### 1 

# REGULATORY 

# I MPACT 

# ANALYSIS


# EPA’s 2011 Proposed Revision s t o the Industrial Recycling Exclusions of the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste

Co -Authored By: Mark Eads, Economist (703 - 308 - 8615; eads.mark@epa.gov) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mailstop 5307P

Washington DC 20460 USA http://www.epa.gov/waste DPRA Incorporated Project contact: David Gustafson (952 - 237 - 4240; david.gustafson@dpra.com) 5206 Zenith Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 USA http://www.dpra.com
30 June 2011

### 2 

## P REFACE This RIA was in large part built upon updated and revised data and analyses borrowed from EPA’s September 25, 2008 “ Regulatory Impact Analysis ” (RIA) in support of EPA’s October 30, 2008 RCRA “ Definition of Solid Waste ” (DSW) final rule. The 2008 RIA is available to the public in Adobe PDF electronic format (204 pages) as document ID nr. EPA

- HQ
- RCRA
- 2002
- 0031
- 0602 at http://www.regulations.gov

. DPRA Inc. authored Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 7 of this RIA as a sub

- contractor to Industrial Economics Inc. under work assignment 3

- 09 and 4

- 09 of EPA contract EP

- W
- 07
- 011. The period of performance for the se work assignment were from September 09 to Decemb er 31, 2010 and March 21, 2011 to June 30, 2011 . Mark Eads, an economist for EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery (ORCR) was EPA’s work assignment manager and author of the Executive Summary and Chapters 1, 2, 6 and 8 (section 8A) of this RIA. Jon Silberman, Attorney

- Advisor to EPA’s Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA) Planning, Measured & Oversight Division contributed to Chapter 8 (sections 8B & 8C). The primary data source used in this RIA for identifying potentially affected industrial entities and associated annual waste tonnages for the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW is EPA’s RCRA Hazardous Waste “Biennial Report” (BR). When EPA launched this RIA in September 2010, the most recent BR data year available was 2007, w hich is applied in this RIA. However, in late November 201 0, the 2009 BR data became available on EPA’s BR website at http://www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm . For purpose of comparison before (2005) and after (2009) to the 2007 data year applied in this RIA, the two tables below (Table A & Table B) display the aggregate nationwide BR counts of industrial hazardous waste recycling facilities and their corresponding reported annual tonnages of wa ste recycled for 2005, 2007 and 2009. Facility counts remained fairly stable although recycling tonnage continued to decline in 2009 compared to 2007. Table A

Count of Industrial Hazardous Waste Generator Facilities that Recycled Waste as Reported in the BR

(Recycled Onsite by the Generator or Shipped Offsite for Recycling) Type of Recycling (by BR code) 2005 2007 2009 1. H010 Metals 2,438 2,121 2,066 2. H020 Solvents 2,525 2,146 2,022 3. H039 Others (e.g., acids) 891 907 1,134

Non
- duplicative Totals 4,928 4,447 4,502 Percentage Change N/A - 9.8% +1.2% Table B Tonnage of Industrial Hazardous Wastes Recycled by Generator Facilities Reported in the BR

(Recycled Onsite by the Generator or Shipped Offsite for Recycling) Type of Recycling 2005 2007 2009 H010 Metals 904,671 821,536 869,777 H020 Solvents 230,627 255,127 198,148 H039 Others (e.g., acids) 277,484 276,743 201,340

Non
- duplicative Totals 1,412,782 1,353,406 1,269,265 Percentage Change N/A - 4.2% - 6.2%

### 3 

# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS Abstract 4 Executive Summary 5 Chapter 1 Problem Statement (Justification for Regulatory Action) 18 Chapter 2 Regulatory Options Evaluated in this RIA ( 8 Sets of Options) 24 Chapter 3 Baseline Industrial Entities & Materials Potentially Affected by the 2011 Proposed Revisions 34

3A. 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions: Baseline Industrial Recycling Potentially Affected 34 3B. Pre
- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions: Baseline Industrial Recycling 46 3C. Annual Rate of Future Adoption of the 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions 54 3D. Baseline Industrial Waste Disposal Whi ch May Switchover to 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions 56 Chapter 4 Estimate of Baseline Cost Savings to Industry for the Existing DSW Recycling Exclusions 72

4A. Baseline Cost Savings Estimation Methodology 72 4B
. Baseline Regulatory Cost Savings for the 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions 85 4C
. Baseline Regulatory Cost Savings for the Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions 101 4D Summary of Baseline De

- Regulatory Cost Savings Estimates 103 Chapter 5 Estimate of Industry Costs to Comply with the 2011 Proposed Revisions 104

Option 1: Withdraw the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Offsite Transfer Recycling 1 04 Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for Offsite Transfer Recycling 105 Opti on 3: Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion f or Generator
- Controlled Recycling 115 Option 4: Revise the Recycling “Legitimacy” Provisions of the 2008 DSW Final Rule 117 Option 5 : Revise the 198 5 Partial Recycling Variance & 2008 DSW Non
-Waste Petition Process es 1 26 Option 6: Add a “Re

-Manufa cturing” DSW Exclusion 132 Option 7: Revise the Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions 145 Option 8 : Other Possible Revisions Not Included in the 2011 Proposed Revisions 151 Summary: Estimated Industry Costs to Meet Options 1 to 7 (Excluding Option 8 ) 155 C hapter 6 Sensitivity Analyses (6 Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors) 175 Chapter 7 Supplemental Analyses 188

7 A. Regulatory Planning and Review ( 1993 Executive Order 12866) 188 7B. Small Business Impac t Analysis ( 1980 RFA/ 1996 SBREFA) 189 7C. Unfunded Mandates Analysis ( 1995 UMRA) 200 7D. Federalism Implications ( 1999 Executive Order 13132) 203 7E. Energy Impact Analysis ( 2001 Executive Order 13211) 204 7F. 

### Improving Regulation & Regulatory Review (2011 Executive Order 13563) 204 Chapter 8 Potential Environmental & Economic Benefits of the 2011 Proposed Revisions 209 Appendices 221

Appendix A 2007 Count of 6

- Digit NAICS Code Industries Potentially Affected 222 Appendix B Calculation of Cost Adjustment Factors 228 Appendix C TRI Solvent Disposal Data for Four Option 6 “Re - Manufacturing” Industries 244 Appendix D Small Business Count Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Analysis 254

### 4 

# ABSTRACT Introduction : This RIA evaluates the potential future impacts of seven proposed revisions (i.e., regulatory options) 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” in lieu of managing and discarding s uch materials as wastes in compliance with the relativel y more costly terms and co nditions of RCRA Subtitle C “hazardous waste” regulations. Affected E ntities : Two distinct groups (populations) totaling between 5,983 and 8,992 industrial facilities per year potentially affected :  2008 DSW exclusions : 6 of the 7 proposed revisions (Optio ns 1 thru 6) could affect EPA’s most recent 2008 DSW recycling ex clusions potentially

involving between 662 (“ base case ”) and 3,671 (“ upper- bound”) average annual future counts of RCRA
- regulated facilities.  Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusions : 3 of the 7 revisions (Options 4, 5, 7) in part or in whole could affect EPA’s pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (spanning 1985 and 1998) involving 5,321 industrial facilities operating with pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions

. Benefits : This RIA presents a qualitative description of three categories of expected future environmental and economic benefits for the proposed revisions: (1) reduction in future environmental damage cases associated with ind ustrial recycling; (2) improved environmental compliance; and (3) reduced liabi lity , less regulatory uncertainty , and lower legal and credit costs for recycling facilities. Costs : This RIA estimates the future average annualized costs to industry to comply

with the 7 proposed revisions at between (201 1 $ @7% discount rate over 50

- ye ars 2015 to 2064) :  Base cas e scenario : Range of $ 7.2 million per year (Options 3 to 7 only) to $ 13. 1 million per year (all Options 1 to 7 ) affecting 662 “base case” average annual facilities expected to implement the 2011 proposed revisions, plus 100% of the current 5,321 pre
- 2008 DSW exclusion facilities adopting relevant options of the 2011 proposed DSW revisions

.  Upper
-bound scenario : $ 7.4 million per year (Options 3 to 7 only) and $ 4 7.5 million per year (Option s 1 to 7 ) affecting 3,671 average annual facilities expected to implement the 2011 proposed DSW revisio ns, plus 100% of the 5,321 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusion facilities

. Net I mpact : Netting out the $ 7.3 to $ 13. 1 million average annual future costs for the 7 proposed revisions, from the 201 1 $

- updated DSW regulatory

cost savings baseline of $ 86.7 million per year

– consisting of $ 79.3 million per year cost savings associated with pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions, plus $ 7.4 million cost saving per ye ar for 13 % adoption rate of the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions

– yi elds a future average annual net cost savings for all DSW exclusions of $ 73. 6 to $ 79.5 million per year (@7% “ base case ” discount rate over 50
- years 2015 to 2064). Supplemental A nalyses : The 2011 DSW proposal is expected: (1) to have an annual effect less than the $100 million “ economically significant” threshold under Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; (2) to have a “No SISNOSE” small business impact under EPA’s RFA/SBREFA “sales test” thre shold; (3) to impose less than $100 million in annual direct costs on state, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector, under the UMRA threshold; (4) to impose less than EPA’s $25 million annual direct cost threshold on state/local government s under Executive Order 13132: Federalism Implications; and (5) to not have an adverse effect on energy suppl y, distribution, or use under Executive Order 13211: Regulations that Affect Energy Supply , Distribution or Use.

### 5 

# E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMARY 

## A. Purpose of EPA’s 2011 Proposed Revisions to DSW Recycling Exclusions The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the regulatory exclusions for certain ty

pes of industrial recycling from the
“ definition of solid waste ” (DSW) under Subtitle C o f the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . The DSW recycling exclusions involve industrial hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling (i.e., reclamation , recovery , regeneration, or reuse) rather than discard (i.e., disposal)

. Som e of the DSW recycling exclusions date back to 1985, whereas other DSW recycling exclusions are relativel y new (2008). The exclusions provide eligible industrial facilities with avoided and lower de

- regulated costs, compared to more costly compliance with RCRA’s full regulatory requirements for hazardous waste management, provided that facilities meet certain eligibility criteri a, and comply

with certain operating conditions and requirements. Under the DSW exclusions, industrial recyclable materials are n ot “wastes” because they

are recycled, not discarded (i.e., not disposed), and thus are considered “ hazardous secondary materials ” rather than “ hazardous wastes ” if alternativel y discarded rather than recycled. EPA’s 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW rec yc ling 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 DSW

excluded industrial hazardous secondary materials. With these proposed revisions EPA intend s to ensure that the exclusions, as implemented, encourage recycling in industrial operations under conditions necessary to 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 environmental releases of the hazardous materials

. Some proposed revisi ons potentially

affect EPA’s October 2008 DSW recycling exclusions, while other proposed revisions potentially affect pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions which date between 1985 and 1998. 

## B. Proposed Revisions Evaluated in this RIA ( 8 Sets of Options) Op tion 1: Withdraw the 2008 DSW E xclusion for Offsite Transfer Recycling Withdraw the 2008 DSW exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred offsit e for the purpose of reclamation, and replace it with altern ative RCRA Subtitle C regulations for hazardous recyclable materials under Option 2 below.  Option 2 below is a companion to this option, as it presents a regulatory alternative for offsite reclamation if the 2008 DSW offsite reclamation exclusion is withdrawn. Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for Offsite Transfer Recycling As a corollary

to Option 1 above, implement an alternative RCRA Subtitle C regulation for hazardous recyclable materials that are transferred offsite for reclamation. Waste generators would need to meet the following requirements:

### 6

(2A) Notification : Submit a notification prior to operating under this new RCRA regulation, and thereafter biennially using EPA Form 8700
- 12. (2B) Reclamation plan : Make advance arrangements for legitimate reclamation and documents those arrangement in a reclamation plan. (2C) Accumulation : Allow accumulation of hazardous recyclable materials by the generator for up to one year, but accumulate no more than two shipments of hazardous recyclable materials at any one time. (2D) Management : Meets labeling, emergency preparedness, contingency planning and management standards similar to those required for hazardous waste generators. (2E) Transportation : Sends the hazardous recyclable materials under either a hazardous recyclable materials manifest or a hazardous waste manifest to a RCRA permitted reclamation facility and maintain records of shipments for three years. . Option 3: Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Generator Controlled Recy cling Modify the 2008 DSW exclusion for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the control of the generator by : (3A) Add a regulatory

definition of “ contained

” to the 2008 DSW generator

- controlled recycling exclusion. (3B) Make notification a condition of the 2008 DSW generator

- controlled recycling exclusion. (3C) Add a recordkeeping requirement for speculative accumulation. (3D) Add a recordkeeping requirement for reclamation under the 2008 DSW “toll manufacturing” recycling exclusion. (3 E) E liminat e the 2008 DSW “toll manufacturing” recycling exclusion. (3F) Relocate the non

- land based and land

- based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 so they both appear in the same section. Option 4 : Revise the 2008 DSW Definition of “Legitimate ” Recyclin g Revise the 2008 DSW definition of legitimate recycling (i.e., legitimacy) by : (4A) Appl y the codified definition to all industrial recycling under the pre

- 2008 DSW set of regulatory exclusions. (4B) Make all four legitimacy factors mandatory

with a petition process for cases where one factor is not met but the recycling is still legitimate for the 2008 DSW regulatory exclusions and hazardous wastes being recycled under Subtitle C. (4C) Require documentation of recycling legitimacy for the 2008 DSW regulatory exclusions and hazardous wastes being recycled under Subtitle C. Option 5: Revise the 1985 Partial Recycling Variance and 2008 DSW Non -Waste Determination Petition Processes Modify the non

- waste determination petition process by : (5A) Require that applicants re

- app ly in the event the material no longer meets the relevant criteria under 40 CFR 260.33(c). ( 5B ) Require biennial notification using EPA Form 8700

- 12 in compliance with 40 CFR 260.42. (5C) Modify

the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW v ariance for p artially r ecycled m aterials : (1) Require all six of the 1985 criteria for evaluating partial recycling variance applications be met, not “ on any or all of them. ” (2) Modify

wording of five of the six criteria to make it clear at what point in the recycling process the variance is intended to apply

. ( 5D ) Non
- waste determination p etitioners must demonstrate why the y cannot or should not meet existing DSW exclusions (at 40 CFR 261.2 or 261.4).

### 7

( 5E ) Change the word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30 to 260.34, due to the regional

- and case

- specific nature of non

- waste determinations. Option 6: Add a new “Re- Manufacturing” DSW Exclusion Add a new DSW recycling exclusion involving inter

- company transfer for off

- site reclamation of solvents via “re

- manufacturing” (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 five eligibility criteria and three other sub

- options: (6A) Five eligibility

criteria: (1) 18 ty pes of solvent chemicals only

. (2) Three types of solvent “processing aid” functional uses only (i.e., chemical m anufacturing aid, chemical processing aid, or chemical formulation aid) by both generators and re

- manufacturers; not involving cleaning or de

- greasing solvent uses, plus a chemical intermediate function in which the chem ical gets consumed (destroyed) in chemical manufacturing reactions. ( 3 ) Four manufacturing sectors onl y (NA IC S 325199 basic organic chemical m anufacturing , NAICS 325211 plastics & resins m anufacturing , NAICS 325412 pharmaceutical m anufacturing , and NAI CS 3 25510 paints & coatings m anufacturing). (4 ) Five exclusion conditions for both generators and re

- manufacturers (initial and biennial notification, re

- manufacturing plan, 3

- ye ar recordkeeping of shipments, management in tanks or containers, and no speculative accumulation). (6 B ) Use of intermediate storage facilities not allowed for this exclusion. (6 C ) Add other conditions or restrictions including , but not limited to , additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements, management standards, financial assurance requirements, and public participation requirements . Note: this roughl y- and incompletely

defined sub

- option is not evaluated in this RIA (6D) Petition process for requests to add certain chemicals, industries, and/or chemical function uses to the re

- manufacturing criteria. Option 7: Revise pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions & Exemptions This revision to the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions for recyclable materials will require: (7A) Containment (“contained”) standards for excluded hazardous secondary material

– applies to 31DSW exclusions (7B) Biennial notification for facilities operating under the various exclusions and exemptions

– applies to 31 DSW exclusions (7C) Recordkeeping for speculative accumulation in all cases

– applies to 40 CFR 261.4 DSW exclusions Option 8 : Other Options for Revising the 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions Evaluated in this RIA But Not Proposed Other options evaluated during the initial formulation of this RIA that are not proposed: ( 8 A) ” Contained

” performance standard for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. ( 8 B) Intermediate facility restric tion for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. ( 8 C) Provision for facilities in non

- adopting states to qualify for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion.

### 8 

## C. Potential Industry Costs for Complying With the 2011 Proposed Revisions C1. “Base Case ” Adoption Scenario Cost Estimates This RIA aggregates (i.e., adds

- up) the incremental regulatory cost estimates for Options 1 to 7 listed above (not including Option 8 ) 1 

### under two alternative future implementation (i.e., future adoption) scenarios: “ 13 % base case scenario” and “ 74 % upper
-bound scenario”. Each scenario uses a 7% base case discount rate over the future 50

- ye ar period of 2015 to 2064, as well as two alternative discount rates (0% and 3%) for purpose of sensitivity anal ys is. Each scenario consists of two industrial facility sub

-populations which the 2011 proposed revisions might affect: (a) facilities which may operate under the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions and (b) facilities which are currently operating under the pre

- 200 8 DSW exclusions (which were promulgated between 1985 and 1998). The two alternative future implementation scenarios are:

 13 % “ base case ” adoption scenario : Based on the actual average annual 2 .33
- ye ar (December 28, 2008 through April 26, 2011 ) adoption rate for the 2008 DSW final rule. o 2008 DSW final rule exclusions: Assumes an average annual count of 13 % (i.e., 662 ) of the 5,007 currentl y eligible RCRA

- regulated industrial facilities (as of 2007) will adopt the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions, as revised according to the 2011 proposed revisions. o Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusions: Assumes an average annual count of 100% of the 5,321 industrial facilities (as of 2007) currently operating with pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions, will adopt the 2011 proposed revisions to the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions.  74 % “ upper- bound” adoption scenario : Based on the count of currentl y eligible RCRA

- regulated facilities in the 44 states which might adopt the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions: o 2008 DSW final rule exclusions: Assumes an average annual count of 74 % (i.e., 3,671 ) of the 5,007 currently eligible RCRA

- regulated industrial facilities (as of 2007) will adopt the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions, as revised according to the 2011 proposed revisions. o Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusions: Assumes an average annual count of 100% of the 5,321 industrial facilities (as of 2007) currently operating with pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions, will adopt the 2011 proposed revisions to the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. For purpose of summary , Exhibit A and Exhibit B below present this RIA ’s estimated industry compliance costs (or net cost savings) under the 13 % base case scenario for Options 1 to 7 listed above. Because Option 1 , Option 2, and Option 6 are not mutually exclusive, there are two alternative ways to add

- up the impacts across all seven options: Exhibit A (All Options 1 to 7 ): I f Option 1 is selected then the baseline cost savings in Option 2 and 6 are included. Exhibit B (Only

Options 3 to 7 ): If Option 1 is NOT selected then the baseline cost savings in Option s 2 and 6 are e xcluded to avoid

1 Costs associated with Option 8 reflect other options evaluated in this RIA but are not presented here because they are not included in EPA’s 2011 Federal Re gister notice of the proposed revisions to the DSW exclusions. The cost (or cost savings) estimates for the set of options includ ed as Option 8 are prese nted in Chapter 5 of this RIA.

### 9

double

- counting.
Exhibit A Potential Future Regulatory Compliance Costs to Industry for EPA’s 2011 Proposed Revisions to the RCRA “Definition of Solid Waste ” (DSW) Industrial Recycling Exclusions Note : Costs in this Exhibit are Incremental to the Cost Savings Estimated for the 2008 DSW Final Rule as “Baseline”

13 % “Base Case ” Future Adoption Scenario And All Options 1 to 7 Selected Proposed Revisions (Regulatory Options) Average annual future affected industrial facilities Cost estimates ($millions in 201 1 $) @alternative discount rates 0% 3% 7% Average Annualized Costs (50 - years 2015 to 2064): 1. Withdraw

the 2008 DSW exclusion for offsite transfer recycling 662 $11.991 $8.645 $5.671 2. Implement alternative Subtitle C regulation for offsite transfer recycling 662 ($0.834) ($0.315) $0.099 3. Revise the 2008 DSW exclusion for generator

- controlled recycling 37 $0.382 $0.276 $0.181 4. Revise the 2008 DSW definition of recycling “ legitimacy ” 10,254 $7.722 $6.862 $5.891 5. Revise the 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW non

- waste determination petition process 379 $0.056 $0.051 $0.044 6. Add a new

“re - manufacturing” DSW exclusion* 30 ($0.414) ($0.299) ($0.196) 7. Revise pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (1985 to 1998) 5,321 $1.883 $1.674 $1.437 Column totals (1 to 7 ) = $20.786 $16.894 $13.127 Present Value Costs (50 - years 2015 to 2064): 1. Withdraw

the 2008 DSW exclusion for offsite transfer recycling 662 $599.550 $222.408 $78.264 2. Implement alternative Subtitle C regulation for offsite transfer recycling 662 ($41.700) ($8.104) $1.366 3. Revise the 2008 DSW exclusion for generator

- controlled recycling 37 $19.100 $7.101 $2.498 4. Revise the 2008 DSW definition of recycling “ legitimacy ” 10,254 $386.100 $176.537 $81.300 5. Revise the 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW non

- waste determination petition process 379 $2.800 $1.312 $0.607 6. Add a new

“re - manufacturing” DSW exclusion* 30 ($20.700) ($7.692) ($2.705) 7. Revise pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (1985 to 1998) 5,321 $94.150 $43.067 $19.832 Column totals (1 to 7 ) = $1,039.300 $434.628 $181.162

### 10 Exhibit B Potential Future Regulatory Compliance Costs to Industry for EPA’s 2011 Proposed Revisions to the RCRA “Definition of Solid Waste ” Industrial Recycling Exclusions Note : Costs in this Exhibit are Incremental to the Cost Savings Estimated for the 2008 DSW Final Rule as “Baseline” 13 % “Base Case ” Future Adoption Scenario and Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected (Onl y Options 3 to 7 ) Proposed Revisions (Regulatory Options) Average annual future affected industrial facilities Cost estimates ($millions in 201 1 $) @alternative discount rates 0% 3% 7% Average Annualized Costs (50 - years 2015 to 2064): 1. Withdraw

the 2008 DSW exclusion for offsite transfer recycling Not Selected = 0 Not Selected = $0 Not Selected = $0 Not Selected = $0 2. Implement alternative Subtitle C regulation for offsite transfer recycling Not Selected = 0 Not Selected = $0 Not Selected = $0 Not Selected = $0 3. Revise the 2008 DSW exclusion for generator

- controlled recycling 37 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 4. Revise the 2008 DSW definition of recycling “ legitimacy ” 10,254 $7.318 $6.571 $5.691 5. Revise the 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW non

- waste determination petition process 379 $0.057 $0.044 $0.044 6. Add a new

“re - manufacturing” DSW exclusion* 30 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 7. Revise pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (1985 to 1998) 5,321 $1.883 $1.674 $1.437 Column totals (3 to 7 ) = $9.258 $8.289 $7.172 Present Value Costs (50 - years 2015 to 2064): 1. Withdraw

the 2008 DSW exclusion for offsite transfer recycling Not Selected = 0 Not Selected = $0 Not Selected = $0 Not Selected = $0 2. Implement alternative Subtitle C regulation for offsite transfer recycling Not Selected = 0 Not Selected = $0 Not Selected = $0 Not Selected = $0 3. Revise the 2008 DSW exclusion for generator

- controlled recycling 37 $0.005 $0.003 $0.001 4. Revise the 2008 DSW definition of recycling “ legitimacy ” 10,254 $365.900 $169.051 $78.540 5. Revise the 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW non

- waste determination petition process 379 $2.850 $1.132 $0.607 6. Add a new

“re - manufacturing” DSW exclusion* 30 $0.000 $0.000 $0.000 7. Revise pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (1985 to 1998) 5,321 $94.150 $43.067 $19.832 Column totals (3 to 7 ) = $462.905 $213.252 $98.980 Notes: * $0 displayed in the Exhibit for Option 6 to indicate that based on the nationwide incremental analysis method presented in this RIA based on the entire RCRA

regulated universe of potentially relevant and eligible facilities, facilities would not be expec ted to incur incremental costs for Option 6 even though Chapter 5 of this RIA presents potential incremental costs for meeting the conditions (sub

- options) of Option 6 without Option 1 (i.e., “without Option 1” = the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions remain i n place), because Option 6 would be voluntary , not mandatory. Consequently, facilities engaged in solvent recycling could chose to operate under either the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion, or under the Option 6 solvent re

- manufacturing exclu sion, depending upon which option provides the greatest net cost savings at the micro

- economic (i.e., single facility) level. This RIA did not conduct a micro

- economic analysis for Option 6. However, it is conceivable that Option 6 could yield future annual benefits without Option 1 if the additional conditions (cost element 6 C of this RIA) are not finalized with Option 6, which would provide added economic incentive for facilities to operate under Option 6 rather than the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions.

### 11

C2. Cost Estimate Uncertainty Ranges ( Sensitivity Analysis ) Not revealed in the cost estimates in Exhibit A and B above are uncertainties in numerical values applied in this RIA as cost computation factors . As defined and derived in Chapter 6 of this RIA , there are six cost estimation un certainty factors which may influence the future annual cost of each option in any given ye ar . Exhibit C below presents how each of the uncertainty factors could affect the actual economic impacts of the DSW final rule in any given future year. These six factors are not necessaril y additive (i.e., compounding) in any given year.
Exhibit C Sensitivity of E stimated Industry Cost for Implementing the 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions to Six Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors Note : Costs in this Exhibit are Incremental to the Cost Savings Estimated for the 2008 DSW Final Rule as “Baselin e” 13 % “Base Case” Adoption Scenario for All Options 1 to 7 ; 50
- ye ar period

- of

- anal ys is 2015 to 2064; 201 1 $; 7% discount rate Ty pe of cost Uncertainty Factor * Numerical Uncertainty Range in Factor* Cost Estimate Range ($millions ) Lo w - end High

- end Lo w - end High

- end Average A nnual Cost Estimate (without uncertainty applied) = $ 13.1 /year (source: Exhibit A) 1 State government adoption uncertainty No change ( 13 % “base case” facilities adopt) + 263 %

( 74 % upper
-bound facilities adopt) $ 13.1 /year $ 47.5 /year
2 Future fluctuation s in annual tonnages of hazardo us secondary materials generated and destined for recycling - 58% +42% $ 5.5 /year $1 8.6 /year 3 Within

- year discrepancy between generation & management tonnages

- 34% +39% $ 8.6 /year $ 18.2 /year 4 RCRA SQGs in this RIA + 58 % + 148 % $ 20.7 /year $ 32. 5 /year 5 Phy sical & chemical quality of secondary materials available for viable recycling

- 10%
- 10% $ 11.8 /year $ 11.8 /year 6 Expected a ccuracy of i mpact e stimates

- 20% +30% $ 10.5 /year $ 17.0 /year Range across all 6 factors =

- 58% + 263 % $ 5.5 /year $ 47.5 /year Note: * A potential 7 th cost uncertainty factor is f uture fluctuations in market p rice s of recovered c ommodities from recycled materials. However, the 7 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 2011 proposed revisions.

### 12 

## D. Potential Benefits of the Proposed Revision s Chapter 8 of this RIA identifies three categories of potential future benefits of the 2011 proposed revisions to DSW recycling exclusions. However, this RIA does not quantify or monetize these benefit categories:

 Benefit #1 : Reduction in future environmental damages associated with industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials (Options 1, 2, 6).  Benefit #2 : Improved environmental compliance: o C learer and more specif ic regulatory

standards improve environmental compliance (Options 3, 4 , 7, 8 ). o More stringent recordkeeping provisions improve environmental compliance (Options 3, 4 , 7). o S elf

- reporting requirements (e.g., notification requirement s) improve environmental compliance (Options 2, 3, 5 , 7). o In creased likelihood of detection and potential penalty for non

- compliance improves environmental compliance (Options 2, 3, 4 , 5 , 7).  Benefit #3 : M ore specific standards result in reduced liability , less uncertainty for the regulated entity , and lower legal and credit costs (Options 3, 4 , 7, 8 ). 

## E. Findings of Supplemental Analyses E1. Regulatory Planning and Review ( 1993 Executive Order 12866) Executive Order 12866, as amended b y Executive Order 13258, requires 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 regulatory

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 inconsi stency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned b y another ag ency ; (3) materiall y alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, o r the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Finding : Based on the cost analyse s presented in this RIA, the 2011 DSW proposed revisions are not expected to be
“ economically significant” because in aggregate, the proposed revisions are not expected to have a future annual effect on the e conomy of $100 million or more, even when non

- discounted (i.e., 0% discount rate):

 7% discount rate : Annual costs for the 2011 proposed revisions to the pre

- 2008 and 2008 DSW exclusions are estimated between: o 13 % bas e case adoption: $ 7.2 million per year (all Options 1 to 7 ) and $ 13. 1 million per year (onl y Options 3 to 7 ).

### 13

o 74 % upper
-bound adoption: $ 7.4 million per year (all Options 1 to 7 ) and $ 4 7.5 million per year (onl y Options 3 to 7 ).  0% discount rate : Annual c osts under the 74 % upper
- bound adoption scenario are between $ 11.5 million and $ 67.7 million per year. E2. Small Business Impact Analysis ( 1980 RFA/ 1996 SBREFA) Because the DSW recycling exclusions are voluntary , as well as deregulatory compared to full regulation of recycling under RCRA Subtitle C regulations , there is no adverse impact to small entities subject to the DSW exclusions. However, the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW exclusions are expected to incrementall y increase future costs to industrial facilities for compl ying with the 2011 proposed conditions for the DSW recycling exclusions

. 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 businesse s, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. EPA’s 2011 proposed DSW revisions could p otentially affect the following cumulative counts of facilities by year 2064 over the 50

- ye ar period of this RIA (Note: cumulative counts are higher than the average annual facility

counts reported elsewhere in this RIA) :

 13 % “ base case ” adoption scenario: 6, 497 industrial facilities cumulative count to 2064 o Consisting of 1,176 2008 DSW exclusion facilities + 5,321 pre - 2008 RCRA exclusion facilities  74 % “ upper- bound” adoption scenario: 9, 102 industrial facilities cumulative count to 2064 o Consisting of 3,781 2008 DSW exclusion facilities + 5,321 pre - 2008 RCRA exclusion facilities These facilities are located in 622 industries at the 6

- digit NAICS code lev el (as listed in Appendix A). This RIA evaluated 27 NAI CS industries with the largest number of facilities potentially affected (i.e., in NAI CS sub

- sectors 32, 33, 54, 56, 61, 62, 92). The percentage of small busine sses operating under DSW recycling exclusions is estimated in this RIA as 14% (see Chapter 7), based on analysis of businesses operating under the 2008 DSW exclusions as of October 2010. Thus, this RIA assumes that 14% of industrial facilities which may b e affected by the 2011 proposed revisions are owned by small businesses. This RIA evaluated potential impacts on small businesses, by comparing the total c ompliance cost in each industry on a per- facility

average annual cost basis for compliance with all of the proposed revision options, to the respective per- facility average annual business revenues in each industry

. Finding : The average annual impact on small businesses is estimated to be significantl y less than 1% of annual sales for all small entities . The highest impact as a percentage of sales is estimated at 0. 41 % of annual sales

. The total number of small businesses impacted at this level is estimated at 21 small entities under the 13% base

- case adoption scenario, and 30 small entities under the 74% adoption scenario, which represents 2.3% to 2.4%, respectivel y, of the 910 (13% scenario) to 1,274 (74% scenario) small entities which could be impacted by the proposed revisions to the 2008 and pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions

.

