification Rate Based on One Waste per Facility $164,175 $164,175 $164,175

Exclusion 2

Affected Facilities 275

Percent of Facilities Notify 66% Cost Adjustment Factor
(Annualized Costs/Total

Annual Costs 100%
Notification Rate) 35.6027% 51.6317% 66.0451%

### C

- 9 Appendix C4

Revision 2 Requirement 2 E Restructuring Requirements in in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)

Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/facility) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 4 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 5 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 7 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 8 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 17 $40 $33 $37 $40

2017 4 26 $61 $47 $54 $61

2018 5 35 $82 $59 $71 $82

2019 6 44 $103 $69 $86 $103

2020 7 53 $124 $77 $101 $124

2021 8 62 $145 $84 $115 $145

2022 9 71 $166 $90 $127 $166

2023 10 80 $187 $95 $139 $187

2024 11 89 $208 $99 $150 $208

2025 12 98 $229 $102 $161 $229

2026 13 107 $250 $104 $170 $250

2027 14 116 $271 $105 $179 $271

2028 15 125 $292 $106 $188 $292

2029 16 135 $313 $106 $195 $313

2030 17 144 $334 $106 $202 $334

2031 18 153 $355 $105 $209 $355

2032 19 162 $377 $104 $215 $377

2033 20 171 $398 $103 $220 $398

2034 21 180 $419 $101 $225 $419

2035 22 189 $440 $99 $229 $440

2036 23 198 $461 $97 $233 $461

2037 24 207 $482 $95 $237 $482

2038 25 216 $503 $93 $240 $503

2039 26 225 $524 $90 $243 $524

2040 27 234 $545 $88 $245 $545

2041 28 243 $566 $85 $247 $566

2042 29 252 $587 $82 $249 $587

2043 30 261 $608 $80 $250 $608

2044 31 270 $629 $77 $252 $629

2045 32 279 $650 $75 $252 $650

2046 33 280 $652 $70 $246 $652

2047 34 280 $652 $65 $239 $652

2048 35 280 $652 $61 $232 $652

2049 36 280 $652 $57 $225 $652

2050 37 280 $652 $53 $219 $652

2051 38 280 $652 $50 $212 $652

2052 39 280 $652 $47 $206 $652

2053 40 280 $652 $44 $200 $652

2054 41 280 $652 $41 $194 $652

2055 42 280 $652 $38 $189 $652

### C

- 10 Appendix C4

Revision 2 Requirement 2 E Restructuring Requirements in in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)

Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/facility) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2056 43 280 $652 $36 $183 $652

2057 44 280 $652 $33 $178 $652

2058 45 280 $652 $31 $173 $652

2059 46 280 $652 $29 $167 $652

2060 47 280 $652 $27 $163 $652

2061 48 280 $652 $25 $158 $652

2062 49 280 $652 $24 $153 $652

2063 50 280 $652 $22 $149 $652

Average annual

number of facilities

in 2014

- 2063 and cost per facility = 1 90 $2.33

Total Present Worth Costs $3,409 $9,008 $22,092

Annualized Costs $247 $350 $442

Exclusion 1 Total Annual Costs $652 $652 $652

Exclusion 1

Affected Facilities 280

Percent of Facilities Notify 68 % Cost Adjustment Factor
(Annualized Savings/Total Annual Savings 100%
Notification Rate) 37.8611% 53.6721% 67.7255%

### C

- 11 Appendix C5

Revision 3 Requirement 3A Prohibition on “Sham Recycling” Making All Four Legitimacy Factors Mandatory Applied to Pre

- 2008 DSW Exclusions Compliance Cost Adjustment

Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Affected Wastes (Number of Pre

2008 Facilit ies x 11 Wastes/Facility x 1% of ALL pre

2008 Facility

Wastes Submit Legitimacy

Documentation for Recycling ) Aggregate Annual

Costs (Number of

Facilities x Avg.
Costs/Waste) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discoun ted

2012

- 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 825 $568,425 $464,004 $520,189 $568,425

2017 4 825 $568,425 $433,649 $505,038 $568,425

2018 5 825 $568,425 $405,279 $490,328 $568,425

2019 6 825 $568,425 $378,766 $476,047 $568,425

2020 7 825 $568,425 $353,987 $462,182 $568,425

2021 8 825 $568,425 $330,829 $448,720 $568,425

2022 9 825 $568,425 $309,186 $435,650 $568,425

2023 10 825 $568,425 $288,958 $422,962 $568,425

2024 11 825 $568,425 $270,055 $410,642 $568,425

2025 12 825 $568,425 $252,387 $398,682 $568,425

2026 13 825 $568,425 $235,876 $387,070 $568,425

2027 14 825 $568,425 $220,445 $375,796 $568,425

2028 15 825 $568,425 $206,023 $364,850 $568,425

2029 16 825 $568,425 $192,545 $354,224 $568,425

2030 17 825 $568,425 $179,949 $343,906 $568,425

2031 18 825 $568,425 $168,176 $333,890 $568,425

2032 19 825 $568,425 $157,174 $324,165 $568,425

2033 20 825 $568,425 $146,892 $314,723 $568,425

2034 21 825 $568,425 $137,282 $305,556 $568,425

2035 22 825 $568,425 $128,301 $296,657 $568,425

2036 23 825 $568,425 $119,907 $288,016 $568,425

2037 24 825 $568,425 $112,063 $279,627 $568,425

2038 25 825 $568,425 $104,732 $271,483 $568,425

2039 26 825 $568,425 $97,880 $263,576 $568,425

2040 27 825 $568,425 $91,477 $255,899 $568,425

2041 28 825 $568,425 $85,492 $248,445 $568,425

2042 29 825 $568,425 $79,899 $241,209 $568,425

2043 30 825 $568,425 $74,672 $234,184 $568,425

2044 31 825 $568,425 $69,787 $227,363 $568,425

### C

- 12 Appendix C5

Revision 3 Requirement 3A Prohibition on “Sham Recycling” Making All Four Legitimacy Factors Mandatory Applied to Pre

- 2008 DSW Exclusions Compliance Cost Adjustment

Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Affected Wastes (Number of Pre

2008 Facilit ies x 11 Wastes/Facility x 1% of ALL pre

2008 Facility

Wastes Submit Legitimacy

Documentation for Recycling ) Aggregate Annual

Costs (Number of

Facilities x Avg.
Costs/Waste) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discoun ted

2045 32 825 $568,425 $65,222 $220,740 $568,425

2046 33 825 $568,425 $60,955 $214,311 $568,425

2047 34 825 $568,425 $56,967 $208,069 $568,425

2048 35 825 $568,425 $53,240 $202,009 $568,425

2049 36 825 $568,425 $49,757 $196,125 $568,425

2050 37 825 $568,425 $46,502 $190,413 $568,425

2051 38 825 $568,425 $43,460 $184,867 $568,425

2052 39 825 $568,425 $40,617 $179,482 $568,425

2053 40 825 $568,425 $37,960 $174,255 $568,425

2054 41 825 $568,425 $35,476 $169,179 $568,425

2055 42 825 $568,425 $33,155 $164,252 $568,425

2056 43 825 $568,425 $30,986 $159,468 $568,425

2057 44 825 $568,425 $28,959 $154,823 $568,425

2058 45 825 $568,425 $27,065 $150,314 $568,425

2059 46 825 $568,425 $25,294 $145,935 $568,425

2060 47 825 $568,425 $23,639 $141,685 $568,425

2061 48 825 $568,425 $22,093 $137,558 $568,425

2062 49 825 $568,425 $20,648 $133,552 $568,425

2063 50 825 $568,425 $19,297 $129,662 $568,425

Average A nnual

No. of Wastes in

2014

- 2063 = 792 (Cost per waste)
$689

Total Present Worth Costs Based on 11 Wastes per Facility and 1% of Wastes Requiring Legitimacy Documentation $6,816,966 $13,537,777 $27,284,400

Annualized Costs Based on 2.2 Waste per Facility and 1% of Wastes Requiring Legitimacy Documentation $493,957 $526,213 $545,688

Total Annual Costs if 100% Notification Rate Based on 11 Waste per Facility and 1% of Wastes Requiring Legitimacy

Documentation $56,842,500 $56,842,500 $56,842,500

Pre

- 2008

Exclusions

Affected Facilities 7,500

Percent of

Facilities Wastes 1 % Cost Adjustment Factor
(Annualized Costs/Total

Annual Costs 100%
Notification Rate) 0.8690% 0.9257% 0.9600%

### C

- 13 Appendix C6

Revision 3 Requirement 3A Prohibition on “Sham Recycling” Making All Four Legitimacy Factors Mandatory Applied to 2008 DSW Transfer

- Controlled Exclusion Facilities Now Operating Under 2014 DSW Verified Recycler Exclusion Compliance Cost Adjustment

Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x 2.2 Wastes/Facility x Avg. Costs/Waste x 1% of Wastes Requiring Legitimacy

Documentation ) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggre gate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 67 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 91 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 114 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 138 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 258 $3,905 $3,188 $3,574 $3,905

2017 4 377 $5,716 $4,361 $5,079 $5,716

2018 5 497 $7,528 $5,367 $6,493 $7,528

2019 6 616 $9,339 $6,223 $7,821 $9,339

2020 7 736 $11,150 $6,944 $9,066 $11,150

2021 8 855 $12,962 $7,544 $10,232 $12,962

2022 9 975 $14,773 $8,035 $11,322 $14,773

2023 10 1,094 $16,584 $8,431 $12,340 $16,584

2024 11 1,214 $18,395 $8,740 $13,289 $18,395

2025 12 1,333 $20,207 $8,972 $14,173 $20,207

2026 13 1,453 $22,018 $9,137 $14,993 $22,018

2027 14 1,572 $23,829 $9,241 $15,754 $23,829

2028 15 1,692 $25,641 $9,293 $16,458 $25,641

2029 16 1,811 $27,452 $9,299 $17,107 $27,452

2030 17 1,931 $29,263 $9,264 $17,705 $29,263

2031 18 2,050 $31,075 $9,194 $18,253 $31,075

2032 19 2,170 $32,886 $9,093 $18,754 $32,886

2033 20 2,289 $34,697 $8,966 $19,211 $34,697

2034 21 2,409 $36,508 $8,817 $19,625 $36,508

2035 22 2,528 $38,320 $8,649 $19,999 $38,320

2036 23 2,648 $40,131 $8,466 $20,334 $40,131

2037 24 2,767 $41,942 $8,269 $20,633 $41,942

2038 25 2,887 $43,754 $8,062 $20,897 $43,754

2039 26 3,006 $45,565 $7,846 $21,128 $45,565

2040 27 3,125 $47,376 $7,624 $21,328 $47,376

2041 28 3,245 $49,188 $7,398 $21,499 $49,188

2042 29 3,364 $50,999 $7,169 $21,641 $50,999

2043 30 3,484 $52,810 $6,938 $21,757 $52,810

2044 31 3,603 $54,621 $6,706 $21,848 $54,621

2045 32 3,723 $56,433 $6,475 $21,915 $56,433

2046 33 3,821 $57,919 $6,211 $21,837 $57,919

2047 34 3,821 $57,919 $5,805 $21,201 $57,919

2048 35 3,821 $57,919 $5,425 $20,583 $57,919

2049 36 3,821 $57,919 $5,070 $19,984 $57,919

### C

- 14 Appendix C6

Revision 3 Requirement 3A Prohibition on “Sham Recycling” Making All Four Legitimacy Factors Mandatory Applied to 2008 DSW Transfer

- Controlled Exclusion Facilities Now Operating Under 2014 DSW Verified Recycler Exclusion Compliance Cost Adjustment

Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x 2.2 Wastes/Facility x Avg. Costs/Waste x 1% of Wastes Requiring Legitimacy

Documentation ) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggre gate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2050 37 3,821 $57,919 $4,738 $19,402 $57,919

2051 38 3,821 $57,919 $4,428 $18,837 $57,919

2052 39 3,821 $57,919 $4,139 $18,288 $57,919

2053 40 3,821 $57,919 $3,868 $17,755 $57,919

2054 41 3,821 $57,919 $3,615 $17,238 $57,919

2055 42 3,821 $57,919 $3,378 $16,736 $57,919

2056 43 3,821 $57,919 $3,157 $16,249 $57,919

2057 44 3,821 $57,919 $2,951 $15,775 $57,919

2058 45 3,821 $57,919 $2,758 $15,316 $57,919

2059 46 3,821 $57,919 $2,577 $14,870 $57,919

2060 47 3,821 $57,919 $2,409 $14,437 $57,919

2061 48 3,821 $57,919 $2,251 $14,016 $57,919

2062 49 3,821 $57,919 $2,104 $13,608 $57,919

2063 50 3,821 $57,919 $1,966 $13,212 $57,919

Average annual

number of facilities

in 2014

- 2063 2,575 (Cost per waste) $689

Total Present Worth Costs Based on 2.2 Wastes per Facility and 1% of Wastes Requiring Legitimacy Documentation $300,559 $793,573 $1,947,605

Annualized Costs Based on 2.2 Waste per Facility and 1% of Wastes Requiring Legitimacy Documentation $21,779 $30,846 $38,952

Total Annual Costs if 100% Notification Rate Based on 2.2 Waste per Facility and 1% of Wastes Requiring Legitimacy

Documentation $7,157,608 $7,157,608 $7,157,608

Exclusion 2

Affected Facilities 4,722

Percent of Facilities Notify 55% Cost Adjustment Factor
(Annualized Costs/Total

Annual Costs 100%
Notification Rate) 0.3043% 0.4310% 0.5442%

### C

- 15 Appendix C 7

Revision 3 Requirement 3 B Four Legitimacy Factor Documentation Applied to 2008 DSW

Generator

- Controlled Exclusions Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x 2.2 Wastes/Facility x Avg. Costs/Waste) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 4 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 5 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 7 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 8 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 15 $23,095 $18,852 $21,135 $23,095

2017 4 22 $33,837 $25,814 $30,064 $33,837

2018 5 29 $44,580 $31,785 $38,455 $44,580

2019 6 36 $55,322 $36,864 $46,332 $55,322

2020 7 44 $66,065 $41,142 $53,717 $66,065

2021 8 51 $76,807 $44,703 $60,632 $76,807

2022 9 58 $87,550 $47,621 $67,100 $87,550

2023 10 65 $98,292 $49,967 $73,139 $98,292

2024 11 72 $109,035 $51,802 $78,769 $109,035

2025 12 79 $119,777 $53,183 $84,009 $119,777

2026 13 86 $130,520 $54,161 $88,878 $130,520

2027 14 93 $141,262 $54,784 $93,391 $141,262

2028 15 100 $152,005 $55,093 $97,566 $152,005

2029 16 107 $162,747 $55,128 $101,419 $162,747

2030 17 114 $173,490 $54,922 $104,964 $173,490

2031 18 122 $184,232 $54,508 $108,217 $184,232

2032 19 129 $194,975 $53,912 $111,191 $194,975

2033 20 136 $205,717 $53,161 $113,901 $205,717

2034 21 143 $216,460 $52,278 $116,358 $216,460

2035 22 150 $227,202 $51,282 $118,575 $227,202

2036 23 157 $237,945 $50,194 $120,565 $237,945

2037 24 164 $248,687 $49,028 $122,338 $248,687

2038 25 171 $259,429 $47,800 $123,905 $259,429

2039 26 178 $270,172 $46,522 $125,277 $270,172

2040 27 185 $280,914 $45,208 $126,465 $280,914

2041 28 192 $291,657 $43,866 $127,476 $291,657

2042 29 199 $302,399 $42,506 $128,322 $302,399

2043 30 207 $313,142 $41,137 $129,010 $313,142

2044 31 214 $323,884 $39,764 $129,550 $323,884

2045 32 221 $334,627 $38,395 $129,948 $334,627

2046 33 227 $344,087 $36,898 $129,730 $344,087

2047 34 227 $344,087 $34,484 $125,951 $344,087

2048 35 227 $344,087 $32,228 $122,283 $344,087

2049 36 227 $344,087 $30,120 $118,721 $344,087

2050 37 227 $344,087 $28,149 $115,263 $344,087

2051 38 227 $344,087 $26,308 $111,906 $344,087

2052 39 227 $344,087 $24,587 $108,647 $344,087

2053 40 227 $344,087 $22,978 $105,482 $344,087

### C

- 16 Appendix C 7

Revision 3 Requirement 3 B Four Legitimacy Factor Documentation Applied to 2008 DSW

Generator

- Controlled Exclusions Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x 2.2 Wastes/Facility x Avg. Costs/Waste) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2054 41 227 $344,087 $21,475 $102,410 $344,087

2055 42 227 $344,087 $20,070 $99,427 $344,087

2056 43 227 $344,087 $18,757 $96,531 $344,087

2057 44 227 $344,087 $17,530 $93,719 $344,087

2058 45 227 $344,087 $16,383 $90,990 $344,087

2059 46 227 $344,087 $15,311 $88,340 $344,087

2060 47 227 $344,087 $14,310 $85,767 $344,087

2061 48 227 $344,087 $13,374 $83,269 $344,087

2062 49 227 $344,087 $12,499 $80,843 $344,087

2063 50 227 $344,087 $11,681 $78,489 $344,087

Average annual

number of facilities

in 2014

- 2063 153 (Cost per waste) $689

Total Present Worth Costs Based on 2.2 Wastes per Facility $1,782,523 $4,708,431 $11,559,385

Annualized Costs Based on 2.2 Waste per Facility $129,162 $183,017 $231,188

Total Annual Costs if 100% Notification Rate Based on 2.2 Waste per Facility $424,424 $424,424 $424,424

Exclusion 1

Affected Facilities 280

Percent of Facilities Notify 55% Cost Adjustment Factor
(Annualized Costs/Total

Annual Costs 100% Notification Rate) 30.4322% 43.1212% 54.4709%

### C

- 17 Appendix C8

Revision 4 Requirement 4A Non

- Waste Determination Re

- Application

Com pliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of Re

Applicant

Facilities Per

Year (10% Re

Apply/Year) Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/Facility ) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 2.1 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 2.8 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 3.5 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 4.2 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 4.9 $25,612 $20,907 $23,439 $25,612

2017 4 5.6 $29,271 $22,331 $26,007 $29,271

2018 5 6.3 $32,930 $23,479 $28,406 $32,930

2019 6 7 $36,589 $24,381 $30,643 $36,589

2020 7 7.4 $38,680 $24,088 $31,450 $38,680

2021 8 7.4 $38,680 $22,512 $30,534 $38,680

2022 9 7.4 $38,680 $21,039 $29,645 $38,680

2023 10 7.4 $38,680 $19,663 $28,781 $38,680

2024 11 7.4 $38,680 $18,376 $27,943 $38,680

2025 12 7.4 $38,680 $17,174 $27,129 $38,680

2026 13 7.4 $38,680 $16,051 $26,339 $38,680

2027 14 7.4 $38,680 $15,001 $25,572 $38,680

2028 15 7.4 $38,680 $14,019 $24,827 $38,680

2029 16 7.4 $38,680 $13,102 $24,104 $38,680

2030 17 7.4 $38,680 $12,245 $23,402 $38,680

2031 18 7.4 $38,680 $11,444 $22,720 $38,680

2032 19 7.4 $38,680 $10,695 $22,059 $38,680

2033 20 7.4 $38,680 $9,996 $21,416 $38,680

2034 21 7.4 $38,680 $9,342 $20,792 $38,680

2035 22 7.4 $38,680 $8,731 $20,187 $38,680

2036 23 7.4 $38,680 $8,159 $19,599 $38,680

2037 24 7.4 $38,680 $7,626 $19,028 $38,680

2038 25 7.4 $38,680 $7,127 $18,474 $38,680

2039 26 7.4 $38,680 $6,660 $17,936 $38,680

2040 27 7.4 $38,680 $6,225 $17,413 $38,680

2041 28 7.4 $38,680 $5,818 $16,906 $38,680

2042 29 7.4 $38,680 $5,437 $16,414 $38,680

2043 30 7.4 $38,680 $5,081 $15,936 $38,680

2044 31 7.4 $38,680 $4,749 $15,471 $38,680

2045 32 7.4 $38,680 $4,438 $15,021 $38,680

2046 33 7.4 $38,680 $4,148 $14,583 $38,680

2047 34 7.4 $38,680 $3,876 $14,159 $38,680

2048 35 7.4 $38,680 $3,623 $13,746 $38,680

2049 36 7.4 $38,680 $3,386 $13,346 $38,680

2050 37 7.4 $38,680 $3,164 $12,957 $38,680

2051 38 7.4 $38,680 $2,957 $12,580 $38,680

2052 39 7.4 $38,680 $2,764 $12,213 $38,680

2053 40 7.4 $38,680 $2,583 $11,858 $38,680

### C

- 18 Appendix C8

Revision 4 Requirement 4A Non

- Waste Determination Re

- Application

Com pliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of Re

Applicant

Facilities Per

Year (10% Re

Apply/Year) Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/Facility ) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2054 41 7.4 $38,680 $2,414 $11,512 $38,680

2055 42 7.4 $38,680 $2,256 $11,177 $38,680

2056 43 7.4 $38,680 $2,109 $10,851 $38,680

2057 44 7.4 $38,680 $1,971 $10,535 $38,680

2058 45 7.4 $38,680 $1,842 $10,228 $38,680

2059 46 7.4 $38,680 $1,721 $9,931 $38,680

2060 47 7.4 $38,680 $1,609 $9,641 $38,680

2061 48 7.4 $38,680 $1,503 $9,360 $38,680

2062 49 7.4 $38,680 $1,405 $9,088 $38,680

2063 50 7.4 $38,680 $1,313 $8,823 $38,680

Average annual

number of facilities

in 2014

- 2063 7.14
Average Cost/Facility $5,227

Total Present Worth Costs Based on One Waste per Facility $440,539 $894,181 $1,826,314

Annualized Costs Based on One Waste per Facility $31,921.45 $34,756.80 $36,526.28

Total Annual Costs if 100% Notification Rate Based on One Waste per Facility $38,680 $38,680 $38,680

Exclusion 3

Affected Facilities 74

Percent of Facilities

Re

- applying 9

. 7% Cost Adjustment Factor (Annualized Costs/Total

Annual Costs 100%
Notification Rate) 82.5274% 89.8578% 94.4324%

### C

- 19 Appendix C9

Revision 4 Requirement 4A Partial Variance Re

- Application

Com pliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of Re

Applicant

Facilities Per

Year Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/Facility ) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 4 $20,908 $17,067 $19,134 $20,908

2017 4 4 $20,908 $15,951 $18,576 $20,908

2018 5 4 $20,908 $14,907 $18,035 $20,908

2019 6 4 $20,908 $13,932 $17,510 $20,908

2020 7 4 $20,908 $13,020 $17,000 $20,908

2021 8 4 $20,908 $12,169 $16,505 $20,908

2022 9 4 $20,908 $11,373 $16,024 $20,908

2023 10 4 $20,908 $10,629 $15,558 $20,908

2024 11 4 $20,908 $9,933 $15,104 $20,908

2025 12 4 $20,908 $9,283 $14,664 $20,908

2026 13 4 $20,908 $8,676 $14,237 $20,908

2027 14 4 $20,908 $8,108 $13,823 $20,908

2028 15 4 $20,908 $7,578 $13,420 $20,908

2029 16 4 $20,908 $7,082 $13,029 $20,908

2030 17 4 $20,908 $6,619 $12,650 $20,908

2031 18 4 $20,908 $6,186 $12,281 $20,908

2032 19 4 $20,908 $5,781 $11,924 $20,908

2033 20 4 $20,908 $5,403 $11,576 $20,908

2034 21 4 $20,908 $5,050 $11,239 $20,908

2035 22 4 $20,908 $4,719 $10,912 $20,908

2036 23 4 $20,908 $4,410 $10,594 $20,908

2037 24 4 $20,908 $4,122 $10,285 $20,908

2038 25 4 $20,908 $3,852 $9,986 $20,908

2039 26 4 $20,908 $3,600 $9,695 $20,908

2040 27 4 $20,908 $3,365 $9,413 $20,908

2041 28 4 $20,908 $3,145 $9,138 $20,908

2042 29 4 $20,908 $2,939 $8,872 $20,908

2043 30 4 $20,908 $2,747 $8,614 $20,908

2044 31 4 $20,908 $2,567 $8,363 $20,908

2045 32 4 $20,908 $2,399 $8,119 $20,908

2046 33 4 $20,908 $2,242 $7,883 $20,908

2047 34 4 $20,908 $2,095 $7,653 $20,908

2048 35 4 $20,908 $1,958 $7,430 $20,908

2049 36 4 $20,908 $1,830 $7,214 $20,908

2050 37 4 $20,908 $1,710 $7,004 $20,908

2051 38 4 $20,908 $1,599 $6,800 $20,908

2052 39 4 $20,908 $1,494 $6,602 $20,908

2053 40 4 $20,908 $1,396 $6,409 $20,908

2054 41 4 $20,908 $1,305 $6,223 $20,908

### C

- 20 Appendix C9

Revision 4 Requirement 4A Partial Variance Re

- Application

Com pliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of Re

Applicant

Facilities Per

Year Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/Facility ) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2055 42 4 $20,908 $1,220 $6,042 $20,908

2056 43 4 $20,908 $1,140 $5,866 $20,908

2057 44 4 $20,908 $1,065 $5,695 $20,908

2058 45 4 $20,908 $996 $5,529 $20,908

2059 46 4 $20,908 $930 $5,368 $20,908

2060 47 4 $20,908 $870 $5,212 $20,908

2061 48 4 $20,908 $813 $5,060 $20,908

2062 49 4 $20,908 $759 $4,912 $20,908

2063 50 4 $20,908 $710 $4,769 $20,908

Average annual

numb e r of facilities

in 2014

- 2063 3.84
Average Cost/Facility $5,227

Total Present Worth Costs $250,744 $497,951 $1,003,584

Annualized Costs $18,169 $19,355 $20,072

Total Annual Costs if 100% Notification $20,908 $20,908 $20,908

Affected Variance

Re

- Application

Facilities 4

Percent of Facilities

Re

- applying 96 % Cost Adjustment Factor
(Annualized Costs/Total

Annual Costs 100%
Notification Rate) 28.2% 40.1% 50.8%

### C

- 21 Appendix C 10

Revision 4 Requirement 4 B Non

- Waste Determination Notification Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/waste) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 21 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 28 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 35 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 42 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 49 $231 $188 $211 $231

2017 4 56 $264 $201 $234 $264

2018 5 63 $297 $212 $256 $297

2019 6 70 $330 $220 $276 $330

2020 7 74 $349 $217 $283 $349

2021 8 74 $349 $203 $275 $349

2022 9 74 $349 $190 $267 $349

2023 10 74 $349 $177 $259 $349

2024 11 74 $349 $166 $252 $349

2025 12 74 $349 $155 $244 $349

2026 13 74 $349 $145 $237 $349

2027 14 74 $349 $135 $230 $349

2028 15 74 $349 $126 $224 $349

2029 16 74 $349 $118 $217 $349

2030 17 74 $349 $110 $211 $349

2031 18 74 $349 $103 $205 $349

2032 19 74 $349 $96 $199 $349

2033 20 74 $349 $90 $193 $349

2034 21 74 $349 $84 $187 $349

2035 22 74 $349 $79 $182 $349

2036 23 74 $349 $74 $177 $349

2037 24 74 $349 $69 $171 $349

2038 25 74 $349 $64 $166 $349

2039 26 74 $349 $60 $162 $349

2040 27 74 $349 $56 $157 $349

2041 28 74 $349 $52 $152 $349

2042 29 74 $349 $49 $148 $349

2043 30 74 $349 $46 $144 $349

2044 31 74 $349 $43 $139 $349

2045 32 74 $349 $40 $135 $349

2046 33 74 $349 $37 $131 $349

2047 34 74 $349 $35 $128 $349

2048 35 74 $349 $33 $124 $349

2049 36 74 $349 $31 $120 $349

2050 37 74 $349 $29 $117 $349

2051 38 74 $349 $27 $113 $349

2052 39 74 $349 $25 $110 $349

2053 40 74 $349 $23 $107 $349

2054 41 74 $349 $22 $104 $349

2055 42 74 $349 $20 $101 $349

### C

- 22 Appendix C 10

Revision 4 Requirement 4 B Non

- Waste Determination Notification Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying

Facilities Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/waste) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2056 43 74 $349 $19 $98 $349

2057 44 74 $349 $18 $95 $349

2058 45 74 $349 $17 $92 $349

2059 46 74 $349 $16 $89 $349

2060 47 74 $349 $14 $87 $349

2061 48 74 $349 $14 $84 $349

2062 49 74 $349 $13 $82 $349

2063 50 74 $349 $12 $80 $349

Average annual

number of facilities

in 2014

- 2063 71.4
Avg. Cost/waste $4.71

Total Present Worth Costs $3,970 $8,057 $16,457

Annualized Costs $288 $313 $329

Total Annual Costs if 100% Notification Rate $349 $349 $349

Exclusion 3

Affected Facilities 74

Percent of Facilities Notify 97% Cost Adjustment Factor
(Annualized Costs/Total

Annual Costs 100% Notification Rate) 82.5274% 89.8578% 94.4324%

### C

- 23 Appendix C 11

Revision 4 Requirement 4 B Partial Variance Notification

Com pliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Variance Application

Facilities Per

Year Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/Facility ) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2012

- 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013

- 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2016 3 10 $47 $38 $43 $47

2017 4 20 $94 $72 $84 $94

2018 5 30 $141 $101 $122 $141

2019 6 40 $188 $126 $158 $188

2020 7 50 $236 $147 $191 $236

2021 8 60 $283 $164 $223 $283

2022 9 70 $330 $179 $253 $330

2023 10 80 $377 $192 $280 $377

2024 11 90 $424 $201 $306 $424

2025 12 100 $471 $209 $330 $471

2026 13 110 $518 $215 $353 $518

2027 14 120 $565 $219 $374 $565

2028 15 130 $612 $222 $393 $612

2029 16 140 $659 $223 $411 $659

2030 17 150 $707 $224 $427 $707

2031 18 160 $754 $223 $443 $754

2032 19 170 $801 $221 $457 $801

2033 20 180 $848 $219 $469 $848

2034 21 190 $895 $216 $481 $895

2035 22 200 $942 $213 $492 $942

2036 23 210 $989 $209 $501 $989

2037 24 220 $1,036 $204 $510 $1,036

2038 25 230 $1,083 $200 $517 $1,083

2039 26 240 $1,130 $195 $524 $1,130

2040 27 250 $1,178 $189 $530 $1,178

2041 28 260 $1,225 $184 $535 $1,225

2042 29 270 $1,272 $179 $540 $1,272

2043 30 280 $1,319 $173 $543 $1,319

2044 31 290 $1,366 $168 $546 $1,366

2045 32 300 $1,413 $162 $549 $1,413

2046 33 310 $1,460 $157 $550 $1,460

2047 34 320 $1,507 $151 $552 $1,507

2048 35 330 $1,554 $146 $552 $1,554

2049 36 340 $1,601 $140 $553 $1,601

2050 37 350 $1,649 $135 $552 $1,649

2051 38 360 $1,696 $130 $551 $1,696

2052 39 370 $1,743 $125 $550 $1,743

2053 40 380 $1,790 $120 $549 $1,790

### C

- 24 Appendix C 11

Revision 4 Requirement 4 B Partial Variance Notification

Com pliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Period of Analysis

Year Number of

Variance Application

Facilities Per

Year Aggregate Annual Costs

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Costs/Facility ) Aggregate

Present Value

Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ non

discounted

2054 41 390 $1,837 $115 $547 $1,837

2055 42 400 $1,884 $110 $544 $1,884

2056 43 410 $1,931 $105 $542 $1,931

2057 44 420 $1,978 $101 $539 $1,978

2058 45 430 $2,025 $96 $536 $2,025

2059 46 440 $2,072 $92 $532 $2,072

2060 47 450 $2,120 $88 $528 $2,120

2061 48 460 $2,167 $84 $524 $2,167

2062 49 470 $2,214 $80 $520 $2,214

2063 50 480 $2,261 $77 $516 $2,261

Average annual

number of facilities

in 2014

- 2063 235.2
Average Cost/Facility $ 4.71

Total Present Worth Costs $7,538 $21,323 $55,390

Annualized Costs $546.19 $828.83 $1,107.79

Total Annual Costs if 100% Notification Rate $1,108 $1,108 $1,108

A ffected Variance Application

Facilities 235.2

Percent of Facilities Notifying 100 % Cost Adjustment Factor (Annualized Costs/Total

Annual Costs 100% Notification Rate) 49.3045% 74.8184% 100.0000%

### D

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# D 2009 EPA “Toxics Release Inventory” (TRI) Chemical Waste Data Reported by the Four Industries Eligible for the “Remanufacturing” Revision 5

Source: Provided 03 March 2011 to EPA

- ORCR by Kathy Davey & Sharon Austin, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics
Appendix D1: 1 of 4: Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

- 16 Chemicals Total Facilities: 114

Facilities reporting 16 chemicals: 66 facilities from 53 parent companie s Total Parents: 77
Releases (pounds) Waste (pounds)

179 179 Submissions 16 selected chemicals

- Pharmaceutical 1,985,316 107,615,867

47% % of total 68% 84%

376 376 Total Submissions

– Pharmaceutical 2,927,668 127,941,376

Chemical Name # of Submissions

1 1,2,4

- Trimethylbenzene 2 55 2,115

2 Acetonitrile 20 57,947 10,573,683

3 Chlorobenzene 1 48 110,462

4 Chloroform 5 5,231 6,385,920

5 Chloromethane 1 4,130 53,110

6 Cyclohexane 3 7250 3,126,142

7 Dichloromethane 34 287,911 20,301,110

8 Ethylbenzene 1 8 17,908

9 Methanol 46 367,228 43,991,691

10 Methyl isobutyl ketone 1 97 52,867

11 Methyl tert

- butyl ether 13 16,998 2,120,018

12 NN

- dimethylformamide 13 590143 5,378,248

13 N

- butyl alcohol 2 1,477 1,148,099

14 N

- hexane 6 6,263 347,367

15 Toluene 27 633,579 13,885,296

16 Xylene (mixed isomers) 5 6951 121811

179 Submissions 16 selected chemicals

- Pharmaceutical 179 1,985,316 107,615,847

Short ton equivalency = 993 53,808 Average tons per facility = 9 472

Note: The TRI database do es not explicitly indicate whether these chemicals actually function as “solvents” (or function for other purposes, for example, such as chemical reactants or catalyst TRI

- reporting facilities in the processing aid applications for which they are reporting the chemical

data.