### 14

Based on the results of this “sales test” method as interpreted relative to the impact thresholds presented in the “SI SNOSE decision process” table of EPA’s November 2006 final guidance for RFA compliance, this RIA concludes that the 2011 proposed revisions to the DS W recycling ex clusions will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ” (i.e., “ No SISNOSE”)

. E3. Unfunded Mandates Analysis ( 1995 UMRA) Potential future annual added costs to state, local, and tribal governments could include the following eleven paperwork activities associated with Option 2, Option 4 , Option 5 , Option 6, and Option 7 of the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions: 1. Receive, review and file biennial notifications (Option s 2, 4 , 6, & 7) 2. Receive, r eview and file reclamation plan ( Option 2) 3. Receive, Review and approve emergency plans (Option 2) 4. Receive, r eview and file notification of compliance regarded aff ected release area (Option 2) 5. Review RCRA permit applications and enter into database (Option 2) 6. Evaluate legitimacy

petitions (Option 4 ) 7. Evaluate legitimacy

documentation (Option s 4 ) 8. Receive, review, and file re

- application for variance or non

- waste deter mination (Option 5) 9. EPA provides online public access to a list (including documentation) of facilities receiving non

- waste determinations (Option 5 ). 10. Petition process for re

- manufacturing exclusion (Option 6) 11. Other State paperwork requirements under existing paperwork requirements covering 2008 revisions to the RCRA definition of solid waste, RCRA hazardous waste manifest s ys tem requirements, hazardous waste generator standards, hazardous waste specific unit requirements and special waste processes and typ es, and air emission standards for tanks, surface impoundment and containers. As estimated in this RIA (Chapter 7), the maximum state government share of estimated future annual regulatory costs under all options (i.e., Options 1 to 7 combined) is:

 13 % “ base case ” adoption scenario: $ 8.5 million per year  74 % “ upper bound

” adoption scenario: $ 9.1 million per year No impacts are expected for local or tribal governments. Because the impacts of all the regulatory options are expected to result in expenditures well below the UMRA $100 million threshold for state governments, this RIA concludes that the 2011 DSW rule is n ot 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

### 15

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by establishing federalism principles, federalism policy making criteria, and a state/local governm ent co nsultation process for the development of Federal regulations that have federalism implications. Federalism implications ref ers to regulations and other Federal policies and actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship betwe en the Federal government and the states, or on the 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 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions (i.e., Option 1 thru Option 7 ) may “ impose substantial direct compliance costs ” on state/local governments. EPA’s 2008 guidance 2 

### for compliance with EO 13132 describes two numerical methods (i.e. , numerical tests) for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications with 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 3


###  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, potential future annual added costs to state, local, and tribal governments c ould include the following 11 paperwork activities associated with Option 2, Option 4 , Option 5 , Option 6, and Option 7 of the 2011 proposed revisions: 1. Receive, review and file biennial notifications (Option 2, 4 , 6, & 7) 2. Receive, r eview and file reclamation plan (Option 2) 3. Receive, Review and approve emergency plans (Option 2) 4. Receive, r eview and file notification of compliance regarded affected release area (Option 2) 5. Review RCRA permit applications and enter into database (Option 2 ) 6. Evaluate legitimacy

petitions (Option 4 ) 7. Evaluate legitimacy

documentation (Option 4 ) 8. Receive, review, and file re

- application for variance or non

- waste determination (Option 5) 9. EPA provides online public access to a list (including documentation) of facilities receiving non

- waste determinations (Option 5 ). 10. Petition process for re

- manufacturing exclusion (Option 6) 11. Other State paperwork requirements covering 2008 revisions to the RCRA definition of solid waste, RCRA hazardous waste manifest system requirements, hazardous waste generator standards, hazardous waste specific unit requirements and special waste proces ses and ty pes, and air emission standards for tanks, surface impoundm ent and containers. As displayed in the prior (UMRA) section above, the state government share of estimated future annual direct costs is estimated in this RIA at $ 8.5 million per year for the 13 % base case adoption scenario , and $ 9.1 million per year for the 74 % upper bound adoption scenario. 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

2 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.g ov/adplibrary/documents/federalismguide11

- 00
- 08.pdf 3 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% lo wer than the $100 million annual direct cost trigger prescribed in Section 202 of UMRA.

### 16

that the 2011 DSW rule does not meet the Federalism cost threshold. E5. Energy Impact Analysis (2001 Executive Order 13211) White House Executive Order 13211 “ Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ” (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to OMB for those matters identified as significant energy

actions. As defined in Executive Order 13211, a “significant energy action ” is any action by an agency

that promulgates or is expected to lead to th e 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 likel y to have a significant adverse effect on the suppl y, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by OMB as a significant energy action. EPA’s 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions do not involve the supply , distribution, or use of energy , nor are the proposed revisions over $100 million in expected future annual effect (i.e., “significant”) under Executive Order 12866. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply

to the 2011 proposed rule. E6 . Improving Regulation & Regulato ry Review (2011 Executive Order 13563) The basic framework, scope, and contents of this RIA represent a “benefit

- cost anal ys is” which is the ty pe of analysis required under section 6(a)(2)(B) of the 1993 Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, for rules which are expected to have more than a $100 million per year “economically

significant” annual effect on the economy , Section 6(a)(2)(C) of Executive Order 12866 requires Federal regulat ory agencies (such as the EPA) to assess the potential effects of the bene fits and costs of the proposed regulation on economic and market efficiency , productivity , employ

ment, competitiveness, health, safety, and the natural environment. The January 2011 Executive Order 135 63 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” reaffirmed the principles, structures, and definitions established by Executive Order 12866. However, because the 2011 DSW proposed rule is not expected to be an “economically significant” rule according to the quantified and m onetized benefits (i.e., cost savings) and costs as estimated elsewhere in the prior chapters of this RIA, this RIA does not attempt to provide quantitative assessments of these other effects, but provides the following qualitative information about some of these other effects. EPA anticipates the 2011 DSW proposed rule, if promulgated, may increase net employ

ment in the long

- term, for the following reason. EPA is proposing revisions to a set of 35 existing exclusions to RCRA industrial waste management regulations which EPA promulgated b etween 1985 and 2008. EPA promulgated three of the 35 exclusions in 2008, and the 32 other exclusions EPA promulgated between 1985 and 2002. Facilities in industries which are eligible to operate under these exclusions realize annual savings in regulatory costs, compared to operating under full RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations without these exclusions. However, not all state governments have adopted each of these existing 35 exclusions, particularl y with regard to the most recent 2008 set of three RCRA exclusions for operations involving industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials which are not discarded. As of almost three years after EPA's promulgation of the 2008 exclusions, only four states (ID, IL, NJ, and PA) have voluntarily adopted the exclusions, and only 49 industrial facilities have notified EPA regional offices they

are operating under the 2008 exclusions.

### 17

One reason why more states have not yet adopted the 2008 exclusions, as well as not yet adopted the pre

- 2008 exclusio ns, is some states do not believe some of the exclusions are full y protective of human health and the environment. During EPA's 2008 DSW exclusions rulemaking, 12 state governments commented to EPA on the 2007 DSW exclusions re

-proposed rule, they were no t likely

to adopt the one or more of the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. These 12 states account for 23% of foregone RCRA regulatory cost savings to industries compared to nationwide cost savings potential under hypothetical total adoption of the 20 08 DSW exclusions by all states. For the 32 existing pre - 2008 RCRA industrial recycling exclusions an average of eight s tates representing 5.3% of nationwide total RCRA industrial hazardous waste generation have not yetadopted 12 of those 32 exclusions , and 24 states have not adopted at least one of the 32 exclusions . Because it is EPA's intention in the 2011 DSW proposed rule, to remedy the concerns of these non

- adopting states about the under

protectiveness of these exclusions, EPA believes that once promulgated, more states may be induced to adopt both the pre

- 2008 and the 2008 DSW exclusions, thereby making more industrial facilities eligible for regulatory cost savings, which they may pass - thru to their customers in the form of lower prices for goods and services thereby improving market efficiency , stimulating economic growth , and creating jobs in those industries.

### 18 

# C HAPTER 

# 1 Problem Statement (Justification for Regulatory Action)

1A. Purpose of EPA’s 2011 Proposed Regulatory Changes The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the industry regulatory

compliance requirements (i.e., conditions) of the recycling exclusions of the “ definition of solid waste ” (DSW) under Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conserv ation and Recovery 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 exclusions are relativel y new (2008). EPA’s 2011 proposed 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 associated with recycling of industrial hazardous secondary materials excluded under EPA’s three 2008 DSW exclusions . These proposed revisions are intended to ensure that the 2008 DS W exclusions encourage recycling in industrial operations under conditions necessary to 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 environmental releases of the hazardous materials

. In addition, EPA is also proposing revisions to the 32 pre

- 2008 RCRA exclusions for industrial hazardous secondary materi al recycling. 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 reclam ation 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 wi ll not satisfy this condition if distinct compo nents 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 exam ple, spent pickle liquor used as phosphorous precipitant and sludge conditioner in wastewater treatment).  A material is `` recycled'' if it is used, reused , or reclaim ed
. This RIA does not include burning wastes for “ energy recovery ” or otherwise “ using wastes as fuel ” as forms of waste recycling in the scope of EPA’s 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW or to this RIA. The word “re-manufacturing” has a distinct definition in Option 6 of this RIA.

### 19

The proposed revisions would affect two sets of DSW exclusions and hazardous waste recycling under Subtitle C : 1. Revis ions to 2008 DSW exclusions : Revise the 2008 DSW exclusions for certain types of hazardous secondary materials that are con ditionally

excluded from the DSW. 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). 2. Revisions to pre - 2008 DSW exclusions : Add additional regulatory conditions to the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions for recyclable materials. The proposed additions inc lude (1) recordkeeping ; (2 ) biennial notification , (3) containment standards , and (d) increasing the number of mandatory

eligibility

criteria. The pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions date between 1985 and 1998. 3. Revisions to hazardous waste recycling under Subtitle C: Revise the def inition of legitimacy for materials that are regulated under Subtitle C prior to recycling or subject to reduced regulation. The concept of legitimate recycling is used to determine if a unit is a recycling unit exempt from RCRA Subtitle C permitting or i s a regulated waste treatment or storage unit subject to full RCRA Subtitle C permitting

. 

## 1B. Justification for EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Changes EPA’s 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions are required by law (RCRA). The proposed rev isions constitute EPA’s notice of action in response to a petition submitted to EPA under section 7004(a) of RCRA: RCRA Section 7004(a) Petition

. – Any person may petition the [EPA ] Administrator for the promulgation, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this Act. W ithin a reasonable time following receipt of such petition, the [EPA ] Administrato r shall take action with respect to such petition and shall publish notice of such action in the Federal Register, together with the reasons therefor

. On January

29, 2009, the Sierra Club submitted an administrative petition under RCRA section 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 implementation of the 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 things, 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 environmental impacts, including the finding there would be no adverse impact to environ mental justice communities (i.e., minority and low

- income populations) or children’s health. Here is an excerpt from the petition (page 2):

“EPA promulgated the DSW Rule 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 s ubstances regulated by EPA

### 20

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 management practices t hat 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 communities 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 Recyc ling Coalition (MIRC)

– this organization is a coalition of the following organizations: a. American Iron & Steel Institute (AI SI) 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 Manufacturers Association (SMA) 6. National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA) 7. Treated Wood Council (TWC) 8. Sy nthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) This letter requested that EPA deny the Sierra Club's petition on the grounds that the 2008 DSW 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 signi ficant 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 peti ti on. Here is an excerpt from the industry

coalition letter (page 3):

“ The conditions imposed under the Rule on the generators, reclaimers, intermediate facilities, and transporters seeking to ava il themselves of the Rule's exclusions are significant. These conditions, entirely ignored by Sierra Club, are based on the evid enc e 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 secondar y material recycling. Along will the other conditions, the "reasonable efforts" and "financial assurance" requirements

### 21

in particular, will prevent, if not entirely eliminate, the types of mismanagement and abandonment EPA identified during the rulemaking as having contributed to environmental harm at some recycling facilities. ”

 J une 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 f

acility and other discarded material ,,, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural activities. '' EPA’s May

2009 meeting notice stated EPA did not intend to repeal the 2008 DSW exclusions as requ ested 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 rule 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 repea l either the exclusion for hazardous secondary 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 legitimacy and the transfer

- based exclusion, in way s 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 4 

### provided verbal comments at EPA’s June 30, 2009 public meeting.

 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 w ould address, at minimum, the issues raised in the Sierra Club’s administrative petition. As announced in the Federal Register (Vol.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: 1. Definition of “ contained”

4 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

### 22

2. Revisions to notification requirements 3. Definition of “ legitimacy ” 4. Revisions to the offsite transfer

-based 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 environment and that the 2008 DSW final r ule increases the likelihood of greater future harm. The petition also asserted that the 2008 DSW final 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 asserted that the 2008 DSW final rule will not substantially

increase 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 rule

. EPA addressed the Sierra Club’s request to revoke the 2008 DSW final rule in whole and stay its implementation in the May 27, 2009 public meeting notice, which continues to reflect EPA’s current thinking. 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 DSW final rule, EPA used th e concept of discard as the central organizing idea behind the October 2008 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 discarded 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 materia ls reclamation, EPA included an explanation of how each provision of the final rule relates to discard (73 FR 64676

- 64679)..... .....Because the 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 under the control of the generator or the non

- waste determination petition process. However, EPA believes that there may be opportunities to revise or clarify the definition of solid waste rule, particu larly with respect to the definition of legitimacy 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 solid waste and subject to hazardous waste regulation. ” EPA’s Federal Register notice for the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW includes a discussion o f several potential changes to the three 2008 DSW exclusions. Inaddition, EPA is proposing conforming changes to the 32 pre

- 2008 DSW and other RCRA industrial recycling exclusions.

### 23

 EPA’s New Environmental Justice Analysis for DSW Recycling Exclusions The Sierra Club petition asserted that EPA’s conclusion that th e 2008 DSW final r ule would have no adverse environmental impact s, and therefore would have no disproportional adverse impacts to minority and low

- income communities, is unsupported by the admini strative record. Many commento rs (including those at EPA’s 2 009 public meeting and those who responded with written comments) expressed strong concerns that EPA did not adequatel y address environmental justice (EJ) in the rulemaking. In response to these concerns, EPA committed to perform a more rigorous and thorough anal ys is of the EJ impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule. EPA committed to producing a new EJ anal ys is to evaluate the potential disproportionate impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule , on both of these two EJ groups (i.e., minority and low

- income population s). EPA’s shared its January 2009 draft methodol ogy 5 

### 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 Febru ary 25, 2010 Web Conference )

. 6 

### EPA considered the public comm ents raised in those meetings and conducted the new EJ analysis. EPA’s EJ anal ys is contractor (ICF Inc.) completed a preliminary draft for EPA internal review in October 2010.

5 EPA “ Draft Environmental 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 Popu lation,” January 13, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/dsw/ej.htm 6 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

### 24 

# C HAPTER 

# 2 Regulatory Options Evaluated in This RIA The scope of revisions to the RCRA DSW exclusion regulations evaluated in this RIA, include the following options and sub

- options. Option 1: Withdraw the 2008 DSW E xclusion for Offsite Transfer Recycling Withdraw the 2008 DSW exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) for hazardous secondary materials that are transferred offsit e for the purpose of r eclamation, and replace it with alternative RCRA Subtitle C regulations for hazardous recyclable materials under Option 2 bel ow.  Option 2 below is a companion to this option, as it presents a regulatory alternative for offsite reclamation if the 2008 DSW o ffsite reclamation exclusion is withdrawn. Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for Offsite Transfer Recycling As a corollary

to Option 1 above, implement an alternative RCRA Subtitle C regulation for hazardous recyclable materials that are transferred offsite for reclamation. Waste generators would need to meet the following requirements: (2A) Notification : Submit a notification prior to operating under this new RCRA regulation, and thereafter biennially using EPA Form 8700
- 12. (2B) Reclamation plan : Make advance arrangements for legitimate reclamation and documents those arrangement in a reclamation plan. (2C) Accumulation : Allow accumulation of hazardous recyclable materials by the generator for up to one year, but accumulate no mo re than two shipments of hazardous recyclable materials at any one time. (2D) Management : Meets labeling, emergency preparedness, contingency planning and management standards similar to those required for hazardous waste generators. (2E) Transportation : S ends the hazardous recyclable materials under either a hazardous recyclable materials manifest or a hazardous waste manifest to a RCRA permitted reclamation facility and maintain records of shipments for three years . Option 3: Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Generator Controlled Recycling Modify the 2008 DSW exclusion for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the control of the generator by : (3A) Add a regulatory

definition of “contained”. (3B) Make notification a condition of the exclusion. (3C) Add a recordkeeping requirement for speculative accumulation. (3D) Add a recordkeeping requirement for reclamation under toll manufacturing agreements. (3 E) E liminat e the 2008 DSW “toll manufacturing” recycling exclusion. ( 3F) Relocate the non

- land based and land

- based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 so they both appear in the same section. Option 4 : Revise the 2008 DSW Definition of “Legitimate ” Recycling

### 25

Revise the 2008 DSW definition of legitimate recycling ( i.e., legitimacy) by : (4A) Appl y the codified definition to all industrial recycling under the pre

- 2008 set of regulatory exclusions. (4B) Make all 4 legitimacy factors 7 

### mandatory , with a petition process where one factor is not met but the recycling is still legitimate for the 2008 DSW regulatory exclusions and hazardous wastes being recycled under Subtitle C. (4C) Require documentation of recycling legitimacy for the 2008 DSW regulatory exclusions and hazardous wastes being recycled under Subtitle C. Option 5 : Revise the 1985 Partial Recycling Variance and 2008 DSW Non -Waste Determination Petition Processes Modify the non

- waste determination petition process by requiring: (5A) Require applicants to re - appl y in the event the material no longer meets the relevant criteria under 40 CFR 260.33(c)

. ( 5B ) Require b iennial notification using EPA Form 8700

- 12 in compliance with 40 CFR 260.42. (5C) Modify

the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW v ariance for p artially r ecycled m aterials : EPA’s 1985 40 CFR 260.31 RCRA regulation contains three DSW variances for certain types of recyclable industrial materials:  40 CFR 260.31(a): Materials accumulated without 75% being recycled within one year.  40 CFR 260.31(b): Materials that are reclaimed and then reused within the original primary process in which generated.  40 CFR 260.31(c): Materials that have been partially reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed. The CFR regulatory

text for each of these three variances states that EPA’s determinatio n of whether to grant requests for these variances “ will be based on the following criteria/factors. ” However, when EPA originally promulgated this variance o n January

4, 1985 ( Federal Register , Vol.50, No.3, pages 614 to 668) , EPA stated in the preamble for two of the three variances (i.e., (b) and (c)), that the Regional Administrator or a uthorized state under variance (b) “ can rely on any or all of

7 The four recycling “legitimacy” factors finalized in EPA’s October 2008 DSW recycling exclusions final rule are:  Factor 1
- Useful Contribution : “Legitimate recycling must involve a hazardous secondary material that provides a useful contribution to the recycling process or to a product of the recycling process...The hazardous secondary material provides a useful contribution if it (i) contributes valuable ingredients to a product or intermediate; or (ii) replaces a catalyst or carrier in the recycling proce ss; or (iii) is the source of a valuable constituent recovered in the recycling process; or (iv) is recovered or regenerated by the recycling process; or (v) is used as an effective substitute for a commercial product” (40 CF R 260.43(b)(1)).  Factor 2
- Valuable Product or Intermediate : “The recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate...The product or intermediate is valuable if it is (i) sold to a third

-party or (ii) used by the recycler or the generator as an effective substitute for a commercial product or as an ingredient or intermediate in an industrial process” (40 CFR 260.43(b)(2)).  Factor 3
- Managed as a Valuable Commodity : “The generator and the recycler should manage the hazardous secondary material as a valuable commodity. Where there is an analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material should be managed, at a minimum, in a manner consistent with the management of the raw material. Where there is no analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material should be contained. Hazardous secondary materials that are released to the environment and are not recovered immediately are discarded” (40 CFR 260.43(c)(1)).  Factor 4
- Com

parison of Toxics in the Product : “The product of the recycling process does not (i) contain significant concentrations of any hazardous constituents found in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 that are not found in analogous products; or (ii) contain concentrations of any hazardou s constituents found in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 at levels that are significantly elevated from those found in analogous products; or (iii) exhibit a hazardous characteristic (as defined in 40 CFR 261 subpart C) that analogous products do not exhibit” (40 CFR 260.43(c)(2)).

### 26 these criteria, and can weigh them as he deems appropriate ,” and under variance (c) “ may weigh these facto rs as she sees fit, and may rely on any or all of them to reach a decision. ” Upon EPA’s reflection and experience, this approach under variance (c) is too ambiguous and further clarification is required. More speci ficall y, EPA believes the six criteria fo r variance (c) must be reviewed and evaluated collectively since each criterion reinforces and supports the other criteria

. Failure to meet any one criterion is sufficient not to grant a variance. Similarly , EPA believes that modifying the six criteria to make it clear at what point in the reclamation process the variance is intended to apply would foster greater clarity and consistency

in application. Therefore, this option consists of two corresponding revisions to 40 CFR 260.31(c): (1) Require all six of the 1985 criteria for evaluating partial recycling variance applications be met, not “ on any or all of them. ” (2) Modify

wording of five of the six criteria to make it clear at what point in the recycling process th e variance is intended to apply

would foster greater clarity and consistency in application, as follows (additions shown in italics ): 1. The degree of processing the material has undergone by the initial partial reclamation process and the degree of further processing that is required. 2. The value of the material after it has been partially reclaimed. 3. The degree to which the partially reclaimed material is like an analogous raw material entering the final reclamation process . 4. The extent to which an end market for the partially reclaimed material is guaranteed. 5. The extent to which the partially reclaimed material is handled to minimize loss. 6. Other relevant factors. This option would not require RCRA

- authorized state government agencies or EPA Regional Offices to re

- visit previously

granted v ariances. ( 5D ) Non
- waste determination p etitioners to demonstrate why the y cannot or should not meet existing DSW exclusions (at 40 CFR 261.2 or 261.4). ( 5E ) Change the word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30 to 260.34, due to th e regional

- and case

- specific nature of non

- waste determinations. Option 6: Add a “Re- Manufacturing” DSW Exclusio n Add a new DSW recycling exclusion involving inter

- company transfer for off

- site reclamation of solvents via “re

- manufacturing” (i.e., transf er 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 the following five eligibility criteria and three other sub

- options: (6A) Eligibility

criteria: (6A.1) 18 types of solvents only : 1. Toluene 2. Xylenes 3. Ethylbenzene 4. 1,2,4
- trimethylbenzene

### 27 5. Chlorobenzene 6. n - hexane 7. Cyclohexane 8. Methyl tert

-butylether 9. Acetonitrile 10. Chloroform 11. Chloromethane 12. Dichloromethane 13. Methyl isobutyl ketone 14. N,N
- dimethylformamide 15. Tetrahydrofuran 16. Ethanol 17. n -butyl alcohol 18. Methanol (6A.2) Solvents (a) to be re

- manufactured originate from, and (b) after re - manufacturing must be used in, three ty pes of functional uses as manufacturing “processing aids” (i.e., not cleaning or de

- greasing operations): 1. Chemical manufacturing aid (reacting, extracting, and/or purifying chemicals)

– plus for the re

- manufacturer use as a chemical intermediate function in which the chemical gets consumed (destroyed) in chemical manufacturing reactions. 2. Chemical processing aid (extracting and purifying chemicals) 3. Chemical formulation aid (blending chemicals) (6A. 3 ) Solvents to be re - manufactured originate from four manufacturing sectors onl y: 1. NAI CS 325199 basic organic chemical m anufacturing 2. NAI CS 325211 plastics & resins m anufacturing 3. NAI CS 325412 pharmaceutical m anufacturing 4. NAI CS 325510 paints & coatings m anufacturing (6A. 4 ) Five exclusion conditions for both the generator and the re

- manufacturer: 1. Initial notification and update notification every 2
- ye ars. 2. Maintain onsite a cop y of a re

- manufacturing plan. 3. 3
- ye ar recordkeeping of shipments and shipment confirmation receipts between generator and re

- manufacturer. 4. (a) Prior to re

- manufacturing store solvents in labeled tanks or containers meeting 40 CFR 264 subparts I and J RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations for the design, operation & maintenance, inspection, and end

- of

- lif e closure of containers and tanks, respectivel y; and (b) during re

- manufacturing comply with 40 CRF 264 subparts AA, BB, CC RCRA hazardous waste regulations for process vent, equipment leak, and tank/ container air emission controls, respectivel y. 5. No speculative accumulation according to the RCRA hazardous waste regulation 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8): during a calendar ye ar at least 75% of the material accumulated onsite from the beginning of the year to be recycled (either onsite or offsite) is actuall y rec ycl ed.

### 28

(6 B ) Use of intermediate storage facilities not allowed for this exclusion. (6 C ) Addition of other conditions or restrictions including , but not limited to , additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements, management standards, financial assurance requirements, and public participation requirements . Note: this RIA does not evaluate this roughl y- and incompletely

- defined sub

- option. (6D) Petition proces s for requests to add certain chemicals, industries, and/or chemical function uses to the re

- manufacturing criteria. Option 7: Revise pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions & Exemptions Revise the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions for recyclable materials by r equiring: (7A) Containment (“contained”) standards for excluded hazardous secondary material

– applies to 31 DSW exclusions* (7B) Biennial notification for facilities operating under the various exclusions and exemptions

– applies to 31 DSW exclusions* (7C) Recordkeeping for speculative accumulation in all cases

– applies to 40 CFR 261.4 DSW exclusions*

Option 8 : Other Options Evaluated in this RIA Not Listed Above Other options were evaluated during the process of developing this RIA that are not proposed. These options include the following: ( 8 A) Contained performance standard for transfer

- based exclusion, ( 8 B) Intermediate facility restriction for transfer

- based exclusion, ( 8 C) Provision for facilities in non

- adopting states to qualify unde r the transfer

-based exclusion, and * Note : Exhibit 2A below identifies the three different sets o f exclusions under each of the three sub

- options in Option 7 . However, because EPA needed to launch and formulate the analyses for this RIA a fe w mo nths before EPA defined the three detailed lists of affected RCRA exclusions under Option 7, this RIA evaluated Option 7

--- and all other options affecting pre

- 2008 DSW regulatory exclusions

--- by applying the 16 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions listed in Exhibit 2A of EPA’s 2008 “ Regulatory Impact Analysis ” (RIA) for the October 2008 DSW final rule. The list of 16 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions applied in this RIA , is also presented in the baseline cost analysis chapter of this RIA. Because of the facts that (a) the 16 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions listed in Exhibit 2A also cover all manufacturing industries (i.e., NAICS 31, 32, 33), and (b) manufacturing industries constitute 88% of the top

- 50 US nationwide hazardous waste generation annual tonnage (source: Exhibit 1.9 of EPA’s 2009 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report at http://www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/data/br09/national09.pdf ), using the 16 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions to represent all of the 32 exclusions listed in Exhibit 2A, is a reasonable estimation approach. Other industries in the top

- 50 hazardous waste generators are in economic sub

- sectors NAICS 221, 236, 423, 424, 454, 488, 493, 531, 541, 562, 611, 924, 928. However, not all of these other industries hav e industrial operations or waste types which may be eligible under the other recycling exclusions.

### 29 Exhibit 2A List of Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions and Exemptions Potentially Affected Under Option 7

Row Item RCRA Regulatory

Exclusion Citation Exclusion Description (ty pes of eligible industrial processes or industrial secondary materials) Conditions to Meet

RCRA Exclusion Require Legitimate Recycling 260.43 Require

Notification 260.42 Require Contained 260.10 Require

Speculative Accumulation 261.1(c)(8) 260 & 261 Definition of Solid Waste 1 260.30 Procedures for variances and non

wa ste determinations Meet eligibility

criteria; terms of variance or non

wa ste determination Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards set by variance/determination.) No
- limits determined on a case -by

- case basis.

2 261.2 (e) Use/Reuse Reclamation prohibited; must be returned to the original process; no land placement; No burning for energy recovery; must meet speculative accumulation limits Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already required.)

3 261.2 Table 1 Characteristic sludge being reclaimed Must meet

speculative accumulation limits Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already required.) 4 261.2 Table 1 Characteristic by

products being reclaimed Must meet

speculative accumulation limits Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already required.) 5 261.2 Table 1 Commercial chemical products being reclaimed None Yes Yes Yes No 261.4(a) Exclusions from the Definition of Solid Waste 6 261.4(a)(6) Pulping Liquors Must meet speculative accumulation limits Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already required.) 7 261.4(a)(7) Spent Sulfuric Acid Must meet speculative accumulation limits Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already

### 30 Exhibit 2A List of Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions and Exemptions Potentially Affected Under Option 7

Row Item RCRA Regulatory

Exclusion Citation Exclusion Description (ty pes of eligible industrial processes or industrial secondary materials) Conditions to Meet

RCRA Exclusion Require Legitimate Recycling 260.43 Require

Notification 260.42 Require Contained 260.10 Require

Speculative Accumulation 261.1(c)(8) required.)

8 261.4(a)(8) Closed

- Loop Recycling Only tank storage;

connected by pipes; no controlled flame combustion; must meet speculative accumulation limits; no burning for energy recovery, no land placement Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in exclusion.) (Speculative

accumulation limits already required.)

9 261.4(a)(9) Spent Wood Preservatives Reused on

- site for

intended purpose; managed to prevent releases; meets drip pad standards; one

time notification Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in exclusion.) Yes

10 261.4(a)(10) Coke By

- Product Wastes No land disposal Yes Yes Yes Yes 11 261.4(a)(11) Splash Condenser Dross Residue Shipped in drums; no

land disposal Yes Yes Yes Yes

12 261.4(a)(12) Hazardous Oil

Bearing Secondary Materials and Recovered Oil from Petroleum Refining Operations No land placement;

must meet speculative accumulation limits; coke product also does not exhibit characteristic Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already required.)
13 261.4(a)(13) Processed Scrap Metal None Yes Yes Yes Yes
14 261.4(a)(14) Shredded Circuit Boards Stored in containers

sufficient to prevent release; free of mercury switches, Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in exclusion.) Yes

### 31 Exhibit 2A List of Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions and Exemptions Potentially Affected Under Option 7

Row Item RCRA Regulatory

Exclusion Citation Exclusion Description (ty pes of eligible industrial processes or industrial secondary materials) Conditions to Meet

RCRA Exclusion Require Legitimate Recycling 260.43 Require

Notification 260.42 Require Contained 260.10 Require

Speculative Accumulation 261.1(c)(8) batteries 15 261.4(a)(16) Com parable Fuels Meet requirements

of 261.38 Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in exclusion.) (Speculative

accumulation limits already required.)