### D

- 2

### D

- 3

2 of 4: Paint & Coating Manufacturing

- 16 Chemicals Total Facilities: 430

Facilities reporting 16 chemicals: 297 facilities from 200 parent companies Total Parents: 250

Releases (pounds) Waste

(pounds)

960 960 Submissions for 16 selected chemicals

– Paint&Coating 1,647,483 76,814,939 

### Appendix D2: 2 of 4: Paint and Coating Manufacturing

- By 16 Chemicals

44% % of total 44% 87%

2187 2187 Total Submissions

– All Paint & Coating 3,785,958 88,569,586

Chemical Name # of Submissions

1 1,2,4

- Trimethylbenzene 115 106,501 4,269,637

2 Acetonitrile 0

3 Chlorobenzene 0

4 Chloroform 0

5 Chloromethane 0

6 Cyclohexane 5 2580 23,341

7 Dichloromethane 13 45,383 123,324

8 Ethylbenzene 121 113,961 5,483,886

9 Methanol 69 137,062 11,386,270

10 Methyl isobutyl ketone 95 84,601 8,788,745

11 Methyl tert

- butyl ether 1 861 861

12 NN

- dimethylformamide 1 5 210

13 N

- butyl alcohol 98 127,272 3,312,324

14 N

- hexane 12 7,028 114,240

15 Toluene 187 428,524 13,628,661

16 Xylene (mixed isomers) 243 593,704 29,683,620

960 Submissions for 16 selected chemicals

– Paint&Coating 960 1,647,482 76,815,119
Short ton equivalency = 824 38,408

Average tons per facility = 2 89

Note: The TRI database does not explicitly indicate whether these chemicals actually function as “solvents” (or function for other purposes, for example, such as chemical reactants or catalysts) by the TRI

- reporting facilities in the proce ssing aid applications for which they are reporting the chemical data.

### D

- 4

### D

- 5

Appendix D3: 3 of 4: Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

- By 16 Chemical Total Facilities: 390

Facilities reporting 16 chemicals: 276 facilities from 200 parent companies Total Parents: 273

Releases (pounds) Waste

(pounds)

801 801 Submissions for 16 selected solvents

- Basic Organic Chemical 26,532,002 660,228,736

25% % of total 29% 26%

3230 3230 Total Submissions

- Basic Organic Chemical 91,222,948 2,507,611,023

Chemical Name # of Submissions

1 1,2,4

- Trimethylbenzene 36 15,570 306,747

2 Acetonitrile 27 16,166,337 34,219,998

3 Chlorobenzene 23 54,223 3,330,308

4 Chloroform 19 108,251 10,258,992

5 Chloromethane 24 243,208 9,829,431

6 Cyclohexane 35 1,352,079 26,804,133

7 Dichloromethane 23 221,217 6,084,775

8 Ethylbenzene 50 95,800 8,711,267

9 Methanol 211 6,442,250 376,331,785

10 Methyl isobutyl ketone 30 119,364 5,022,558

11 Methyl tert

- butyl ether 13 70,895 1,300,937

12 NN

- dimethylformamide 14 17,961 873,917

13 N

- butyl alcohol 66 218,524 17,516,584

14 N

- hexane 59 400,457 16,683,211

15 Toluene 100 668,119 112,801,779

16 Xylene (mixed isomers) 71 337,668 30,152,314

801 Submissions for 16 selected chemicals

- Basic Organic Chemical 801 26,531,923 660,228,736

Short ton equivalency = 13,266 330,114

Average tons per facility = 34 846
Note: The TRI database does not explicitly indicate whether these chemicals actually function as “solvents” (or function for other purposes, for example, such as chemical reactants or catalysts) by the TRI

- reporting facilities in the processing aid applications for which they are reporting the chemical data.

### D

- 6

### D

- 7

Appendix D4: 4 of 4: Plastic Materials and Resin Manufacturing by 16 Chemical Total Facilities: 369

Facilities reporting 16 chemicals: 184 facilities from 89 parent companies Total Parents: 178

Releases (pounds) Waste

(pounds)

447 447 Submissions for 16 selected solvents

- Plastic Manufacturing and Resins 6,924,154 170,770,161

18% % of total 14% 14%

2473 2473 Total Submissions

- Plastic Materials and Resin Manufacturing 47,758,999 1,182,149,902

Chemical Name # of Submissions

1 1,2,4

- Trimethylbenzene 31 27,376 389,710

2 Acetonitrile 1 250 250

3 Chlorobenzene 4 71,976 1,574,656

4 Chloroform 8 75,230 4,917,283

5 Chloromethane 5 82,399 1,310,903

6 Cyclohexane 11 242,366 23,150,391

7 Dichloromethane 9 259,074 552,077

8 Ethylbenzene 56 121,117 7,025,598

9 Methanol 103 3,723,361 56,618,397

10 Methyl isobutyl ketone 19 170,165 10,829,032

11 Methyl tert

- butyl ether 1 921 921

12 NN

- dimethylformamide 7 17,610 3,760,519

13 N

- butyl alcohol 36 530,282 5,447,870

14 N

- hexane 22 650,738 20,985,783

15 Toluene 74 549,118 15,068,028

16 Xylene (mixed isomers) 60 402,171 19,138,743

447 Submissions for 16 selected chemicals

- Plastic Materials and Resins 447 6,924,154 170,770,161

Short ton equivalency = 3,462 85,385

Average tons per facility = 9 231

Grand total across all 4 industries (short ton equivalency) = 507,715

Average tons per

- facility across all 4 industries (1,303 total facilities) = 390
Note: The TRI database does not explicitly indicate whether these chemicals actually function as “solvents” (or function for other purposes, for example, such as chemical reactants or catalysts) by the TRI

- reporting facilities in the processing aid applications for which they are reporting the chemical data.

### D

- 8

### D

- 9

### D

- 10

### D

- 11 Appendix D5

Market Value: Pharmaceutical, Paints & Coating, Plastics &Resin, Basic Organic Chemicals Total Facilities: 1303
Facilities reporting 16 chemicals: 1303 facilities from 650 parent companies Total Parents: 650

2387 2387 Submissions 16 selected solvents

- All 4

Sectors 37,088,955 1,015,429,703

24% % of total 25% 26%

1007

7 10,077 Total Submissions

– Pharmaceutical 145,695,573 3,906,271,887 DSW RIA

Total lbs # of

Submissions Release (lbs) WASTE (lbs) price /lb * 54%

1 1,2,4

- Trimethylbenzene 184 149,502 4,968,209 $0.82 $2,199,923

2 Acetonitrile 48 16,224,534 44,793,931 $0.66 $15,964,557

3 Chlorobenzene 28 126,247 5,015,426 $0.68 $1,841,664

4 Chloroform 32 188,712 21,562,195 $0.34 $3,958,819

5 Chloromethane 30 329,737 11,193,444 $0.44 $2,659,562

6 Cyclohexane 54 1,604,275 53,104,007 $0.60 $17,205,698

7 Dichloromethane 79 813,585 27,061,286 $0.39 $5,699,107

8 Ethylbenzene 228 330,886 21,238,659 $0.53 $6,078,504

9 Methanol 429 10,669,901 488,328,143 $0.13 $34,280,636

10 Methyl isobutyl ketone 145 374,227 24,693,202 $0.43 $5,733,762

11 Methyl tert

- butyl ether 28 89,675 3,422,737 $0.42 $776,277

12 NN

- dimethylformamide 34 625,719 10,012,894 $0.48 $2,595,342

13 N

- butyl alcohol 202 877,555 27,424,877 $0.55 $8,145,188

14 N

- hexane 99 1,064,486 38,130,601 $0.45 $9,265,736

15 Toluene 388 2,279,340 155,383,764 $0.39 $32,723,821

16 Xylene (mixed isomers) 379 1,340,494 79,096,488 $0.40 $17,084,841 $166,213,438

Total Submissions: 2387

2387 Submissions 16 selected solvents

- All 4

Sectors 37,088,875 1,015,429,863

Short Tons: 18,544 507,715
Tons per Facility 14 390

17 Ethanol not on TRI $0.45

18 Tetrahydrofuran not on TRI $1.57

* Source: Benefits of the Re

- manufacturing Exclusion: Background Document in Support of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule , document ID No. EPA

- HQ

RCRA

- 2010

- 0011 at http://www.regulations.gov . Inflated from 2011 $ to 2012 $

.

### E

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# E

Small Business Count Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Analysis

Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

1 Best Bath Systems Inc.

IDR000204735 325991 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Small Source #1: Best Bath Systems (BBS) is a privately owned company located in Caldwell, Idaho that designs and manufactures easily accessible showers and tubs. It sells to over 220 dealers across Canada and the U.S. with most products going to hospitals, university housing, assisted living facilities and public housing. In 2008, when sales peaked at $23 million, the company employed a staff of 147. In 2009, sales decrea sed below $16 million. In June of 2011, the company reported a staff of 92. The company anticipated continued sales growth in 2012 with goals of reaching $30 million in sales by 2015.

Source: 6/15/2011, Idaho Press Tribune, Best Bath Systems Thrives in Caldwell

. http://www.best

- bath.com/OurCompany/News.aspx?news_id=13 ) Source #2: Employees: 50

– 99 (or 85 per Dun and Bradstreet cross reference). Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm7pf7x/best

- bath

- systems

2 Teton Sales Co

LLC

IDR000204750 321911 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Small Teton Sales Company in Caldwell, ID is a private company categorized under Moldings,

Wood: Unfinished and Prefinished. Records show it was established in 1976 and incorporated in Idaho. Current estimates show this company has annual revenue of $1,500,00 0 and employs a staff of approximately 45. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmj9ng1/teton

- sales

- company
3 ADM Railcar Repair

ILD984851055 48821(0) HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <$14.0

mi llion Large Source #1: Headquartered in Decatur, Illinois, Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE: ADM) connects crops and markets in more than 75 countries on six continents. Net sales for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, were $81 billion . ADM employs a world

- wide staff of more than 30,000 people. ADM’s p rimary business segments include: oilseeds processing; corn processing, agricultural services (including transportation) , and other.

Source: http://origin.adm.com/en

- US/company/Facts/Pages/default.aspx

4 Clean Harbors

RSC LLC

ILD005450697 56211(1) Reclaimer receiving

HSM from

offsite <12.5

million

revenues/

year Large Clean Harbors is North America’s largest hazardous waste disposal company with over 50 waste management facilities throughout North America in 37 U.S. states, seven Canadian provinces, Mexico and Puerto Rico. Clean Harbors stock is traded on the

NYSE stoc k exchange under the symbol CLH. As of December 31, 2011, Clean Harbors had approximately 8,300 employees. The Company's annual revenues for the year ended

### E

- 2 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

December 31, 2011 were approximately $2.0 billion . Source: http://ir.cleanharbors.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=96527&p=irol

- faq#43356 )

5 John Deere

Harvester Works

ILD025423054 333111 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Large 6 1,300 employees . John Deere is one of the world's largest makers of farm equipment and a leading producer of construction, forestry, and commercial and residential lawn care equipment. Deere operates three business segments: Agriculture & Turf and Constr uction & Forestry make up its Equipment Operations; the Credit division is part of Financial Services. Deere operates factories and sales offices around the world. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Deere__Company/rfccci

- 1

- 1nji3j

- 1njhft.html )

6 Polychem

Services Inc.

ILD980578876 325199 Tolling

Contractor reclaiming
HSM;

HSM

Generator

and

Reclaimer

of Imported

HSM <1,000

employees Small Source #1: Polychem Services, Inc. in Chicago Heights, IL, is a private company categorized under Wholesale Carbon Products. Records show it was established in 2008 and incorporated in Illinois. Current estimates show this company has annual revenue o f $560,000 and employs a staff of approximately 5 . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mtttjcl/polychem

- services

- inc Source #2: Polychem Services is a medium scale complex production facili ty located on a 5 acre site in Chicago Heights, Illinois. It has a proven capability in a broad array of chemical conversion types. An external tank farm is dedicated to raw material storage and has a total capacity of about 250m gallons and an inside heat ed storage area includes 20 x 6,000 gallon storage tanks. Polychem’s close relationship with Chemtech Services, Inc. provides unique process and production expertise that expands capability in service.

Source: http://polychemservices.com/

7 Archer Daniels

Midland

– ADM Railcar Repair

IAD184106243 48821(0) HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <$14.0

million revenues/y

ear Large Refer to Item 3 for applicable business size facts & source.

8 Curries 12th St NW facility

IA0000362905 332321 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Large

(Assa Abloy

parent company is Large) Source: #1: US subsidiaries include Ceco Door Products and Curries; in Canada the

company operates through Fleming Steel Doors & Frames. ASSA ABLOY Door Group began as a joint venture between Sweden's ASSA ABLOY and SPX Corporation in 2001.

In 2003 ASSA AB LOY acquired SPX's interest for $80 million and rebranded the enterprise. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/ASSA_ABLOY_Door_Group_LLC/rrhckci

- 1.html

Source #2: A ssa Abloy has 32,723 employees (2008).

Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/ASSA_ABLOY_AB/hjrchi

- 1.html

### E

- 3 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

9 Curries 9th Street facility

IAD043490150 332321 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Large

(Assa Abloy

parent company is Large) Refer to Item 8 for applicable business size facts & source.

10 Diamond Vogel
Paint Co., Inc.

IAD055803423 32551(0) HSM

Generator transferring

within

“same company” <500

employees Large 850 employees . Diamond

- Vogel Paint operates seven manufacturing facilities and sells its products through about 80 company

- owned stores, primarily in the midwestern and

southwestern US. Diamond

- Vogel Paint, which was founded by Dutch immigrant Andrew Vogel in 1926, is owned and managed by the third generation of the Vogel family. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Diamond

Vogel_Paint_Company/rfhtyci

- 1.html

11 Eagle River

Win dow and

Door Inc.

IAR000006577 332321 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Large Source #1: Eagle River Window and Door manufactures aluminum clad wood windows and patio doors in Dubuque, Iowa. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Andersen Corporation. Source: http://www.andersenwindows.com/servlet/Satellite/AW/Page/awGeneral

3/1102951371075 Source #2: Anderson Corporation is a privately owned American business. It is headquartered in Bayport, MN and employs more than 10,000 people in locations across North America. It has 16 manufacturing facilities and manufactures more than 12 million windows and doors. A current estimate shows company annual revenues of $100b

- $

200b. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersen_Corporation Source #3: Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of over $1 billion and employs a staff of approximately 5,000 to 9,999 . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmgcs86/andersen

- corp

12 Fres

- co System

USA Inc.

IAR000007013 323111 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Small Source #1: 201 to 500 employees . Privately

- owned company operates manufacturing facilities in Telford, Pennsylvania; and Red Oak, Iowa. The company was founded in 1978 and is based in Telford, Pennsylvania.

Source: http://www.linkedin.com/companies/fres

- co

- system

- usa

- inc Source #2: Fresco System is a private company categorized under Wholesale Packaging Machinery and located in Red Oak, IA. Current estimates show this company has annual revenue of $20 to $50 million and employs approximately 50 to 99 staff

. Sour ce: http://www.manta.com/c/mmcs7kw/fresco

- system

### E

- 4 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

13 Industrial

Laminates/ Norplex Inc

IAD073489288 326113 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Small Source #1: Norplex

- Micarta manufactures and supplies high performance thermoset composites. It offers sheet products, pre

- pregs, rods, molded shapes, and tubes for original equipment manufacturers and fabricators in the United States and internationally. It serves power generation, military/aerospace, oil and gas, medical and electrical devices,

el ectronics assembly, construction, heavy industry, and transp ortation markets in Europe,
Asia/Pacific, and the Americas. C ompany was formerly known as IL/Norplex, Inc. and changed its name to Norplex

- Micarta in January 2003. Norplex

- Micarta was founded in

1 945 and is based in Postville, Iowa. It has an operations center in Shenzhen, China.

Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/priva te/snapshot.asp?privcapId=23520

795 Source #2: Norplex

- Micarta in Postville, IA is a private company categorized under Laminating of Plastics. Our records show it was established in 2002 and incorporated in Iowa. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $20 to 50 million and employs a staff of approximately 100 to 249 . A cross reference to Dun and Bradstreet estimates the company employees 180 people . Source: http://www.ma nta.com/c/mm5ck7g/norplex

- micarta Source #3: Norplex

- Micarta, a manufacturer of thermoset composites, announced the opening of Micarta Composite Material (Shanghai) Trading Company, Ltd. (MTC). Located in the Eastern Section of Songjiang Industrial Park in Shanghai, China, MTC will supply the company’s product line to the Asia market. In addition to customer sales and service, MTC will coordinate materials sourcing across the Asia market, including supplier identification, site evaluations, and quality assurance checks on all materials

bei ng used for Norplex

- Micarta products. Source: http://www.appliancemagazine.com/news.php?article=1290274&zone=0&first=1 Source #4: Micarta Composite Material (Shangh ai) is a Trading Company located in Shanghai China and serves as the Asia Pacific region headquarters for Norplex

- Micarta. It employs 1

- 10 people . Source: http://www.linkedin.com/company/micarta

- composite

material

- shanghai

- trading

- company

14 Iowa Contract

Fabricators Inc.

IA0000990762 336211 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <1,000

employees Large

(Oshkosh Corp parent Source #1: EPA’s Federal Registry System (FRS) indicates Oshkosh Corp is the parent

company Source: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_ program_facility?p_registry_id=1100075

03040

### E

- 5 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source company is Large) Source #2: The Oshkosh Corporation’s Form 10K EX

- 21 report of 18 Nov 2009 indicates

this business is a subsidiary of Oshkosh. Source: http://www.faqs.org/sec

filings/091118/OSHKOSH

- CORP_10

- K/a09

- 33359_1ex21.htm ) Source #3: Founded in 1917, Oshkosh Corporation has manufacturing operations in 11 U.S. states and in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, the Netherlands and Romania. The company currently employs approximately 12,600 employees worldwide. Source: http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_profile.cfm

15 Iowa Mold Tooling Company Inc.

IAD005286539 333120 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Lar ge

(Oshkosh Corp parent

is l arge co. ) Refer to Item 14 for applicable business size facts & source.

16 John Deere Davenport

Works

IAD073489726 333120 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <750

employees Large Refer to Item 5 for applicable business size facts & source.

17 John Deere Des

Moines Works

IAD069624500 333111 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Large Refer to Item 5 for applicable business size facts & source.

18 John Deere Dubuque Works

IAD005269527 333120 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <750

employees Large Refer to Item 5 for applicable business size facts & source.

19 John Deere Engine Works

IAD000678094 333618 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <1,000

employees Large Refer to Item 5 for applicable business size facts & source.

20 John Deere

Ottumwa Works

IAD005291182 333111 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Large Refer to Item 5 for applicable business size facts & source.

21 John Deere

Waterloo Works 333111 HSM

Generator <500

employees Large Refer to Item 5 for applicable business size facts & source.

### E

- 6 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

IAD000805168 reclaiming

onsite

22 Siegwerk USA

Co

IAR000007377 32591(0) HSM

Generator transferring

within

“same company” <500

employees Large

(German

parent company is Large) Siegwerk is a world

- leading supplier of printing ink for packaging and publications. Our

international family business of 4,400 employees strives to exceed customers’ expectations of quality, reliability and support. In 2011, we have generated revenues of 969 million euros. Our headquarters is located in Siegburg near Cologne (Germany).

Source: http://www.siegwerk.com/en/company.html

23 Siegwerk USA

IAD078096732 325910 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite ;
Reclaimer receiving

HSM

within

“same company” <500

employees Large

(Germany

parent company is Large) Refer to Item 22 for applicable business size facts & source.

24 Vogel Paint & Wax Company

Inc

IAD007276728 325510 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Larg e

(Diamond

Vogel parent

is l arge co. ) Refer to Item 10 for applicable business size facts & source.

25 Aleris Rolled

Products Inc.

NJD051415909 331315 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Large Aleris is a global leader in the production and sale of aluminum rolled and extruded products, recycled aluminum, and specifications alloy manufacturing. From its headquarters in Beachwood, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, Aleris operates more than 40 product ion facilities throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. The company employs

more than 6,500 people . Source: http://www.aleris.com/about

- aleris

26 Aluminum Shapes LLC

NJD002338267 331314 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <750

employees Non

- small

(Shapes/Arc h parent company is

non

- small) One of the largest privately held aluminum extruders in the US, Aluminum Shapes is an

operating subsidiary of Shapes/Arch Holdings LLC. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Aluminum_Shapes_LLC/rfxfkhi

- 1.html

8 00 employees

.

### E

- 7 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

27 Anadigics Inc.

NJR000036301 334413 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Large Source #1: Anadigics, Inc is a public company categorized under Integrated Circuits,
Semiconductor Networks, Etc. and located in Warren, NJ. Current estimates show this company has annual revenues of $140,484,000 and employs approximately 657 staff.

Sour ce: http://www.manta.com/c/mmldfl2/anadigics

- inc

Source #2: 564 employees. Source: http:// investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=ANAD:

US

28 API Foils Inc.

NJD091860437 322221 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Large (API

Group plc

parent company is Large) Source #1: API Foils is organized under the Foils Manufacturing & Distribution division

at API Group plc . Source: http://www.apigroup.com/company

- reports/InterimReport2011.pd f

Source #2: Employees : 527 . Subsidiaries of the international holding group, API Group plc, make and distribute materials used in graphics and packaging for a diversity of high consumption products, from tobacco to food, beverage, and luxury and consume r goods. Holographic and metallic foils and laminated

- board papers are their specialty, touted to deliver impact finishes and labeling effects demanded by big brand lines. Investment firm Steel Partners II owns about 35% of API Group. Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/api

- group

- plc

Source #3: 521 Employees , Last Reported Date: 06/8/11. Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=API:LN

29 International

Paint LLC

NJD002139228 32551(0) HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Large

( AkzoNobel

parent company is Large) Source #1: International Paints, located at 2270 Morris Ave, Union, NJ 07083, is

identified as a Division of AKZO Nobel. Source: http://www.superpages.co m/bp/Union

- NJ/International

- Paint

- Limited

- L0102488458.htm Source #2: AkzoNobel is the largest global paints and coatings company and a major producer of specialty chemicals. Headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, we are a Global Fortune 500 company and are consistently ranked as one of the leaders on the

Dow Jones Susta inability Indexes . With operations in more than 80 countries, our 55,000 people around the world are committed to excellence. Source: http://www.akzonobel.com/aboutus/index.aspx

30 LTS Lohmann Therapy Systems Corp

NJD006979363 325412 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Large ( LTS

Lohmann Therapie

Systeme AG

parent Source #1: LTS Lohmann Therapy Systems Corporation develops and coats adhesives

for pharmaceutical , medical devices, electronics, aerospace, and other technology based industries in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company was founded in 1991 and is based in West Caldwell, New Jersey. It has facilities in West Caldwell, New Jersey and Andernach, Germany. LTS Lohmann Therapy Systems Corporation operates

### E

- 8 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source company is Large) as a subsidiary of LTS Lohmann Therapie

- Systeme AG. Source:

http://inve sting.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=45093

64

Source #2: With more than 1,000 employees (status per Jan. 31, 2010) and one of the largest productive capacities world

- wide, LTS is the innovation leader for the development an d production of transdermal systems and oral active ingredient films.

Source: http://www.ltslohmann.com/lts

- en/Company/Homepage

31 Melton Sales &

Service

Bordentown

NJD981483035 333924 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Small Source #1: The Army identified company as Small Business and Small Disadvantaged

Business when it awarded the company contract number W911N2

- 12

- D

- 0011 on February 1, 2012 . Source: http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/contract_detail.asp?contract_id=18800 Source #2: The U.S. General Services Administration identified company as a small

business when it awarded the company contract number GS

- 30F

- 0059V which has a contract period of September 17, 2005

– September 16, 2014. Source: http://www.meltons.com/gsa_schedule.html

Source #3: Since 1949, the Melton Group, in its third generation of family ownership, has professionally serviced the remanufacturing needs of the U.S. Military and commercial wholesale customers, delivering gas and diesel engines, engine accessories,

drive train c omponents, generators, material handling equipment, and light, medium and heavy duty ground support equipment, all on a worldwide platform. Melton has four business locations including its Headquarters and Drive Train Division in Burlington, NJ; Heavy Equ ipment Division in Bordentown, NJ; Northern Division in Miflford, ME; and Butler & MacMaster Automotive, a specialty engine machine shop acquired in December
2011, located in Hallowell, ME. Source: http://www.melto ns.com )

Source #4: 60 employees at Melton Sales & Service in Bordentown, NJ. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm27x44/melton

- sales

- service

Source #5: 5 to 9 employees (or 50 employees p er cross reference to Dun and Bradstreet

estimate ) at Melton Sales & Service in Burlington, NJ. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm0bxnn/melton

- sales

- service

- inc

Source #6: 1

– 4 employees at Melton Sales & Service Inc in Milford, ME. (source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm8x5jn/melton

- sales

- service

- inc )

Source #7: 10

– 19 employees at Butler & MacMaster Automative in Hallowell, ME. http://www.manta.com/c/mmbqf0w/butler

- macmaster

- engines

### E

- 9 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

32 Melton Sales &

Service Burlington

NJR000075796 333924 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Small Refer to Item 31 for applicable business size facts & source.

33 Oticon

NJD011806122 33451(0) HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Large

(William

Demant Holding Group is Large) Source #1: Oticon designs and manufactures both hearing solutions for adults, and

specialized pediatric instruments, while Octicon Medical produces bone

- anchored hearing solutions. Together, Oticon and Oticon Medical employ more than 3000 people around

th e world. Our products are sold through sales offices in 22 countries and some 80 independent distributors worldwide. Source: http://oticon.com/about/Facts.aspx Source #2: The William Demant Holding Grou p develops, manufactures and sells products and equipment designed to aid the hearing and communication of individuals. The Group focuses on three business activities: Hearing Devices, Diagnostic Instruments and Personal Communication. Group companies coll aborate in many areas and to a wide extent also share resources and technologies. Octicon is identified under the Hearing Devices business activity. Source: http://www.demant.com/companies.cfm

Source #3: The William Demant Holding Group estimated 7,392 employees (average)

for 2011. Source: http://www.demant.com/financials

- keyRatios.cfm

34 Safety

- Kleen Systems Company

NJD002182897 562211 Reclaimer receiving

HSM from

offsite <$10.5

million

revenues

per year Large $1.03 billion revenues projected for 2010. Source: http://wasteage.com/companies/safety

- kleen/

35 Sancoa

International

NJD986629491 323111 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Small 335 employees . Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/sancoa_international_company_lp/rkhhtkfjx

- 1.html

and http://www.manta.com/c/mmd32jk/sancoa

- international

- company

- l

- p

36 Siegfried USA

NJD064344 575 325411 HSM

Generator reclaiming
onsite;

HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Large (Swiss

Siegfried Group parent company is Large) Siegfried Ltd, and its wholly

- owned subsidiary Siegfried USA, form the Swiss

- based

Siegfried Group. Siegfried has manufacturing facilities in the United States (Pennsville, New Jersey) and Europe (Zofingen, Switzerland). Each of the multi

- purpose cGMP

faci lities

- production of APIs and advanced pharmaceutical

- related intermediates

- are supported by technologically advanced process research and development. In addition, Siegfried also develops and produces finished dosage pharmaceutical products. Siegfried employs over 800 people and has annual sales of $258 million. Source: http://www.chembuyersguide.com/partners/siegfried.html

### E

- 10 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

37 Silver Line Building

Products LLC

NJD986572840 332321 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Large

(Parent company is Large) Source #1: Silver Line Building Products is one of the largest manufacturers of vinyl

windows in North America. It also makes acoustic and commercial windows and sliding

gl ass patio doors. Customers include building

- supply stores such as The Home Depot, specialty window dealers, and lumberyards. Silver Line was founded in 1947 by Arthur Silverman; it is owned by Andersen Corporation. 6,300 employees . Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Silver_Line_Building_Products_LLC/rfhcyti

- 1.html Source #2: Silver Line Building Products LLC is owned by Andersen Corporation, an

internatio nal enterprise employing over 10,000 people at more than 20 locations with headquarters in Bayport, Minnesota. Anderson Corporation is a large company. Source: http://www.andersenwindows.com/servlet/Satellite/AW/Page/awGeneral

3/1102951371087

38 Silverton Marine Corp

NJD065710311 336612 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <500

employees Small Source #1: Morgan Industries Corporation, the parent company of boat manufacturer Silverton Marine, announced today that it and all of its U.S. subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Once the city’s largest employer

— with more than 1,200 employee s during its peak , and as many as 500 until 2008

— the Millville facility on Riverside Drive halted operations after finishing its last two boats on Feb. 16 (2012) . They had 50 to 60 employees at that time. Source: http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2012/05/millville_boat_manufacturer_fi.html Source #2: "The Luhrs Marine Group, consisting of Silverton Marine Corp., Mainship Corp., Luhrs Corp., Hunter M arine Corp. and five additional subsidiaries, today filed voluntary petitions to reorganize under Chapter 11 in bankruptcy court in New Jersey, Hunter Marine president and chief restructuring officer John Peterson confirmed to Soundings Trade Only. The pow erboat companies

— Silverton, Luhrs and Mainship, located in Millville, N.J.

— had ceased operations in January. Florida

- based Hunter Marine, the sailboat builder, has never shut down production, (Hunter Marine president and chief restructuring officer

Joh n) Peterson said, and continues to be up and running. Peterson said Hunter has secured interim financing from Bank of America to stay in operation. Only one person remains at the powerboat companies, and he’s on the Hunter payroll, Peterson confirmed.

Abo ut 60 people were laid off from the New Jersey operation. A phone number to the New Jersey office was disconnected. As for Hunter, Peterson said, “Our orders are fairly strong right now. I think things are going fairly well [for Hunter]. We could certain ly pay for ourselves on an ongoing basis, but we could not pay for the whole group on an

### E

- 11 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

ongoing basis.” There are “numerous” entities interested in buying Hunter and other assets, Peterson added. When the Luhrs Marine Group originally shut down it said i t would be for 60 to 90 days to allow boat orders to accumulate. The company told its dealers, “We hope you will continue to promote our products and keep in touch with our sales team so that with your help we can again start producing the excellent produ cts of the Luhrs Marine Group.” Source: http://www.silvertonforums.com/silver_forums/showthread.php?t=881 Source #3: Hunter Marine had its best year in 40 years in 2007 an d was up to 425 employees but had its worst year just two years later as the recession hurt discretionary income and credit dried up for consumers and dealers. Hunter Marine now (May 1, 2012)

has 54 employees . Peterson said the company intends to keep th e employees, who will maintain their wages and benefits. He said the company also intends to bring back 20 people put on furlough in recent weeks. (Source: http://ww w.gainesville.com/article/20120501/ARTICLES/120509983?p=1&tc=pg

39 Synray Corp

NJD059825513 32551(0) HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Small Source #1: Synray Corp in Kenilworth, NJ is a private company categorized under Paint Manufacturers. Our records show it was established in 1989 and incorporated in New Jersey. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $5 to 10 million and employs a staff of approximatel y 10 to 19 . A cross reference to Dun and Bradstreet

estimates 16 employees . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmdhzpj/synray

- corp ) Source #2: Synray is a privately owned chemical manufacturing company that was

established in 1981. It manufacturers of Alkyd Resins, Polyesters and Chemical Specialties for: Architectural Coatings , Coil Coatings, Concrete Coatings, Deck Paint, Floor Finishes, Industrial Coatings, Maintenance Coatings, Marine Coatings, Specialty Coatings, and Traffic Paint. Source: http://www.synray.com/index.html

40 Veolia ES

Technical

Solutions LLC

NJD002454544 562211 Reclaimer receiving

HSM from

offsite <$10.5

million revenues/y

ear Large

(Veolia

Enviro n ment parent is Large) Veolia Environmental Services in North America, a subsidiary of Veolia Environmental

Services (VES), is a division of Veolia Environment (VE

- NYSE). VES is the world’s largest waste services company, with over 100,000 employees in 42 countries generating

re venues of $13.0 billion in 2009. Source: http://veoliaes.com/About%20Us

41 Viking Yacht Company

NJD002482545 336612 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Large April 10, 2009

-- Viking Yacht Co. concluded its final round of layoffs and furloughs last week, bringing the total to 560 fewer employees since the cost

- saving measure began in December, company officials said Thursday. Viking, a high

- end boat builder in New Gretna, long has been one of the region's largest private employers, with nearly 1,400

### E

- 12 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

workers at the beginning of 2008. A year later, its payroll has shrunk to 800 employees

, said Andrew Davala, a vice president. The company said no more layoffs or furloughs are planned and that it hopes to bring back as many of those workers as possible by the fall. But "it absolutely hinges on the economy recovering," Davala said. Source: http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Layoffs/latest_layoffs_bring_total_to_560_at_viking_ yacht.html and http://www.nj.com/news/index.ss f/2009/04/viking_yacht_one_of_south_jers.html

42 Allegheny

Ludlum Corporation

– Brackenridge

PAD004335154 331111 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <1,000

employees Large (ATI

parent company is Large) Source #1: Allegheny Ludlum Corporation produces and markets stainless steels, silicon

electrical steels, tool steels, titanium, and nickel alloy materials. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation was formerly known as Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation. The comp any was founded in 1938 and is based in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania. It has operations in Bagdad, Brackenridge, Coatesville, Houston, Latrobe, Louisville, Midland, Vandergrift, Washington, and Natrona, Pennsylvania; New Bedford, Massachusetts; New Castle, Indiana; Shanghai, China; and Wallingford and Waterbury, Connecticut. As of August 15, 1996, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Allegheny Technologies Inc. (ATI). Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=24912

5 ) Source #2: Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (ATI) is one of the largest and most diversified specialty metals producers in the world with revenues of approximately $5.3 billion for the last twelve months. ATI has approximately 11,500 full

- time employ ees
world

- wide. Source: http://ir.atimetals.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98187&p=irol

- irhome

43 Allvac Latrobe

PLT ( ALLEGHENY

LUDLUM

CORP
LATROBE)

PAD057629479 331111 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <1,000

employees Large (ATI

parent company is Large) Refer to Item 42 for applicable business size facts & source.

44 BAE Systems

Land &

Armaments

PAD003025418 336992 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <1,000

employees Large Source #1: Land & Armaments is o of four business divisions of its parent company BAE Systems. Source: ( http://www.baesystems.com/AboutUs/CompanyStructure/index.htm Source #2: BAE Sys tems is a global defense, security and aerospace company with 107,000 employees worldwide. The Company delivers a full range of products and

### E

- 13 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, IT solutions and customer suppo rt services. In 2009 BAE Systems reported sales of $36.2 billion. It is the 2nd largest global defense company based on 2009 revenues. Source: http://www.baesystems.com/AboutUs/FactShe et/index.htm

45 CAM Superline,

Inc.

PAR000508333 336212 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Small Source #1: Cam Superline, Inc. is in the Transportation Equipment, N.E.C. industry in Waynesboro, PA. This company currently has approximately 50 to 100 employees and annual sales of $10,000,000 to $24,999,999. (Source: http://start.cortera.com/company/research/k3r1kwj0q/cam

- superline

- inc/ ) Source #2: Cam Superline, Inc. is a manufacturer of construction trailers and hydraulic dump trailers ranging from 1.5 ton to 25 ton in size. The company has an estimated 50

- 99 employees and $10

- 20 million in annual revenues. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm3661x/cam

- superline

- inc

46 Carpenter Technology Corp

PAD002344315 331111 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite:

HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <1,000

employees Large 3,200 employees (2009). Company makes a variety of corrosion

- resistant materials; most of its sales come from stainless steel products and alloys that provide special heat

- or

wear

- resistance or special magnetic or conductive properties. Carpenter also makes titanium pr oducts, engineered ceramic products, and tool and other specialty steels. Customers include the aerospace, automotive, medical, and industrial markets. The aerospace sector accounts for more than 40% of its business. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/ Carpenter_Technology_Corporation/rftski

1.html

47 Cherokee

Pharmaceuticals

LLC

PAD003043353 325411 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Large

(PRWT parent is

l arge co. ) Acquired in 2008 by PRWT Services Inc, with 1,450 employees nationwide (source:

http://www.prwt.com/images/PRWT%20Corporate%20Overview%202%2016%2010.pdf
)

48 Cleveland Steel Container Corp

PAD053276085 33243(1) HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <1,000

employees S m all Source #1: Cleveland Steel Container Corporation manufactures and markets shipping containers. It offers steel pails, exterior coatings, interior linings, fittings, UN ratings, lithography, and lead times and special services. The company is based in Twin sburg, Ohio with offices and manufacturing plants in Quakertown, Pennsylvania; Niles and
Streetsboro, Ohio; Oakland, California; and Peotone, Illinois. It has various warehouse distribution locations in the United States. Current estimates show the compan y employs

a staff of 250 . (2012

- 05

- 15). Source: http://www.insideview.com/directory/cleveland

- steel

- container

- corporation

### E

- 14 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

Source #2: NorthPak Container Corporation , a subsidiary of Cleveland Steel Container Corporation, is the largest US distributor of industrial rigid packaging and an upcoming resource in the consumer packaging market. Founded in 1988, NorthPak has grown to 9
sales offices, 10 warehouses and over $100 million in sales. ( Glenwillow, OH

- December 17, 2010). Source: http://www.northpak.com/news_2010

- 12

- 17_NorthPak_Acquires_CalPak.html

Source #3: Nort hpak Container Corporation operates rigid container distribution warehouses under the name Northpak Container Corporation in Glenwillow, OH, Fairfield, OH and Troy MI; under the name Southpak Container Corporation in LaVergne, TN, Arlington, TX, Kennesaw, GA, Greenville, SC and Charlotte, NC; and under the name Infinity Packaging in Urbandale, IA and Lenexa, KS. Source: http://www.northpak.com/np_map.html

Source #4: Cleveland Steel Container Corp opera tes a branch facility in Quakertown, PA that employs a staff of approximately 20 to 49 . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm2twnw/cleveland

- steel

- container

- corp Source #5: Clev eland Steel Container Corp in Kilgore, TX employs a staff of approximately 10 to 19. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmczqy7/cleveland

- steel

container

- corp Source #6: Cleveland Steel Cantainer Corp in Peotone, IL employees a staff of approximately 20

– 49 employees. A cross reference to Dun and Bradstreet estimates 50 employees. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm4zwwx/cleveland

- steel

- corp Source #7: Cleveland Steel Container Corporation in Niles, IL employs a staff of approximately 50. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm39fxp/cleveland

- steel

- container

corporation ) Source #8: Employees: 50 to 1 00 at Cleveland Steel’s Streetsboro, OH facility. Source: http://start.cortera.com/company/research/k3r6lqr5p/cleveland

- steel

- container ) Source #9: Cleveland Steel Container in Oakland, CA employs a staff of approximately

20 to 49 . (source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmd8x9k/cleveland

- steel

- container )

Source #10: North P ak Container Corp in Solon, OH employs a staff of approximately 50

to 99 . A cross reference to Dun and Bradstreet estimates 75 employees. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmypnzh/north

- pak

- container

- corp )

### E

- 15 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

Source #11: Southpak Container Corporation in Arlington, TX employs a staff estimated

at 7 employees. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mrpmf45/southpak

- cont ainer

corporation Source #12: Southpak Container Corp in Charlotte, NC employs a staff of approximately

5 to 9 . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm2wsx9/southpak

- container

- corpS

Sourc e #13: 10

- 19 employees at Infinity packaging in Urbandale, IA. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmyvgqk/infinity

- packaging Source #14: Infinity Packaging Inc in Shawnee Mission, KS employs a staff of approximately 5 to 9 . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmsfqnk/infinity

- packaging

- inc Source #15: P Group LLC in Houston, TX employs a staff of approximately 10 to 19

. Sour ce: http://www.manta.com/c/mmltstd/n

- p

- group

- llc

49 Global Circuits
Oakmont, PA

PAD981037377 334412 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Small Source #1: EPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS) Facility Detail Report indicates that Global Circuits Inc. is owned by the Dambrosio Family LP and its parent company is the Millennia Group. Source: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=PAD9 81037377&pgm_sys_acrnm_in=BR Source #2: The Millennia Group is a leading electronics manufacturer an d service provider for technology

- based companies that require high

- mix, low

- to

- medium volume, complex products. The Millennia Group's corporate family consists of Triangle Circuits, a printed circuit board manufacturer; Millennia Technology, a contract as sembly service provider; and, Millennia Design, an engineering and design service company. This unique, vertically integrated organization provides a true "one

- stop shop" for a broad OEM customer base with emphasis on achieving "speed to market" and full l ife cycle support demands. TMG is ranked as one of the foremost electronic design and manufacturing service companies in the United States. Source: http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/Ron

- Cosper

- Named

- President

- and

- COO

- of

the

- Millennia

- Group

- Inc

- 810318 Source #2: As of November 30, 2011, The Millennia Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of MBG Technologies, Inc. Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=45406

35 Source #3: The purchas e by MBG Technologies includes all assets of the former Millennia electronic assembly division located in Cheswick, PA, and the former Triangle

### E

- 16 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

Circuits printed circuit board division located in Oakmont, PA. Most of the 50 employees of the former Millennia are expected to be offered positions with th e new company. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Source: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Private+equity+group+acquires+millennia.

- a0278761490

Source #4: Millennia Technology Inc in Cheswick, PA is a private company categorized under Electronic Equipment and Supplies

- Manufacturers. Our records show it was established in 1979 and incorporated in Pennsylvania. Current estimates show this company has an annua l revenue of $1 to 2.5 million and employs a staff of approximately

100 to 249 . A cross reference to Dun and Bradstreet estimated 120 employees . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmfhp g0/millennia

- technology

- inc

50 Greenville
Metals, Inc.

PAD987278082 331492 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Large

(Precision Castparts

parent company is Large) Source #1: Greenville Metals produces metallurgical products using many techniques

including electric arc furnace, AOD, induction furnaces, and various crushing, grinding, and sizing equipment. Our products include nickel, cobalt, and iron based (particu larly stainless steel) alloys produced as ingots, pigs, shot and powder. Greenville Metals’ parent company is Precision Castparts Corp. Source: http://www.greenvillemetals.com/0~index.html

Sou rce #2: Precision Castparts Corp. (PCP) is the world leader in structural investment castings, forged components, and airfoil castings for aircraft engines and industrial gas turbines. Headquartered in Portland, Oregon, it employs approximately 20,800 and has 126 manufacturing locations throughout the world, including Greenville Metals, Inc.
located in Transfer, PA. Source: http://precast.com/locations/

51 International

Metals

Reclamation Company Inc

PAD087561015 331491 Reclaimer receiving

HSM from

offsite <750

employees Large

(Horsehead

parent company is Large) Source #1: International Metals Reclamation Company is also called “INMETCO” and it

is a subsidiary of Horsehead Holding Corp. Source: http://www.inmetco.com/about_inmetco.htm Source #2: Horsehead Holding Corp. ("Horsehead") (Nasdaq: ZINC) is the parent company of Horsehead Corporation, a leading US producer of specialty zinc and zinc

ba sed products and a leading recycler of electric arc furnace dust, and The International Metals Reclamation Company ("INMETCO"), a leading recycler of metals

- bearing wastes and a leading processor of nickel

- cadmium batteries in North America. Horsehead,

hea dquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., employs 1,000 people and has seven facilities throughout the US. Source: http://www.horsehead.net/pressreleases.php?showall=yes&news=&ID=65

### E

- 17 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

52 Jewell Acquisition,

LLC

– Midland

PAR000510602 33111(1) HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <1,000

employees Large (ATI

parent company is Large) Source #1: Alleghany Ludlum Corp. is the parent company of Jewell Acquisition, LLC

Midland Plant. Source: http://data.rtknet.org/tri/tri.php?reptype=f&database=tri&facility_name=&facility_id=150 59JLSPC12THS&city=&state=&reporting_year=2005&first_year_range=&last_year_ran ge=&detail=3&dbtype=C&sortp=D&datype=T&email=&esubj

Source #2: Allegheny Ludlum Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Allegheny Technologies Inc. (ATI). Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/p rivate/snapshot.asp?privcapId=24912

5 ) Source #3: Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (ATI) is one of the largest and most diversified specialty metals producers in the world with revenues of approximately $5.3

billion for the last twelve months. ATI has approximately 11,500 full

- time employees

world

- wide. (source: http://ir.atimetals.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98187&p=irol

- irhome

53 John Maneely Company

Wheatland Tube

Division

PAD004338091 331210 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <1,000

employees Large

(Carlyle Group and Novolipetsk

parent companies are Large) Source #1: The Carlyle Group acquired John Maneely Company in 2006. The deal

included Wheatland Tube and John Maneely sist er subsidiary Seminole Tubular Products.

Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Wheatland_Tube_Company/rfxrcki

- 1.html Source #2: JMC employs 2,100 people and operates ele ven plants in five US states and one Canadian province. Novolipetsk Steel, the leading Russian steel producer, has signed a definitive agreement to acquire JMC from a shareholder group including global private equity firm The Carlyle Group. Headquartered in Lipetsk, Russia, NLMK is a leading steel producer with annual revenues of approximately US$7.7 billion and 70,000 employees in production facilities across Russia, Europe and the United States. Source: http://www.carlyle.com/media%20room/news%20archive /2008/item10533.html

54 John Maneely Company

Wheatland Tube

Division

PAR000038067 331210 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <1,000

employees Large

(Carlyle Group and Novolipetsk

parent companies are Large) Refer to Item 53 for applicable business size facts & source.

55 John Maneely Company 331210 HSM

Generator <1,000

employees Large

(Carlyle Group and Refer to Item 53 for applicable business size facts & source.

### E

- 18 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

Wheatland Tube

Division

PAD004322863 reclaiming

onsite Novolipetsk

parent companies are Large)

56 Johnson Matthey

Emissions

Control Technologies

PAR000519322 336399 HSM

Generator transferring

within

“same company” <750

employees Large

(Johnson Matthey

PLC UK

parent company is Large) Source #1: Johnson Matthey (1,650 employees in US) serves the precious metals,

catalysts, coatings, and pharmaceutical businesses in the US. The company provides contract research and development for the pharmaceutical industry. Its Fine Chemicals

and Cata lysts unit manufactures active pharmaceutical ingredients and products for chemicals makers. The Precious Metals division sells platinum sheet, tube, and wire to jewelers in addition to refining precious metals. Johnson Matthey Fuel Cells also operates

in the US. The company forms the North American unit for the UK chemicals and catalysts maker Johnson Matthey. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Johnson_Matthey_Inc/rtyjcx i

- 1.html

Source #2: 8,588 employees (2010). Johnson Matthey PLC London UK dates to 1817 as an established world leader in the refining and distribution of gold, silver, and platinum group metals (about 60% of sales). It is the sole marketing arm for Anglo Platinum, the world's largest platinum producer, through its Precious Metal Products division. Johnson Matthey's Environmental Technologies Catalysts division produces emission control products, fuel cells, and process catalysts. Its Fine Chemicals and Ca talysts division makes base and precious metals catalysts and chemicals as well as active ingredients sold to pharmaceuticals manufacturers. Johnson Matthey operates in 30 countries on all the major continents. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Johnson_Matthey_Plc/sftyif

- 1.html

57 Kensey Nash Corp

PAR000527051 339112 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Small Source #1: Kensey Nash Corporation is a medical device company primarily focused on regenerative medicine utilizing its proprietary collagen and synthetic polymer technology. The Company is based in Exton, Pennsylvania with approximately 275 employees

. Source: http://kenseynash.investorroom.com/overview Source #2: Kensey Nash Corp. is in the Surgical and Medical Instruments and Apparatus industry in EXTON, PA. This company currently has appro ximately 250 to 500 employees and annual sales of $75,000,000 to $199,999,999. Source: http://start.cortera.com/company/research/k3r5orp4k/kensey

- nash

- corp/

Source #3: The company had annual sales of $71.6 million and 307 employees for fiscal year 2011. Source:

### E

- 19 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

http://www.hoovers.com/company/Kensey_Nash_Corporation/ckysx i

- 1

- 1njht4

- 1njfaq.html

58 Kovatch Mobile Equipment

PAD098735244 336211 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <1,000

employees Small Source #1: Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corp in Nesquehoning, PA is a private company categorized under Chassis, Motor Vehicle. Our records show it was established in 1985 and incorporated in Pennsylvania. The company has an estimated 665 employees at its

Nes quehoning location. A cross reference to Dun and Bradstreet estimates 765 employees . Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/priva te/snapshot.asp?privcapId=42785

86 Source #2: The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania. It has factory locations in California, New York, and Virginia. Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=42785

86 Source #3: Kme Fire Apparatus in Latham, NY employs an estimated staff of approximately 10 to 19 . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm7q34h/kme

- fire

- apparatus Source #4: Kme Fire Apparatus in Ontario, CA employs an estimated staff of approximately 20 to 49. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm56ymq/kme

- fire

- apparatus Source #5: Kme Fire Apparatus in Roanoke, VA employs an estimated staff of approximately 20 to 49. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmy2ftl/kme

- fire

- apparatus

59 National Label Company

PAD002283547 323119 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Small Source #1: National Label Company in Lafayette Hill, PA is a private company categorized under Labels

- Paper Manufacturers. Our records show it was established in 1914 and incorporated in Pennsylvania. Products or Services include: Adhesive Labels,

Address Labels, Beer Labels, Bottle Labels. National Label is headquarte re d in Lafayette Hill and employees 220 people at that location. A total of 285 employees are estimated for the entire company. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmbqr4j/national

- label

company Source #2: National Label has printing facilities in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico

. (source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=44645

88 ) Source #3: National Label PR is a subsidiary of National Label. Source: http://www.powerprofiles.com/profile/00005161244837/NATIONAL+LABEL+COMPA

NY

- HUMACAO

- PR

- (787)+850

- 3232

### E

- 20 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

Source #4: National Label PR has an estimated total of 50 employees and 6 million in

sales. Source: http://www.dandb.com/businessdirectory/nationallabelcompany

- humacao

pr

- 22463243.html

60 Rohm and Haas

Co

PAD002292068 325211 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Large (Dow

parent company is Large) Source #1: Rohm and Haas Company is a wholly

- owned subsidiary of the Dow Chemical

Company. Source: http://www.rohmhaas.co m/history/ourstory/innovation.htm Source #2: In 2011, Dow had annual sales of $60.0 billion and employed approximately 52,000 people worldwide. Source: http://www.dow.com/company/aboutd ow/profile/corp.htm

61 Spectrum

Control Technology Inc.