16 261.4(a)(17) Mineral Processing Spent Materials Legitimately

recycled; Must meet speculative accumulation limits storage standards; notification Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in exclusion.) (Speculative

accumulation limits already required.)

17 261.4(a)(18) Petrochemical Recovered Oil Oil is characteristic

only; No placement on the land; Must meet speculative accumulation limits; meets definition of associated organic chemical manufacturing facility Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already required.)

18 261.4(a)(19) Spent Caustic Solutions from Petroleum Refining No land placement;

must meet speculative accumulation limits Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already required.)

19 261.4(a)(20) Hazardous Secondary Materials Used to Make Zinc Fertilizers Must meet

speculative accumulation limits; one - time notice; storage standards; shipment records; annual reports Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in exclusion.) (Speculative

accumulation limits already required.)
20 261.4(a)(21) Zinc Fertilizers Made from Contaminant limits;

sampling and Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in No
- zinc fertilizers

### 32 Exhibit 2A List of Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions and Exemptions Potentially Affected Under Option 7

Row Item RCRA Regulatory

Exclusion Citation Exclusion Description (ty pes of eligible industrial processes or industrial secondary materials) Conditions to Meet

RCRA Exclusion Require Legitimate Recycling 260.43 Require

Notification 260.42 Require Contained 260.10 Require

Speculative Accumulation 261.1(c)(8) Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials analysis; records exclusion.) already recycled

21 261.4(a)(22) Used Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) No disposal; mu st

meet speculative accumulation limits; meet export requirements Yes Yes (within US) Yes (within US) (Speculative accumulation limits already required.) 261.4(b) Solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes (i.e., exclusions from the RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste) 22 261.4(b)(12) Spent Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants Must be reclaimed Yes Yes Yes No

23 261.4(b)(14) Used Oil Distillation Bottoms used to manufacture asphalt products None Yes Yes Yes No 261.6 Requirements for recyclable materials 2 4 261.6(a)(3)(ii) Scrap metal None Yes Yes Yes No 2 5 261.6(a)(3)(iii) Waste
- derived fuels from refining processes None Yes Yes Yes No

2 6 261.6(a)(3)(iv) Unrefined waste

derived fuels and oils from petroleum refineries No distillation;

meets used oil specs under 279.11 Yes Yes Yes No

2 7 261.6(c)(2) Reclaimers that do not store Subject to

notification, AA/BB, manifest Yes Yes Yes No 261.7 Residues of hazardous waste in empty containers

2 8 261.7 Residues of hazardous waste in em pty containers Quantity limits;

handling conditions No
- Does not involve reclamation of hazardous secondary materials Yes Yes No

### 33 Exhibit 2A List of Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions and Exemptions Potentially Affected Under Option 7

Row Item RCRA Regulatory

Exclusion Citation Exclusion Description (ty pes of eligible industrial processes or industrial secondary materials) Conditions to Meet

RCRA Exclusion Require Legitimate Recycling 260.43 Require

Notification 260.42 Require Contained 260.10 Require

Speculative Accumulation 261.1(c)(8) Part 266 Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes
29 266 Subpart C Recyclable Materials Used in a Manner Constituting Disposal Meet treatment

standards Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in exclusion.) No

3 0 266 Subpart F Materials Utilized for Precious Metal Recovery Notification; export

requirements; records; must meet speculative accumulation limits Yes Yes Yes (Speculative accumulation limits already required.) 3 1 266 Subpart G Spent Lead

- Acid Batteries Being Reclaimed Multiple conditions. Yes Yes Yes No

3 2 266 Subpart H Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Multiple conditions. Yes Yes Yes (In addition to management standards in exclusion.) No Column total counts with “Yes” = 3 0 3 1 31 18 * Note: Criteria for Selecting Conditions: Legitimate Recycling

- Must involve recycling/recovery Notification

- Must have conditions that need com pliance monitoring Contained

- Must not already contain management standards Changes to Speculative Accumulation

### 34 

# C HAPTER 

# 3 Baseline Industrial Entities & Materials Potentially Affected by the 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions
This chapter identifies the ty pes and associated counts/quantities of industrial facilities, hazardous secondary materials, and hazardous wastes potentially affected by

the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW exclusions. These counts/quantities form the phys ical basis in this RIA for estimating potential industry cost s from the 2011 proposed revisions

. Because some of the 2011 proposed revisions potentially affect the 2008 DSW final rule recycling exclusions, whereas other 2011 proposed revisions potential ly affect the pre

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

## 3 A. 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions: Baseline Industrial Recycling Potentially Af fected The RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm) is a census of the company identity, location, industrial sources, waste ty pes, 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). LQ Gs are required to complete a single “ Form GM ” for each hazardous waste generated in each data year. In 2007, 16,387 LQGs submitted about 210,000 GM forms to the RCRA Biennial Report The count of GM forms indicates the count of waste streams generated b y 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 2007 , 541 waste receivers submitted about 873,000 WR form waste blocks . The count of WR form waste blocks indicates the count of waste streams received by TSDRFs in each ye ar. The RCRA Biennial Report (BR) includes both one

- time generated industrial wastes (e.g., equipment closure, corrective action site cleanup) as well as annuall y recurring generated industrial process wastes. This database is the primary source used in this RIA to identify the 2008 DSW final rule current ( i.e., baseline) hazardous secondary materials generated that have the potential to become affected by technical provisions under the 2011 DSW proposed rule. These hazardous secondary materials were reported as hazardous wastes in the 2007 BR. Small quantity generators (i.e., SQGs which generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per mo nth) 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 ty pically rel y on offsite commercial TSDRFs for management of their hazardous wastes.

### 35

The BR is the most complete set of data on industrial hazardous waste generation available given it is a census of LQGs and T SDRFs. It is the best existing database for evaluating changes to RCRA regulations, given the fact that data are reported on the waste stream level b y single facilities (some facilities may generate multiple and different waste stream s within any given ye ar). 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 addition of SQG data because CESQGs are already excluded from most RCRA regulations. 8 

### 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 secondary materials (Exhibit 2A). The earliest DSW exclusion dates back to 1985. The respective counts of industries, facilities, and waste streams potentially affected by

th e 2008 DSW final rule did not apply to these pre

- 2008 excluded industries and hazardous secondary materials. The 2011 DSW proposed 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.

8 SQGs: The exclusion of SQGs from this analy sis reflects the RCRA exclusion of SQGs from reporting to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report. C onsequently, EPA does not collect regularly updated data on RCRA waste volumes generated by SQGs . Omission of explicit data on SQGs does not necessarily mean that this analysis excludes 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) com pany 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 waste generated are (1) NAICS 3251 Basic Chemical Mfg, (2) NAICS 3241 Petroleum & C oal 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 whi ch 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 constituting 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 Print 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 hazardous waste ge neration 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, dispos al or recycling by commercial hazardous waste management facilities becau se 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), there 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 e quivalent 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 represents 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 adverse disproportional effect of the 2011 DSW proposed rule if 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

.

### 36

Exhibits 3A to 3 G belo w summarize the B iennial Report (BR) dataset for baseline hazardous waste recycling for 2007 for wastes affected by the 2008 DSW final rule

. Data ye ar 2007 is used in this RIA to represent the current (i.e., baseline) year becaus e EPA had to launch this RIA before the more recent data year 2009 became available. The BR database only contains the primary

NAI CS code for each waste generator and waste management facility . However, many industrial facilities have more than one NAICS code corresponding to dif ferent ty pes of industrial operations within a single facility, but the entire quantity of hazardous waste undergoing recycling is reported under a single NAI CS code for each single facility

in the BR dataset. For each historical data year (i.e., 1991, 19 93, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005 , 2007 ) the BR national total “management” quantity (tons) does not necessarily

equal the national total “generation” quantity (tons) because: 1. S ome hazardous waste tonnages may be double

- counted in “management” because they undergo two or more management st eps in a management train. 2. S ome wastes may

have been generated near year- end but managed (i.e., treated, recycled or disposed) in the next year. 3. Export of generated wastes for management in other countries. 4. Imp ort of wastes generated in other countries for management in the US. Exhibit 3 A below summarizes the three types of recycling included in the RCRA Biennial Report, and their associated 2007 count of facilities and hazardous waste management tonnages, distinguished between onsite and offsite recycling.

### 37 Exhibit 3A Three Categories of RCRA Hazardous Waste Baseline Recycling (2007*)

Hazardous Waste Recycling Category (Biennial Report management code**) A B C D E (C+D) F G H (F+G) 2007 count of facilities generating wa stes that are recycled 2007 count

of waste streams that are recycled 2007 Count of Facilities Recycling 2007 Quantity Recycled (tons per year)

Onsite Offsite

(Received from offsite) Total

facilities Onsite Offsite (Received from offsite) Total

(tons/year) H010: Metals recovery : high tem perature metals recovery, retorting, secondary smelting, & other metals recovery (e.g., ion exchange, reverse osmosis, acid leaching). 2,019 4,093 50 104 137 265,626 1,064,888 1,330,514

H020: Solvents recovery : fractionation/ distillation, thin film evaporation, & solvent extraction. 2,101 3,211 392 76 456 106,147 222,784 328,931 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 1,334 36 32 65 150,784 184,309 335,093

Non
- duplicative totals = 4,321 8,584 467 (75%) 189

(30%) 624

(100%) 522,557

(26%) 1,471,981

(74%) 1.995

mi llion (100%) Explanatory Notes:  * All data represents counts and quantities included in the 2007 National Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br07/national07.pdf

. Some facilities recycled wastes in more than one management method, and some facilities both generated onsite and received from offsite. Thus, the fac ility counts and percentages will sum to more than 100%.  ** 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

.

### 38

Exhibit 3 B below compares the 2007 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 3 B Identity of Industries Generating & Recycling RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Recycled (2007)*

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 Generator s Tons Per Year

Generated Count of

Receiver s Tons Per Year

Managed Count of

Recyclers Tons Per Year

Recycled % Recycled % Not Recycled 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 27 2 , 094 1 70 1 70 100.0% 0% 2 21 Mining 123 18 , 010 4 399 2 4 1.0% 99.0% 3 22 Utilities 593 30 , 891 9 4 , 654 1 < 0 .5 < 0. 1 % >99.9 % 4 23 Construction 309 43 , 080 4 714 3 669 93.7% 6.3% 5 31 Manufacturing 172 18 , 531 11 6 , 627 7 136 2.1% 97.9% 6 32 Manufacturing 4 , 198 24 , 167 , 001 454 25 , 956 , 865 202 535 , 749 2.1% 97.9% 7 33 Manufacturing 6 , 045 4 , 706 , 082 449 3 , 904 , 876 213 1 , 085 , 944 27.8% 72.2% 8 42 Wholesale Trade 601 94 , 812 24 537 , 435 13 16 , 549 3.1% 96.9% 9 44 Retail Trade 265 1 , 935 1 6 1 6 100.0% 0.0% 10 45 Retail Trade 61 1 , 629 1 < 0 .5
- - 0% 100% 11 48 Transportation 778 72 , 403 21 386 , 489 6 31 < 0. 1 % >99.9 % 12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing 292 33 , 988 6 97
- - 0% 100.0% 13 51 Information 53 10 , 994 16 13 , 881 2 12 , 106 87.2% 12.8% 14 52 Finance & Insurance 7 794
- - - - - - 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 98 43 , 287 9 3 , 496 2 < 0 .5 < 0. 1 % >99.9 % 16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 543 45 , 326 36 86 , 506 12 71 0.1% 99.9% 17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 10 188 1 132 , 074
- - 0% 100.0% 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation 707 2 , 745 , 713 216 5 , 258 , 957 102 342 , 901 6.5% 93.5% 19 61 Educational Services 423 16 , 720 33 99 20 53 53.5% 46.5% 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 293 14 , 609 25 75 22 71 94.7% 5.3% 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 32 2 , 104
- - - - - - 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 9 11 , 553
- - - - - - 23 81 Other Services 274 22 , 609 5 3 , 666 3 22 0.6% 99.4% 24 92 Public Administration 473 165 , 065 56 50 , 412 12 157 0.3% 99.7% 25 ?? NAICS code not provided 1 62
- - - - - - Column totals = 16,387 32,269,481 1,382 36,347,398 624 1.995 million 5 . 5 % 9 4 . 5 % Explanatory Notes: * Source: EPA 2007 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br07/index.htm ; 1 ton = 2,000 pounds ("short

- ton"). ** (

- ) Indicates no management reported in 2007. Recycling cannot be determined for wastes that have no management information (excluding management by storage).

### 39

Exhibit 3 C b elow presents the 2007 data for the three recycling methods (i.e., H010, H020, H039) according to 2

- digit NAICS economic sub

sector.
Exhibit 3 C

Annual Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Recycled by Type of Generator Industry (2007) 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

- 70
- 70 <0.1% 2 21 Mining 1
- 3 4 <0.1% 3 22 Utilities

- <0.5
- 0 <0.1% 4 23 Construction

- 669
- 669 <0.1% 5 31 Manufacturing

- 136
- 136 <0.1% 6 32 Manufacturing 203,064 144,645 188,039 535,749 26.9% 7 33 Manufacturing 1,041,186 6,380 38,378 1,085,944 54.4% 8 42 Wholesale Trade 126 16,397 25 16,549 0.8% 9 44 Retail Trade

- 6
- 6 <0.1% 10 45 Retail Trade

- - - - - 11 48 Transportation 19 11
- 31 <0.1% 12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing

- - - - - 13 51 Information <0.5 12,106
- 12,106 0.6% 14 52 Finance & Insurance

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

- <0.5
- <0.5 <0.1% 16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services

- 71
- 71 <0.1% 17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises

- - - - - 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation 86,066 148,332 108,503 342,901 17.2% 19 61 Educational Services 24 28 <0.5 53 <0.1% 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 7 52 12 71 <0.1% 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation

- - - - - 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services

- - - - - 23 81 Other Services

- 22
- 22 <0.1% 24 92 Public Administration 20 4 133 157 <0.1% 25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0 0 0.0% Column totals = 1,330,513 328,929 335,093 1.995 million 100.0% Note: (

- ) Indicates that no management was reported in 2007 (excluding manage ment by storage). Recycling cannot be determined for wastes that have no management information (including storage of wastes).

### 40

Exhibit 3D below presents the same 2007 recycling data according to the types of industrial processes (i.e., Biennial Report Gxxx codes) which generated the hazardous wastes being recycled.
Exhibit 3 D Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) 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 1,144 7,414 404 8,962 0.4% 2 G02 Stripping and acid or caustic cleaning 77 4 482 563 < 0.1% 3 G03 Plating & phosphating 6,084 18 1 6,103 0.3% 4 G04 Etching

- - - - - 5 G05 Metal forming & treatment 1,732
- - 1,732 0.1% 6 G06 Painting & coating 5 6,356 35 6,396 0.3% 7 G07 Product & by

-product processing 214,170 45,657 18,670 278,498 14.0% 8 G08 Removal of spent process liquids or catalysts 15 5,072 20,053 25,140 1.3% 9 G09 Other production or service

- related processes 763 4,334 29 5,126 0.3%

Subtotal daily production, service or maintenance processes = 223,990 68,855 39,674 332,519 16.7% 10 G11 Discarding off

- spec or out - of

- date chemicals or products 612 86 32,195 32,893 1.6% 11 G12 Lagoon or sediment dragout and leachate collection

- - - - - 12 G13 Cleaning

- out process equipment 74 17,330 3,064 20,467 1.0% 13 G14 Removal of tank sludge, sediments or slag 243 220
- 462 < 0.1% 14 G15 Process equipment change

- out or discontinuation of use 15 1 116 131 < 0.1% 15 G16 Oil changes and filter or battery replacement

- - - - - 16 G19 Other one

- time or intermittent processes 23
- 62 85 < 0.1%

Subtotal one

- time or intermittent events or processes = 966 17,636 35,436 54,039 2.7% 17 G21 Air pollution control devices 12,624
- - 12,624 0.6% 18 G22 Lab analytical wastes 13 140 12 165 < 0.1% 19 G23 Wastewater treatment 594
- - 594 < 0.1% 20 G24 Solvent or product distillation or recovery

- 7,088 15,821 22,909 1.1% 21 G25 Hazardous waste management 26,478 1,963 1,371 29,812 1.5% 22 G26 Leachate collection

- - - - - 23 G27 Residual from treatment or recovery of universal waste 251
- - 251 < 0.1%

Subtotal pollution control & waste management residuals = 39,959 9,191 17,204 66,355 3.3% 24 G31 Accidental contamination of materials, containers 181 1
- 181 < 0.1% 25 G32 Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not routine)

- - - - - 26 G33 Leak collection & floor sweeping ongoing, routine) 36
- - 36 < 0.1% 27 G39 Other cleanup of current contamination <0.5
- - <0.5 < 0.1% Subtotal spills & accidental releases = 217 1
- 218 < 0.1%

### 41 Exhibit 3 D Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) 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) 28 G41 Closure of haz waste management unit under RCRA

- - - - - 29 G42 Correction action at solid waste mgmt unit under RCRA

- - 43,376 43,376 2.2% 30 G43 Remedial action or emergency response under CERCLA

- - - - - 31 G44 State program or voluntary cleanup 272
- 4,037 4,308 0.2% 32 G45 Underground storage tank cleanup

- - - - - 33 G49 Other remediation

- - 11,057 11,057 0.6% Subtotal remediation of past contamination = 272
- 58,469 58,741 2.9% 34 G61 Received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer 222 10,464
- 10,686 0.5% 35 G63 to G75 Im ported from a foreign country

- - - - -

Subtotal not physically generated onsite = 222 10,464
- 10,686 0.5% 36 G?? Source code not provided 1,064,888 222,784 184,309 1,471,981 73.8% Column totals = 1,330,513 328,929 335,093 1.995 million 100.0%

### 42

Exhibit 3E below presents the same 2007 recycling data according to the types of chemical/physical forms of the wastes (i.e., Biennial Report Wxxx codes) being recycled.
Exhibit 3 E Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) 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 192 49 410 650 <0.1% 2 W002 Contaminated debris 2,062 2,901 9 4,971 0.2% 3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste <0.5 <0.5
- 1 <0.1% 4 W301 Contaminated soil 533 2 36,965 37,500 1.9% 5 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings 753,619 <0.5 23,892 777,510 39.0% 6 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon 208 2,238 9,142 11,588 0.6% 7 W320 Electrical devices 1,918 1 753 2,672 0.1% 8 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds 3
- 88 91 <0.1% 9 W801 Com

pressed gases 601 <0.5 2 603 <0.1%

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices = 759,136 5,191 71,259 835,586 41.9% 10 W101 Very

dilute aqueous waste >99% water 2,130 2,901 525 5,555 0.3% 11 W103 Spent concentrated acid 19,288 118 2,766 22,172 1.1% 12 W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 325 163 8 496 <0.1% 13 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 837
- 1 838 <0.1% 14 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters 5,771 3 484 6,259 0.3% 15 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters 81,369 18,735 992 101,096 5.1% 16 W117 Waste liquid mercury 210 <0.5 6 216 <0.1% 17 W119 Other inorganic liquid 9,140 875 53,276 63,290 3.2% Subtotal inorganic liquids = 119,070 22,794 58,057 199,922 10.0% 18 W200 Still bottoms liquid form <0.5 2,828 46 2,874 0.1% 19 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent 1 20,347 2,882 23,231 1.2% 20 W203 Concentrated non

- halogenated solvent 11 133,875 1,038 134,924 6.8% 21 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non

- halo solvent mixture 26 20,721 2,620 23,366 1.2% 22 W205 Oil

- water emulsion/mixture 75 1,000 2,206 3,281 0.2% 23 W206 Waste oil <0.5 97 192 289 <0.1% 24 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish 3 15,741 30 15,774 0.8% 25 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives

- 1,730 1,137 2,866 0.1% 26 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates

- 36,694 8 36,702 1.8% 27 W219 Other organic liquid 63 22,663 91,687 114,413 5.7% Subtotal organic liquids = 179 255,696 101,845 357,721 17.9% 28 W303 Ash 9,225
- - 9,225 0.5%

### 43 Exhibit 3 E Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) 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) 29 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues 50,564
- 127 50,692 2.5% 30 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums) 102 <0.5 12 114 <0.1% 31 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems 104
- - 104 <0.1% 32 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide 929 <0.5
- 929 <0.1% 33 W319 Other inorganic solids 381,127 663 20,416 402,206 20.2% Subtotal inorganic solids = 442,052 663 20,555 463,270 23.2% 34 W401 Pesticide solids

- <0.5
- <0.5 <0.1% 35 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics 2 74 80 156 <0.1% 36 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids

- - - - - 37 W409 Other organic solids 910 12,017 21,729 34,655 1.7% Subtotal organic solids = 912 12,091 21,809 34,812 1.7% 38 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 6,423
- 33,247 39,669 2.0% 39 W503 Gy

psum sludges from wastewater or air treatment

- - - - - 40 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment 188
- - 188 <0.1% 41 W505 Metal bearing sludges 178 3 <0.5 182 <0.1% 42 W506 Cyanide

-bearing sludges 1,289
- - 1,289 0.1% 43 W519 Other inorganic sludges 389 12 1,442 1,843 0.1% Subtotal inorganic sludges = 8,467 15 34,689 43,171 2.2% 44 W603 Oily sludge

- 629 6,462 7,090 0.4% 45 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms <0.5 2,424
- 2,424 0.1% 46 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry slu dge - 21 2,244 2,265 0.1% 47 W609 Other organic sludge

- 298 5,049 5,346 0.3% Subtotal organic sludges = <0.5 3,372 13,754 17,125 0.9% 48 W??? Phy sical form code not provided 697 29,109 13,125 42,932 2.2% Totals = 1,330,513 328,929 335,093 1.995 million 100.0%

### 44

Exhibit 3F below presents the same 2007 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.
Exhibit 3 F

RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Waste Codes Assigned to Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) 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 915,157 134,526 118,142 1,167,826 58.6% 2 Fxxx 1 or more non
- specific industrial source waste codes

only 2,371 34,156 92,463 128,990 6.5% 3 Kxxx 1 or more specific industrial source waste codes only 384,800
- 21,776 406,575 20.4% 4 Pxxx 1 or more “acutely hazardous” discarded or off

- spec commercial chemical products, container residues & spill residues thereof 2
- 23 26 <0.1%
5 Uxxx 1 or more “toxic waste” commercial chemical

products, manufacturing intermediates, or off

- spec commercial chemical products 2 23,336 970 24,308 1.2%
6 Mixed Assigned with 2 or more waste code categories above 28,182 136,913 101,718 266,813 13.4% 7 ???? Waste code not provided 0 0 0 0 0% Column totals = 1,330,513 328,929 335,093 1.995 million 100.0%


### Exhibit 3 G below indicates the respective fractions (i.e., associated tonnages and percentages) for each of the three recycling methods 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 toxicity (rate) 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 significantl y contributing to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness (Source: 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)). As codified in the 01 July 20 10 version of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), RCRA " acute hazardous wastes ” are designated with the hazard code (H) and include:  All 239 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.

### 45 Exhibit 3 G Prevalence of RCRA " Acute Hazardous " Waste Recycling (2007) Recycling method (Biennial Report management code) Recycling method definition 2007 BR annual total tons recycled (onsite + offsite tons) 2007 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 , 330 , 51 3* 25 <0.01 % H020: Solvents recovery 328 , 9 29 3 <0.01 % H039: Other recovery 335 , 093 42 <0.01 % Column totals = 1.995 million 69 <0.01 % Notes: Source: Query of EPA 2007 RCRA Biennial Report (B R) based on selecting recycl ing 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). * Metals Recovery tonnage does not match the 2007 BR volume number in BR exhibit s 2.5
- 2.7 because of updates to the 2007 data since the BR wa s published.



###  Explanation of Discrepancy Between Waste Generator (GM) and Waste Receiver (WR) Annual Tonnage Data The baseline hazardous waste recycling tonnage evaluated in this RIA for potential de

- regulatory cost savings is not 1.995 million tons as shown in Exhibits 3A to 3G above. The 1.995 million tons is based on the RCRA Biennial Report (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 presented in Exhibits 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the 2007 “National Analysis” RCRA Biennial Report (http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br07/national07.pdf ), the same data query

logic were used to complete Exhibits 3A to 3G of this RIA. In comparison, the baseline recycling shown in this RIA uses an alternative 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 ye ar, between what the generator reports shipping offsit e 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 the baseline recycling tonnages used in the de

- regulatory cost savings anal ys is. Exhibits 3A through 3G present the national baseline recycling picture based o n BR data reporting logic. However, the recycling quantities presented will be higher than those used in the cost anal ys is. The discrepancy is due to the following: o The on

- site recycling tonnages in Exhibit 3A (column E) are sums of the tonnages reported in Form GM, Section 1F. Quantity Generated in 2007. The on

- site recycling tonnages used in the cost savings anal ys is of this RIA are those reported in Form GM, Section 2, On

- site Process System 1 and On

- site Process S ys tem 2. These numbers sometimes do not match because either:
 There is a data reporting or data entry error, or  Not all of the quantity generated is recovered (i.e., some may be disposed), or
 Not all of the quantity generated in 2007 was recovered in 2007. o Source code G61 received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite waste is excluded in the cost savings anal ys is given

### 46

the waste is not physically generated on site (see Exhibit 3D, Item 34) b y the generator. o The off

- site recycling totals in Exhibit 3A (column F) are based on F orm WR data for wastes received from off site for management. The off

- site recycling tonnages 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).


## 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 ty

pes of industrial hazardo us secondary materials

. The se pre - 2008 DSW recycling exclusions span 1985 and 1998 . The respective counts of industries, facilities, and waste streams potentiall y affected b y the 2008 DSW final rule did not apply to these pre

- 2008 excluded industries and hazardous secondary materials. The 2011 DSW proposed rule does affect these excluded hazardous secondary materials. Comprehensive data on the nationwide annual quantities of pre

- 2008 excluded hazardous secondary materials are not readily available becau se they

are not subjec t to biennial reporting to EPA under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. Limited data on these materials are available from the 2007 BR. The 2007 BR reports on a portion of the material (291,702 tons) managed under the pre - 2008 exclusions

. The following subsections describe the data from the 2007 BR and outline the methodology this RIA uses to estimate the population of facilities recycling under the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions. 2007 Biennial Report Pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusion Data Some pre
- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion data can be obtained from the 2007 BR. For any given data reporting ye ar, some LQG and TSDRF data records in the BR may be inaccurately

or incorrectl y (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 3. The BR may

incorrectly

contain data from some facilities for wastes that are already excluded. The 2007 BR include s data for 6 of the 32 pre - 2008 DSW exclusions. As summarized in Exhibit 3H below, LQGs or TSDFs in the 2007 BR may have reported these data incorrectl y (i.e., unnecessarily). Approximately 292,000 tons of hazardous material s from pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions were identified in the 2007 BR indicating that the 2008 DSW recycling exclusion baseline cost savings estimate may be overstated by 0.7 % . These data are included with the 2008 DSW recycling exclusio n data and baseline c osts. EPA ’s 2003 DSW rule RIA (p.3

- 12) identified three of these six categories (i.e., oil, recovery , by

-products, sludges), and the 2007 DSW rule RIA (Exhibit 1A) identified four of these categories, based on QA/QC random visual inspection of waste descriptions supplied by the LQGs (Form GM, Section 1A) and TSDRFs

### 47

(Form WR, Secti on A) reporting to the BR database applied in the prior RIAs. Two additional categories were identified from QA/QC and random visual inspection of the 2005 dataset applied in the 2008 DSW RIA.
Exhibit 3H Six Industrial Secondary Materials Already- Excluded from the DSW Pre - 2008 Ty pe of Excluded Material Description Biennial Report Data Code to Identify the Excluded Material 200 7 Recycling (tons/year) 1. Oil Recovery Reported wa ste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded

under the existing DSW exclusion for oil recovery in the petroleum refining industry under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(ii). This exclusion requires materials be “ inserted into the petroleum refining proc ess ”; this RIA assumes facilities reporting this to the BR do not meet this condition and are included in the dataset for this RIA.  SIC code 2911 (petroleum refinery; same as NAICS code 32411) and  W206 waste oil 0

2. 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 26 1.2(c)(3).  D001 (ignitability characteristic) or  D002 (corrosivity characteristic) or  D003 (reactivity characteristic) or  D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and  G07 source code “Product & by

-product processing” 253,355 *

3. Recycl ed 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 wh en reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c) (3).  D001 (ignitability characteristic) or  D002 (corrosivity characteristic) or  D003 (reactivity characteristic) or  D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and  W5xx or W6xx sludges physical form code 17,261

4. Recycled Commercial Chemical Products Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded

under the existing DSW exclusion for “ commercial chemical products ” wh en 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”) 32,893 5. Oil refining spent acids Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may be already excluded

from the DSW if reclaimed under either 40 CFR 261.4(a)(7) or 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12).  D002 (corrosivity characteristic) and  SIC code 2911 petroleum refinery (same as NAICS code 32411). 0 6. Oil bearing petrochemical wa stes Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may be already excluded

from the DSW if reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(18) if “inserted into the petroleum refining process (SIC coded 2911) along with normal petroleum refinery process streams”  D001 (ignitable characteristic) or  D018 (benzene toxicity characteristic) and  SIC 2865 “Cyclic Organic Crudes, Intermediates & Organic Dyes/Pigments, or SIC 2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals (both SIC codes are same as NAICS 32511 petrochemical mfg) 0

Column total = 303,509 Percentage of 2007 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report total hazardous waste generation ( 46.693 million tons, Exhibit 1.3 ) = - 0. 7 % * One waste stream accounts for 214,156 tons with the waste description “spent lead/acid batteries and lead bearing scrap dismembered for metals recovery and recycli ng.”

### 48

Methodology for Estimating the Baseline Count of Facilities Recycling Under Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions Prior to EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule, there were already 32 pre - 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (Exhibit 2A) , of which 16 are listed in Exhibit 3I below as identified in EPA’s RIA for the October 2008 DSW final rule. Comprehensive data on the nationwide counts of facilities and associated annual quantities of pre

- 2008 excluded hazardous secondary materials are no t readily

available because RCRA

- excluded industrial recycling is not subject to reporting under the RCRA hazardous waste “Biennial Report” (BR). However, EPA’s “ Toxic Release Inventory” (TRI) requires annual reporting of industrial recycling activities involving +/

- 650 toxic chemicals in certain NAI CS code industries over certain annual threshold quantities

. For purpose of estimating in this RIA the baseline de

- regulatory cos t savings associated with the p re - 2008 DSW recycling exclusions, Exhibit 3Ibelow displays NAICS codes which th is RIA assumes is affiliated with each of the 16 pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions identified in the 2008 RIA, although most of the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions do not identify particular eligible NAICS (or SI C) codes in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Counts of industrial facilities in the affiliated NAICS codes that reported the appropriate onsite and/or offsite recycling activity we re obtained for data ye ar 2007 from two EPA databases: 1. TRI : EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory database: Facility

counts associated wi th either onsite or offsite (as appropriate to each of the pre - 2008 recycling exclusions) 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: Facility counts associated with either onsite or offsite (as appropriate) are used in this RIA as an estimate of non

- DSW excluded industrial recycling. The year 2007 is applied in this analysis because (a) it is common to both the TRIand BR databases, and (b) is the most rece nt common year relative to 2008, the ye ar of EPA’s October 2008 DSW final rule which expanded the exclusions beyond the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. Exhibit 3J below displays an estimate of 8,492 TRI - reported facilities involved in industrial recycling of wast es containing toxic chemicals affiliated with the NAI CS codes (a mix of 2

- digit and 6

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

- 2008 DSW exclusions

. These facilities are within 622 6

- digit NAICS code industries as listed in Appendix A
. Exhibit 3K displays an estimate of 3,171 BR- reported facilities involved in non

- DSW excluded RCRA

- regulated hazardous waste recycling for those same NAICS codes. As displayed in Exhibit 3L , the 5,321 difference between these two facilities counts is applied in this RIA as an estimate of the count of facilities which operate their recycling activities under the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. In summary , the estimate of 5,321 pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities is based on two criteria : (1) these gener ators report recycling wastes in the TRI that contain toxic chemicals and (2) the population of generators is limited to NAICS associated with the pre

- 2008 exclusions. Because not all TRIrecycled wastes containing toxic chemicals will necessaril y qualify as RCRA hazardous waste if not recycled, this may be an over

- es timate of the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion population.

### 49 Exhibit 3I NAICS Codes Assigned in this RIA as Affiliated with 16 of the Pre - 2008 RCRA DSW Industrial Recycling Exclusions A B C D E F
Item Year Pre
- 2008 DSW

Exclusion 40 CFR citation Abbreviated Descriptions* of the 16 Pre
- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions Eligible Recycling Relative to Generator Sites Assumed in this RIA (Onsite or Offsite) NAICS Codes Assumed in this RIA Affiliated to the Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions** 1 1985 261.2(e)(i) Materials used or reused as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product without being reclaimed Onsite & Offsite NAICS 31 + 32 + 33 manufacturing*** 2 1985 261.2(e)(ii) Materials used or reused as substitutes for commercial products Onsite & Offsite NAICS 31 + 32 + 33 manufacturing*** 3 1985 261.2(e)(iii) Materials returned as a feedstock to the industrial process from which generated without being reclaimed or land disposed Onsite NAICS 31 + 32 + 33 manufacturing***
4 1985 261.4(a)(6) Pulping liquors that are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery furnace and then reused in the pulping process Onsite NAICS 322110 pulp mills 5 1985 261.4(a)(7) Spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid Onsite & Offsite NAICS 325188 other inorganic chem mfg 6 1986 261.4(a)(8) Materials reclaimed and returned to the original process(es) in which generated for reuse in production if entire process is closed by tanks, pipes or other conveyance, without combustion Onsite NAICS 31 + 32 + 33 manufacturing***

7 1990 261.4(a)(9) Spent wood preserving solutions that have been reclaimed and reused for their original intended purpose Onsite & Offsite NAICS 321114 wood preservation 8 1991 261.4(a)(10) K060, K087, K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K148 wa stes recycled to coke ovens or tar recovery Onsite NAICS 324199 coke oven products (coke, gases, tars) made in coke oven establishments 9 1991 261.4(a)(11) Recovered non

- wa stewater splash condenser dross residue of K061 treatment in metals recovery units Onsite & Offsite NAICS 331111 iron & steel mfg 10 1994 261.4(a)(12) Petroleum refinery oil

-bearing sludges, byproducts or spent materials inserted into the refining process Onsite NAICS 324110 petroleum refineries 11 1997 261.4(a)(13) Scrap metal being recycled Onsite & Offsite Recycled onsite at NAICS 562920 materials recovery facilities 12 1997 261.4(a)(14) Circuit boards being recycled if stored prior to recovery and free of mercury, nickel

- cadmium & lithium Offsite Recycled onsite at NAICS 562920 materials recovery facilities 13 1998 261.4(a)(17) Spent materials generated by the primary mineral processing industry for recovery of minerals, acids, etc. Onsite & Offsite NAICS 2122 minerals mining (excludes coal, oil, gas; includes 19 6

- digit NAICS minerals mining industries) 14 1998 261.4(a)(18) Petrochemical oil recovered from organic chemical manufacturing if oil is inserted into petro

- refining process Onsite & Offsite NAICS 32519 organic chemical manufacturing (consists of 325191 + 325192 + 325193 + 325199) 15 1998 261.4(a)(19) Spent caustic solutions from petroleum refining used as Offsite NAICS 325188 all other basic

### 50 Exhibit 3I NAICS Codes Assigned in this RIA as Affiliated with 16 of the Pre - 2008 RCRA DSW Industrial Recycling Exclusions A B C D E F
Item Year Pre
- 2008 DSW

Exclusion 40 CFR citation Abbreviated Descriptions* of the 16 Pre
- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions Eligible Recycling Relative to Generator Sites Assumed in this RIA (Onsite or Offsite) NAICS Codes Assumed in this RIA Affiliated to the Pre

- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions** feedstock to produce cresylic or naphthenic acid inorganic chemical manufacturing 16 2002 261.4(a)(20,21) Hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers Offsite Recycled onsite at NAICS 325314 fertilizer mfg (not nitrogen or phosphate) Notes: * See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr for complete descriptions of the 16 DSW exclusions. ** The 16 specific pre - 2008 DSW recycling exclusions listed above in this exhibit do not specify eligible NAICS codes; the NAICS codes assigned above are only for analytic and estimation purposes in this RIA. *** 2007 NAICS 31 consists of 110 6

- digit industries, NAICS 32 consists of 126 6

- digit industries, and NAICS 33 consists of 236 6

- digit industries (i.e., 472 6

- digit industries). These 6

- digit counts are based on the Census Bureau’s 2007 NAICS code list provided at: http://www.census.gov/cgi

-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart=2007

### 51 Exhibit 3J 2007 TRI Count of Industrial Recycling Facilities Source: Data extraction conducted 02 Dec 2010 by Carol Bristow , DPRA Inc.

Items NAICS c odes used for TRI

data query to represent pre

2008 RCRA
- excluded recycling Count of 6

- digit NAICS

codes (see Appendix A for complete list) 2007 TRI Onsite Recycling Facility Count 2007 TRI Offsite

Recycling Facility Count Non
- Duplicative 2007 TRI

Total Count Recycling Facilities (Onsite + Offsite) 1 31 44 78 134 205 2 32 106 1,141 1,288 2,116 3 33 222 747 5,856 6,130

Sub

- total 31+32+33 = 372 1,966 7,278 8,451 4 5629 1 7 2 7 5 2122 5 14 31 34

T otal rows 4+5+6 = 378 1,987 7,371 8,492

### 52 Exhibit 3K 2007 RCRA Biennial Report Count of Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities in pre - 2008 Excluded Recycling Industries Source: Data extraction conducted 02 Dec 2010 by Kevin Weinhold , DPRA Inc. A B C D E F G H I J K
Pre
- 2008 DSW Exclusion 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 1a 31 0 13 7 15 0 11 7 38 43 1b 32 15 411 166 584 23 226 202 1,063 1,215 1c 33 42 1,046 157 733 12 294 210 1,766 1,902 1 Sum (31,32,33) 57 1,470 330 1,332 35 531 419 2,867 3,160 2 Included in item

1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 3 Included in item

1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 4 32211 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 325188 5 17 3 12 1 6 8 35 38 6 Included in item

1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 7 321114 1 0 0 7 1 5 2 12 14 8 324199 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 9 331111 0 48 0 8 1 5 1 53 53 10 32411 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 11 56292 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 4 12 Incl d

. in item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 13 2122 1 6 0 2 0 1 1 7 7 14 32519 0 40 7 35 3 38 10 98 102 15 Included in item

5 In item 5 In item 5 In item 5 In item 5 In item 5 In item 5 In item 5 In item 5 In item 5 16 Included in item

1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 Column total (non

duplicative) rows 1+11+13 = 59 1,476 333 1,334 35 532 424 2,874 3,171

### 53 Exhibit 3L Count of Industrial Facilities Reporting Recycling Activities in 2007* for the Affiliated NAICS Codes

Associated with the Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions A B C D E (C

– D)

Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusion (row item) Affiliated NAICS Codes

(from column F of Exhibit 3I ) 2007 TRI Count of Industrial Facilities Reporting Recycling

(from Exhibit 3J) 2007 BR Count of Industrial Fac ilities Reporting Recycling (from Exhibit 3K) Count of Facilities

Assumed to Have Pre
- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions Onsite Offsite Non
duplicative count (on + offsite) 1 31 +32 + 33 manufacturing 1,966 7,278 8,451 3,160 5,291 2 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 3 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 4 322110 pulp mills In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 5 325188 other basic inorganic chem mfg In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 6 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 7 321114 wood preservation In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 8 324199 coke oven products In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 9 331111 iron & steel manufacturing In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 10 324110 petroleum refineries In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 11 562920 materials recovery facilities 7 2 7 4 3 12 Assume captured in item 11 above In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 13 2122 minerals mining 14 31 34 7 27 14 32519 organic chemical mfg In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 15 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 16 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 Non
- duplicative column totals = 1,987 7,3 71 8,492 3,171 5,321 Note: * 2007 is selected for this data analysis because 2007 corresponds to both the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and the RCRA Bi ennial Report (BR) databases.

### 54 

## 3C. Annual Rate of Future Adoption of the 2008 DSW Exclusions 3 C .1 “Base Case ” Adoption Scenario (2008 DSW final rule future baseline) The baseline for this RIA to evaluate the incremental effect of the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW exclusions, must reflect the regulatory exclusions established under the 2008 DSW final rule, which (all else equal) would reduce the future annual tonnages of hazar dous waste to become excluded under the DSW recycling exclusions, relative to the quantities reported in th e 2007 BR. To incorporate this effect into the baseline for the 2011 DSW proposed rule, this RIA used exclusion notification data for the 2008 DSW final rule to estimate th e number of facilities expected to use the 2008 DSW exclusions during each ye ar in the 50

- ye ar period

- of

- analysis (2015 to 2064) applied in this RIA. Under EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule , facilities are required to notify their regulatory

authority prior to managing hazardous secondary materials under the DSW rule and every other year therea fter. 9 

### Data published by EPA indicate that, as of April 26 , 201 1 , 49 facilities had submitted notifications to EPA claiming either onsite recycling exclusions, same - company transfer exclusions, and

/or offsite transfer exclusions. 10 

### The 49 facilities that claimed one or more of the 2008 DSW exclusions are located in the four states and territories that have adopted the 2008 DSW final rule (i.e., IA, NJ, PA, VI). The count of facilities that have submitted a DSW recycling exclusion notification by state is as follows: 1. Io wa 16 facilities 2. New Jersey 12 facilities 3. Pennsylvania 20 facilities 4. Virgin Islands 1 facility

___ Total= 49 facilities Based on these data, this RIA assumes that 49 industrial facilities will have submitted DSW exclusion notific ations under the 2008 DSW final rule by the end of April 201 1
. G iven that these notifications were submitted to EPA over a two - ye ar , four

- month period (i.e., between its December 28, 2008 effective date, and April 26, 2011 ), this RIA further assumes as a “ base case ” adoption rate scenario , that an additional 21 facilities per year (i.e., 49 facilities divided by 2.3 years = 21 facilities per ye ar) continue to adopt the 2008 DSW exclusion(s) on an annual basis for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is (POA) spanning 2015 to 2064, consisting of the following time interval assumptions:

 Federal Register publication and lagging effective date for the final rule revisions to the DSW exclusions both occur in 2013.  State government adoption of the final rule is expected to begin two ye ars after its effective date in 2015 (this 2
- ye ar lag after the effective date recognizes the fact that state governments need time to change their state regulations and statutes).  Therefore, the 50

- year period of anal ys is will therefore span from 2015 to 2064.

9 See 73 FR 64668
. 10 Notification data are available from EPA’s webpage at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/dsw /notify

- sum.pdf

### 55

This “base case” rate of future DSW exclusion adoption is based on recent actual adoption data, rather than the simple 100% immediate adoption assumption applied in EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule. The future year-by

- year facility adoption timeline for this “base case” adoption scenario is as follows: POA Year Cumulative count of adopting facilities

- 6. 2009 21 facilities

-- adoption of the October 2008 DSW final rule

- 5. 2010 42 facilities

-- adoption of the Octob er 2008 DSW final rule

- 4. 2011 63 facilities

-- adoption of the October 2008 DSW final rule

- 3. 2012 84 facilities

-- adoption of the October 2008 DSW final rule

- 2. 2013 105 facilities

-- adoption of the October 2008 DSW final rule; 2011 DSW proposed rule is finalized

- 1. 2014 126 facilities

-- adoption of the October 2008 DSW final rule 1. 2015 147 facilities

- State government adoption of 2013 DSW final rule revisions begins. 2. 2016 168 facilities

... 49. 2063 1,155 facilities 50. 2064 1,176 faci lities 

## 3 C .2 “ Upper

- Bound ” Adoption Scenario (2008 DSW final rule future baseline) For purpose of comparison to the “base case” adoption scenario of this RIA, Sensitivity Analysis #1 in Chapter 6 of this RIA formulates an alternative “ upper

-bound ” adopti on scenario
. This scenario assumes 44 states

-- identified as potential adopters in Exhibit 12A of EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule

-- will adopt the 2011 proposed revisions within a 4

- year period beginning in 2015 (i.e., 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018), at a rate of 25% of the facilities located in these 44 states per year. This scenario is “Sensitivity Analysis #1” in Chapter 6 o f this RIA. 

## 3C.3 Adoption Scenario (pre - 2008 DSW exclusions future baseline) For the population of b aseline h azardous s econdary m aterial industrial recycling a ssociated with p re - 2008 recycling e xclusions , a significantly higher rate of 100% adoption is assumed. Many of these facilities have operated under the pre

- 2008 exclusions for several years, as some DSW exclusions date back to 1985. These facilities may not be equipped to manage these hazardous materials as hazardous wastes. This is in opposition to those materials managed under the 2008 DSW final rule, because facilities did already manage those materials as hazardous wast es. These facilities may ; therefore , incur more significant costs for handling and management of these materials as hazardous waste. For example, under the 1998 listing of crude oil tank sludge and clarified slurry oil sludge, a coking exemption was provided for these sludges if they are recycled back into an on

- site coking process unit, off

- site coking process unit owned b y the same company, or an off

- s ite coking process unit owned b y another company. At that time, crude oil tank sludge and clarified slurry oil sludge were ty

pically managed in Subtitle D landfill or land treatment units. Inorder to comply with the listing in the absence of the coking exemption, the identified facilities managed

### 56

these ty pes of sludge in Subtitle C landfill units. In addition, to comply with the land disposal restriction requirements specified simultaneously with the listing, they

ultimately

would be managed in Subtitle C thermal destruction (i.e., incineration) units. Therefore, if these facilities do not submit a DSW exclusion notification, they will switch from placing sludge in coking units to hazardous waste incineration units. Thus, f or both the “base case” and th e “upper
-bound” adoption scenarios, future adoption of the 2011 proposed revisions to the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions will likely

be 100% because of the significant increase in materials management costs as RCRA hazardous waste for non - adoption. 

## 3D . Baseline Industrial Waste Disposal Which May Switch to DSW Excluded Recycling 3 D .1 2007 Hazardous Waste Disposal The 2008 DSW final rule may induce more recycling of hazardous wastes which are disposed, because the potential for net cost savings under the new DSW exclusions if wastes are recycled, may provide an economic incentive for some facilities to switchover from dispo sal to recycling, either by

using offsite commercial recyclers, or b y investing in and operating onsite recycling operations. The 2011 DSW proposal rule adds technical provisions to the 2008 DSW final rule that will increase costs for regulated entities to improve Agency enforcement capabilities, which will slightly reduce the economic incentives for some facilities to switchover from disposal to recycling. This RIA onl y evaluates the possibility

of disposal switchover to commercial offsite recycling . The entire quantity of each waste potentiall y 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 generator sends along all the material to the recycler an d 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 waste, in comparison to (b) their current estimated average annual cost for disposal. This RIA estimates the future potential for switchover by appl ying a “ breakeven test” which determines on a micro

- level waste stream -by

- waste stream basis (i.e., not on either 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 least offset b y a minimum of $0.01, the current avera ge annual cost for disposing the waste stream
. The series of Exhibits 3M to 3Q below provide an overview of the 2007 RCRA hazardous waste disposal baseline. As displayed in rows 1 and 2 of Exhibit 3M below, the two beneficial disposa l methods (i.e., H050 onsite burning waste as fuel, and H061 blending waste for use as f uel offsite) are in

- eligible methods for the DSW recycling exclusions, although these two m ethods are displayed in this exhibit only for the purpose of evaluatin g them for potential switchover to future recycling. 11

11 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 affect this desira ble 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.”

### 57 Exhibit 3M Summary of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes by Ultimate* Disposal Method (2007) A B C D E F G H I J (H+I)

Item Disposal method Code Disposal description Count of disposed wa ste streams 2007 Count of Facilities Disposing 2007 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 7,630 61 48 91 714,900 1,049,793 1,764,693 2 H061 Fuel Blending 28,591 30 99 112 83,810 653,591 737,401 Subtotal beneficial disposal = 35,654 89 129 184 798,710 1,703,384 2,502,094 B. Non - Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=22): 1 H040 Incineration 47,713 86 82 140 447,487 583,322 1,030,809 2 H071 Chemical Reduction 1,287 61 23 84 83,588 12,253 95,841 3 H073 Cyanide Destruction 160 23 4 27 12,672 2,262 14,934 4 H075 Chemical Oxidation 301 7 10 15 11,328 78,027 89,355 5 H076 Wet Air Oxidation 7 3 0 3 12 0 12 6 H077 Other Chemical Precipitation 2,955 64 29 92 1,135,328 172,307 1,307,635 7 H081 Biological Treatment 406 29 16 42 1,375,436 24,354 1,399,790 8 H082 Adsorption 117 7 10 17 604,544 2,232 606,776 9 H083 Air Or Steam Stripping 21 6 0 6 487,593 0 487,593 10 H101 Sludge Treatment And/or Dewatering 198 40 9 48 19,381 876 20,258 11 H103 Absorption 29 9 2 11 377,602 4 377,606 12 H111 Stabilization Or Chemical Fixation 9,519 65 47 105 71,766 571,943 643,709 13 H112 Macro
- Encapsulation 671 3 12 14 7 8,443 8,450 14 H121 Neutralization Only 2,389 121 36 153 154,854 85,992 240,846 15 H122 Evaporation 139 36 1 36 18,469 819 19,289 16 H123 Settling Or Clarification 25 10 4 14 17,090 16,875 33,964 17 H124 Phase Separation 77 14 9 22 17,785 303 18,088 18 H129 Other Treatment 5,997 125 53 171 828,645 71,047 899,692 19 H131 Land Treatment Or Application 1,021 7 9 16 1,943 38 1,981 20 H132 Landfill Or Surface Impoundment 6,439 44 40 66 363,900 1,575,558 1,939,459 21 H134 Deepwell Or Underground Injection 808 39 8 41 21,159,200 346,669 21,505,869 22 H135 Discharge To Sewer/POTW Or NPDES 851 61 18 78 1,147,380 38,732 1,186,112

Subtotal non

-beneficial disposal = 77,827 669 219 812 28,336,009 3,592,059 31,928,067

Column totals = 168,123** 724 285 906 29,134,718 (85%) 5,295,443

(15%) 34.43 million*

(100%) Explanatory Notes: * Ultimate disposal = Some hazardous wastes undergo one or more sequential treatment methods prior to ultimate disposal. This exhibit represents ultimate disposal methods from Form GM, Section 2 for onsite disposal, and Form WR for offsite disposal. Tonnage s 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 transfer does not represent ultimate disposal. ** However, waste stream counts include wastes managed by H141 only, of which there were a total of 58,958 Form GMs. 107,877 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). Thus, 1,288 Form GMs reported wastes managed by a mix of recycle and disposal methods. Waste stream counts are based on Form GM reporting.

### 58 Exhibit 3N Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes ( 2007) A B C D (B+C) E F G H (F+G)

Item Economic Subsector

(2

- digit NAICS Code) Generation Location of Disposed ( Tons Per Year) * Disposal Location of Disposed ( Tons Per Year)* Count of facilities Generation

disposed Onsite Generation

shipped offsite for disposal Total generation

disposed Count of

facilities Beneficial

disposal** Non
beneficial disposal*** Total disposal 1 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 21
- 576 576
- - - - 2 21 Mining 105 394 14,150 14,544 3
- 395 395 3 22 Utilities 427 2,578 114,618 117,195 8 1 4,653 4,654 4 23 Construction 274
- 30,273 30,273 1
- 45 45 5 31 Manufacturing 141 6,491 8,959 15,450 4
- 6,491 6,491 6 32 Manufacturing 3,667 24,259,312 1,675,385 25,934,697 280 1,726,278 23,796,832 25,523,110 7 33 Manufacturing 5,100 2,817,623 1,247,439 4,065,061 270 70 2,794,170 2,794,240 8 42 Wholesale Trade 507 514,734 79,735 594,469 15 12,179 508,707 520,886 9 44 Retail Trade 128
- 1,293 1,293
- - - - 10 45 Retail Trade 50
- 1,237 1,237 1 < 0.5
- < 0 .5 11 48 Transportation 626 385,256 51,871 437,127 16 18 386,440 386,459 12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers, Storage 235 37 28,480 28,517 6 5 93 97 13 51 Information 36 1,682 7,202 8,884 15 1,775 1,775 14 52 Finance & Insurance 6
- 791 791
- - - - 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 84 < 0 .5 35,491 35,491 9 < 0 .5 3,496 3,496 16 54 Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 471 86,340 26,782 113,122 25 86,435 86,435 17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 6 132,074 130 132,204 1 132,074 132,074 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 624 968,471 1,946,933 2,915,404 177 763,511 4,152,545 4,916,056 19 61 Educational Services 350 39 13,725 13,764 19 9 37 47 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 232 4 11,637 11,641 5
- 4 4 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 28
- 1,924 1,924
- - - - 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 5
- 11,478 11,478
- - - - 23 81 Other Services 188 3,644 19,837 23,480 2
- 3,644 3,644 24 92 Public Administration 363 45,959 120,488 166,446 49 21 50,233 50,254 Column totals = 13, 674 29, 134,718 (84%) 5,450,433

(16%) 34. 675* million

(100%) 906 2, 502 , 094 ( 7 %) 31,928,067

( 93 %) 34. 43 million*

(100%) Explanatory Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2007 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br07/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 disposal 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 received by the offsite disposal 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.

### 59 Exhibit 3O Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) 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 21,127 211,928 233,055 2 G02 Stripping and acid or caustic cleaning 2,732 100,010 102,742 3 G03 Plating & phosphating 652 323,836 324,488 4 G04 Etching 155 730,984 731,139 5 G05 Metal forming & treatment 672 176,742 177,415 6 G06 Painting & coating 62,493 126,379 188,872 7 G07 Product & by

-product processing 338,144 9,827,034 10,165,178 8 G08 Removal of spent process liquids or catalysts 163,000 3,780,370 3,943,370 9 G09 Other production or service

- related processes 129,148 1,901,204 2,030,352 Subtotal daily production, service or maintenance processes = 718,123 17,178,487 17,896,611 10 G11 Discarding off

- spec or out - of

- date chemicals or products 75,564 110,513 186,077 11 G12 Lagoon or sediment dragout and leachate collection 7 7,140 7,147 12 G13 Cleaning

- out process equipment 92,385 473,166 565,551 13 G14 Removal of tank sludge, sediments or slag 50,743 85,043 135,786 14 G15 Process equipment change

- out or discontinuation of use 7,046 58,968 66,015 15 G16 Oil changes and filter or battery replacement 4,753 2,198 6,951 16 G19 Other one

- time or intermittent processes 6,985 158,184 165,169 Subtotal one

- time or intermittent events or processes = 237,484 895,212 1,132,696 17 G21 Air pollution control devices 863 1,996,120 1,996,983 18 G22 Lab analytical wastes 12,280 17,258 29,538 19 G23 Wastewater treatment 30,832 3,865,817 3,896,650 20 G24 Solvent or product distillation or recovery 479,777 2,398,634 2,878,411 21 G25 Hazardous waste management 422,601 1,030,141 1,452,743 22 G26 Leachate collection 10 524,681 524,691 23 G27 Hazardous residual from treatment or recovery of universal waste 34 13,908 13,942 Subtotal pollution control & waste management residuals = 946,398 9,846,559 10,792,957 24 G31 Accidental contamination of products, materials, containers 919 2,848 3,767 25 G32 Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not routine) 1,868 41,543 43,411 26 G33 Leak collection & floor sweeping ongoing, routine) 807 9,109 9,916 27 G39 Other cleanup of current contamination 684 11,588 12,273 Subtotal spills & accidental releases = 4,278 65,088 69,366 28 G41 Closure of hazardous waste management unit under RCRA 102 5,924 6,025 29 G42 Correction action at solid waste mgmt unit under RCRA 174 3,320,649 3,320,823 30 G43 Remedial action or emergency response under CERCLA 193 159,213 159,407 31 G44 State program or voluntary cleanup 361 633,197 633,559 32 G45 Underground storage tank cleanup 1,819 8,653 10,472

### 60 Exhibit 3O Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) 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) 33 G49 Other remediation 7,038 90,240 97,278 Subtotal remediation of past contamination = 9,688 4,217,877 4,227,565 34 G61 Received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite 300,627 246,466 547,093 35 G63 to G75 Im

ported from a foreign country 8,750 32 8,782 Subtotal not physically generated onsite = 309,377 246,497 555,875 36 G?? Source code not provided 0 0 0 Column totals = 2,225,350 (6%) 32,449,721

(94%) 34.675 million*

(100%) Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2007 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br07/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

### 61 Exhibit 3P Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) 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 1,998 9,159 11,156 2 W002 Contaminated debris 15,294 98,864 114,158 3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste 281 8,664 8,945 4 W301 Contaminated soil 1,014 737,724 738,738 5 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings 6 5,110 5,116 6 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon 7,270 30,721 37,991 7 W320 Electrical devices 165 678 843 8 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds 54 6,120 6,174 9 W801 Com

pressed gases 2,968 6,507 9,475

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices = 29,048 903,547 932,595 10 W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water 4,856 9,386,198 9,391,055 11 W103 Spent concentrated acid 1,108 1,517,271 1,518,379 12 W105 Acidic aqueous wa stes <5% acid 803 4,260,407 4,261,210 13 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 7 44,282 44,289 14 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters 1,419 1,277,680 1,279,100 15 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters 12,771 5,512,079 5,524,850 16 W117 Waste liquid mercury 2 63 65 17 W119 Other inorganic liquid 30,880 463,728 494,608 Subtotal inorganic liquids = 51,847 22,461,709 22,513,556 18 W200 Still bottoms liquid form 156,903 35,597 192,501 19 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent 14,585 38,804 53,388 20 W203 Concentrated non

- halogenated solvent 317,076 100,161 417,237 21 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non

- halo solvent mixture 286,702 69,556 356,258 22 W205 Oil

- water emulsion/mixture 48,863 30,222 79,085 23 W206 Waste oil 28,975 4,895 33,869 24 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish 68,842 10,939 79,781 25 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives 18,522 31,307 49,829 26 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates 47,654 4,641 52,295 27 W219 Other organic liquid 836,277 6,472,946 7,309,222 Subtotal organic liquids = 1,824,397 6,799,068 8,623,465 28 W303 Ash 4 113,751 113,754 29 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues 31 616,043 616,074 30 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums) 238 26,185 26,423 31 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems 4 52,389 52,393 32 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide 175 34,129 34,304 33 W319 Other inorganic solids 12,861 426,324 439,186

### 62 Exhibit 3P Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) A B C (A+B)
Item Biennial Report Physical Form Code Beneficial disposal** (tons/year) Non
-beneficial

disposal*** (tons/year) Total disposal

(tons/year) Subtotal inorganic solids = 13,313 1,268,821 1,282,134 34 W401 Pesticide solids 154 12,067 12,222 35 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics 18,261 16,163 34,424 36 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids 16 26,138 26,154 37 W409 Other organic solids 46,981 171,478 218,458 Subtotal organic solids = 65,412 225,846 291,258 38 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 110 57,270 57,380 39 W503 Gy

psum sludges from wastewater or air treatment 4,947 4,947 40 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment 4,556 136,597 141,152 41 W505 Metal bearing sludges 241 21,802 22,043 42 W506 Cyanide

-bearing sludges 23 10,991 11,014 43 W519 Other inorganic sludges 314 16,891 17,205 Subtotal inorganic sludges = 5,243 248,497 253,741 44 W603 Oily sludge 40,397 46,430 86,827 45 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms 13,575 9,229 22,803 46 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry slu dge 41,242 2,747 43,989 47 W609 Other organic sludge 100,003 8,244 108,248 Subtotal organic sludges = 195,217 66,650 261,867 48 W??? Phy sical form code not provided 40,871 475,583 516,455 (2.3%) Totals = 2,225,350

(6%) 32,449,721

(94%) 34.675 million*

(100%) Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2007 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br07/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

### 63 Exhibit 3Q Waste Codes Assigned to Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) A B C (A+B)
Item RCRA Waste Code Beneficial disposal** (tons/year) Non
-beneficial

disposal*** (tons/year) Total disposal (tons/year) 1 Dxxx 1 or more toxicity leaching test waste codes

only 947,390 19,697,523 20,644,913 60% 2 Fxxx 1 or more non - specific industrial source waste

codes only 106,593 1,253,323 1,359,916 4% 3 Kxxx 1 or more specific industrial source waste codes

only 99,508 2,457,817 2,557,325 7% 4 Pxxx 1 or more “acutely hazardous” discarded or off

spec commercial chemical products, container residues & spill residues thereof 37 9,355 9,392 < 1% 5 Uxxx 1 or more “toxic waste” commercial chemical

products, manufacturing intermediates, or off

spec commercial chemical products 1,866 28,963 30,829 < 1% 6 Mixed Assigned with multiple waste codes from 2 or

mo re categories above 1,069,956 9,002,468 10,072,424 29% 7 ???? Waste code not provided 0 272 272 < 1% Column totals = 2,225,350 32,449,721 34.675 million* 100% Notes: * Data Source: EPA 2007 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/br07/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

### 64



## 3D.2 M ethodology 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 phys ical quality for recovery The purpose of these complementary screening steps is to identify the baseline disposal quantities (i.e., 200 7 tons per year) that may be physicall y and chemically sufficient for potential future switchover to recycling under the DSW final rule exclusions. The baseline disposal ty pes and associated annual quantities which remain after appl ying this 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 stream s to obtain the pot ential economic benefits of the DSW final rule. Before presenting the two

- step screening process and results below, there are two possible observations about the baseline disposal data presented in Exhibits 3O, 3P and 3Q above. Taken together these two observations suggest that 76% to 77 % of the baseline disposal hazardous wastes should not be expected, a priori , to yield break

- even switchover recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule. This percentage range represents a lower

- bound and upper

-bound range produced by alternatively

assuming complete overlap and assuming no overlap between the two observations, respectivel y.