PAD043882323 334414 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Large Source #1: 1,481 full

- time employees . Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=spec )

Source #2: 1,516 employees . Source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb100/2009/snapshots/71.html

62 Spray Products Corp

PAD042716084 325998 HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Small Source #1: Spray Products Corp in Plymouth Meeting, PA is a private company categorized under Chemicals Manufacturers. Our records show it was established in 2002 and incorporated in Pennsylvania. Current estimates show this company has an annual

revenue of $10 to 20 million and employs a staff of approximately 20 to 49 . A cross

reference to Dun and Bradstreet estimates 50 employees . Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmfg7c8/spray

- products

- corp ) Source #2: Spray offers warehousing and shipping from Norristown PA and Fresno CA.

Source: http://www.sprayproducts.com/aboutus.php

Source #3: Spray Products Corp in Fresno, CA employs a staff of approximately 1 to 4.

Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mm2bg06/spray

- products

- corp )

63 V&S Lebanon Galvanizing

LLC

PAR000505222 332812 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite:

HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Large Source #1: Voigt & Schweitzer is the leading steel and galvanizing company in Germany and serves over 20,000 clients in the steel processing trade. In Europe alone t hey process over 700,000 tons of steel. Voigt & Schweitzer has over 35 locations worldwide and employs over 2000 people

. Source: http://www.equinux.com/us/products/tarmac/references.html Source #2: Voigt and Schweitzer operates over 30 galvanizing plant s in the U.S. and Europe. In 2008 V&S Galvanizing LLC became part of Hill & Smith Holdings PLC.

Source: http://www.hotdipgalvanizing.com/about/index.html

64 World

Resources Company 327999 Reclaimer receiving <500

employees Small Source #1: Seventeen Marketing and Sales Support Offices are strategically located in major metropolitan areas worldwide and are designed to provide a broad range of

customer sup port on a global basis. These offices are provided detailed material analytical

### E

- 21 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

PAD981038227 HSM from

offsite and recycling support from four state

- of

- the

- art laboratory and processing facilities located in eastern and western United States, Pacific Rim/Asia and Europe. Source: http://www.worldresourcescompany.com/about/global.aspx Source #2: The company is a leading global recycler of metal bearing wastewater treatment sludges and associated recyclable materials, serving over 1,500 companies in more than 40 countries, including 41 states in the US. Source: http://www.worldresourcescompany.com/about/company.aspx

Source #3: 102 employees. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/ World_Resources_Company/cxycfkcs

- 1.html

65 Yorktowne Inc

PAD000766147 33711(0) HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <500

employees Non

- Small Source #1: Yorktowne Cabinetry in Mifflinburg,PA is owned by Elkay Manufacturing Company, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of residential and commercial

stainless steel sinks faucets and water coolers. Source: http://www.yorktownecabinetry.com/aboutyorktowne.cfm Source #2: Elkay employees over 5,000 employees in 12 privately

- held companies and one joint venture. Source: http://www .elkay.com/stats.asp

66 Pfizer

Pharmaceuticals

LLC 32541(1) HSM

Generator transferring

offsite <750

employees Non

- Small Source #1: Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC operates as a chemical recovery company and also designs modifications to solvent recovery system. The company provides automation shift coverage for manufacturing campaigns of pharmaceuticals. The company was incorpo rated in 1999 and is based in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC operates as a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. Source: http://investing. businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=59668

379 Source 2: Pfizer employees more than 11,000 people around the world. Source:

h ttp://www.pfizer.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_reports/2011/colleagues.jsp

67 Hovensa LLC

VID980536080 324110 HSM

Generator reclaiming

onsite <1,500

employees

&
<125,000

barrels

- per

day capacity Large

(Hess parent company is Large) Source #1: HOVENSA is a joint venture of Hess and Venezuelan oil giant PDVSA. The

largest private employer in the US Virgin Islands, the company operates a 500,000

- barrels

- per

- day crude oil refinery on St. Croix. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/HOVENSA_LLC/rrytxsi

- 1.html Source #2: Hess Corp. (formerly Amerada Hess) is an integrated oil and gas exploration and production company primarily in Algeria, Australia, Azerbaijan, Br azil, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia, Libya, Malaysia, Norway, Peru, Russia, Thailand, the UK, and the US. It operates a 50%

- owned refinery (HOVENSA) in the US Virgin Islands and a smaller one in New Jersey, and it markets gasol ine through

### E

- 22 Appendix E RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Screening Test Results for 67 Facilities that Submitted Notifications to EPA as of April 11, 2012 for DSW Exclusions

Item Business name

& EPA ID

number NAICS

industry

code Facility

Description SBA small

business

definition Small or

Large

business? Business size facts & source

about 1,360 HESS gas stations in 16 US states. Hess has 13,300 employees (2009). Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Hess_Corporation/rffkyi

- 1.html Percentage of facilities owned by small businesses = 18/67 = 2 7%

### F

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# F

Hazardo us Waste Recovery Data Outliers in the 2009 RCRA Biennial Report

Part I: Baseline

2009 Form GM records for metals recovery, solvent recovery and other recovery were analyzed

for outliers. Outliers were identified as records with reported generation quantities greater than two standard deviations above the mean. Only two outliers were identified and they were associated with onsite management involving other recovery (H039). Bot h wastes involve remediation of contaminated groundwater and appear to be for removal of organic materials from groundwater rather than recovery of organic materials for reuse. Both records were excluded from the analysis as outliers.

Onsite Management H 039 Statistics based on 2009 Biennial Report Data:

Mean Tonnage Reported on GM

Forms Standard Deviation

(Tons)

1,288 5,472

Handler ID Onsite Total GM Page Management

Method Onsite Tons for

Waste Stream

COD076470525 39,900 67 H039 39,900

TXT490011293 13,791 26 H039 13,791 

### EPA ID No. COD076470525 Description:

CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER CONTAINING LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHLOROBENZENE, BENZENE
Notes: SEC. 1, F.: THIS GM FORM IS REPORTING GROUNDWATER, NOT HAZARDOUS WASTE
PER "SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS", PAGE 57, GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATED BY

LEACHATE.
SEC. 1, E,: CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER CONTAINING F

- CODES ARE COLLECTED

AND TREATED ONSITE BY A Form: HQ

- W119

- OTH INORGANIC LIQUID
Source: HQ

- G42

- CA AT SWMU 2007 Biennial Report Data: 42,770.20 tons for same waste



### EPA ID No. TXT490011293 Description:

RECOVERED GROUNDWATER FROM FPC

- TX SITE THAT IS SENT TO VC

- 630A FOR STEAM

STRIPPING.

Notes: none Form: HQ

- W219

- OTH ORGANIC LIQUID Source: HQ

- G49

- OTHER REMEDIATION 2007 Biennial Report Data: 11,057.16 tons for same wast e 

### Part II: Secondary Screening

### F

- 2

After completion of the secon dary screening steps (Exhibit 3R in Chapter 3 of this RIA ), an outlier analysis was conducted that identified 63 waste records with reported quantities greater

than three stan dard deviations above the mean. These waste records were reviewed indi vidually.

A total of seven of the wastes reviewed were determined to be not of sufficient quality for recovery and were removed fro m the analysis. These seven waste records include five that are

incinerator as h or slag, a thermal treatment residue, and caustic wastewater collected from a

landfill.

Mean Tonnage Reported on GM

Forms Standard Deviation

(Tons)

26 641

Handler ID GM

Page Management

Method Waste

Stream

Onsite Tons Waste Stream

Shipped Tons Management GM

Page Total Tons

ARD006354161 8 H132 101,874 0 101,874

OHD048415665 48 H111 0 11,096 12,229

ARD006354161 5 H122 0 8,125 11,681

OHD980613541 15 H132 0 7,796 11,069

OHD980613541 15 H111 0 3,273 11,069

TXD000838896 11 H132 0 10,758 10,986

OHD980613541 14 H075 0 8,490 8,490



### EPA ID No. ARD006354161, PAGE: 8, Description:

KILN RESIDUE FROM THERMAL TREATMENT OF SPENT POTLINER

Notes: SECTION 1 BOX F

- RESIDUE QUANTITY REDUCED TO LANDFILL DUE TO MATERIAL

BEING UTILIZED FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL BLENDING IN CEMENT INDUSTRY Form: HQ

- W304

- SLAGS, DROSSES, AND OTHER SOLID THERMAL RESIDUES Source: HQ

- G25

- HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT



### EPA ID No. OHD048415665, PAGE: 48, Description:

INCINERATOR ASH AND RESIDUE Notes: Particulate ash is separated from incinerated scrap steel on site using a trommel. Scrap steel is then sent off site for recycling.
Form: HQ

- W303

- ASH
Source: HQ

- G25

- HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT



### EPA ID No. ARD006354161, PAGE: 5, Description:

CAUSTIC WATER FROM ON

- SITE LANDFILL

Notes: SECTIO N 1 BOX E

- INCLUDES 570757 P HELD ON

- SITE AT END OF 2009. SECTION 2

- QUANTITY TREATED DISPOSED OR RECYCLED ON SITE 2009 INCLUDES 1138346 P FROM

2008 GENERATION. Form: HQ

- W101

- VERY DILUTE AQUEOUS WASTE CONTAINING MORE THAN 99% WATER
Source: HQ

- G26

- STORAGE AND DISPOSAL UNIT LEACHATE COLLECTION

### F

- 3

EPA ID No. OHD980613541, PAGE: 15, Description:

INCINERATOR SLAG

Notes: none Form: HQ

- W304

- SLAGS, DROSSES, AND OTHER SOLID THERMAL RESIDUES Source: HQ

- G25

- HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT



### EPA ID No. TXD000838896, PAGE: 11 , Description:

INCINERATOR ASH

Notes: none Form: HQ

- W303

- ASH Source: HQ

- G25

- HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT



### EPA ID No. OHD980613541, PAGE: 14, Description:

ASH

Notes: none Form: HQ

- W303

- ASH Source: HQ

- G25

- HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

### G

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# G 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data

Appendix G 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Damage Cases Between 1982 and 2012 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

1 ALD041906173 Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO) AL $13,596,768.92 2004 $16,107,378.25 $60,000,000.00 1994 $86,056,671.05 $102,164,049.30

2 ALD981868466 American Brass AL $7,325,902.41 2004 $8,678,611.94 $8,678,611.94

3 AR0000605322 Red River Aluminum AR $2,000,000.00 2004 $2,369,294.99 $2,369,294.99

4 AZD009015389 Romic Environme ntal Technologies

- Chandler AZ $900,000.00 2008 $950,226.08 $950,226.08

5 CA0001562370 Enviropur West Corporation CA $2,490,000.00 2004 $2,949,772.26 $2,949,772.26

6 CAD008387250 Alco Pacific CA $236,844.33 2004 $280,577.04 $280,577.04

7 CAD009134636 Federated Metals CA $100,000.00 2003 $121,801.16 $121,801.16

8 CAD009452657 Romic Environmental Technologies

- E. Palo Alto CA $2,500,000.00 2008 $2,639,516.89 $2,639,516.89

9 CAD029295706 Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co. CA $1,970,000.00 1993 $2,885,006.83 $2,885,006.83

10 CAD042245001 Omega Chemical Corp. CA $5,510,784.78 2004 $6,528,337.39 $6,528,337.39

11 CAD050096163 Mobile Smelting CA $1,600,000.00 2004 $1,895,435.99 $1,895,435.99

12 CAD055753370 Cooper Drum Co. CA $5,360,000.00 2002 $6,665,494.93 $6,665,494.93

13 CAD070215355 Davis Chemical Company CA $20,000.00 2002 $24,871.25 $24,871.25

14 CAD093459485 Safety

- Kleen Corporation, Reedley Recycling Center CA $2,500,000.00 2004 $2,961,618.74 $2,961,618.74

15 CAD980887350 John Alexander Research CA $405,000.00 2003 $493,294.72 $493,294.72

16 CAD981402522 Commodity Refining Exchange CA $200,000.00 2004 $236,929.50 $236,929.50

17 CAL000338569 SA Recycling CA $2,930,000.00 2011 $2,963,395.03 $2,963,395.03

18 CAR000177709 Halaco Engineering Inc. CA $6,800,000.00 2009 $7,104,961.36 $1,800,000.00 2010 $1,859,373.99 $8,964,335.35

19 CTD162235782 National Oil Service CT $1,600,000.00 2001 $2,021,894.50 $2,021,894.50

20 DE0000122218 Diamond State Salvage DE $11,900,000.00 2004 $14,097,305.20 $16,700,000.00 2004 $19,783,613.18 $33,880,918.38

21 DED041212473 Standard Chlorine of

Delaware DE $20,242,784.80 2004 $23,980,564.32 $75,000,000.00 2004 $88,848,562.19 $112,829,126.51

22 DED98071414 Chem

- Solv, Inc. DE $686,000.00 2004 $812,668.18 $812,668.18

23 FL0001093103 Danmark, Inc. FL $516,374.57 2000 $667,303.46 $667,303.46

24 FL0002072882 Romarc Industries FL $1,035,000.00 2004 $1,226,110.16 $1,226,110.16

### G

- 2 Appendix G 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Damage Cases Between 1982 and 2012 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

25 FLD062794003 Schuylkill Metals Corp. FL $612,421.63 2004 $725,503.75 $725,503.75

26 FLD070864541 Tri

- City Oil Conservationist,

Inc. FL $205,000.00 1985 $381,394.34 $381,394.34

27 FLD980798946 Holloway Waste Oil FL $1,719,803.00 2000 $2,222,476.77 $2,222,476.77

28 FLD982085003 Progressive Marketing Group, Inc. (PMG Finishing) FL $26,469.00 1994 $37,963.90 $37,963.90

29 FLD984184127 Florida Petroleum
Reprocessors FL $4,200,000.00 1998 $5,626,681.78 $5,626,681.78

30 FLD984243923 Rowe Paint and Plas

- Chem Coatings (Wilmer Rowe) FL $400,000.00 2004 $473,859.00 $473,859.00

31 FLR000033514 43rd St. Bay Drum and Steel Company FL $3,285,094.17 2004 $3,891,678.58 $3,891,678.58

32 GAD070330576 Exide Technologies (formerly GNB Technologies, Inc.) GA $8,089,570.00 2006 $8,984,588.59 $8,984,588.59

33 IDD081830994 P4 Production LLC

– Monsanto ID $9,500,000.00 1997 $12,870,645.44 $12,870,645.44

34 ILD087157251 Environmental Waste
Resources, Inc. IL $260,768.89 2004 $308,919.21 $308,919.21

35 IND001213503 Continental Steel Corp. IN $2,903,100.00 2004 $3,439,150.15 $61,000,000.00 2002 $75,857,311.76 $79,296,461.90

36 INN000509942 Hassan Barrel Company Inc IN $1,700,000.00 2008 $1,794,871.49 $1,300,000.00 2008 $1,372,548.78 $3,167,420.27

37 LAD052510344 Delatte Metals LA $13,100,000.00 2004 $15,518,882.20 $15,518,882.20

38 LAD981057706 Marine Shale Processors LA $15,000,000.00 1997 $20,322,071.75 $20,322,071.75

39 MAN000103183 Zimble Drum MA $300,000.00 2005 $343,971.08 $343,971.08

40 MDD000218008 Spectron, Inc. MD $9,492,014.00 2004 $11,244,690.62 $11,244,690.62

41 MID005510805 Dearborn Refining Company MI $2,600,000.00 2006 $2,887,660.32 $2,887,660.32

42 MID044567162 Thermo

- Chem, Inc. MI $24,000,000.00 1991 $36,775,942.26 $36,775,942.26

43 MID060975844 EQ Resource Recovery (also

known as Chemical Recovery System s Inc. ) MI $34,843.93 2005 $39,951.01 $39,951.01

44 MID980274179 Carter Industrials, Inc. MI $12,000,000.00 2010 $12,395,826.58 $12,000,000.00 2010 $12,395,826.58 $24,791,653.15

45 MIN000508651 Pellestar Limited MI $118,328.00 2003 $144,124.88 $144,124.88

### G

- 3 Appendix G 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Damage Cases Between 1982 and 2012 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