 Disposal Data Observation 1 : Low quality physical form of baseline disposal hazardous wastes: Based on the phys ical form data presented in Exhibit 3N, a relativel y large 76% segment of the 34. 675 million tons of baseline disposal appears to be low quality in terms of potential commodity recovery (recycling) efficiency

and market value. Exhibit 3P row 10 Disposal of W101 Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water 9. 39 million tons 2 7.1 % Exhibit 3P row 12 Disposal of W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 4.2 6 million tons 12. 3 % Exhibit 3P row 15 Disposal of W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters n.e.c. 5. 52 million tons 15. 9 % Exhibit 3P row 27 Disposal of W219 Other organic liquid n.e.c. 7. 31 million tons 21. 1 % Subtotal = 26. 5 million tons 76%  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, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx waste codes: Exhibit 3O row 3 6 Disposal data without Gxx source codes 0 million tons 0 % Exhibit 3P row 48 Disposal data without Wxxx physical form codes 0. 52 million tons 1.4 % Exhibit 3Q row 7 Disposal data without Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx < 0 .001 million tons 0% Subtotal = 0.52 million tons ( 1% )

### 65

Consequently , 1% of baseline disposal cannot be evaluated in this RIA for break

- even switchover, because the switchover methodology is based on using these codes as primary screening selection criteria for assigning to recycling commodity groupings as describe d below in Exhib it 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 reco very , 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 three 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 selec tion criteria involving 43 different Biennial Report (BR) and RCRA waste codes:

 Wxxx: 16 BR physical/chemical form code s  Gxx: 4 BR industrial process/activity source codes  Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx: 23 RCRA regulatory waste codes EPA identified and assigned the screening codes in each criteria based on determining whether each of these codes pertained to metals, solvents, or to other ty

pes of materials contained in the wastes which might be amenable for recovery in the three commodity groups. The disposed quantities (i.e., 2007 tons) presented in Exhibits 3O to 3Q above will not match the disposed quantities presented in Exhib its 3S to 3W below (which are applied in the breakeven test of this RIA). Exhibits 3K to 3O (except for column B of Exhibit 3N as noted previously) present the national baseline disposal picture based on the 2007 BR reporting logic. Given the numbers in Exhibits 3M to 3Q are intended to add

- up to the totals presented in the 2007 BR, a compatible BR database query logic was used to complete those exhibits. However, the resultant disposed quantities presented in Exhibits 3M to 3Q are higher than those used in the breakeven test as presented in Exhibits 3S to 3W below . The difference in disposed quantities between these two sets of exhibits is due to the following technical reasons per taining to (a) how the BR data reporting forms are structured/designed and (b) there are different BR data reporting forms which separately target LQGs (i.e., “Form GM”) and TSDFs (i.e., “Form WR”): 1. The onsite quantity

disposed totals in Exhibit 3M (column G) from the 2007 BR are sums of the numbers reported in BR Form GM, Sec. 1, F. Quantity

Generated in 2007 (see attached 2007 BR Form GM). The on

- site quantity disposed totals used in the analysis are those reported in Form GM, Sec. 2, On

- site Process System 1 and On

- site Process S ys tem 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 2007 was recovered in 2007

. 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 physicall y g enerated on site (see Exhibit 3O , Item 34) by the generator.

### 66

3. The off

- site management totals in Exhibit 3K (column H) from the 2007 BR are based on waste receipts (i.e., wastes reported received from off site for management on Form WR). The off

- site management totals used in the cost anal ysis are based on reported shipments on Form GM. The quantities reported shipped for off

- site recovery

in Form GM, Sec. 3, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 are used. 4. Step 2 of this data screening methodology is presented in Exhibit 3S below where screening selection criteria are applied to baseline disposal data th at eliminate much of the disposed quantities presented in Exhibits 3Ithrough 3O.
Exhibit 3R Primary Screening Selection Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Data for Evaluating Potential Future Switchover to Recycling Under the DSW Final Rule Exclusion s

(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=38)  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

### 67 Exhibit 3R (continued) Primary Screening Selection Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Data for Evaluating Potential Future Switchover to Recycling Under 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 #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 & co ating 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 wa stes 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 Explanatory Notes:  * IF THEN = The three criteria in this exhibit represent sequential database query criteria within each waste type row. Firs t 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).  **T here are a total 47 Wxxx codes, 47 Gxxx codes, 40 Dxxx codes, 28 Fxxx codes, 120 Kxxx, co des, 205 Pxxx codes, and , 612 Uxxxx codes defined for data reporting to the RCRA Biennial Report (BR): .for complete lists see pp. 49 to 54 of the 2007 BR instructions book at: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br07/07report.pdf  *** Upon revie w of

W103 spent acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or caustic cleaning, and G05 metal forming and treatment waste streams nearl y all the waste is not suitable for switchover to off

- site other recovery. Much of the waste are dilute acid wastes that are disp osed in on

- site waste water treatment systems followed by POTW/sewer 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 resource 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 smal l to carry forward through the analysis.

### 68

 Step 2: Secondary 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 consideration 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 six elements as follows: (1) Remove disposed waste records that were residuals from hazardous waste management processes. Residuals generated b y either (a) current materials recovery operations (H010, H020, H039), (b) energy/fuel recovery operations (H050, H061), or (c) thermal destructive treatment processes (H040), are assumed not to have a high content of recoverable material and are assumed will c ontinue to be disposed. This corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records with source code G25. Disposed wastes with RCRA waste 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. (2) 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 likel y t o be recoverable given they are not generated in a controlled process environment (i.e., remediation wastes involve spills and releases to the environment). Given their one - time nature of generation, generato rs are unlikely to go through the no tification process for a DSW exclusion for a one

- time waste generation event. This corresponds 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

-periodic activities G12, G15, G19. (3) Remove disposed wastes with waste descriptions containing the word “debris” from the data set. The material values from these wastes are less likel y to be recoverable given they are not generated in a controlled process environment. Given their one

- time nature of generation, generators are unlikely to go through the notification process for a DSW exclusion fo r a one - time waste generation event. (4) Remove wastes with waste descriptions indicating they are “rinsewaters” or “groundwaters” to ensure the phy sical quality of the waste (i.e., the minimal recoverable material concentration) is technicall y sufficient for recovery . These dilute aqueous

-based wastes ty picall y do not contain recoverable fractions of valuable materials. This screening criterion was onl y 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 wastes less than 5% acid. (5) Remove some miscellaneous disposed wastes: a. Onsite Commodity

Group #2 baseline disposal quantities were primarily disposed by

non -benef

icial incineration (H040), or by beneficial energy

recovery (H050), or beneficial fuel blending (H061). For the purposes of this RIA, it is assumed that faci lities 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 rule 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 switchover to materials recovery under the DSW 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 three waste codes (i.e., H040, H050, H061) to the breakeven

### 69 test for switchover 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 allow s reporting together in this single code, four different ty pes of materials : (1) filters, (2) solid adsorbents, (3) ion exchange resins, and (4) spent carbons. Because of lack of characterizing data on the other three waste ty pes, only spent carbon from these f our waste ty pes is evaluated in this RIA for potential switchover to recovery . (6) Because of the fact there are tens of thousands of individual waste streams in the Biennial Report database for any given dat a year, it is beyond the time and resource constraints of this RIA to individually examine each narrative comment for bas eline disposed wastes containing these "other" code sub

- categories to determine whether 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 anal yz ed elsewhere in this RIA for potential DSW exclusion de

- regulatory

cost savings. The “other” form codes already were removed b y their exclusion from the “primary” screening selection criteria.
Exhibit 3S Summary of Outcome of Primary & Secondary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Wastes to be Evaluated for Switchover to Recycling Secondary Selection Criteria Remaining & Removed Disposal Quantities ( 2007 tons per year) Total Remaining Baseline Disposal Quantity ( 2007 tons per year) 

### A. Primary Selection Criteria: Commodity Group 1 Commodity Group 2 Commodity Group 3 Total Baseline Disposed Quantity Remaining 1,187,260 985,788 225,486 2 , 398 , 53 4 2 , 398 , 53 4 

### B. Secondary Screening Criteria: 1. Remove Source Code G25

- 211,055 2,187,479 2. Remove Wastes Generated by Non

- Continuous Processes

- 114,756 2,072,723 3. Remove Debris

- Wastes
- 14,950 2,057,773 4. Remove Rinsewaters and Groundwaters

- 15,270 2 , 042 , 50 3 5. Remove Other Waste Specific Quantity

- 178,020 1 , 8 64,483 6. Remove “Other Treatment” Quantity

- 54,401 1.81 million

### 70



## 3D .3 Resultant Screening Selection Quantities of Baseline Disposal that May Switchover to Recycling Exhibits 3T through 3W below present the resultant ty pes and quantities ( i.e., tons per ye ar in relation to the baseline data ye ar 2007 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)

. Exhibit 3T

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Ultimate* Disposal Method (2007) A B C D E F (D+E) G H I (G+H)

Item Disposal Method Code Disposal Description 2007 Count of Facilities Disposing 2007 To ns 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 1 769 769 0 133,306 133,306 2 H061 Fuel Blending 1 4,782 4,782 0 196,461 196,461 Subtotal beneficial disposal =

--- --- --- 0 329,767 329,767 B. Non - Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=23): 1 H040 Incineration 1 1,968 1,968 0 124,701 124,701 2 H071 Chemical Reduction 10 55 63 11,939 1,206 13,145 3 H073 Cyanide Destruction 17 60 75 4,698 2,536 7,234 4 H075 Chemical Oxidation 3 14 15 24 1,547 1,571 5 H076 Wet Air Oxidation 1 1 1 0 6 H077 Other Chemical Precipitation 11 142 151 1,086 4,730 5,815 7 H081 Biological Treatment 7 8 13 1,525 1,718 3,242 8 H082 Adsorption 1 6 6 0 1,080 1,080 9 H083 Air Or Steam Stripping 1 3 3 0 9 9 10 H101 Sludge Treatment And/or Dewatering 26 45 69 1,937 977 2,914 11 H103 Absorption 1 1 1 0 14 14 12 H111 Stabilization Or Chemical Fixation 17 755 765 57,998 215,079 273,077 13 H112 Macro
- Encapsulation 1 27 27 0 827 827 14 H121 Neutralization Only 5 47 50 49 955 1,004 15 H122 Evaporation 10 10 17 1,151 153 1,303 16 H123 Settling Or Clarification 3 2 3 5 0 5 17 H124 Phase Separation 3 10 11 238 242 480 18 H129 Other Treatment 1 1 1 0 19 H131 Land Treatment Or Application 3 68 69 6 13,405 13,411 20 H132 Landfill Or Surface Impoundment 11 525 533 199,196 327,306 526,502

### 71 Exhibit 3T Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Ultimate* Disposal Method (2007) A B C D E F (D+E) G H I (G+H)

Item Disposal Method Code Disposal Description 2007 Count of Facilities Disposing 2007 To ns Disposed (management tons/year)
Onsite Offsite

(Shipped) Total

(non

duplicative) Onsite

(tons/year) Offsite

(tons/year) Total

(tons/year) 21 H134 Deepwell Or Underground Injection 2 36 36 2,090 3,231 5,320 22 H135 Discharge To Sewer/POTW Or NPDES 11 58 66 1,207 684 1,891 23 H141 Site receiving waste stored/bulked &

transferred the waste with no treatment or recovery, fuel blending, or disposal at the receiving site. 150 4,607 4,692 106,812 219,960 326,772 24 H??? Disposal method not provided 1 884 884 0 170,144 170,144 Subtotal non

-beneficial disposal =

--- --- --- 389,959 1,090,504 1,480,463

Column totals =

--- --- --- 389,959 (22%) 1,420,271

(78%) 1.81 million

(100%) Note: * Ultimate disposal = Some hazardous wastes undergo one or more sequential 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.

### 72 Ex hibit 3U Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposed Hazardous Wastes for Recycling Breakeven Test By Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing RCRA Hazardous Wastes Wh ich are Currently Disposed (2007)* 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 0 241 241 0 0 0 2 21 Mining 0 704 704 0 626 626 3 22 Utilities 20 4,059 4,080 0 34 34 4 23 Construction 0 11,830 11,830 0 0 0 5 31 Manufacturing 16 5,104 5,120 0 16 16 6 32 Manufacturing 6,433 412,374 418,807 121,475 176,087 297,562 7 33 Manufacturing 119,096 702,120 821,216 21 140,496 140,517 8 42 Wholesale Trade 10 11,118 11,129 2,301 4,636 6,937 9 44 Retail Trade 0 141 141 0 0 0 10 45 Retail Trade 0 153 153 0 0 0 11 48 Transportation 205 3,939 4,145 23 862 885 12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers Storage 1 6,772 6,773 5 120 124 13 51 Information 457 1,972 2,429 2 599 601 14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 2 2 0 0 0 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 107 367 474 0 127 127 16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 20 9,088 9,108 155 102 258 17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 84 84 0 0 0 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 261,581 208,989 470,570 196,580 1,109,975 1,306,555 19 61 Educational Services 0 3,491 3,492 0 156 156 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 2 3,248 3,250 0 4 4 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 196 196 0 0 0 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 0 2 2 0 0 0 23 81 Other Services 14 4,375 4,389 10 22 32 24 92 Public Administration 1,995 29,901 31,896 15 2,251 2,266 25 ?? NAICS code not reported 0 0 0 9,180 44,351 53,531 (3.0%) Column totals = 389,959 (2 2 %) 1,420,2 71

(7 8 %) 1.81 million

(100%) 329 , 7 67 ( 18 %) 1 , 480 ,463

( 82 %) 1.81 million

(100%) Explanatory Notes: Data Source: EPA 2007 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR): 

### http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br07/index.htm * 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

### 73 Exhibit 3V Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Industries Generating Disposed Hazardous Wastes (2007)

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 8 233 0 241 2 21 Mining 264 315 125 704 3 22 Utilities 3,745 328 7 4,080 4 23 Construction 11,193 636 0 11,830 5 31 Manufacturing 1,995 3,124 1 5,120 6 32 Manufacturing 51,210 362,191 5,406 418,807 7 33 Manufacturing 710,045 91,992 19,179 821,216 8 42 Wholesale Trade 1,387 9,712 29 11,129 9 44 Retail Trade 7 134 0 141 10 45 Retail Trade 21 132 0 153 11 48 Transportation 902 3,212 30 4,145 12 49 Postal, Couriers, Messengers, Storage 3,233 3,429 111 6,773 13 51 Information 22 2,384 23 2,429 14 52 Finance & Insurance 2 0 0 2 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 175 299 0 474 16 54 Professional, Scientific & Tech Services 379 8,722 7 9,108 17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 1 84 0 84 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation 216,667 94,507 159,396 470,570 19 61 Educational Services 299 3,189 4 3,492 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 228 3,022 0 3,250 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 30 167 0 196 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 0 2 0 2 23 81 Other Services 899 3,491 0 4,389 24 92 Public Administration 27,804 4,042 50 31,896 25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0 0 Column totals = 1,030, 515 (57%) 595, 34 5

(33%) 184,369

(10%) 1.81 million

(100%)

### 74 Exhibit 3W Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) A B C D (A+B+C)
Item Biennial Report Phy sical 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 0 0 0 0 2 W002 Contaminated debris 0 0 0 0 3 W004 Lab packs w/acute haz waste 0 0 0 0 4 W301 Contaminated soil 0 0 0 0 5 W309 Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings 0 0 0 0 6 W310 Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins,

spent carbon 0 0 7,114 7,114 7 W320 Electrical devices 0 0 0 0 8 W512 Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or

other muds 0 0 0 0 9 W801 Com

pressed gases 0 0 0 0 Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices = 0 0 7,114 7,114 10 W101 Very

dilute aqueous waste >99% water 0 0 0 0 11 W103 Spent concentrated acid 0 0 0 0 12 W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 0 0 0 0 13 W107 Aqueous waste containing cyanides 12,643 0 0 12,643 14 W110 Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters 0 0 0 0 15 W113 Other aqueous waste or wastewaters 0 0 1 1 16 W117 Waste liquid mercury 110 0 0 110 17 W119 Other inorganic liquid 0 0 0 0 Subtotal inorganic liquids = 12,753 0 1 12,754 18 W200 Still bottoms liquid form 0 0 0 0 19 W202 Concentrated halogenated solvent 0 20,728 0 20,728 20 W203 Concentrated non

- halogenated solvent 0 211,722 0 211,722 21 W204 Concentrated halogenated/non

- halo solvent

mixture 0 148,274 0 148,274 22 W205 Oil

- water emulsion/mixture 0 0 0 0 23 W206 Waste oil 0 0 0 0 24 W209 Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish 0 75,746 0 75,746 25 W210 Reactive or polymerizable organic

liquids/adhesives 0 0 0 0 26 W211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates 0 33,747 0 33,747 27 W219 Other organic liquid 0 0 0 0 Subtotal organic liquids = 0 490,217 0 490,217 28 W303 Ash 83,629 0 0 83,629

### 75 Exhibit 3W Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven Test by Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2007) A B C D (A+B+C)
Item Biennial Report Phy sical Form Code Commodity Group 1 disposal (tons/year) Commodity

Group 2 disposal (tons/year) Commodity

Group 3 disposal (tons/year) Total disposal

(tons/year) 29 W304 Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues 398,635 0 158,619 557,254 30 W307 Metal scale, filings, scrap (incl. drums) 21,654 0 0 21,654 31 W312 Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids,

salts, chems 24,024 0 0 24,024 32 W316 Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide 28,938 0 0 28,938 33 W319 Other inorganic solids 4,574 0 0 4,574 Subtotal inorganic solids = 561,454 0 158,619 720,073 34 W401 Pesticide solids 0 0 0 0 35 W403 Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics 0 0 0 0 36 W405 Explosives or reactive organic solids 0 0 11,769 11,769 37 W409 Other organic solids 0 0 6,670 6,670 Subtotal organic solids = 0 0 18,439 18,439 38 W501 Lime or metal hydroxide sludges 59,135 0 0 59,135 39 W503 Gy

psum sludges from wastewater or air treatment 0 0 0 0 40 W504 Other sludges from wastewater or air

treatment 0 0 196 196 41 W505 Metal bearing sludges 20,449 0 0 20,449 42 W506 Cyanide

-bearing sludges 10,112 0 0 10,112 43 W519 Other inorganic sludges 0 0 0 0 Subtotal inorganic sludges = 89,695 0 196 89,891 44 W603 Oily sludge 0 0 0 0 45 W604 Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms 0 0 0 0 46 W606 Resins, tars, polymer, tarry slu dge 0 0 0 0 47 W609 Other organic sludge 0 0 0 0 Subtotal organic sludges = 0 0 0 0 48 W??? Phy sical form code not provided 366,613 105,128 0 471,741 Totals = 1,030,515 (56%) 595,345

(33%) 184,369

(10%) 1.81 million

(100%) Notes: Data Source: EPA 2007 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report: 

### http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/data/br07/index.htm * 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 + H13 1 + H132 + H134 + H135 + H141.

### 76



## 3 D .4 Baseline Rate of 2008 DSW Exclusions for Hazardous Wastes Diverted from Disposal to Recycling As described above in Section 3C, the 2007 RCRA Biennial Report (BR) data summarized in this RIA do not reflect the (baseline ) diversion of hazardous wastes from disposal to DSW

- excluded recycling resulting from the 2008 DSW final rule. To quantify the ba seline for anal ys is of the 2011 DSW proposed rule, this RIA adjusts the 2007 BR data to reflect the exclusions included in the 2008 DSW final rule. The rate of DSW exclusion notifications (i.e., annual count of facilities adopting the exclusions) assumed for baseline industrial recycling as discussed in Section 3D (i.e., 21 facilities per year), will also apply to the baseline disposal which may switch

- over to recycling, as presented in this chapter.

### 77 

# C HAPTER 

# 4 Estim ate of Baseline Regulatory Cost Savings to Industry for the Existing DSW Recycling Exclusions
4A. Baseline Cost Savings Estimation Methodology Prior to the 2008 DSW final rule, RCRA facilities engaged in recycling had to comply with 14 elements of RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements as listed below in Exhibit 4A. This included facilities that were already rec ycling (i.e., reported wastes man aged by metals, solvent or other recovery in the 2007 BR) and facilities that were not yet recycling but might if costs decreased (i.e., disp osed wastes with possible metal, solvent or other material recovery value as defined in Exhibit 3R). In 2008, EPA issued the DSW final rule which provided the opportunity

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 final rule created 12 terms/conditions that need to be met to obtain a recycling exclusion. Exhibit 4B below lists the 12 conditions. Costs are incurred b y industries to meet these 12 conditions. EPA estimated these co st savings and costs in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” (RIA) for the October 2008 DSW final rule. For the 2011 DSW proposed rule these costs need to be adjusted for chan ges in quantity since 2008, changes in the number of affected facilities since 2008, inflation, and the rate at which facilities have submitted exclusion notifications between December 2008 and April 201 1 . In addition, the population of affected baseline facilities needs to be expanded to include pre

- 2008 exclusions which must meet technical provisions under the 2011 DSW proposed rule. This chapter updates findings from 2008 adjusting them to conditions in 201 1
. This chapter presents estimates for baseline (i.e., current) regulatory cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW final rule e xclusions and the pre - 2008 DSW exclusions. Baseline cost savings associated with the DSW exclusions, as defined in this RIA include: 1. Avoided industry

regulatory

costs associated with the 14 elements of RCRA administrative burden. 2. Minus the industry

costs associated with meeting the 12 conditions established by the 2008 DSW final rule to obtain a DSW exclusion. 3. Plus additional industry cost savings resulting from longer accumulation times and de

- regulated management requirements for residuals under the 200 8 DSW final rule. 4. The technical provisions of the 2011 DSW proposed revisions will add regulatory costs reducing the baseline cost savings asso ciated with the 2008 DSW final rule. The costs associated with the 2011 DSW technical provisions are presented in the next chapter. Baseline RCRA regulatory burden costs

--- consisting of administrative paperwork burden plus technical standards burden

--- may be eliminated with changes in RCRA regulatory status of the industrial materials and industrial facilities under each 2008 DSW final rule exclusion. As itemized in Exhibit 4A, the 2008 DSW RIA estimated 14 elements of b aseline RCRA regulatory burden on the regulated

### 78

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 manageme nt units, waste transport manife sting, 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

managing a facility’s RCRA hazardous wastes as hazardous materials under the 2008 DSW exclusions

. Also, because of the 2008 DSW final rule the generator status of a facility may change when recycled wastes are no longer counted as hazardous waste under the 2008 DSW final rule, resulting in a reduction or elimination of some RCRA baseline burden . The non

- recycled quantity of hazardous waste a facility generates determine s its generator status and continued RCRA regulatory burden

. For example , if L QGs, SQGs, and CESQGs recycle more waste they may further reduce their generator status (i.e., switch from L QG to SQG, or switch from LQG to CESQG, o r 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 exclusio ns 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 per sonnel training, biennial reporting of hazardous waste generation and management activities, and preparation of contingency plans ). As part of the 2008 DSW final rule industry had to meet 12 conditions associated with the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusi ons to obtain an exclusion from the definition of solid waste . For example, one condition is the requirement to notif y RCRA
- authorized state governments (or EPA regional offices) for excluded materials, which represents an implementation cost for complian ce with the de

- regulatory exclusions under the 2008 DSW final rule

. Exhibit 4B p resents a summary of the 12 baseline conditions for the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. Implementation of the se conditions however may affect facility

onsite waste accumulation practices, waste shipping, and waste treatment residual management operations creating additional cost savings, for example:

 Example 1 : The resulting changes in generator status from LQG to SQG, to CESQG, or to non

- generator status, will allow lo nger accumulation times, resulting in larger truckloads for shipment. With larger truckloads minimum management charges (higher unit costs, $/ton) may

be avoided. Longer accumulation times will result in few shipments and reduced total shipping costs.

 Example 2 : In addition, the 2008 DSW final rule may cause residuals (e.g., ash, distillation bottoms) generated from the recycling processes to be no longer regulated as “derived

- from” RCRA hazardous wastes (RCRA 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(I)). Management of previously

“listed” hazardous residuals may shi ft 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 corrosivity, 261.23 reactivity , and 261.24 toxicity ).

### 79 Ex hibit 4 A 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 wa ste 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 compliance 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 rene wal 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 wa ste is reclaimed under a contractual agreement Not required See Generator Requirements Cost savings incurred if recycled waste

not defined as a hazardous waste or if generator becomes a SQG (with contract agreement) or CESQG with exclusion. 9 Preparedness & Required Not Required Not Required Required Cost savings incurred if generator

### 80 Ex hibit 4 A 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 prevention 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 material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or volume of the material at the beginning of the period. 180 days [or 270 days if transported more than 200 miles] “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 that material at the beginning of the period. 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.

Column total requirements = 11 7 0 14

### 81 Exhibit 4B Summary of 12 Baseline Condition s for EPA’s 2008 Final Rule Am endments to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

Conditions Exclusion 1: Generator Controlled Recycling Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion 3:

Case
-by

- Case Variance Potential Baseline Cost s Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions 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 ob tain the signature of a corporate official. 4 Generator submits petition to EPA to demonstrate that materials are not solid wa stes 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 will be incurred by generator to maintain records of materials shipments to offsite recycling.

6 Confirmation of shipment receipt Yes Yes N/A Costs will be incurred by (a) offsite recycler to confirm to generator receipt of shipment, and (b) generator to maintain record of confirmation receipts. 7 Recyc ler has liability insurance for accidents No Yes N/A This RIA assumes no additional costs will be incurred because assumes 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 N o additional costs are assumed because all facilities will ensure containment to avoid CERCLA liability and RCRA corrective action for leaks/spills. 10 Residuals derived from recycling managed in No Yes N/A Assume all entities are currently treating r esiduals as listed waste, so cost savings will be incurred because “listed” waste definitions will no

### 82 Exhibit 4B Summary of 12 Baseline Condition s for EPA’s 2008 Final Rule Am endments to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

Conditions Exclusion 1: Generator Controlled Recycling Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion 3:

Case
-by

- Case Variance Potential Baseline Cost s Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions environmentally

protective manner longer 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 262.53; 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 fo ur “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 not di stinguish and include the five sub

- elements of item 11 due diligence for Exclusion 2 , and (c) do not distinguish and include the nine criteria for making a non

- waste determination under Exclusion 3.. This more detailed sub

- itemization of requirements exc eeds the impact estimation level

- of

- detail of this RIA Addition of these 18 omitted sub

- items would increase the total count of conditions to 10 for Exclusion 1, to 20 for Exclusion 2, and to 15 for Exclusion 3.

### 83

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 disposed

. For the 2008 DSW final rule, estimates were made of the potential new future industrial recycling that may be induced by

the DSW exclusions. The induced new recycling estimates are based on appl ying a financial “breakeven test” to estimate the portion o f basel ine hazardous wastes which might switchover from disposal (either onsite or offsite disposal) to offsite recycling. This switchover impact represents a relatively

less certain, hy

pothetical 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 anal ys is” method often used by EPA : 12



### “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 underl ying rationale for this disposal switchover scenario is that excluding metal

- , solvent

- , and other chemical

-bearing wastes that are recycled, is expected to make it more eco nomical for waste generators and for waste recycling facilities to recover valuable chemical constituents 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 recycled materials; i.e., if wastes are no longe r considered a listed hazardous waste, the residuals generated b y 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)). Therefore, 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 characteristicall y hazardous (40 CFR 261 Subpart C). 3. Reduction and elimination of b aseline costs for RCRA regulatory paperwork burden to affected entities (e.g., for manifesting, for maintaining RCRA waste management permits )

. However, possibly offsetting some fractions of these potential RCRA regulatory cost savings, are the incremental costs to affected facilities, associated with compl ying with the conditions of each 2008 DSW final 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., comply with) the 12 DSW exclusion conditions  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

12 Source: EPA Office of Chief Financial Officer, http://www.epa.gov/cfo/futures/e nv_scen.htm.

### 84

 Potential market value to recyclers of the recovered material commodities ( if hy pothetically recycled rather than disposed) All of these elements are int egrated in the micro

- economic (i.e., facility

- and waste

- specific) financial breakeven test to determine which facilities may

be induced to switchover from baseline disposal to recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. Unit c ost data and baselin e cost estimates are not presented in this RIA for baseline RCRA regulatory requirements which (a) are “sunk costs” or (b) the baseline regulatory requirement is an infrequent event, for example:

 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 hazardou s waste (this is assumed a “sunk cost” for affected industries) A summary

of the unit costs for the 14 elements of RCRA regulatory burden baseline cost to affected industries can be found in the 2008 DS W RIA
. 13 

### Similarly, a summary of average unit costs to meet the 12 conditions associated with the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions to obtain an exclusion are presented in of the 2008 DSW RIA. 14 

### The primary

sources of many

of these baseline burden unit costs are the l abor hour estimates contained in Information Collection Request (I CR) supporting statements for the RCRA hazardous waste program. 15 

### An ICR describe s reporting, record keeping, survey , or other information collection requirements imposed on the public (e.g., households, industry) by a Feder al agency

such as the EPA. IC R supporting statements provide overview s of the information collection, and provide estimates of the cost s and labor hours imposed on the public to respond to I CRs . ICR paperwork burden , referred to as RCRA administrative 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 th at are LQG, SQG, CESQG, and TSDF regulatory status
. Industrial disposal and recycling costs are based on RACE R 2005 cost estimating software (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system (http://www.fecpractice.com/Docs/RACER%20Overview.pdf ) and other published sources.

13 See Exhibit 6B of EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule for a listing of the unit costs. Appendix B to the 2008 RIA provides background data references and computations for these baseline RCRA regulatory unit costs. Potential market value s of recoverable commodities contained in the baseline disposed wastes are presented in Appendix A of the 2008 RIA
. Baseline industrial disposal costs and commercial recycling prices are presented in Appendix D of the 2008 RIA. 14 See Exhibit 7B of EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule for a listing of the unit costs. Additional unit cost details are provided in Appendix C of the 2008 RIA. 15 The RCRA hazardous waste program ICRs from which unit 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

### 85 

## 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 which present the outcome of the cost savings estimat es f or th e 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. The average annual, non

- discounted, nationwide de

- regulatory cost savings estimated in the 2008 DSW RIA was $95.3 million per ye ar (source: 2008 RIA Exhibit 1B, page 8). The 2008 RIA cost savings represents one part of the baseline defined in this RIA for purpose of incremental anal ys is of the potential impact of the 2011 DSW proposed revisions to the 2008 DSW final rule. The oth er part of the baseline applied in this RIA pertains to the 2011 proposed options which may affect pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions . The 2008 DSW final rule RIA baseline consists of three components, which are related as follows: ($106.4 million deregulatory savin gs #1)

– ($15.8 million condition costs #2) + (4.7 million net market value #3) = $95.3 million per year net cost savings:

 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 2008 DSW RIA for all three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions . Up to $106.4 million per year in cost savings were estimated if 100% of the facilities submitted a notification for exclusion. 16



###  2008 baseline component #2 of 3 : New c osts to m eet 12 terms/c onditions for the 2008 DSW f inal r ule recycling e xclusions : Annual industry

baselin e costs to comply with the paperwork burden conditions under each 2008 DSW recycling exclusion are estimated in EPA’s 2008 DSW RIA. Up to $15.8 million per year in costs were estimated if 100% of the facilities submitted a notification for exclusion. 17



###  20 08 baseline component #3 of 3 : Net market value of recovered hazardous secondary materials facilities would otherwise dispose (discard). Annual industry baseline cost savings for industrial secondary materials recovered from potential switchover of some h azardous waste streams from baseline disposal to new future recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions are estimated in th e 2008 DSW RIA. Up to $4.7 million per year in cost savings were estimated if 100% of the facilities switched from baseline disposal to new future recycling and submitted a notification for exclusion. 18

16 See Chapter 6 of the 2008 DSW RIA. 17 See Chapter 7 of the 2008 D SW RIA. 18 See Chapter 8 of the 2008 DSW RIA.

### 86



## 4B.2 Update Factors Applied to the 2008 DSW De - Regulatory Cost Savings Baseline The $95.3 mill ion per year average annual cost savings from the 2008 DSW RIA 19 

### is updated in this RIA to 201 1 using four update factors: 1. Update factor #1 of 4: Annual Tonnages : A tonnage adjustment factor to reflect changes in industrial output and coinciding waste recycling between the 2005 and 200 7 BR reporting cycles. For the tonnage adjustment factor, the 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 below). Only the reported recycling quantities and not disposal quantities were used because most (81%) of the estimated annual cost savings from the 2008 DSW RIA are associated with RCRA

- regulated recycling activities (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). 20


### Exhibit 4 C Annual Quantities of RCRA Hazardous Wast es Currently Recycled by Generator Industry A B C D E ((D

- C )/ Cx100%) Item Generator Industry

2
- digit NAICS code 2005 BR Recycling (tons per year) 2007 BR Recycling

(tons per year) % Change in Recycling

Between 2005 & 2007 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 0 70 NA 2 21 Mining 3 4 33.33% 3 22 Utilities 54 0
- 100.00% 4 23 Construction 11 669 5981.82% 5 31 Manufacturing 350 136
- 61.14% 6 32 Manufacturing 575,988 535,749
- 6.99% 7 33 Manufacturing 1,215,208 1,085,944
- 10.64% 8 42 Wholesale Trade 19,298 16,549
- 14.24% 9 44 Retail Trade 8 6
- 25.00% 10 45 Retail Trade 0 0 0.00% 11 48 Transportation 177 31
- 82.49% 12 49 Postal, Couriers, Warehousing 0 0 0.00% 13 51 Information 12,781 12,106
- 5.28% 14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0.00% 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 2 0.5
- 75.00% 16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 9 71 688.89%

19 See Exhibits 9E and 9F in the 2008 DSW RIA. 20 See Exhibit 9F in the 2008 DSW RIA.

### 87 Exhibit 4 C Annual Quantities of RCRA Hazardous Wast es Currently Recycled by Generator Industry A B C D E ((D

- C )/ Cx100%) Item Generator Industry

2
- digit NAICS code 2005 BR Recycling (tons per year) 2007 BR Recycling

(tons per year) % Change in Recycling

Between 2005 & 2007 17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0.00% 18 56 Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation 220,824 342,901 55.28% 19 61 Educational Services 78 53
- 32.05% 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 153 71
- 53.59% 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 3 0
- 100.00% 22 72 Accommodation & Food Services 0 0 0.00% 23 81 Other Services 13 22 69.23% 24 92 Public Administration 222 157
- 29.28% 25 ?? NAICS code not provided 0 0 0.00% Column totals = 2,045,182 1,994,540 - 2.48%


### 2. Update factor #2 of 4: Price Level : An annual US nationwide average price inflation factor to reflect changes in labor, equipment, and materials prices between 2007 and 201 1 (costs in the 2008 DSW RIA are based on 2007$). For the price level adjustment factor, aggregate costs are all inflated from 2007$ to 20 11 $ using an implicit price deflator of 1.0 505 (based on data from Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Dome stic Product, Bureau of Economic Anal ys is last revised May 26, 2011 ). 21 

### The implicit price deflator for 2007 is 106.296. The first quarter 2011 implicit price deflator is 111.668 . The ratio of these two implicit price deflator values results in an inflation adjustment multiplier of 1.0 505 (11 1.668 /106.296 = 1.0 505 ).

21 The BEA’s Table 1.1.9 “Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” is available online at http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=Y

Note : 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)

-- indicates a 2007:to:201 1 update multiplier of 1.0 750 , whereas in comparison the BEA implicit price deflator is 1.0 505 . Thus, the dollar values (i.e., costs and cost savings) estimated in this RIA are about 2% lower (i.e., (1.0505 / 1.075 0) x 100% = 97.72% ) 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 201 1 :to:2007 = (5 64.8 CEPCI January 2011 preliminary) / (525.4 CEPCI 20 07 annual) = 1.0 750 cost update multiplier. The 2007 and 201 1 CEPCI data are from http://www.scribd.com/doc/53184082/M

- S
- 2011 . The CEPCI is a relative narrow price index comprised of four major price categories: (a) chemical plant equipment, (b) chemical plant construction labor, (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.

### 88

3. Update factor #3 of 4: Eligible F acility C ount : A facility count adjustment factor to reflect changes in industrial recycling activity between the 2005 and 2007 BR reporting cycles. The 2007 BR counts of facilities re cycling were compared to the reported 2005 BR recycling facility

count to derive a tonnage adjustment factor of

- 10.15% representing a decrease in the number of industrial facilities recycling hazardous wastes, as displayed in Exhibit 4D. Only the reporte d count of facilities recycling hazardous waste and 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 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; th e residual $1.3 million/year (<2% of $95.3 million/year) is associated with the case -by

- case variance exclusion). 22


### 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%) 2005 count of facilities generating wa stes that are recycled 2007 count

of facilities generating wa stes 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). 2,352 2,019
- 14.16% H020: Solvents recovery : fractionation/ distillation, thin film evaporation, & solvent extraction. 2,466 2,101
- 14.80% H039: Other recovery : acid regeneration, waste oil recovery, non

- solvent organic liquids recovery, & other miscellaneous recovery methods except energy recovery or use as fuel. 829 867 4.58% Non
- duplicative totals = 4,809 4,321 - 10.15% * The State of Michigan reported a significant decrease in the number of facilities recycling in 2007 compared to 2005.


### 4. Update Factor #4 of 4: Exclusion Adoption Rate : An adoption rate based on the rate of DSW e xclusion n otifications for b aseline industrial recycling presented later in this RIA.

22 See Exhibit 9F in the 2008 DSW RIA.

### 89



## 4B.3 Result of Updating the 2008 DSW De - Regulatory Cost Savings Baseline to 201 1 Exhibits 4E through 4I below present the updated 2008 RIA baseline facility counts, annual recycl ing tonnages, and annual net de

- regulatory cost savings for the five recycling exclusions of the 2008 DSW final rule.

 Exclu sion 1A Generators who recycle on site.  Exclusion 1B Offsite transfer recycling at a different facility under the control of the gen erator ( i.e., same company).  Exclusion 1C Offsite transfer recycling under a tolling contract

. T olling 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.  Exclusion 3: Case
-by

- c ase “n on - w aste determination” v ariance

. Note that each exhibit of this chapter does not present Exclusion 3 as a separate exhibit column according to the 2

- digit NAICS code it emization, because Exclusion 3 was estimated in EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW exclusions final 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 breakeven 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 Facilities 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% adoption (i.e., notification for exclusion under the 2008 DSW final rule) by all affected industrial facilities currentl y rec ycling hazardous waste and those projected to switch from baseline disposal of hazardous waste to new future recycling. Results are presented on a 2

- digit NAI CS code basis for affected industrial facility counts and affected annual tonnages because costs for the 2011 DSW proposed rule are dependent upon these numbers.

 Exhibit 4E : Presents counts of potentially affected 6
- digit industries (546) & facilities (5,007) for the three 2008 DSW e xclusions

.  Exhibit 4F : Presents estimated annual tonnages of affected hazardous wastes for the three 2008 DSW f inal r ule e xclusions (1.499 million tons total).  Exhibit 4G : P resents the dollar

- value of estimated baseline annu al net cost savings to industry according to 2

- digit NAI CS sectors for the three 2008 DSW f inal r ule e xclusions ($96.6 million per year).  Exhibit 4H : P resents the combined impact for all three exclusions.  Exhibit 4I : Presents the estimated shift in baseline RCRA regulatory generator status of affected industrial facilitie s for the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions (i.e., pre

- rule and post

- rule estimated counts of affected LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs). This potential change 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 exclusion conditions itemized in Exhibit 4B (row item 5). The estimate of potential change in generator status in this RIA is in relation to the entire annual tonnage of baseline RCRA hazardous

### 90 wastes g enerated or managed at each potentiall y affected facility (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 final rule recovery /recycling exclusions. 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 fac ilities (e.g., small businesses) which generate a relativel y small number (i.e., <5) of small tonnage hazardous waste streams annually, and less beneficial to the relativel y small number of large

- sized facilities (e.g. large companies) which generate a large number (i.e., >5) of hazardous waste streams annuall y.

### 91 Exhibit 4 E Count s of Industries & Facilities Potentially Affected by the 2008 DSW Exclusions (2007 BR Data) (i.e., Existing Facilities Which May Become Eligible for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions @ 100% Adoption Rate)

Item 

### A. Affected Industries B. Affected Facilities

Industry 2

- digit NAICS code 2007 Count of 6

- Digit NAICS Codes Affected (see full list in Appendix A) 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) Com bined Exclusions 1+2 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 96 4 23 Construction 9 1 0 0 21 22 5 31 Manufacturing 22 0 0 0 34 34 6 32 Manufacturing 109 49 4 92 1,176 1,322 7 33 Manufacturing 226 36 9 0 2,244 2,289 8 42 Wholesale Trade 25 1 0 0 105 106 9 44 Retail Trade 3 0 0 0 30 30 10 45 Retail Trade 4 0 0 0 4 4 11 48 Transportation* 29 1 0 0 104 105 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 3 0 1 0 28 29 13 51 Information 6 1 0 0 10 11 14 52 Finance & Insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 7 0 5 0 8 13 16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 8 1 1 0 159 161 17 55 Mgt of Com panies/Enterprises 1 0 0 0 4 4 18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 17 7 58 0 86 151 19 61 Educational Services 7 2 2 0 167 171 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 8 2 1 0 81 84 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 80 24 92 Public Administration 13 0 1 0 191 192 Column totals = 546 101 84 92 4,656 4,933 Im pact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

-by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 74 Com bined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 5,007

### 92 Exhibit 4 F Estimated Tons of Affected Hazardous Wastes in 2007 for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (100% Adoption 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) Com bined Exclusions 1+2 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 0 0 0 12 12 2 21 Mining 0 0 0 122 122 3 22 Utilities 0 1 0 1,418 1,419 4 23 Construction 4 0 0 789 793 5 31 Manufacturing 0 0 0 299 299 6 32 Manufacturing 136,716 1,234 40,532 164,930 343,412 7 33 Manufacturing 275,289 4,001 0 668,158 947,449 8 42 Wholesale Trade 638 0 0 27,448 28,086 9 44 Retail Trade 0 0 0 229 229 10 45 Retail Trade 0 0 0 52 52 11 48 Transportation 19 0 0 1,559 1,578 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 0 1 0 1,172 1,173 13 51 Information 11 0 0 250 260 14 52 Finance & Information 0 0 0 0 0 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 0 3,328 0 83 3,411 16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 1 13 0 1,011 1,025 17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0 0 25 25 18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 14,339 16,836 0 16,229 47,403 19 61 Educational Services 7 7 0 786 800 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 81 10 0 507 598 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0 0 0 12 12 22 72 Accommodation & Food Srvcs 0 0 0 0 0 23 81 Other Services 0 1 0 992 993 24 92 Public Administration 0 49 0 1,376 1,425 25 ?? NAICS code not reported 0 0 0 0 0 Column totals = 427,104 25,479 40,532 887,457 1,380,571 Sub

- total offsite tonnage excluded (Columns B+C+D) = 953,468 90,800 shipments* Im pact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

-by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 118,476 Com bined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 1. 499 million Note: * Annual offsite shipments (i.e., RCRA manifests) affected estimated by dividing offsite tonnage by range of 10.5 tons average partial load

.

### 93 Exhibit 4 G Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (Baseline Recycling Plus Baseline Disposal Switch over to Recycling* @100% Adoption Rate & 201 1 $ )

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) Com bined Exclusions 1+2 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $7,696 $7,696 2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $400,495 $400,495 3 22 Utilities $0 $69,428 $0 $1,193,467 $1,261,869 4 23 Construction $16,557 $0 $0 $232,932 $249,489 5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $577,597 $577,597 6 32 Manufacturing $613,178 $76,279 $3,230,060 $22,777,272 $26,655,810 7 33 Manufacturing $1,450,981 $269,383 $0 $44,803,949 $46,524,314 8 42 Wholesale Trade $235 $0 $0 $1,727,288 $1,727,523 9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $184,892 $184,892 10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $91,209 $91,209 11 48 Transportation* ($1,135) $0 $0 $1,899,754 $1,898,619 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $33,342 $0 $545,613 $578,956 13 51 Information $16,454 $0 $0 $232,226 $248,690 14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $28,371 $0 $107,310 $135,681 15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $16,627 $51,355 $0 $2,778,298 $2,846,280 16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $86,042 $86,042 17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $150,908 $700,732 $0 $1,713,242 $2,564,882 18 61 Educational Services $31,431 $67,548 $0 $3,460,750 $3,559,728 19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $14,295 $64,925 $0 $1,391,195 $1,470,415 20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $65,534 $65,534 21 81 Other Services $0 $34,201 $0 $1,119,441 $1,153,643 22 92 Public Administration $0 $33,980 $0 $4,027,347 $4,061,328 Column totals = $2,268,550 $1,428,521 $3,230,061 $89,423,563 $96,350,694 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $22,461 $17,006 $35,109 $19,206 $19,532 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $5 $56 $80 $101 $70 Im pact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

-by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,311,182 Com bined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $97 .7 million * Reductions in state fees may influence generator wa ste 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 impac t. 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.

### 94 Exhibit 4 H Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings for Baseline Recycling and B aseline Disposal

for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (@100% Adoption Rate and 2011 $ )

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS code A B C D E F Im pact on Baseline Recycling Im pact on Baseline Disposal (Switchover to Recycling) Facilities Tons/year Net savings Facilities Tons/year Net savings 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 2 9 $6,382 1 3 $1,314 2 21 Mining 15 64 $313,596 7 57 $86,899 3 22 Utilities 82 1,320 $1,116,795 19 98 $145,075 4 23 Construction 13 667 $206,322 10 126 $42,143 5 31 Manufacturing 22 251 $468,541 13 49 $109,058 6 32 Manufacturing 899 337,911 $21,123,039 655 5,500 $5,532,771 7 33 Manufacturing 1,672 933,113 $39,166,879 969 14,337 $7,357,435 8 42 Wholesale Trade 64 27,494 $1,413,702 49 592 $313,821 9 44 Retail Trade 30 229 $184,892 0 0 $0 10 45 Retail Trade 4 48 $80,849 1 4 $10,360 11 48 Transportation 79 1,282 $1,619,366 40 295 $279,253 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 13 1,069 $378,641 16 104 $200,315 13 51 Information 11 239 $233,582 1 20 $15,107 14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 11 3,403 $113,534 4 9 $22,147 15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 106 638 $2,311,577 85 386 $534,703 16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 4 17 $82,605 1 9 $3,436 17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 133 47,207 $2,251,770 38 195 $313,110 18 61 Educational Services 120 532 $2,873,920 92 267 $685,808 19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 61 409 $1,277,084 35 190 $193,331 20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 5 12 $58,884 1 0 $6,650 21 81 Other Services 70 935 $1,096,130 11 58 $57,512 22 92 Public Administration 111 887 $2,833,842 146 538 $1,227,486 Column totals = 3,528 1,357,736 $79,211,931 2,192 22,837 $17,137,733 74 118,476 $1,311,182 = Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS not estimated) Baseline recycling + baseline disposal combined impact (Exclusion 1+Exclusion 2+Exclusion 3) = 5,007 1.499 million $97.7 million

### 95 Exhibit 4 I Expected Change in Baseline RCRA Regulatory Generator Status for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (100% Adoption Rate) Note: impacts in this Exhibit based on annual tonnages from both baseline recycling + baseline disposal switchover to recycli ng

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 Com

bined Exclusion (1+2+3) Facilities

Affected by Exclusion 1 Facilities Affected by

Exclusion 2 Facilities

Affected by Exclusion 3 Com

bined E xclusion (1+2+3) Incremental

Change in Facility Status Counts because of 2008 DSW Final Rule Option 1 Selected Option

1 NOT Selected Option 1

Selected Option 1

NOT Selected Option

1 Selected Option

1 NOT Selected LQG 255 3 , 752 Not estimated 4,007 201 3,752 2,811 Not estimated 3,953 3,013
- 54
- 995 SQG 17 829 Not estimated 846 59 829 1,185 Not estimated 888 1,244 42 398 CESQG 4 75 Not estimated 79 16 75 660 Not estimated 91 676 12 597 Column totals 277 4,656 74 5,007 277 4,656 4,656 74 5,007 5,007 0 0 Explanatory Notes: * RCRA generator status is determined by the monthly hazardous waste generation tonnages reported by each facility in the RCRA 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.

### 96

 Update Results Based on “Base Case ” 13 % Facilities Adopting ( 662 ) With Future Annual Discounting For a future annual adoption rate scenario for the 2011 proposed DSW recycling exclusion revisions (if promulgated), this scenario is formulated relative to the actual count of 49 industrial facilities which submitted DSW exclusion notifications under the 2008 DSW final rule as of April 26 , 2011. 23 

### These 49 notifications were submitted to EPA over an approximate two

- ye ar , four

- month period (i.e., between December 28, 2008 and April 26, 201 1 ), which represents an annual average of 21 facilities per- ye ar adopting the 2008 DSW recycling exclusion s (i.e., (49 facilities) / (2.33 years) = 21 facilities per year) . This actual adoption rate is applied in this RIA as a “base case” adoption scenari o over the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is (i.e., 2015 to 2064) applied in this RIA
. 24 

### Using 21 facilities as an average annual adoption rate, over the future 50 year period, the cumulative average annual count of facilities adopting the 2008 DSW final r

ule under this scenario is 662 or 13 % of all facilities potentially eligible for the 2008 DSW exclusions 1 , 2 , and 3 ( 662 / 5,007 x 100 = 13 %). Previously in EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW exclusions final rule, industry implementation cost estimates were presented for a scenario in which 100% (i.e., 4,933 for exclusions 1 and 2 or 5,007 including exclusion 3 as of 2007 data ye ar) of eligible industrial facilities submitted notifications for the 2008 DSW exclusions. This 13 % “base case” adoption rate is applied in this RIA as a future scenario to estimate the baseline cost savings estimate associated with the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. Three alternative discount rates (i.e., 0%, 3%, and 7%) are applied to the baseline costs. Two of these discount rates (3% and 7%) a re prescribed in OMB’s 2003 “Circular A4” regulatory anal ys is guidance 25 

### for Federal regulatory agencies.

23 Notification data are available from EPA

- ORCR’s webpage at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/dsw/notify

- sum . pdf 24 This RIA and 2011 DSW ICR allocate these notifications among the three transfer

-based recycling exclusion options differently. The RIA allocates the 21 notifications per year based on the weighted percentage of facilities affected by each exclusion . The remanufacturing exclusion population includes 201 facilities or 4.1% (201/4933 x 100%) of the total population of affected facilities. The Alternative Subtitle C Standards exclusion population includes 4,4 55 facilities or 90.3% (4,455/4,933 x 100%) of the total population of affected facilities. The generator

- controlled population includes 277 facilities or 5.6%% (277/4,933 x 100%) of the total population of affected facilities. These weighted percentages are used to apportion the 21 notifications per year among the three option. The ICR will take into consideration the higher frequency of generator

- controlled exclusions documented in the first 2.33 years of the 2008 DSW exclusion and assume this pattern will continue in the near term through their analysis period of 2015 to 2017. The RIA is looking at a 50

- year time horizon (2015 to 2064) and assumes the notifications will be distributed proportionally among the three populations of facilities (i.e., transfer

-based exclusion options) over the lo ng term.
25 OMB “Circular A4” is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a

- 4/ Note : The higher 7% discount rate is used as the “base case” rate for this RIA, because the costs and cost savings associated with the pre

- 2008 and 2008 DSW recycling exclusions, as well as the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW exclusions, almost exclusively impact industry rather than government. The higher discount rate (7%) may represent industry opportunity costs relative to investment opportunities by affected industries.

### 97

The 13 % “base case” baseline cost savings for the 2008 DSW final rule recycling exclusions are:

 0% discount rate: $ 15.1 million per year (see Exhibit 4J below).  3% discount rate: $ 10.8 million per year (see Exhibit 4K below).  7% discount rate: $7. 4 million per year (see Exhibit 4L below).

### 98 Exhibit 4J Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (Baseline Recycling Plus Disposal Switchover to Recycling @ 13 % State Adoption Rate, 201 1 $, 0% 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) Com bined Exclusions 1+2 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $1,032 $1,032 2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $53,705 $53,705 3 22 Utilities $0 $9,310 $0 $160,040 $169,350 4 23 Construction $2,220 $0 $0 $31,235 $33,456 5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $77,454 $77,454 6 32 Manufacturing $82,225 $10,229 $433,141 $3,054,362 $3,579,957 7 33 Manufacturing $194,572 $36,123 $0 $6,008,071 $6,238,766 8 42 Wholesale Trade $31 $0 $0 $231,624 $231,655 9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $24,793 $24,793 10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $12,231 $12,231 11 48 Transportation* ($152) $0 $0 $254,751 $254,599 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $4,471 $0 $73,165 $77,636 13 51 Information $2,206 $0 $0 $31,141 $33,347 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $3,804 $0 $14,390 $18,194 16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $2,230 $6,887 $0 $372,561 $381,677 17 55 Mgt of Com panies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $11,538 $11,538 18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $20,236 $93,966 $0 $229,740 $343,943 19 61 Educational Services $4,215 $9,058 $0 $464,076 $477,349 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $1,917 $8,706 $0 $186,555 $197,178 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $8,788 $8,788 23 81 Other Services $0 $4,586 $0 $150,114 $154,700 24 92 Public Administration $0 $4,557 $0 $540,055 $544,611 Column totals = $309,701 $191,698 $433,141 $11,991,421 $12,925,960 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $23,278 $17,101 $36,249 $19,741 $20,075 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $6 $56 $82 $104 $72 Im pact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

-by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $2,128,086 Com bined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $15,054,046 * 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 im pact. Government fees often represent “transfer payments” not real resource cos ts. State fees are taken out from the net economic impact. As a result, cost savings may be negative in this table.

### 99 Exhibit 4K Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (Baseline Recycling Plus Disposal Switchover to Recycling @ 13 % Adoption Rate, 201 1 $, 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) Com bined Exclusions 1+2 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $744 $744 2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $38,719 $38,719 3 22 Utilities $0 $6,712 $0 $115,382 $122,094 4 23 Construction $1,601 $0 $0 $22,519 $24,120 5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $55,841 $55,841 6 32 Manufacturing $59,281 $7,375 $312,276 $2,202,064 $2,580,995 7 33 Manufacturing $140,278 $26,043 $0 $4,331,561 $4,497,883 8 42 Wholesale Trade $23 $0 $0 $166,991 $167,014 9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $17,875 $17,875 10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $8,818 $8,818 11 48 Transportation* ($110) $0 $0 $183,665 $183,555 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $3,223 $0 $52,749 $55,972 13 51 Information $1,591 $0 $0 $22,451 $24,042 15 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $2,743 $0 $10,375 $13,117 16 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $1,607 $4,965 $0 $268,601 $275,173 17 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $8,318 $8,318 18 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $14,590 $67,745 $0 $165,633 $247,968 19 61 Educational Services $3,039 $6,530 $0 $334,579 $344,148 20 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $1,382 $6,277 $0 $134,498 $142,157 21 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $6,336 $6,336 23 81 Other Services $0 $3,306 $0 $108,225 $111,532 24 92 Public Administration $0 $3,285 $0 $389,356 $392,641 Column totals = $223,281 $138,206 $312,276 $8,645,300 $9,319,063 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $16,783 $12,329 $26,134 $14,232 $14,473 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $4 $41 $59 $75 $52 Im pact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

-by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,453,803 Com bined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $10,772,866 * 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 resource costs. State fees are taken out from the net economic impact. As a result, cost savings may be negative in this table.

### 100 Exhibit 4L Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions (Baseline Recycling Plus Disposal Switchover to Recycling, 13 % Adoption Rate, 201 1 $, 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) Com bined Exclusions 1+2 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $488 $488 2 21 Mining $0 $0 $0 $25,401 $25,401 3 22 Utilities $0 $4,403 $0 $75,693 $80,097 4 23 Construction $1,050 $0 $0 $14,773 $15,823 5 31 Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $36,633 $36,633 6 32 Manufacturing $38,890 $4,838 $204,860 $1,444,603 $1,693,191 7 33 Manufacturing $92,026 $17,085 $0 $2,841,601 $2,950,712 8 42 Wholesale Trade $15 $0 $0 $109,550 $109,565 9 44 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $11,726 $11,726 10 45 Retail Trade $0 $0 $0 $5,785 $5,785 11 48 Transportation* ($72) $0 $0 $120,488 $120,416 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage $0 $2,115 $0 $34,604 $36,719 13 51 Information $1,044 $0 $0 $14,728 $15,772 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $0 $1,799 $0 $6,806 $8,605 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services $1,055 $3,257 $0 $176,208 $180,520 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises $0 $0 $0 $5,457 $5,457 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation $9,571 $44,443 $0 $108,659 $162,673 61 Educational Services $1,993 $4,284 $0 $219,491 $225,769 62 Health Care, Social Assistance $907 $4,118 $0 $88,234 $93,258 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $0 $0 $0 $4,156 $4,156 81 Other Services $0 $2,169 $0 $70,998 $73,167 92 Public Administration $0 $2,155 $0 $255,426 $257,582

Column totals = $146,477 $90,666 $204,860 $5,671,510 $6,113,514 Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $11,010 $8,088 $17,144 $9,337 $9,495 Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $3 $27 $39 $49 $34 Im pact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry

-by

- industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,311,182 Com bined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $7,424,696 * 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 mp act. Government fees often represent “transfer payments” not real resource cost s. State fees are taken out from the net economic impact. As a result, cost savings may be negative in this table.

### 101 

## 4C. Baseline Regulatory Cost Savings for the Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions As stated in Section 3C above, comprehensive data on the nationwide annual quantities of pre

- 2008 DSW excluded hazardous secondary materials are not readil y available because they are not subject to biennial reporting to EPA under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations. This RIA assumes th at 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 as presented in Exhibit 4A above fo r the 2008 DSW exclu sions. Furthermore, net market prices from recovered commodities are assumed to be similar as those estimated for the recovered metals, solvents and acids in the 2008 DSW final rule RIA. As displayed below in Exhibit 4M , assuming an average annual per- facility RCRA regulatory

cost savings of $ 19,532 per year 26 

### for the estimated 5,321 facilities with pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions (from Exhibit 3Labove), produces an estimate of $ 10 3 . 9 millio n per year (201 1 $ @ 0% discount rate) in average annual RCRA regulatory cost savings (i.e., ($ 19,532 cost savings per facility per year) x (5,321 facilities)). This cost savings is $ 95. 1 million per year at 3% and $ 7 9.3 million per year at 7%.
Exhibit 4M Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Pre - 20 08 DSW Industrial Recycling Exclusions ( 201 1 $ ) A B C D Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusion (item) Affiliated NAICS Codes

(from column F of Exhibit 3 I) Count of Facilities Assumed to Have Pre
- 2008 DSW Recycling

Exclusions (from Column E of Exhibit 3L ) Baseline RCRA Regulatory Cost Savings ($ per year) 1 31 +32 + 33 manufacturing 5,291 $ 7 8 , 840 , 500 2 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 3 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 4 322110 pulp mills In item 1 In item 1 5 325188 other basic inorganic chem mfg In item 1 In item 1 6 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 7 321114 wood preservation In item 1 In item 1 8 324199 coke oven products In item 1 In item 1 9 331111 iron & steel manufacturing In item 1 In item 1 10 324110 petroleum refineries In item 1 In item 1 11 562920 materials recovery facilities 3 $ 4 4 , 703 12 Assume captured in item 11 above In item 11 In item 11 13 2122 minerals mining 27 $ 402 , 323 14 32519 organic chemical mfg In item 1 In item 1

26 $19,532 per - facility (201 1 $) average annual RCRA regulatory cost s avings from Exhibit 4G.

### 102 Exhibit 4M Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Pre - 20 08 DSW Industrial Recycling Exclusions ( 201 1 $ ) A B C D Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusion (item) Affiliated NAICS Codes

(from column F of Exhibit 3 I) Count of Facilities Assumed to Have Pre
- 2008 DSW Recycling

Exclusions (from Column E of Exhibit 3L ) Baseline RCRA Regulatory Cost Savings ($ per year) 15 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 16 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 Non
- duplicative column totals (@7% discount rate) = 5,321 $ 7 9.3 million @3% discount rate = $ 9 5.1 million @0% discount rate = $ 10 3 .9 million 

### Because of incorrect (unnecessary) data reporting, there are actually some very

limited data on the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusion materials available from the 2007 BR . The 2007 BR reports on a portion of the material ( 303,509 tons per year) managed under the pre

- 2008 exclusions (see Exhibit 3H above). The 12 conditions and their associated costs from the 2008 DSW final rule are included in the baseline cost savings estimate (presented above in Section 4 B ) for the excluded materials identified in the 2007 BR . However, the 2011 DSW proposed rule for pre

2008 DSW excluded materials proposes two of these conditions (conduct due diligence to determine legitimacy of recyclers and biennial notification)

. Thus, the estimate double

- count s these costs, but the aggregate compliance costs are small. For hazardous secondary materials under pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions, the recovery costs net out to zero due to equivalent pre

- and post

- 2011 DSW proposed rule costs. Therefore, recovery costs are not estimated and included in the baseline. From Exhibit 4 G above , average cost savings per facility

(including costs associated with the 12 conditions of the 2008 DSW final rule) are estimated to be $ 19,532 /facility or $ 70 /ton. The estimated baseline cost savings is ap proximately $ 21. 2 million per year (303,509 tons/year x $ 70 /ton). 27 

### For the 13 % “base case” adoption scenario, the estimated baseline cost savings is $ 2.8 million per year ($ 21.2 million per year x 13 %). These quantities and cost savings are already captured in Section 4C above and are excluded from the totals in Exhibit 4M to avoid double

- counting.

27 One waste stream accounts for 214,156 tons with the waste description “spent lead/acid batteries and lead bearing scrap dismembered for metals recovery and recycling.” This waste stream accounts for 71% of the total tonnage and cost savings.