46 MIR000022400 Sybill Oil MI $1,000,000.00 2003 $1,218,011.64 $1,218,011.64

47 MOD980965982 Missouri Electric Works MO $9,130,000.00 1990 $14,485,218.85 $14,485,218.85

48 MSD985972983 Industrial Pollution Control MS $1,821,000.00 1999 $2,404,226.64 $2,404,226.64

49 43055NWRKP1367E Newark Processing NJ $3,100,000.00 2007 $3,345,934.93 $3,345,934.93

50 NHD018958140 Beede Waste Oil NH $19,000,000.00 2004 $22,508,302.42 $48,000,000.00 2004 $56,863,079.80 $79,371,382.22

51 NJD000540062 Pittsburgh Metal & Equipment NJ $2,864,000.00 2000 $3,701,106.16 $3,701,106.16

52 NJD002153922 Safety

- Kleen Envirosystems Company NJ $4,510,000.00 2000 $5,828,208.37 $5,828,208.37

53 NJD014623854 Martin Aaron, Inc. NJ $2,127,078.29 2004 $2,519,837.97 $2,519,837.97

54 NJD091397299 Boro Auto Wreckers, Inc. NJ $500,000.00 2004 $592,323.75 $592,323.75

55 NJD980663678 Horseshoe Road Complex NJ $522,021.00 2000 $674,600.26 $674,600.26

56 NJD981558430 Atlantic Resources Corp. NJ $863,890.00 2000 $1,116,392.67 $1,116,392.67

57 NJD986570992 Franklin Burn NJ $8,765,961.70 2005 $10,050,790.98 $10,050,790.98

58 NJD986630747 South Brunswick Asphalt NJ $995,000.00 2000 $1,285,824.24 $1,285,824.24

59 NJD986643153 Zschiegner Refining Co. NJ $6,700,000.00 2004 $7,937,138.22 $7,937,138.22

60 NJD991304072 Matteo Iron and Metal NJ $1,189,000.00 1986 $2,164,184.62 $2,164,184.62

61 NMD097960272 Cal West Metals NM $1,557,000.00 1992 $2,330,641.49 $2,330,641.49

62 NMD980749980 Pagano Salvage NM $1,500,000.00 1990 $2,379,827.85 $2,379,827.85

63 NOT PROVIDED Helms Drum Service NO $145,000.00 1995 $203,719.29 $203,719.29

64 NOT PROVIDED United Metal Recovery NO $300,000.00 2004 $355,394.25 $355,394.25

65 NOT PROVIDED K & D Salvage Yard NO $1,000,000.00 2001 $1,263,684.06 $1,263,684.06

66 NY0001392463 Hudson Technologies Inc. NY $1,000,000.00 2004 $1,184,647.50 $1,184,647.50

67 NY0002455756 Consolidated Iron & Metal NY $4,376,309.28 2004 $5,184,383.83 $5,184,383.83

68 NYD013703632 Bern Metals NY $1,860,000.00 2002 $2,313,026.23 $2,313,026.23

69 NYD013721907 Feldman Barrel & Drum NY $780,000.00 2003 $950,049.08 $950,049.08

70 NYD030485288 Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation of NJ NY $3,669,665.00 1995 $5,155,734.75 $5,155,734.75

71 NYD048148175 Mercury Refining, Inc. NY $2,615,392.88 2004 $3,098,318.63 $3,098,318.63

72 NYD991291782 ENRX, Inc. (formerly Voelker Analysis) NY $1,006,000.00 1994 $1,442,883.52 $1,442,883.52

73 OH0001887454 County Line Auto Parts (Imthurn Drum Site) OH $59,571.50 2001 $75,279.55 $75,279.55

74 OHD004291654 Columbus Steel Drum Co. OH $28,100.00 2005 $32,218.62 $32,218.62

### G

- 4 Appendix G 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Damage Cases Between 1982 and 2012 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

75 OHD004477634 Queen City Barrel Co. OH $26,625.00 2004 $31,541.24 $31,541.24

76 OHD048782049 Midwest Guardian OH $30,557.00 2001 $38,614.39 $38,614.39

77 OHD051413078 Century 21 Paints OH $120,000.00 2001 $151,642.09 $151,642.09

78 OHD097613871 Master Metals, Inc. OH $309,300.98 2004 $366,412.63 $366,412.63

79 OHD980587364 Safety

- Kleen (Hebron) OH $945,018.00 2002 $1,175,188.94 $1,175,188.94

80 OHD986976348 Agmet Metals, Inc. OH $23,240.00 2007 $25,083.72 $25,083.72

81 OHR000041657 Re

- Gen Incorporated OH $70,000.00 2007 $75,553.37 $75,553.37

82 OK0000605385 Chief Supply/Greenway

Environmental OK $175,000.00 2003 $213,152.04 $213,152.04

83 OKD062270590 Parawax Reclaiming, Inc. OK $2,500,000.00 2001 $3,159,210.15 $3,159,210.15

84 ORD980977334 E nvironmental Pacific Corp OR $259,171.68 1997 $351,127.03 $351,127.03

85 ORD991281460 Bergsoe Metal Corporation OR $16,026,056.45 2004 $18,985,227.64 $18,985,227.64

86 ORQ000010405 Grant Warehouse OR $1,200,000.00 2000 $1,550,742.80 $1,550,742.80

87 ORQ000021402 High

- Tech Now OR $71,962.00 2003 $87,650.55 $87,650.55

88 PAD003009362 Gettysburg Foundry Specialties Company PA $5,533,100.00 2000 $7,150,345.84 $7,150,345.84

89 PAD004372363 Horsehead Corporation PA $6,800,000.00 2010 $7,024,301.73 $7,024,301.73

90 PAD073613663 Tonolli Corporation PA $3,625,983.96 2004 $4,295,512.82 $4,295,512.82

91 PAD098732118 Industrial Solvents and

Chemical Co. PA $4,300,000.00 1998 $5,760,650.39 $5,760,650.39

92 PRD987366101 V&M/Albaladejo PR $2,400,000.00 2000 $3,101,485.61 $3,101,485.61

93 PRR000004655 The Battery Recycling Co. PR $295,000.00 2003 $359,313.43 $359,313.43

94 RID980732135 Metals Recycling, LLC RI $840,000.00 2003 $1,023,129.78 $1,023,129.78

95 SCD058754789 Aqua

- Tech Environmental,

Inc. SC $1,927,901.08 2004 $2,283,883.19 $2,283,883.19

96 SCD987566908 Huff Battery Salvage SC $1,200,000.00 2004 $1,421,577.00 $1,421,577.00

97 TND034692632 Dixie Barrel & Drum TN $1,200,000.00 2004 $1,421,577.00 $1,421,577.00

98 TND096070396 Ross Metals, Inc. TN $9,990,564.07 2004 $11,835,296.71 $11,835,296.71

99 TNSFN0406979 College Grove Battery Chip TN $7,250,000.00 2003 $8,830,584.42 $8,830,584.42

100 TX0001861731 Lyon Property TX $60,717.33 2004 $71,928.63 $71,928.63

101 TXD008083404 Many Diversified Interests TX $6,600,000.00 2004 $7,818,673.47 $7,818,673.47

102 TXD008117186 Encycle/Texas Inc. TX $15,000,000.00 2004 $17,769,712.44 $17,769,712.44

103 TXD06637964 Rockwool Industries, Inc. TX $3,122,434.09 2004 $3,698,983.73 $3,698,983.73

104 TXD099387474 Agrifos Fertilizer TX $2,500,000.00 2011 $2,528,494.05 $2,528,494.05

### G

- 5 Appendix G 115 Historical Recycling Damage Cases with Cleanup Cost Data (A Subset of the 250 Total Recycling Damage Cases Between 1982 and 2012 Identified in EPA’s December 2012 Study)

Case A B C D E F G H I J (F+I)

Facility EPA ID Facility Name State Historical Expenditures Projected Expenditures Historical plus Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated) Money Spent

Thus Far (prior years $) Spent

As of Historical

Expenditures (2012$ updated) Projected

Expenditures (prior years $) As of Projected Expenditures (2012$ updated)

105 TXD980626987 Baldwin Waste Oil TX $1,635,504.01 2004 $1,937,495.73 $1,937,495.73

106 TXD990757486 Air Products, LLC TX $61,500,000.00 2006 $68,304,273.07 $68,304,273.07

107 UT0001277359 Intermountain Waste Oil Refinery UT $598,200.00 2006 $664,384.00 $664,384.00

108 UTD093119196 Petrochem Recycling Corp/

Ekotek Plant UT $4,032,359.38 2004 $4,776,924.44 $4,776,924.44

109 UTD982589848 OMG Air Emissions UT $900,000.00 2003 $1,096,210.48 $1,096,210.48

110 VAD003064490 Bingham & Taylor VA $500,000.00 2004 $592,323.75 $592,323.75

111 WAD980978142 Reflex Recycling WA $150,000.00 2002 $186,534.37 $186,534.37

112 WAD981766884 SafCo Environmental WA $625,000.00 2002 $777,226.55 $777,226.55

113 WAD988477501 Basin Oil WA $80,000.00 2008 $84,464.54 $84,464.54

114 WASFN1002182 CleanCare Corporation WA $4,300,000.00 2000 $5,556,828.38 $5,556,828.38

115 WID990829475 Waste Research &

Reclamation Co. WI $6,470.32 2004 $7,665.05 $7,665.05

Column Totals (2012$)= $415,612,244 $478,910,805 $894,523,049

* Explanatory Notes:

 The expenditures listed in this table for each case may not solely reflect the costs of remediating environmental damages (ak a cleanup costs). Although the cleanup costs may include federal, state and private (PRP) money, the cost data for any single case may also include (a) fines and penalties related to the discharge of hazardous waste, (b) attorney’s fees related to court se ttlements; and/or (c) capital costs to bring facilities within compliance with RCRA regulations.

 F or purpose of updating the histo rical damage costs to 2012 $ price level, the historical costs are inflated to 2012$ using an implicit price deflator based on data from "Table 1.1.9 Impl icit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product," Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). At the date in 2012 this update was executed for this RIA, Table 1.1.9 was last revised April 27, 2012 and was available online at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 The implicit price deflator for the first quarter 20 12 is 114.511. The ratio of the implicit price deflator value for first quarter 2012 as numerator and the respective annual value for each of the historical cost data as denominator was used as a p rice inflation adjustment multiplier.

### H

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# H

Comparis on of Baselines & Economic Impact Estimates

Between EPA’s RIA for the 2011 DSW Proposed Rule and T his RIA

As explained in Section 4C of this RIA, components of two o f the six regulatory revision s of the 2014

DSW final rule (i.e., Revision s 3 A & 4 C) affect pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions

. The baseline in this RIA is the regulatory landscape where both the pre

- 2008 exclusions and the 2008 DSW rule are in place.
However, this RIA does not explicitly calculate and prese nt the cost savings from the pre

- 2008

exclusion s

. F or facilities operating under the pre

- 2008 exclusions, the estimated costs of Revision s 3 A

and 4 C of the 2014 DSW rule are incremental to the baseline conditions for those facilities

. However,

this RIA o nly presents “baseline” cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW rule for much of the

discussion. In EPA’s 2011 DSW proposed revisions RIA, the baseline cost savings included savings

from the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. This RIA has modified the baseline calculations in response to public comments that noted there was an error in the assumption of the 2011 DSW RIA

, which extended the RCRA regulatory cost savings baseline for the 2008 DSW rule (proj ected over a 50

- year future 2014

to 2063 period

- of

- analysis) to also include an estimate of the regulatory cost savings to industry associated with the 32 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions in the baseline. The table below presents a compares the baseline estimated in the 2011 DSW RIA (document ID

nr. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0742

- 0002 at http://www.regulations.gov ) with the baseline estimated in this RIA, according to both the pre

- 2008 and 2008 DSW exclusion components of the baseline (using the

2011 RIA’s 7% discount rate base case). The exhibit also displays how the difference in RIA baseline s affects “net impact” in relation to t he incre mental regulatory cost of the 2014 DSW rule as estimated (very similarly) in the 2011 DSW RIA and this RIA.

### H

- 2 Appendix H

Economic impact metric 2011 DSW RIA (June 30, 2011) This RIA (2011$ @7% discount rate) (2012$ @7% discount rate)

1. Projected future average annual RCRA regulatory cost savings from the 2008 DSW rule $86.7 million/year savings

 $7.4 mill/yr 2008 DSW

 $79.3 mill/yr pre

- 2008
( source: all 3 numbers above from p. 103 of 2011

RIA ) $ 27.5 million/year savings

 $2 7.5 mill/y ea r 2008 DSW (source: Exhibit 4L of this RIA )

 $0 pre

- 2008 (source: Section 4C of this

RIA )

2. Incremental added regulatory

costs

for the 2014 DSW final rule requirements $13.1 million/year cost (source: 13% industry adoption base case,

Exhibit A p.9 & p.155 of 2011 RIA ) $ 1. 0 million/yea r savings
(source: 54% industry adoption rate,

Section 5 G of this RIA )

2008 DSW
( Revision s 1+2+3+4B+5A+5B+5D+6) = $6.9196 to $8.5646 mill/year (source: $13.1 mill/year

– pre

- 2008$ sum below) $ 2.41 mill/year savings
(source: ( $1. 036 mill/year )

– pre

- 2008$

sum below)

Pre

- 2008 (4A+5C+7A+7B+7C) =

Pre

- 2008 elem.4A =

Pre

- 2008 (1985) elem.5C =

Pre

- 2008 elem.7A =

Pre

- 2008 elem.7B =

Pre

- 2008 elem.7C = $4.5354 to $6.1804 mill/year (sum of below) $3.1 mill/year (p.119 of 2011 RIA) $0 (p.128) to $1.645 mill/yr (p.131 of 2011 RIA) $1.05 mill/year (p.145 of 2011 RIA) $0.0134 mill/year (p.146 of 2011 RIA) $0.372 mill/year (p.146 of 2011 RIA) $ 1

. 374 mill/year in costs (sum of below)
$0. 49 4 mill/year (Section 5 C.1 of this RIA)
$ 0.881 mill/year (Section 5 D.3 of this RIA) $0 (not in 2014 DSW final rule) $0 (not in 2014 DSW final rule) $0 (no t in 2014 DSW final rule)

3

. I mpact of 2014 DSW final rule

relative to pre

- 2008 baseline (net

benefits = row 1

- row 2) $73.6 million/year net savings (source: “ Net Impact ” p.4 & p.155 of 2011 RIA ) $ 2 8.6 million/year net savings (source: Section 5 G of this RIA )



### As shown in row 2 of the exhibit above, although there is not a large discrepancy in the incremental added

cost savings for the 2014 DS W rule as estimated in both EPA’s 2011 DSW RIA and this RIA, there is a large numerical discrepancy in th e overall cost

- savings relative to a regulatory landscape that entails only the pre

- 2008 exclusions “ I mpact” (row 1 ) . This is explained by the very large discrepancy in row 1

be tween the 2011 RIA and this RIA.

### I

- 1 

# A PPENDIX 

# I

Notes/Sources on State Government Comments on the 2008 DSW

rule

1. Alabama, 2011 [0290]

- “Alabama agrees with the proposal to eliminate the transfer

- based exclusion. We agree with EPA’s conclusion that “hazardous secondary materials transferred for the purpose of legitimate reclamation are most appropriately regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA” and therefore fully support withdrawal of the transfer

- based exclusion. Alabama agrees with EPA’s analyses that the transfer

- based exclusion may pose significant risk to human health

a nd the environment from hazardous secondary material that may become discarded and that the 2008 DSW final rule has serious gaps that create the potential for adverse effects to human

health and the environment.”

2. Arizona, 2011 [0254]

– Comments did not spe cifically address transfer

- based exclusion, but was concerned the proposal would lead to further litigation.

3. Arkansas
a) 2011 [0032]

– “ADEQ agrees with EPA’s conclusion that hazardous secondary materials transferred for the purpose of legitimate reclamation are most appropriately regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA and therefore fully support withdrawal of the transfer

- based

exclusion.”
b) 2007 [0489]

– “ADEQ does not support this conditional exclusion as written.”

4. ASTSWMO a) 2011 [0257]

– “The Task Force (TF) agrees with the proposal to eliminate the transfer

based exclusion. We agree with EPA’s conclusion that “hazardous secondary materials transferred for the purpose of legitimate reclamation are most appropriately regulated under

Subtitle C of RCRA” and therefore fully support withdrawal of the transfer

- based

exclusion.”
b) 2009 [0251]

– “The Task Force would support repeal of the transfer

- based exclusion unless additional operational and tracking requirements were added. The Task Force would support the existing tran sfer

- based exemption with the inclusion of the following additional requirements: marking tanks and containers, waste analysis and compatibility plan, contingency plan, notification of local authorities, prohibition of sequential recycling, and

additional information and recordkeeping documentation...”
c) 2007 [0543]

– “The States do not support the transfer

- based exclusion unless additional requirements are added to ensure that HSM is managed in manner protective to human health and the environment. A majority of the responding States indicated that they would consider supporting the exclusion if additional measures are added to the final rule.”