### 103 

## 4D . Summary of Baseline De - Regulatory Cost Savings Estimates for DSW Recycling Exclusions

 7% discount rate : The total baseline de

- regulatory costs savings is estimated at $ 86.7 million per year (201 1 $): o 2008 DSW exclusions contribute $ 7. 4 million per year to this total assuming a 13 % rate of DSW exclusion notification. o Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusions contribute $ 79.3 million per year.  3% discount rate : The total baseline de

- regulatory costs savings is estimated at $ 103. 1 million per year (201 1 $). o 2008 DSW exclusions contribute $ 10.8 million per year to this total assuming a 13 % rate of DSW exclusion notification. o Pre
- 2 008 DSW exclusions contribute $ 92. 3 million per year.  0% discount rate : The total baseline de

- regulatory costs savings is estimated at $ 1 19 .0 million per year (201 1 $). o 2008 DSW exclusions contribute $ 15.1 million per year to this total assuming a 13 % rate of DSW exclusion notification. o Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusions contribute $ 10 3 .9 million per year.

### 104 

# C HAPTER 

# 5 Estim ate o f Industry Cost s to Comply with the 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions This chapter estimates the potential future costs to industry to compl y with eight options for revising the DSW recycling exclusions. Seven of the options (i.e., Option 1 thru Option 7 ) are described in EPA’s Federal Register notice for the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions. The final option (Option 8 ) presented in this chapter is not described in EPA’s 2011 notice, but represents a preliminary option formulated b y EPA at the September 2010 launch of this RIA. For estimating potential industry costs, this RIA began by updating and revising the relevant unitized (i.e., per

- facility) cost savings as estimated in EPA’s RIA 28 

### for the 2008 DSW final rule . The cost analysis basically involved determining the incremental cost (or cost savings) of each proposed revision, relative to the requirements promulgated in the 2008 DSW final rule . In other words, this RIA uses the average annual cost savings estimates from the 2008 RIA, as a “baseline” for the incremental anal ys is of the 2011 proposed revisions. Appendix B to this RIA provides background calculations for factors applied in estimating costs in this chapter.



## Option 1: Withdraw the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Offsite Transfer Recycling The estimated baseline cost savings for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion (i.e., 2008 DSW finale rule “Exclusion 2”) is $88.5 million per year (see Exhibit 4G , Column D) if all affected facilities notify. Based on the 13 % base case adoption scenario, the annual cost for withdrawing the transfer

- based exclu sion is estimated to be $ 5. 7 million per year calculated as follows: [ ($ 89.4 million/year) x ( 6.3423 % cost adjustment reflecting a 13 % base case adoption rate and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of analysis 29 

### ) ]
.

28 EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule RIA is titled “Regulato ry Im pact 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 free dow nload as document ID nr. EPA

- HQ
- RCRA
- 2002
- 0031
- 0602 at http://www.regulation s.gov. 29 See Appendix B, Exhibit B2 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. Note : To avoid duplication of text in this RIA, descriptions for each DSW revision option are not re -produced in this chapter. Refer to Chapter 2 of this RIA for descriptions and details for each option.

### 105 

## Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion Requirement 2A : Extended Accumulation Time Transportation Cost Savings Potential transportation cost savings for Option 2 were calculated as the savings resulting from exten ding the accumulation time up to one year which was removed from the baseline cost savings estimate under Option 1 and adjusted for the potential transportation cost savings resulting from the DSW re

- manufacturing exclusion under Option 6. O ne of the 14 burden costs relaxed under the 2008 DSW final rule was the allowance of accumulation up to one year . Under the 2008 DSW final rule “speculative accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) it require d that during a calendar year the amount o f material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or volume of the material at the beginning of the period. The estimated accumulation baseline transportation cost savings for the speculative accumulation provisions in the 2008 DSW RIA for extending accumulation up to one year and reducing the number of shipments was $40.5 million (2007$) ( from Exhibit 6C , Item 14 under Exclusion 2 of the 2008 DSW RIA). Adjusting this number using the tonnage adjustment factor, inflation adjustment factor, and 13 % “base ca se” adoption scenario produces $2, 633,406 /year (2011 $), calculated as follows: [ ($ 40,530,443 per ye ar) x ( 1.0505 inflation adjustment factor) x (1

– 0.0248 tonnage adjustment factor) x ( 6
. 3423 % cost adjustment reflecting a 13 % base case rate and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of analysis 30 

### ) ]. Requirement 2 B : Notification Requires submittal of a notification using EPA Form 8700

- 12 prior to operating, and thereafter biennially , under the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. Labor hour and O&M cost estimates were obtained from EPA’s IC R for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2310.01 Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Final Rule)”, October 28, 2008. 31 

### Labor rate estimates were obtained from EPA’s I CR for the “Supporting Statement for Revisions to the RCRA De fini tion of Solid Waste (Proposed Rule) OMB Control No. 2050

- 0202, EPA I CR No. 2310.02,” June 30, 2011. Labor 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 $24.6 7/hour with $0.44 in postage. The unit costs are estimated to be $ 33.87 per initial notification/facility and $ 2.91 for re

- notification/facility (20 11 $ ). The total cost is $ 2.91 for re

- notification/facility every two ye ars which equals $1. 46 /facility (20 11 $) under the baseline transfer

-based recycling exclusion will transfer over and cover the cost to re

- notify biennially under the alternative RCRA Subtitle C regulation. In addition, facilities are required to u pdate and submit notification that the hazardous secondary materials are no longer managed in accordance with the alternative Subtitle C standard . This cost is assumed to be captured through the process of notifying biennially

.

30 See Appendix B, Exhibit B2 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived

. 31 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200905

- 2050
- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200905

- 2050
- 001
.

### 106

The unit cost is applied to transfer

-based exclusion facilities minus re - manufacturing exclusion facilities (4,656

– 201 = 4,455). The aggregate annual cost for notification is $ 413 per year, calculated as follows: [ (4,455 facilities ) x ( $ 1.46 /facility /year) x ( 6. 3 4 23 % cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoptio n scenario, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is )]

. 32 

### Requirement 2 C : Require Advance Arrangements (Reclamation Plan) Requires advance arrangements (including reclamation p lan) for 2008 DSW excluded recycling. The rationale is that it would prevent the problem of generators accumulating potentiall y unrecyclable hazardous secondary materials. Documenting contractual arrangements will result in incurred costs. As a prox y for this cost, unit cost estimates for the notification of intent to export were used for 40 CFR 262.53 and 262.83(e). Unit cost e stimates were obtained from EPA’s IC R for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0820.10 Hazardou s Waste Generator Standards (Renewal),” January 2008. 33 

### Exporters to OECD countries (262.83(e)) are required to provide the following information in their notification to export waste for recycling:

 Fax number  Serial number/identifier of notification form  Intended carrier(s) and/or agents  Countries of export, import, and transit and relevant authorities  Certification of the existence of written contract, chain of custody, or equivalent arrangement with consignee, between expor ter and importer  Certification that the information is complete and correct  Certification of financial guarantee if required b y any concerned country

(importing and transit). The requirement for advance arrangements is assumed to be a contract similar to the costs for exporting to OEC D countries which includes “certification of the existence of written contract, chain of custody, or equivalent arrangement with consignee, between exporter and importer.” The cost to collect the specific information under 40 CFR 262.83(e) include s 1.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and $0.55 for copies for a total of $ 104.58 per facility (20 11 $ ). It is assumed this information is to be kept on file and submitted to EPA only upon request. The cost to prepare and maintain on file for a minimum of three ye ars advance arrangement documents (reclamation plan) includes 0.1 hours of managerial labor at $101.68/hour , 0.3 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and 1.5 hours of clerical labor at $24.67/hour for a total of $ 65.26 / facility (20 11 $ ). As a prox y, assume that EPA requests documentation of the reclamation plan once every 20 facilities which includes 0.16 hours of clerical labor at $24.67/hour and $0.44 in postage for a total cost of $ 0.22 / facility (20 11 $ ). The total cost is $ 17 0.02 per facility (20 11 $ )

.

32 See Appendix B, Exhibit B3 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Requirement 2B, this RIA applied an average cost per

- facility of $ 1.46. 33 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200801

- 2050
- 002 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200801

- 2050
- 002
.

### 107

This c ost is applied to transfer

-based exclusion facilities only

. From Exhibits 4E and 4G (columns D of both) , respectivel y, minus re

manufacturing exclusion counts from Exhibits 5G and 5H (Column C of both) , respectivel y, there are 4,4 55 affected offsite recycling exclusion facilities and 833,499 affected tons from transfer

- based facilities. The aggregate annual cost to prepare advance arrangements is $ 4 8 ,000 per ye ar, calculated as follows: [ (4, 455 facilities x $ 170.02 /facility /year x 6.3423 % cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is 34 ) ]



### . Requirement 2D : Accumulation Restrictions A llow s accumulation of hazardous recyclable materials by the generator fo r up to one year, but prohibits accumulation of no more than two shipments of hazardous recyclable materials at any one time. The rational is that limiting the time period to a maximum of 12 months (as opposed to up to two years) reduces the possibility of discard from over

- accumulation of materials

. The 2008 DSW final rule “speculative accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar ye ar 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 materi al at the beginning of the period. Under the new requirement restricting accumulation to up to one year, the remaining 25% by wei ght or volume of the material can no longer be carried over into a second calendar year. Increased cost from shorter speculative accumulation time limits for recycled materials will occur because of increases in shipping and transportation costs. A 12

- month time limit for speculative accumulation (rather than two years) will increase the number of shipments for affected hazardous secondary material

. This RIA assumes that 15 % of the annual tonnage is speculatively accumulated longer than a ye ar. The number of shipments (or loads) is determined b y dividing the tons recycled by

18 tons per truck load (typical truck size). From the 2008 DSW RIA, DPRA used professional judgment and RACER co st estimating software and inflated RACER 2005 unit costs to 2007 $ using the GDP implicit price deflator to estimate waste testing and transport unit costs

. Waste testing is estimated to cost $346/load (2007$) and an average transport cost for recovery is $2,517/load (2007$). The average annual cost for reducing the specul ative accumulation time period to one year inflated to 201 1 $ is $2,6 44/load. There are 4, 455 affected transfer

-based exclusion facilities generating 833,499 tons per ye ar (from Exhibit 4E and Exhibit 4F Column D, respectivel y , minus Exhibit 5G and Exhibit 5H Column C, respectively)

. The aggregate annual cost to reduce the speculative accumulation time period is $ 1.2 million per year , calculated as follows: [ ( 833,499 tons per year) / (18 tons per truck load) x ( $ 2,6 44/load) x (15% of tonnage speculativel y a ccumulated longer than one year) x ( 6.3423 % cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of anal ys is ) 35 

### ) ]
.

34 See Appendix B, Exhibit B3 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Requirement 2C, this RIA applied an average cost per

- facility of $ 170.02. 35 See Appendix B, Exhibit B3 of this RIA for an example of how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived.

### 108

Requ irement 2E .1 : Speculative Accumulation Labeling 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 ty pes of units no t 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 possible 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 likel y that facilities already are placing the accumulation start date on containers to ensure compliance with the one ye ar accumulation limit: “Speculative accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar ye ar (beginning Jan 1) the amount of material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% b y weight or volume, of material at the beginning of the period. Requirement 2E .2 : Contingency and Emergency Plan s Requires facilities to develop a spill control/contingency plan including personnel training and a chemical anal ys is plan, an d allows facilities to use existing plans developed for other statutes if applicable. The rationale is it helps prevent or limit the potential for discard through spills, accidents or fires. Five percent of damage cases were from accidents. All offsite transfer recyclers will incur costs to develop contingen cy plans and emergency

plans. Unit cost estimates were obtained and estimated from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for EPA In formation Collection Request Number 0820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal),” January 2008. 36 

### Under contingency planning requirements in 265.37(b), 265.51, 265.52, and 265.53(a) the f ollo wing costs are incurred by LQGs and SQGs :  Collecting job

- related data uses 0.5 hours of clerical labor at $24.67/hour and equals $12.34/LQG and $12.34/SQG (2011$).  Maintaining information at facility uses 0.1 hours of clerical labor at $24.67/hour and equals $2.47/LQG and $2.47/SQG (2011$). Total personnel training costs for LQGs are $14.81/L QG and for SQGs are $14.81/SQG (2011$).

 Collect data required in contingency plan uses 2 .0 hours technical labor at $69.32/hour and 1.0 hour of cleri cal la bor at $24.67/hour and equals $ 163.32 /LQG (20 11 $).  Document whether authorities decline arrangement includes 0.1 clerical hour s at $24.67/hour and equals $ 2.47 /LQG (20 11 $).  Write contingency

plan includes 6.0 technical labor at $69.32/hour and 2.0 clerical hours at $24.67/hour and equals $ 466.29 /LQG (20 11 $).  Maintain contingency plan includes 0.1 clerical hour s at $24.67/hour and equals $ 2.47 /LQG (20 11 $).  Submit contingency

plan to relevant emergency centers includes 0.16 clerical hours at $24.67/hour and equals $ 3.95 /L QG and $ 4.07 /LQG in posta ge and copying (20 11 $).  Amend contingency

plan when appropriate includes 1.0 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and 1.0 hour clerical labor at

36 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200801
- 2050
- 002 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200801

- 2050
- 002
.

### 109 $24.67/hour and $0.1 1 in photocopying and equals $ 94.10 /LQG (20 11 $). T otal contingency

plan cost fo r LQGs is $ 736. 67 /LQG (20 11 $ ). SQGs and CESQGs are not required to have contingency plans. Under emergency

procedure requirements in 40 CFR 265.56(d) the following costs are incurred b y LQGs :  Collecting information required in emergenc y report includes 1.0 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and 1.0 hour clerical labor at $24.67/hour and equals $ 93.99 /LQG (20 11 $).  Writing an emergency report include s 0.17 hours of legal at $133.37/hour and 1.0 hour of technical la bor at $69.32/hour and equals $ 91.99 /L QG (20 11 $).  Calling OSC or notifying NRC and notifying local authorities if advisable includes 0.1 hours managerial labor at $101.68/hour and 0.9 hours technical la bor at $69.32/hour and equals $ 72.56 /L QG and $10.38 in O&M costs (20 11 $).  Th e total cost is $ 268.9 2 /LQG (20 11 $). Under emergency

procedure requirements in 265.34(d) the following costs are incurred by SQGs :  Observ ing scene of hazardous waste discharge includes 0.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and equals $ 34.66 /SQG (20 11 $ ) ;  Reporting by

phone requested data for NRC includes 0.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and $5 .19 in other charges and equals $ 39.85 /SQG (20 11 $ ) ;  D ocumenting that local officials declines to enter into arrangements for coordinating response includes 0.1 hour technic al labor at $69.32/hour and equals $ 6.93 /SQG (20 11 $ ) ; and  P roviding post - emergency information by

phone includes 0.1 hours clerical labor at $24.67/hour and equals $2 .47 /S QG (20 11 $).  The total cost is $ 83.91 /SQG (2011$)

. Under certification of compliance in 265.56(i) the following costs are incurred b y LQGs and SQGs :

 Collect information required in emergency notification report includes 0.5 hours technical labor at $69.32/hour and 0.5 hours of clerical la bor at $24.67/hour and equals $ 47.00 /LQG (20 11 $).  Write emergency

notification report includes 0.17 hours of legal labor at $133.37/hour , 0.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and 0.5 hours of clerical labor at $24.67/hour an d equal s $ 69.67 /LQG (20 11 $).  Submit report to Regional Administrator includes 0.16 hours of clerical labor at $24.67/hour and $ 0.99 for postage and photocopies and equals $ 4.94/LQG (20 11 $).  Compile information demonstrating compliance includes 0.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and 0.5 hours of clerical la bor at $24.67/hour and equals $ 47.00 /L QG (20 11 $).  Tot al cost is $ 168.61 /LQG (20 11 $ ). This RIA a ssume s the total cost for SQGs is two

- thirds of the L QG labor cost at $ 112.73 /SQG plus $0.99/SQG for postage and photocopies (20 1 1 $ ). C umulative total cost is $ 1,201.25 /LQG, $ 194.64/ SQG and $ 0 /CESQG (20 11 $ ). Because of the withdrawal of the 2008 DSW offsite transfer

-

### 110

based exclusion under Option 1 the RCRA generator status for these facilities revert to their baseline status. From Column B of Exhibit 4I , the 4,656 transfer

-based facilities are comprised of 3,752 LQ Gs ( 80.6 %), 829 SQGs ( 17.8 %), and 75 CESQGs ( 1.6 %). The weighted

- average cumulative cost calculates to $ 1,002.86 /facility (20 11 $). Assume contingency plans are revi sed every

10 years. The average annual cost is $ 100.29 /facility

/year (2011$) . It is applied to transfer

-based exclusion facilities only

. From Exhibit 4E, there are 4, 455 affected transfer

-based exclusion facilities (minus 201 re

- manufacturing exclusion facilities) . The aggregate annual cost to prepare advance arrangements is $ 2 8 ,0 00 per year calculated as follows: (4, 455 facilities) x ( $ 100.29 per facility per year) x ( 6.3423 % cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of anal ysis 37 

### ). Requirement 2F .1 : Recordkeeping of Off - site Shipments Retains current shipment requirements with no changes (i.e., all parties must retain records of off

- site shipments and confirmation of receipts for three ye ars). The rationale is that materials most likely to pose a hazard during transport will still be s ubject to DOT standards. Creating a new form or adopting the hazardous waste manifest form will be time

- consuming and may not be worth the additional level of protection. All generators will incur cost. In the 2008 DSW RIA, costs were assumed to be dire ct labor costs for a staff engineer to conduct annual record keeping associated with RCRA hazardous waste management. Labor hours and labor cost s are estimated based on DPRA pro fessional judgment (2007$ ): LQGs use 9.0 hours of labor at a cost of $702 per ye ar per facility , SQGs use 6.0 hours of labor at a cost of $468 per year per facility , and CESQGs use 3.0 hours of labor at a cost of $234 per year per facility

. Because of the withdrawal of the 2008 DSW offsite transfer

-based exclusion under Option 1 the RCRA generator status for these facilities revert to their baseline generator status. From Column B of Exhibit 4I , the 4,656 transfer

-based facilities are comprised of 3,752 LQGs (80.6%), 829 SQGs (17.8%), and 75 CESQGs (1.6 % ). The weighted

- average cumulative cost calculates to $ 649 /facility (2007$). The average annual cost for recordkeeping of off

- site shipments inflated to 201 1 $ is $ 682 per facility . It is applied to transfer

-based exclusion facilities only

. From Exhibit 4E, there are 4, 455 affected transfer

-based exclusion facilities minus the 201 re

- manufacturing exclusion facilities . The aggregate annual cost to prepare advance arrangements is $ 1 93 ,000 per ye ar , calculated as follows: [ (4, 455 facilities x $ 682 /facility/year x 6.3423 % cos t adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is 38 

### ) ]
. Requirement 2F .2 : Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Replaces the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion with an alternative hazardous waste regulation that requires that material be sent to a RCRA
-permitted facility for recycling. The rationale is that it would allow EPA to add conditions without linking each one to “di scard.” TSDRFs will incur costs as a result of maintaining RCRA permits. Before the 2008 DSW final rule , generators were transferring RCRA

37 See Appendix B, Exhibit B3 of this RIA for an example of how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Requirement 2E.2, this RIA applied an average cost per - facility of $ 100.29
. 38 See Appendix B, Exhibit B3 of this RIA for an example of how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Requirement 2F.1, this RIA applied an average cost per

- facility of $ 682
.

### 111

hazardous waste to RCRA permitted facilities and this practice would now resume under Requirement 2E.2 . The estimated cost savings in the 2008 DSW final rule was $ 1,62 0,000 per ye ar (2007$ ) for not having to renew RCRA permits. The cost of renewing RCRA permits will continue under the 2011 DSW proposed rule at a total cost of $1,620,000 per year (2007$ ). The total cost in 201 1 $ is $1, 702 ,000. Discounting these costs from 2015 to 2011 equals $1,298,000 reflecting a 7% discount rate for the 50

- year period of anal ys is ($1,702,000/(1.07) 4 

### ). Option 2 (Plus Option 1) Total Cost Option 2 is implemented in conjunction with Option 1. The total cos t for Option 2 equals baseline cost savings plus Option 1 plus Option 2.  7% discount rate : The modified baseline c ost savings estimate is $7.4 million from the 2008 DSW rule minus $5.7 million from the withdrawal of the off

- site transfer exclusion under Option 1 plus $2.6 million under Option 2 for the retention of the one

- year accumulation time and its associated transportation cost savings equals $4.3 million per year. Costs associated with meeting the requirements of Option 2 are $2.7 million per ye ar . B aseline cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW final rule are reduced from $ 7.4 million per year under the 2008 DSW rule to $ 1.6 million per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule (Exhibit 5A).  3% discount rate : The modified baseline cost savings estimate is $10.8 million from the 2008 DSW rule minus $8.6 million from the withdrawal of the off

- site transfer exclusion under Option 1 plus $4.0 million under Option 2 for the retention of the one

- year accumulation time and its associated transportation cost s avings equals $6.2 million per year. Costs associated with meeting the requirements of Option 2 are $ 3.7 million per year. Baseline cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW final rule are reduced from $ 10.8 million per year under the 2008 DSW rule to $ 2.4 million per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule (Exhibit 5B ; totals in text due not match exhibit due to rounding).  0% discount rate : The modified baseline cost savings estimate is $15.1 million from the 2008 DSW rule minus $12.0 million from the withdrawal of the off

- site transfer exclusion under Option 1 plus $5.6 million under Option 2 for the retention of the one

- year accumulation time and its associated transportation cost savings equals $8.7 million per year. Costs associated with meeting the requirements of Option 2 are $4.7 million per ye ar. Baseline cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW final rule are reduced fro m $15.1 million per year under the 2008 DSW rule to $4.0 million per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule (Exhibit 5C ; totals in text d ue not match exhibit due to rounding).

### 112 Exhibit 5A Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post- Rule Cost Savings for Implementing Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for the 2008 Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion (Option 2) ( 13 % Adop tion Rate, 201 1 $, and 7% Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit

NAICS code A B C D E F G H I J (C+...+I)

Count of Affected Transfer

Based Facilities Affected

Transfer

Based Tonnage Baseline

Cost Savings under 2008 DSW Rule

- Option 1 Withdrawn Savings + Req. 2A Accum
. . Transp. Cost Savings Requirement

2B Notification Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2C Advance Arrangements Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2D Accumulation Restriction Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2 E .2 Contingency Pla n Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2 F .1 Record

keeping of Offsite Shipments Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2 F .2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 2

Post
- Rule Cost Savings (relative to 2008 DSW Rule baseline) 1 11 Ag, F or , Fish, Hunt 3 12 $488 ($0) ($29) ($17) ($17) ($117) ($17) $291 2 21 Mining 21 122 $25,401 ($2) ($223) ($170) ($131) ($894) ($179) $23,802 3 22 Utilities 94 1,418 $80,097 ($9) ($1,017) ($1,982) ($600) ($4,080) ($2,079) $70,330 4 23 Construction 21 789 $15,823 ($2) ($223) ($1,103) ($131) ($894) ($1,157) $12,314 5 31 Manufacturing 34 299 $36,633 ($3) ($368) ($418) ($217) ($1,476) ($439) $33,711 6 32 Manufacturing 975 110,970 $1,693,191 ($90) ($10,515) ($155,084) ($6,203) ($42,168) ($241,327) $1,237,803 7 33 Manufacturing 2,244 668,158 $2,950,712 ($208) ($24,193) ($933,770) ($14,271) ($97,018) ($979,646) $901,607 8 42 Wholesale Trade 105 27,448 $109,565 ($10) ($1,134) ($38,359) ($669) ($4,546) ($40,244) $24,603 9 44 Retail Trade 30 229 $11,726 ($3) ($320) ($320) ($189) ($1,282) ($336) $9,277 10 45 Retail Trade 4 52 $5,785 ($0) ($48) ($73) ($29) ($194) ($76) $5,365 11 48 Transportation 104 1,559 $120,416 ($10) ($1,124) ($2,179) ($663) ($4,507) ($2,286) $109,647 12 49 Postal, Ms grs , Stor
. 28 1,172 $36,719 ($3) ($300) ($1,638) ($177) ($1,204) ($1,719) $31,678 13 51 Information 10 250 $15,772 ($1) ($107) ($349) ($63) ($427) ($366) $14,459 14 53 Real Estate 8 83 $8,605 ($1) ($87) ($116) ($51) ($350) ($13) $7,987 15 54 Prof Sci &Tech Serv 159 1,011 $180,520 ($15) ($1,715) ($1,413) ($1,012) ($6,877) ($1,483) $168,006 16 55 Management 4 25 $5,457 ($0) ($48) ($35) ($29) ($194) ($37) $5,113 17 56 Ad, Waste & Remed 86 16,229 $162,673 ($8) ($930) ($22,680) ($549) ($3,730) ($21,564) $113,211 18 61 Educational Serv. 167 786 $225,769 ($15) ($1,802) ($1,098) ($1,063) ($7,227) ($1,152) $213,410 19 62 Health Care Soc Ass 81 507 $93,258 ($7) ($872) ($709) ($514) ($3,497) ($744) $86,915 20 71 Arts & Recreation 6 12 $4,156 ($1) ($68) ($17) ($40) ($272) ($17) $3,742 21 81 Other Services 79 992 $73,167 ($7) ($853) ($1,386) ($503) ($3,419) ($1,454) $65,545 22 92 Public Admin. 191 1,376 $257,582 ($18) ($2,064) ($1,923) ($1,217) ($8,276) ($2,018) $242,066

Column totals = 4,455 833,499 $6,113,514 ($413) ($48,041) ($1,164,838) ($28,338) ($192,648) ($1,298,353) $3,380,884 Withdraw 2008 Off

- site Transf

er Exclusion under Opt. 1 ($5,671,409) ($5,671,409) Accumulation Time Transportation Cost Savings $2,633,407 $2,633,407

Impact for Exclusion 3 = $1,311,182 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,311,182 Combined impact (Excl. 1 + Excl. 2 + Excl. 3) = $4,386,694 ($413) ($48,041) ($1,164,838) ($28,338) ($192,648) ($1,298,353) $1,654,063

### 113 Exhibit 5B Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post- Rule Cost Savings for Implementing Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion (Option 2)

( 13 % Adoption Rate, 201 1 $, and 3% Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit

NAICS code A B C D E F G H I J (C+...+I)

Count of Affected Transfer

Based Facilities Affected

Transfer

Based Tonnage Baseline

Cost Savings under 2008 DSW Rule

- Option 1 Withdrawn Savings + Req. 2A Accum.. Transp. Cost Savings Requirement

2B Notification Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2C Advance Arrangements Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2D Accumulation Restriction Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2E.2 Contingency Pla n Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2F.1 Record

keep ing of Offsite Shipments Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 2

Post
- Rule Cost Savings (relative to 2008 DSW Rule baseline) 1 11 Ag, F or , Fish, Hunt 3 12 $744 ($0) ($44) ($26) ($26) ($178) ($20) $450 2 21 Mining 21 122 $38,719 ($3) ($340) ($260) ($200) ($1,362) ($208) $36,346 3 22 Utilities 94 1,418 $122,094 ($13) ($1,551) ($3,021) ($915) ($6,219) ($2,422) $107,954 4 23 Construction 21 789 $24,120 ($3) ($340) ($1,681) ($200) ($1,362) ($1,347) $19,187 5 31 Manufacturing 34 299 $55,841 ($5) ($561) ($637) ($331) ($2,251) ($511) $51,545 6 32 Manufacturing 1,176 164,930 $2,580,995 ($138) ($16,029) ($236,400) ($9,455) ($64,278) ($281,088) $1,973,608 7 33 Manufacturing 2,244 668,158 $4,497,883 ($317) ($36,879) ($1,423,381) ($21,754) ($147,888) ($1,141,050) $1,726,615 8 42 Wholesale Trade 105 27,448 $167,014 ($15) ($1,728) ($58,473) ($1,019) ($6,929) ($46,875) $51,975 9 44 Retail Trade 30 229 $17,875 ($4) ($487) ($488) ($287) ($1,954) ($391) $14,262 10 45 Retail Trade 4 52 $8,818 ($1) ($74) ($111) ($44) ($296) ($88) $8,205 11 48 Transportation 104 1,559 $183,555 ($15) ($1,713) ($3,321) ($1,011) ($6,870) ($2,663) $167,962 12 49 Postal, Ms grs , Stor
. 28 1,172 $55,972 ($4) ($458) ($2,497) ($270) ($1,836) ($2,002) $48,906 13 51 Information 10 250 $24,042 ($1) ($162) ($533) ($96) ($651) ($426) $22,172 14 53 Real Estate 8 83 $13,117 ($1) ($133) ($177) ($78) ($533) ($15) $12,180 15 54 Prof Sci & T ech Srv 159 1,011 $275,173 ($22) ($2,614) ($2,154) ($1,542) ($10,483) ($1,727) $256,631 16 55 Management 4 25 $8,318 ($1) ($74) ($53) ($44) ($296) ($43) $7,808 17 56 Ad, Waste & Remed 86 16,229 $247,968 ($12) ($1,418) ($34,573) ($836) ($5,686) ($25,117) $180,326 18 61 Educational Serv. 167 786 $344,148 ($24) ($2,747) ($1,674) ($1,620) ($11,016) ($1,342) $325,724 19 62 Health Care Soc Ass 81 507 $142,157 ($11) ($1,329) ($1,080) ($784) ($5,330) ($866) $132,756 20 71 Arts & Recreation 6 12 $6,336 ($1) ($103) ($26) ($61) ($415) ($20) $5,710 21 81 Other Services 79 992 $111,532 ($11) ($1,300) ($2,113) ($767) ($5,212) ($1,694) $100,435 22 92 Public Admin. 191 1,376 $392,641 ($27) ($3,146) ($2,931) ($1,856) ($12,615) ($2,350) $369,716

Column totals = 4,656 887,459 $9,319,063 ($629) ($73,230) ($1,775,608) ($43,196) ($293,661) ($1,512,266) $5,620,472 Withdraw 2008 Off

- site Transfer Exclusion under Opt. 1 ($8,645,145) ($8,645,145) Accumulation Time Transportation Cost Savings $4,014,202 $4,014,202

Impact for Exclusion 3 = $1,438,692 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,438,692 Combined impact (Excl. 1 + Excl. 2 + Excl. 3) = $6,141,923 ($629) ($73,230) ($1,775,608) ($43,196) ($293,661) ($1,512,266) $2,443,332

### 114 Exhibit 5C Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post- Rule Cost Savings for Implementing Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion (Option 2)

( 1 3 % Adoption Rate, 201 1 $, 0% Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit

NAICS code A B C D E F G H I J (C+...+I)

Count of Affected Transfer

Based Facilities Affected

Transfer

Based Tonnage Baseline Cost

Savings under 2008 DSW Rule

- Option 1 Withdrawn Savings + Req. 2A Accum.. Transp. Cost Savings Requirement

2B Notification Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2C Advance Arrangements Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2D Accumulation Restriction Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2E.2 Contingency Pla n Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2F.1 Record

keeping of Offsite Shipments Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Requirement