5. Colorado
a) 2009 [0016]

– “We urge you to withdraw or significantly revise recently promulgated rules excluding hazardou s secondary materials from the definition of “solid waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). These rules will be extremely difficult and costly to enforce, and past experience suggests that self

- regulation by the

hazardous waste re clamation industry is likely to result in environmental damage that may eventually require state

- or federally funded clean

- ups. These additional costs will severely burden state agencies that already are struggling to implement under

- funded RCRA

### I

- 2

programs. We are therefore heartened by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) willingness to revisit the rules in light of our concerns, which are set forth in greater detail

below.”
b) 2007 [0556, 0539]

- “ The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environme nt (the Department) urges EPA to reconsider its interpretation that listed sludges, listed byproducts and spent materials (hereinafter referred to as recyclable secondary materials) are not a solid waste when recycled. The Department believes that reclamat ion, such as solvent distillation, is not an ongoing industrial process but, rather, a waste treatment process. The proposed regulation would remove, to a large degree, regulatory oversight from the way recyclable secondary materials are managed prior to r ecycling (i.e., prior to the waste becoming a valuable product). Without such oversight, along with the tracking of such wastes, the Department believes that the potential for impact to human health and the

environment will be increased with no net likelih ood of increased recycling, especially

within the small business sector.”

6. Connecticut, 2009 [0244]

– “CTDEP therefore strongly supports EPA’s issuance of the May 27, 2009 Notice, and strongly encourages EPA to modify the rule to correct certain deficiencie s and increase the likelihood that states will adopt it...CTDEP therefore concludes that the existence of these damage incidents does not support an across

- the

- board exemption for these types of facilities. Rather, such facilities should be subject to an app ropriate level of regulatory control to prevent further damage incidents of the type that have already been well

- documented.”

7. Florida, 2007 [0470]

– “ FDEP does not support this proposal unless changes are made. The

transfer

- based exclusion is inconsistent with RCRA’s cradle to grave approach to hazardous waste regulation. The potential for mismanagement of waste mushrooms without regulatory oversight. EPA acknowledges that new recyclers unfamiliar with the business are likely to appear with promulgation of this regulation. ”

8. Georgia a) 2011 [0270]

– “EPD fully supports rescinding the transfer

- based exclusion.”
b) 2007 [0538]

– GA offered specific comments on the transfer

- based exclusion but did not clearly indicate support for the exclusion.

9. Illinois
a) 2011 [0058]

– “

Illinois EPA is in favor of changing from a transfer based exclusion to management standards and supports the upper limit of two shipments on site at any one time and a one year time limit.”
b) 2007 [0509]

– IL offered specific comments on the proposal, but did not clearly indicate support for the exclusion.

10. Kentucky, 2011 [0351]

– In response to EPA’s proposal to replace the transfer

- based exclusion with alternative Subtitle C regulation: “The Commonwealth generally agrees with this change.”

11. Louisiana, 2011 [0225]

- “Instead of scrapping an exclusion that has not proven ineffective or resulted in damages/risks to human health or the environment, LDEQ urges EPA to: 1) investigate the practices and performance of the existing users of the 2008 exclusion to see if “gaps” truly exist; and 2) amend the existing transfer

- based exclusion to close these potential “gaps.”

12. Maine a) 2011 [0209]

– “The Department generally supports the Agency’s proposal to replace the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials for the purpo se of reclamation with an alternative Subtitle C standard. The Department agrees that the 2008 DSW final rule lack

### I

- 3

several important implementation provisions that are provided in the Subtitle C requirement for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and dispo sal facilities....The Department agrees with the Agency’s proposal and...supports the withdrawal of the

transfer

- based exclusion..”
b) 2009 [0246]

– “ Maine believes that the best solution to addressing the problems with the rule is to revoke or stay the entire rule. If this is unsuccessful, then the transfer based exclusion and as much of the generator based exclusion as possible should be revoked. “
c) 2 007 [0530]

- “MEDEP believes the broad scope of this proposal represents an increased

risk for the environment and human health. Individual states will be left with the financial burden of cleanup costs where exempted waste materials are mishandled, release d or abandoned. MEDEP recognizes that the training, record

- keeping and licensing associated

with RCRA

- regulated hazardous wastes are an added cost to recycling hazardous secondary materials, but we believe the investment is worth the benefit of reduced cle anup costs and reduced impacts to public health and the environment.”

13. Massachusetts
a) 2011 [0188, 0178]

– “MassDEP supports the EPA’s proposal to withdraw the transfer

based exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) for hazardous secondary materials

transfer red for the purpose of reclamation and to replace it with an alternative Subtitle C regulation for hazardous secondary materials.”
b) 2009 [0253]

– ” MassDEP, however, does not support the current Transfer

- Based Exclusion... MassDEP has no plans to adopt the Transfer

- Based Exclusion (TBE), and so it would not oppose a decision by EPA to rescind this part of the DSW rule.”
c) 2007 [0495]

– “

MassDEP, however, does not support the broad er conditional exclusion from RCRA regulation for essentially all hazardous secondary materials that are recycled

off

- site. ”

14. Michigan, 2007 [0544]

– “ The MDEQ generally supports the concept of conditionally excluding secondary materials being legitimately reclaimed through transfer to another person....However, the conditions associated with the exclusion for materials transferred to another person are not robust enough to be protective under the huge universe of secondary materials and reclamation

scenarios. ”

15. Minnesota a) 2009 [0247]

– Resubmitted comments submitted on 2007 proposal. b) 2007 [0521]

– “

The MPCA generally supports the concept of finding the appropriate balance point between encouraging the reuse and recycling of hazardous secondary materials (HSM), and regulating HSM’s sufficiently to protect human health and the environment during accumulation, storage, transport, and reclamation as intended by RCRA. The MPCA offers comments intended to help the EPA to refine its proposal. ”

16. Missouri, 2007 [0508]

– “ The Missouri Department of Natural Resources is supportive of the general concept of providing an exclusion from regulation as a hazardous waste for material that is not truly waste

- like because it is being legitimately recycled or reclaimed. However, beca use of concerns we have with the rule as currently proposed, we cannot support the rule in its current form. The rule does contain some provisions that we support, at least in spirit. Specifically, while we support the concept of providing an exclusion for on

- site reclamation activities by a generator, we do not approve of the use of third parties as reclaimers, at least not under the minimal requirements established in the rule.”

### I

- 4 17. Nebraska, 2007 [0536]

– “ There is some concern that the proposed rule is gene rally a breakdown of the traditional environmental protections afforded by the c urrent RCRA regulations. The department is concerned that accepting the proposed rule as written will result in wholesale declarations that hazardous secondary materials are be ing recycled and therefore not solid & hazardous waste. That would render RCRA regulation meaningless a nd enforcement very difficult... The department generally supports the Conditional Exclusion for Materials That Are Transferred for the Purpose of Reclamati on portion of the proposed rule. With limited exceptions, the department believes that once a generator allows a secondary material to leave
his site, it should be a soli d waste until it is reclaimed... There are unknowns, but as a matter of practicality, it appears that the redefinition of hazardous waste rule would be considered a plus by many small businesses that cannot afford the luxury of an environmental staff or hired

consultants. ”

18. New Hampshire, 2011 [0251]

– “EPA has proposed to withdraw the exclusi on at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) for hazardous secondary materials transferred for the purpose of legitimate reclamation. NHDES strongly supports this withdrawal and agrees with EPA’s rationale for the

withdrawal.”

19. New Jersey, 2007 [0563]

– “ We do not f

eel that secondary materials that are transferred to a commercial reclaimer should be eligible for the exclusion . It has been our experience that a reclaimer who is also accepting secondary materials from other industries is involved in waste

management t ype operations. We are not confident that the conditions to the proposed exclusion are sufficient to ensure that the secondary materials are handled as commodities rather than as

wastes.

20. New Mexico, 2009 [0224]

– We urge you to withdraw or significantly re vise recently promulgated rules excluding hazardous secondary materials from the definition of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Over 96 percent of the damage cases identified by EPA during the rule

- making process occurre d at recycling facilities that were not regulated under RCRA Part B permits. In order to avoid similar damage cases in the future, EPA should retain authority to regulate HSMs as wastes.”

21. NEWMOA a) 2011 [0272, 0179]

– “EPA has proposed to withdraw the exclusi on at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) for hazardous secondary materials transferred for the purpose of legitimate reclamation. NEWMOA strongly supports this withdrawal and agrees with EPA’s rationale

for the withdrawal.”
b) 2009 [0249]

– “As NEWMOA has previousl y commented, the movement of HSMs off the site of generation as commodities raises serious concerns about accountability, tracking, and transparency that states fear will lead to abuses and releases that would be impossible to detect until damage has occur red. Enforcement in these circumstances would be difficult, complicated by removal of key waste program requirements that provide management accountability, such as tracking, notification, record keeping, and reporting.
c) 2007 [0541]

– “

However, the NEWMOA s tates continue to have general and a variety of specific concerns regarding proposed revisions that would allow HSMs to move off

- site without many of the protections provided under the current RCRA hazardous waste regulations.”

22. New York
a) 2011 [0312]

– “The Department generally supports the proposed rule. We also wish to acknowledge the efforts of the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association

### I

- 5

(NEWMOA). Department staff worked with individuals from other NEWMOA member states to develop comments which wi ll be separately submitted by NEWMOA. Those comments reflect the regional perspective and consensus opinions from the member

states.”
b) 2009 [0250]

– NY did not submit comments specific to the transfer

- based exclusion.
c) 2007 [0516]

– NY submitted comments spe cific to the transfer

- based exclusion, but did not clearly indicate support for the exclusion.

23. Ohio, 2011 [0157]

– “Ohio EPA strongly supports retaining the 2008 DSW rule and exclusions...Ohio does not support the elimination of the transfer

- based reclamatio n exclusion.”

24. Oklahoma
a) 2011 [0038]

– “therefore fully support withdrawal of the transfer

- based exclusion and replacing it with the management standards of Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 266.”
b) 2009 [0010, 0019]

– “DEQ believes the DSW Rule's self

- implementing and self

- policing requirements for off

- site HSM and intermediate facilities do not provide a comfort level for most regulatory agencies that HSM will always be properly managed. Therefore, we propose that there be a limited regulatory agency review process pr ior to any off

- site HSM or intermediate facility beginning operations under the DSW Rule, plus additional guidelines for day

- to

- day operations to maintain compliance.”

25. Oregon a) 2011 [0293]

– “DEQ has submitted the majority of our comments on the Proposed Rul e through the ASTSWMO Hazardous Waste Recycling Task Force.”
b) 2009 [0016]

– “

We urge you to withdraw or significantly revise recently promulgated rules excluding hazardous secondary materials from the definition of “solid waste” under the

Resource Conservat ion and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). These rules will be extremely difficult and costly to enforce, and past experience suggests that self

- regulation by the hazardous waste reclamation industry is likely to result in environmental damage that may eventually requ ire state

- or federally funded clean

- ups. These additional costs will severely burden state agencies that already are struggling to implement under

- funded RCRA programs. We are therefore heartened by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) willingnes s to revisit the rules in light of our concerns, which are set forth in greater detail

below.”

26. Pennsylvania
a) 2011 [0271]

– “PA DEP disagrees with EPA’s proposal to replace the conditional exclusion for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred for the purpose from the generator to third party facilities for the purpose of reclamation with an alternative hazardous recyclable materials regulation.” (PA DEP goes on to suggest adding a requirement to the transfer

- based exclusion that reclamation facilit ies be fully permitted.) b) 2007 [0531]

– “ The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) supports the concept of reducing obstacles to the reuse or recycling hazardous materials that would otherwise be disposed....Pennsylvania is very pleased to find that th e rulemaking includes many of the ideas that were first presented in the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2003 proposal .”

27. Rhode Island
a) 2011 [0063]

– “RIDEM strongly supports the proposed elimination of the transfer

- based

exclusion.”
b) 2009 [0221]

– “RIDEM strongly feels that the transfer

- based exclusion should be dropped.”

### I

- 6 28. South Carolina, 2011 [0344, 0299]

– SC offered specific comments on both the transfer

- based exclusion and the Alternative 266 standards, but did not indicate support for either option.

29. Te nnessee a) 2011 [0177]

- “The TnSWM concurs with the reasoning for the elimination of the transfer

based exclusion except for the pre

- 2008 exclusions/exemptions... The TnSWM supports Subpart D of Part 266 regulatory requirements for hazardous recyclable materia ls sent off

site for reclamation if not excluded/exempted under the pre

- 2008 regulations. As previously noted, the TnSWM concurs with the proposed replacement or withdrawal of the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials transferred offsite to be reclai med with alternative Subtitle C standards and conditions except for the pre

- 2008 exclusions/exemptions.”
b) 2009 [0248]

– “

While we support the intent of the final rule, we believe that revisions to the final rule are needed to better safeguard human health a nd the environment

... We recommend using a phased approach rather than making the proposed broad change. Not only would that allow more thought be given to the components that could be added to the recycling program, but it would also allow EPA and the states to observe the results of the initial phases before the later ones. The program could start with the proposed on

- site recycling program first for a trial period prior to proceeding to the next step. To that end, we recommend that EPA consider delaying the transfer

- based exclusion. ”
c) 2007 [0488]

– ” We recommend that a separate and specific set of regulations be developed

for off

- site shipments by HSM generators and for the handling of those off

- site shipments by transporters, and reclaimers, similar to the Used Oil or Universal Waste regulations. These requirements would not apply to on

- site recycling, only to materials transported off

site. Generators and recyclers would be required to have an EPA Identification number and utilize a new (to be developed) r ecycling specific HSM manifest. “

30. Texas a) 2011 [0332]

– “

The proposal appears to be an improvement to the “transfer

- based exclusions” that are currently in place.”
b) 2007 [0490]

– TX offered specific comments on the proposal but did not indicate support

either way for the transfer

- based exclusion.

31. Utah, 2009 [0014, 0016]

– “ We urge you to withdraw or significantly revise recently promulgated rules excluding hazardous secondary materials from the definition of “solid waste”

under the Resource Conservation and Re covery Act (“RCRA”).” Over 96 percent of the damage cases identified by EPA during the rule

- making process occurred at recycling facilities that were not regulated under RCRA Part B permits. In order to avoid similar damage cases in the future,

EPA should retain authority to regulate HSMs as wastes.”

32. Vermont a) 2011 [0333, 0307]

- “Vermont strongly supports the withdrawal of the transfer

- based exclusion . Vermont agrees with the EPA statement that when

- developing the transfer

based exclusion, EPA did not focus on the chemical or physical properties of any particular type of "hazardous secondary material" (HSM) and, as a result, the exclusion was much too broad and lacked the important implementation provisions provided under RCRA Subtitle C (e.g., the perm it requirement of RCRA section 3005).”
b) 2009 [0215, 0315]

– “The rule’s approach of limited oversight by regulatory authorities, lack of specificity and minimal safeguards, lead [VT] to conclude that, with the exception of the recycling legitimacy criteria, the rule is flawed to the extent it should be

### I

- 7

repealed....The rule’s self

- implementing and self

- policing requirements for off

- site intermediate and recycling facilities do not ensure that hazardous secondary materials will be properly managed.”

33. Washington, 2009 [0016] “We urge you to withdraw or significantly revise recently promulgated rules excluding hazardous secondary materials from the definition of “solid waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). These rules will be extremely

di fficult and costly to enforce, and past experience suggests that self

- regulation by the hazardous waste reclamation industry is likely to result in environmental damage that may eventually require state

- or federally funded clean

- ups. These additional cost s will severely burden state agencies that already are struggling to implement under

- funded RCRA programs. We are therefore heartened by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) willingness to revisit the rules in light of our concerns, which are set forth in greater detail below.”

34. West Virginia, 2011 [0268] “ WVDEP agrees with the proposal to withdraw the transfer

- based exclusion and agrees that these materials are best regulated under RCRA Subtitle C.”

35. Wisconsin a) 2011 [0239]

– “

Agree with withdrawal of the transfer

- based exclusion, where the generator transfers hazardous secondary material to another person or company to be reclaimed, and instead regulate these hazardous secondary materials under Subtitle C alternate requirements (in 40 CFR part 266) that are generally as stringent as the current RCRA Subtitle C regulations. We agree with EPA’s position that a recyclable material has limited value until it is reclaimed. The possibility of mismanagement which could cause human

health and environmental h arm justifies full RCRA regulation after it leaves the generator

site.”
b) 2009 [0233] “

We now urge EPA to withdraw or significantly revise the Definition of Solid Waste rule that was promulgated in December, 2008. Over 96% of the damage cases identified by E PA during the 1985 rulemaking process occurred at recycling facilities that were not regulated under hazardous waste management permits. In order to avoid similar damage cases in the future, EPA should retain authority to regulate hazardous secondary

mater ials as wastes.”
c) 2007 [0562] “

We also believe that the rule goes too far by proposing to exempt recycling of secondary materials at off

- site facilities, as the proposed exclusion includes only minimal requirements for the recycling facility other than demo nstrating financial

assurance. ”