2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 2

Post
- Rule Cost Savings (relative to 2008 DSW Rule baseline) 1 11 Ag, F or , Fish, Hunt 3 12 $1,032 ($1) ($61) ($35) ($36) ($246) ($22) $629 2 21 Mining 21 122 $53,705 ($4) ($471) ($360) ($278) ($1,889) ($234) $50,468 3 22 Utilities 94 1,418 $169,350 ($18) ($2,151) ($4,190) ($1,269) ($8,626) ($2,725) $150,371 4 23 Construction 21 789 $33,456 ($4) ($471) ($2,331) ($278) ($1,889) ($1,516) $26,965 5 31 Manufacturing 34 299 $77,454 ($7) ($778) ($883) ($459) ($3,122) ($575) $71,629 6 32 Manufacturing 1,176 164,930 $3,579,957 ($191) ($22,233) ($327,897) ($13,115) ($89,157) ($316,330) $2,811,034 7 33 Manufacturing 2,244 668,158 $6,238,766 ($439) ($51,152) ($1,974,293) ($30,173) ($205,127) ($1,284,113) $2,693,467 8 42 Wholesale Trade 105 27,448 $231,655 ($21) ($2,397) ($81,104) ($1,414) ($9,611) ($52,752) $84,357 9 44 Retail Trade 30 229 $24,793 ($6) ($676) ($677) ($399) ($2,711) ($440) $19,885 10 45 Retail Trade 4 52 $12,231 ($1) ($102) ($154) ($60) ($411) ($99) $11,403 11 48 Transportation 104 1,559 $254,599 ($20) ($2,376) ($4,607) ($1,402) ($9,529) ($2,997) $233,668 12 49 Postal, Ms grs , Stor
. 28 1,172 $77,636 ($5) ($635) ($3,463) ($375) ($2,547) ($2,253) $68,358 13 51 Information 10 250 $33,347 ($2) ($225) ($739) ($133) ($904) ($480) $30,865 14 53 Real Estate 8 83 $18,194 ($2) ($184) ($245) ($109) ($739) ($17) $16,898 15 54 Prof Sci & T ech Srv 159 1,011 $381,677 ($31) ($3,626) ($2,987) ($2,139) ($14,540) ($1,944) $356,410 16 55 Management 4 25 $11,538 ($1) ($102) ($74) ($60) ($411) ($49) $10,841 17 56 Ad, Waste &

Remed 86 16,229 $343,943 ($17) ($1,967) ($47,954) ($1,160) ($7,886) ($28,266) $256,693 18 61 Educational Serv. 167 786 $477,349 ($33) ($3,810) ($2,322) ($2,248) ($15,280) ($1,511) $452,145 19 62 Health Care Soc

Ass 81 507 $197,178 ($16) ($1,844) ($1,498) ($1,088) ($7,393) ($975) $184,365 20 71 Arts & Recreation 6 12 $8,788 ($1) ($143) ($35) ($85) ($575) ($22) $7,926 21 81 Other Services 79 992 $154,700 ($15) ($1,803) ($2,931) ($1,063) ($7,229) ($1,906) $139,752 22 92 Public Admin. 191 1,376 $544,611 ($37) ($4,363) ($4,066) ($2,574) ($17,498) ($2,645) $513,428

Column totals = 4,656 887,459 $12,925,960 ($872) ($101,574) ($2,462,848) ($59,915) ($407,322) ($1,701,872) $8,191,558 Withdraw 2008 Off

- site Transfer Excl. under Opt. 1 ($11,991,206) ($11,991,206) Accumulation Time Transportation Cost Savings $5,567,880 $5,567,880

Impact for Exclusion 3 = $2,105,967 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,105,967 Combined impact (Excl. 1 + Excl. 2 + Excl. 3) = $8,630,720 ($872) ($101,574) ($2,462,848) ($59,915) ($407,322) ($1,701,872) $3,896,317

### 115 

## Option 3: Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Generator - Controlled Recycling The six revisions to the generator

- controlled exclusion of the 2008 DSW final rule include: (1) add a definition of “ contained,” (2) make notification a condition of the exclusion, (3) speculative accumulation recordkeeping & labeling, (4) recordkeeping requirements under toll manufacturing recycling exclusion, (5) eliminate the 2008 DSW toll manufacturing recycling exclusion, and (6) res tructure the regulations. An annual cost savings of $18 0 ,000 per ye ar is estimated for this option

. Option 3A : 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. Option 3B : Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) The net cost impact of this revision is zero because n otification costs are already included in baseline costs as part of the 2008 DSW final rule conditions. The revision is intended to benefit enforcement. Option 3C : Speculative Accumulati on Recordkeeping & Labeling The net cost impact of this revision is zero because i t is likely that facilities already

are placing the accumulation start date on containers to ensure compliance with the one ye ar accumulation limit: “Speculative accumulatio n” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that durin g 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 requirement is intended to improve enforcement. Option 3D: Recordkeeping Requirement for DSW Excluded Recycling Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements Recordkeeping costs for the toll manufacturing recycling exclusion in the 2008 DSW rule are already included in the baseline cost savings estimate as one of the 12 conditions of the 2008 DSW final rule. 39 

### The net impact of this revision is estimated to be zero. These costs should already be incurred as part of their normal RCRA hazardous waste/hazardous materials recordkeeping. For toll contracts they would be kept in their routine business records. Option 3E : Eliminate the 2008 DSW “ Toll Manufacturing” Recycling Exclusion As of April 26, 20 11 , no facilities have notified under the 2008 DSW toll manufacturing recycling exclusion, confirming that this exclusion

39 See Exhibit 7A, Item/Row 5 of the 2008 DSW RIA.

### 116

appears to benefit onl y a very small fraction of hazardous waste generators. This RIA assumes that the net cost impact of this revision is zero because gen erators using toll manufacturing agreements should otherwise be able to use the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion if Option 1 is not selected

. If Option 1 is selected, these facilities can notify under the Option 2 Alternative RCRA Subtitle C recycling exclusion. The cost of withdrawing the toll manufacturing exclusion is $ 0.2 million per year (Exhibit 4L , Column C). The estimated costs for the Option 2 Alternative RCRA Subtitle C recycling exclusion is $ 1.2 million per year (see Exhibit 5A , sum totals for Column s D through H and add accumulation time transportation cost savings ) based on the 13 % base case adoption scenario and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of analysis. The annual cost for withdrawing the toll manufacturing exclusion is estimated to be $ 1 80 ,000 per ye ar calculated as follows: [ (

- 0.2 million/year for the withdrawal of the toll manufacturing exclusion) + ($ 1.2 million/year)/ 597 average annual number of Option 2 Alternative RCRA Subtitle C facilities ) x (12 average annual number of toll manufacturing facilities/year) ]
. Option 3F: Re - structure the location of the non - land based and land - based unit operational req uirements in 40 CFR 261 The net cost impact of these revisions to the 40 CFR regulations is minimal. Minimal time/cost savings may be incurred b y facilities spending less time reading and understanding the regulations. As an estimate, the time savings could be 0.1 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour per facility for having to search for and read onl y 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 IC R , June 30, 2011
. 40 

### Using this rate, the estimated unit cost savings is $ 6.93 /facility (i.e., (0.1 hours saved) x ($ 69.32 /hour)). It is a ssum ed that changeover in staff responsible for compliance and/or refresher with the rule every 3 ye ars on average will result in new familiarization with DSW regulations . Average annual cost is $ 6.93 /facility

divided by 3 ye ars equals $ 2.31 /facility /year (20 11 $ ). The aggregate annual cost savings is $ 3 9 per ye ar calculated as follows: [ (277 generator- controlled exclusion facilities) x ( $ 2.31 per facility per year) x ( 6.025 % cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of analysis 41 

### ) ]
.

40 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200801

- 2050
- 002 at 

### http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR ?ref_nbr=200801

- 2050
- 002
. 41 See Appendix B of this RIA for examples how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Option 3F this RIA applied an average cost savings per

- facility of $ 2.31 and 277 facilities.

### 117 

## Option 4: Revis e the Recycling “Legitimacy” Provisions of the 2008 DSW Final Rule The 2008 DSW final 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. The purpose of defining 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 exemp t from RCRA regulation is a long

- standing part 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 f

urther explained what legitimacy means for recycling. Up until EPA’s 2008 DSW final 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 r ulemaking notices (i.e., Federal Register preambles), and 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

onl y to recycling under the 2008 DSW exclusions, all other industrial recycling is still subject to the Lowrance Memo and other existing legitimacy guidance. The three 2011 proposed revisions to the legitimate recycling prov isions include: 4A. Apply

the same codified definition of legitimate recycling to al l hazardous secondary materials recycled under the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. 4B. Require that all four legitimacy factors be met unless the facility petitions applied to 2008 DSW exclusion facilities and hazardous waste recyclers. 4C. Add a condition requiring documentation of legitimacy for 2008 DSW exclusion facilities and hazardous waste recyclers. Option 4 A: Apply Codified Definition to All Pre - 2008 DSW Industrial Recycling Exclusions Requires all four recycling legitimacy factors be met by

each facility. Facilities would need to submit legitimacy documentation to prove their recycling practice meets all four legitimacy factors. If one (or more) of the factors is not met, a facility can submit a le gitimacy

petition and receive approval from the implementing agency that the recycling is legitimate. In addition, state determinations on legitimacy must be made public and accessible on the Internet. The rationale is it would provide greater enforceability and clarity

on legitimacy

to have the same co dified standard throughout the program. A petition process would give EPA oversight when a factor is not met. This RIA assumes that a legitimacy petition will include c osts equivalent to making a non - waste determination to prove that all four legitimacy factors are met plus the cost for conducting a waste characterization test. Cost estimates for a non

- waste determination were obtained from EPA’s IC R for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Inform ation Collection Request Number 2310.01 Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Final Rule)”, October 28, 2008. 42 

### This RIA assumes future legitimacy petitions are a relatively

rare frequency

applied to 5% of

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
.

### 118

the facilities. 43 

### 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 equals $ 10,173 /facility (20 11$ ). From EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule , characterization of hazardous waste (secondary materials) and recycled materials is estimated to include sampling labor burden and waste characterization analy tical costs. The s ampling is estimated to require a labor burden of 2 hours of field technician labor at $69.32/hour . The anal ytical costs were estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software at a cost of $284 per sample (2007 $ ). 44 

### The 2011 DSW I CR inflated this cost to $306/sample (2011$) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. One sample is collected for each waste or recycled materials for a total cost of $ 445 (20 11 $). The total cost is estimated to be $ 10,617 /facility (20 11$ ). Assume a petition is submitted every 5 years on average because a facility will either modify its product, production process or recycling operations. Average annual cost is $ 10,617 /facility divided by

5 years equals $ 2,123 /facility

/year (20 11$ ). For the total population of pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities the aggregate annual cost to prepare legitimacy

petitions is $431,000 per ye ar calculated as follows: [ (5,321 facilities) x ( $ 2,123 per facility per year) x (5 % of facilities prepare legitimacy petition x cos t adjustment factor of 0.7629 to discount costs from the 2015 start date of the rule to 2011$ assuming a 7% discount rate ) ]
. Costs for conducting due diligence and preparing legitimacy documentation were obtained from EPA’s DSW I CR, June 30, 2011
. The 95% of facilities assumed not to file a legitimacy petition are assumed to prepare and submit legitimacy documentation. Due diligen ce can be conducted three ways: 1. G enerator conduct reasonable efforts for intermediate facilities and reclaimers and prepare certification statement using either in

- house emp loyer audits ($1,919/facility), 2. O utsi de vendor ($3,714/facility), or 3. Readily

availabl e information ($481/facility). The average cost of these three methods is $ 2,038 /facility (20 11$ ). The cost to m aintain for a minimum of three ye ars documentation and certification that reasonable efforts were made is $ 1.23 /facility (20 11$ ) , while the cost to m ake documentation and certification available upon request b y a regulatory authority within 72 hours, or wi thin a longer period of time as specified b y the regulatory authority is $ 2.91 /facility (20 11$ ). The total cost is $ 2,042/facility (2011$). Per CFR Section 261.4(a)(24)(v) reasonable efforts must be repeated at a minimum of every three ye ars for the hazardous secondary material generator to claim the exclusion and to send the hazardous secondary materials to each reclaimer and any intermediate facility. Average annual cost is $ 2,042 /facility

divided by

3 years equals $ 681 /facility /year (20 11$ ). For the total population of pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities the aggregate annual cost to prepare legitimacy documentation is $2. 6 million per year (5,321 facilities x $ 681 /facility /year x 95 % of facilities prepare legitimacy documentation x cost adjustm ent factor of 0.7629 to discount costs from the 2015 start date of the rule to 2011$ assuming a 7% discount rate )

.
43 5% “rare” future annual frequency assumed in this RIA represents the midpoint of a 0% to 10% range in any given future year. 44 RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentatio n.htm.

### 119

For the total population of pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities, the aggregate average annual cost for codifying that all four legitimacy factors be met under the legitimacy definition assuming 5% of the facilities use legitimacy petitions and the remaining 95% u se legitimacy documentations is as follows (as displayed in column D of Exhibit 5K below):

 7% discount rate : $ 3.1 million per year ($431,000 per year for legitimacy petitions + $2.6 million per year for legitimacy documentations  3% discount rate : $ 3.6 million per year  0% discount rate $ 4.0 million per year . Option 4B : Four Legitimacy Factors Petition Applied to 2008 DSW Exclusions and Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Recycling Requires that all four legitimacy factors be met, unless the facility submits a petition and receives approval from the implementing agency that the recycling is legitimate even if one (or more) of the factors is not met. In addition, state determinations on legitimacy must be made public and accessible on the Internet. The rationale is it would make implementation more straightforward and easier. A petition process would give EPA oversight when a factor is not met. Publishing information on the Internet would reduce state burdens for making determinations and lead to more consistency

across state programs. Facilities will incur costs for essentially making a non - waste determination to prove that all four legitimacy

factors are met. All estimated costs apply to generator

- controlled facilities (Exclusion 1 of the 2008 DSW Rule), off

- site transfer facilities (Exclusion 2 of the 2008 DSW final rule) , AND all non

- notifying fac ilities recycling under RCRA

. They do not apply

to the non

- waste determination facilities under Exclusion 3 of the 2008 DSW final rule. Costs for a legitimacy petition are assumed to be equivalent to making a non

- waste determination plus conducting a was te characterization test. Hour estimates for a non

- waste determination were obtained from EPA’s IC R for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2310.01 Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Was te (Final Rule)”, October 28, 2008
. 45 

### Labor rates were obtained from the 2011 DSW ICR. This RIA assumes future legitimacy petitions are a relativel y rare frequency applied to 5% of the facilities. 46 

### 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 equals $ 10,173 /facility (20 11$ ). From EPA’s RIA for the 200 8 DSW final rule , characterization of hazardous waste (secondary materials) and recycled materials is estimated to include sampling labor burden and waste characterization anal ytical costs. The sampling is estimated to require a labor burden of 2 hours of field technician labor at $69.32/hour . The anal ytical costs were estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software at a cost of $284 per sample (2007 $ ). 47 

### The 2011 DSW I CR inflated this cost to $306/sample (2011$) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. One sample is collected for each waste or recycled materials for a total cost of $ 445 (20 11 $). The total cost is estimated to be $ 10,617 /facility (20 11$ ). Assume a petition is submitted

45 D ocument can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200905

- 2050
- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200905

- 2050
- 001
. 46 5% “rare” future annual frequency assumed in this RIA represents the midpoint of a 0% to 10% range in any given future year. 47 RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentatio n.htm.

### 120

every 5 years on average because a facility will either modify

its product, production process or recycling operations. Aver age annual cost is $ 10,617 /facility

divided by

5 years equals $ 2,123 /facility /ye ar (20 11$ ). From Exhibit 4E there are 4,933 affected facilities. The aggregate annual cost to prepare a legitimacy petition is $ 399,000 per year, calculated as follows: [ (4,933 facilities x $ 2,132/facility/ye ar x 3.8145% cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, and onl y 5% of notifying facilities submitting legitimacy petitions and a 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is )] 48 )



### . For the non

- waste determination facilities (Exclusion 3 of the 2008 DSW Final rule) , i t is assumed that these facilities made the argument through the non

- waste determination process that the recycling is legitimate. A higher estimated non

- waste determination cost estimate was used ($11,451 in 2007$ ) in the 2008 DSW RIA baseline because hi gher labor rates than those in the ICR were used. Therefore, no additional waste characterization cost s are added to the non

- waste determination facilities

. The net cost impact of this revision is zero for non

- waste determination facilities. Option 4C : Legitimacy Documentation Applied to 2008 DSW Exclusions and Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Recycling Adds a condition requiring documentation of recycling “legitimacy” to the 2008 DSW generator

- controlled and to the offsite transfer recycling exclusions, th e 2008 DSW non
- waste determination petition process and hazardous waste recycling facilities. The rationale is that the rule would ensure that facilities will closely examine the recycling taking place for legitimacy in order to also avoid problems with requiring documentation of legitimacy for all existing recycling. Facilities will incur costs for conducting due diligence (legitimacy documentation). If Option 1 is NOT selected c osts were not appl ied to notifying off

- site transfer ( Exclusion 2 ) faciliti es because due diligence costs were already included in the baseline as part of the 2008 DSW RIA. Costs were applied to all non

- notifying facilities. I f Option 1 is selected costs are applied to all facilities. Cost estimates were obtained from EPA’s 20 11 DSW IC R
. Due diligence can be conducted three ways. The generator can conduct reasonable due diligence efforts on intermediate facilities and reclaimers and prepare certification statement using either of three methods: 1. G enerator conduct reasonable efforts for intermediate facilities and reclaimers and prepare certification statement using either in

- house emp loyer audits ($1,919/facility), 2. O utsi de vendor ($3,714/facility), or 3. Readily

availabl e information ($481/facility). The average cost of these three methods is $ 2,038 /facility (20 11$ ). The cost to m aintain for a minimum of three ye ars documentation and certification that reasonable efforts were made is $ 1.23 /facility (20 11$ ) , while the cost to m ake documentation and certification available upon request b y a regulatory authority within 72 hours, or within a longer period of time as specified b y the regulatory authority is $ 2.91 /facility (20 11$ ). The total cost is $ 2,042/facility (2011$). To estimate aggregate cost impacts, it is a ssume d that 5% o f the facilities submit a legitimacy petition under Option 5B and 95% of the

48 See Appendix B, Exhibit B4 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived.

### 121

facilities submit legitimacy documentation under Option 5C

. Per CFR Section 261.4(a)(24)(v) reasonable efforts must be repeated at a minimum of every

three years for the hazardou s secondary material generator to claim the exclusion and to send the hazardous secondary materials to each reclaimer and any intermediate facility . Average annual cost is $ 2,042 /facility divided by

3 years equals $ 681 /facility /year (20 11$ ). If Option 1 is NOT selected a legitimacy documentation cost is applied to generator

- controlled facilities under the 2008 DSW exclusions and non

- notifyingRCRA hazardous waste recyclers

. As mentioned previousl y, legitimacy documentation costs are already included in the baseline cost savings estimate for off

- site transfer facilities that have notified. All non

- notifying facilities are affected (i.e., RCRA hazardous waste recyclers) . The aggregate annual cost to prepare legitimacy provisions is $ 2,244,000 per ye ar calculated as follows: [ (4 , 933 facilities) x ( $ 681 per facility per year) x (66.7883% cost adjustment reflecting the 13% base case adoption scenario, non

notifying facilities, and 95% of notifying facilities submitting legitimacy documentations an d 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of analysis )] 49



### . If Option 1 is selected there are 4,933 affected facilities. The aggregate annual cost to prepare legitimacy provisions is $ 2,435,000 per year calculated as follows: [ (4,993 facilities) x ( $ 681 per facility per year) x (72.4752% cost adjustment reflecting the 13% base case adoption scenario, and 95% of notifying facilities submitting legitimacy documentations and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is )] 50



### . For the non

- wast e determination facilities (Exclusion 3 of the 2008 DSW Final rule) , it is assumed that these facilities made the argument through the non

- waste determination process that the recycling is legitimate. Therefore, no additional waste characterization cost s are added to the non

- waste determination facilities

. The net cost impact of this revision is zero for non

- waste determination facilities. Option 4 Total Cost The total cost for Option 4 is as follows:

 7% discount rate : The baseline annual cost savings estimate is $7.4 million from the 2008 DSW rule and $79.3 million for the pre

- 2008 exclusion facilities for a total of $86.7 million . Costs associated with meeting the requirements of Option 5 are $2. 8 or $2.6 million per ye ar , respectivel y, whether Option 1 is or is not selected. Costs associated with the pre

- 2008 exclusions are estimated at $3.1 million per year. Total costs associated with the revisions to the 2008 DSW rule are either $5.9 or $5.7 million per year, respectively, whether Option 1 is selected or not. Baseline cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW final rule are reduced from $86.7 million per year under the 2008 DSW rule and pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions to $80.8 or $81.0 million per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule, respectivel y, whether Option 1 is or is not selected (Exhibit 5D presents the 2008 DSW rule component and Exhibit 5K presents the pre - 2008 exclusions component).

49 See Appendix B, Exhibit B5 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. This RIA subtracted out the facilities that notified under the off

- site transfer exclusion (covered under baseline already) from the column of notifying facilities

. 50 See Appendix B, Exhibit B5 of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived

.

### 122

 3% discount rate : The baseline annual cost savings estimate is $10.7 million from the 2008 DSW rule and $92.4 million for the pre

2008 exclusion facilities for a total of $103.1 million. Costs associated with meeting the requirements of Option 5 are $3.3 or $3.0 million per year, respectively , whether Option 1 is or is not selected. Costs associat ed with the pre

- 2008 exclusions are estimated at $3.6 million per year. Total costs associated with the revisions to the 2008 DSW rule are either $6.9 or $6.6 million per ye ar, respectivel y, whether Option 1 is selected or not. Baseline cost savings asso ciated with the 2008 DSW final rule are reduced from $103.1 million per year under the 2008 DSW rule and pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions to $96.2 or $96.5 million per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule, respectively , whether Option 1 is or is not selected (Exhibit 5E presents the 2008 DSW rule component and Exhibit 5K presents the pre

- 2008 exclusions component).

 0% discount rate : The baseline annual cost savings estimate is $15.1 million from the 2008 DSW rule and $103.9 million for the pre

2008 exclusion fac ilities for a total of $119.0 million. Costs associated with meeting the requirements of Option 5 are $3.7 or $3.3 million per year, respectively , whether Option 1 is or is not selected. Costs associated with the pre

- 2008 exclusions are estimated at $4.0 million per year. Total costs associated with the revisions to the 2008 DSW rule are either $7.7 or $7.3 million per year, respectivel y, whether Option 1 is selected or not. Baseline cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW final rule are reduced from $119.0 million per year under the 2008 DSW rule and pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions to $111.3 or $111.7 million per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule, respectivel y, whether Option 1 is or is not selected (Exhibit 5F presents the 2008 DSW rule component and Exhibit 5K presents the pre

- 2008 exclusions component).

### 123 Exhibit 5D Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post Rule Cost Savings for Meeting the 2011 Proposed Revisions

to the 20 08 DSW "Legitim acy" Requirement (Option 4 ) (7% Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS code A B C D E F (B+C+D) G (B+C+E) Count of Affected Facilities Baseline

Cost Savings (cost savings under 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 B

Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 C

OPTION 1 NOT SELECTED Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs(incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 C OPTION 1 SELECTED Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs(incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4

OPTION 1 NOT SELECTED Post Rule Cost Savings (relative to pre

2008 DSW Rule baseline) Option 4

OPTION 1 SELECTED Post Rule Cost Savings (relative to pre - 2008 DSW Rule baseline) 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 3 $488 ($218) ($1,226) ($1,330)

- $956

- $1,061 2 21 Mining 21 $25,401 ($1,674) ($9,400) ($10,200) $14,328 $13,527 3 22 Utilities 96 $80,097 ($7,786) ($43,728) ($47,451) $28,583 $24,859 4 23 Construction 22 $15,823 ($1,746) ($9,808) ($10,643) $4,269 $3,434 5 31 Manufacturing 34 $36,633 ($2,765) ($15,530) ($16,852) $18,338 $17,016 6 32 Manufacturing 1,322 $1,693,191 ($107,036) ($601,160) ($652,347) $984,995 $933,808 7 33 Manufacturing 2,289 $2,950,712 ($185,329) ($1,040,893) ($1,129,523) $1,724,489 $1,635,860 8 42 Wholesale Trade 106 $109,565 ($8,586) ($48,224) ($52,330) $52,755 $48,649 9 44 Retail Trade 30 $11,726 ($2,401) ($13,486) ($14,635)

- $4,161

- $5,309 10 45 Retail Trade 4 $5,785 ($364) ($2,043) ($2,217) $3,378 $3,204 11 48 Transportation 105 $120,416 ($8,513) ($47,815) ($51,886) $64,088 $60,017 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 29 $36,719 ($2,328) ($13,078) ($14,191) $21,313 $20,200 13 51 Information 11 $15,772 ($873) ($4,904) ($5,322) $9,995 $9,577 14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 13 $8,605 ($1,091) ($6,130) ($6,652) $1,384 $862 15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 161 $180,520 ($13,025) ($73,153) ($79,381) $94,342 $88,114 16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 4 $5,457 ($364) ($2,043) ($2,217) $3,050 $2,876 17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 151 $162,673 ($12,224) ($68,657) ($74,503) $81,791 $75,945 18 61 Educational Services 171 $225,769 ($13,825) ($77,648) ($84,260) $134,295 $127,684 19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 84 $93,258 ($6,767) ($38,007) ($41,243) $48,484 $45,248 20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 6 $4,156 ($509) ($2,861) ($3,104) $786 $543 21 81 Other Services 80 $73,167 ($6,476) ($36,372) ($39,469) $30,319 $27,222 22 92 Public Administration 192 $257,582 ($15,571) ($87,456) ($94,903) $154,554 $147,107 Column totals = 4,933 $6,113,514 ($399,473) ($2,243,621) ($2,434,660) $3,470,419 $3,279,381 Im pact for Exclusion 3 = 74 $1,311,182 $0 $0 $0 $1,311,182 $1,311,182 Com bined impact (Excl. 1 + Excl. 2 + Excl. 3) = 5,007 $7,424,696 ($399,473) ($2,243,621) ($2,434,660) $4,781,601 $4,590,563

### 124 Exhibit 5E Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post Rule Cost Savings for Meeting the 2011 Proposed Revisions

to the 20 08 DSW "Legitim acy" Requirement (Option 4 ) (3 % Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS code A B C D E F (B+C+D) G (B+C+E) Count of Affected Facilities Baseline Cost

Savings (cost savings under 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 B

Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 C

OPTION 1 NOT SELECTED Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs(incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 C OPTION 1 SELECTED Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs(incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4

OPTION 1 NOT SELECTED Post Rule Cost Savings (relative to pre

2008 DSW Rule baseline) Option 4

OPTION 1 SELEC TED Post Rule Cost Savings (relative to pre - 2008 DSW Rule baseline) 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 3 $744 ($254) ($1,390) ($1,550)

- $901

- $1,060 2 21 Mining 21 $38,719 ($1,949) ($10,660) ($11,880) $26,109 $24,889 3 22 Utilities 96 $122,094 ($9,068) ($49,594) ($55,269) $63,432 $57,756 4 23 Construction 22 $24,120 ($2,034) ($11,124) ($12,397) $10,962 $9,689 5 31 Manufacturing 34 $55,841 ($3,221) ($17,613) ($19,628) $35,008 $32,992 6 32 Manufacturing 1,322 $2,580,995 ($124,670) ($681,800) ($759,826) $1,774,525 $1,696,498 7 33 Manufacturing 2,289 $4,497,883 ($215,864) ($1,180,519) ($1,315,620) $3,101,500 $2,966,398 8 42 Wholesale Trade 106 $167,014 ($10,001) ($54,692) ($60,951) $102,321 $96,062 9 44 Retail Trade 30 $17,875 ($2,797) ($15,295) ($17,046)

- $217

- $1,968 10 45 Retail Trade 4 $8,818 ($424) ($2,317) ($2,583) $6,077 $5,812 11 48 Transportation 105 $183,555 ($9,916) ($54,229) ($60,435) $119,410 $113,204 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 29 $55,972 ($2,712) ($14,832) ($16,529) $38,428 $36,731 13 51 Information 11 $24,042 ($1,017) ($5,562) ($6,198) $17,463 $16,826 14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 13 $13,117 ($1,271) ($6,952) ($7,748) $4,894 $4,098 15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 161 $275,173 ($15,171) ($82,965) ($92,460) $177,037 $167,542 16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 4 $8,318 ($424) ($2,317) ($2,583) $5,577 $5,312 17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 151 $247,968 ($14,238) ($77,867) ($86,778) $155,863 $146,951 18 61 Educational Services 171 $344,148 ($16,103) ($88,064) ($98,142) $239,981 $229,903 19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 84 $142,157 ($7,882) ($43,105) ($48,038) $91,170 $86,237 20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 6 $6,336 ($593) ($3,244) ($3,616) $2,498 $2,127 21 81 Other Services 80 $111,532 ($7,543) ($41,251) ($45,972) $62,738 $58,017 22 92 Public Administration 192 $392,641 ($18,137) ($99,188) ($110,539) $275,317 $263,965 Column totals = 4,933 $9,319,063 ($465,290) ($2,544,582) ($2,835,790) $6,309,191 $6,017,984 Im pact for Exclusion 3 = 74 $1,453,803 $0 $0 $0 $1,453,803 $1,453,803 Com bined impact (Excl. 1 + Excl. 2 + Excl. 3) = 5,007 $10,772,866 ($465,290) ($2,544,582) ($2,835,790) $7,762,994 $7,471,786

### 125 Exhibit 5F Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post Rule Cost Savings for Meeting the 2011 Proposed Revisions

to the 20 08 DSW "Legitim acy" Requirement (Option 4 ) (0 % Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2

- digit NAICS code A B C D E F (B+C+D) G (B+C+E) Count of Affected Facilities Baseline Cost

Savings (cost savings under 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 B

Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs (incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 C

OPTION 1 NOT SELECTED Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs(incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4 C OPTION 1 SELECTED Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs(incremental to 2008 DSW Rule) Option 4

OPTION 1 NOT SELECTED Post Rule Cos t Savings (relative to pre

2008 DSW Rule baseline) Option 4

OPTION 1 SELECTED Post Rule Cost Savings (relative to pre - 2008 DSW Rule baseline) 1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 3 $1,032 ($286) ($1,523) ($1,744)

- $777

- $998 2 21 Mining 21 $53,705 ($2,194) ($11,678) ($13,370) $39,834 $38,142 3 22 Utilities 96 $169,350 ($10,205) ($54,327) ($62,199) $104,818 $96,946 4 23 Construction 22 $33,456 ($2,289) ($12,185) ($13,951) $18,981 $17,215 5 31 Manufacturing 34 $77,454 ($3,624) ($19,294) ($22,089) $54,536 $51,740 6 32 Manufacturing 1,322 $3,579,957 ($140,301) ($746,866) ($855,092) $2,692,790 $2,584,563 7 33 Manufacturing 2,289 $6,238,766 ($242,928) ($1,293,179) ($1,480,571) $4,702,658 $4,515,267 8 42 Wholesale Trade 106 $231,655 ($11,255) ($59,912) ($68,593) $160,489 $151,807 9 44 Retail Trade 30 $24,793 ($3,147) ($16,755) ($19,183) $4,891 $2,463 10 45 Retail Trade 4 $12,231 ($477) ($2,539) ($2,906) $9,215 $8,848 11 48 Transportation 105 $254,599 ($11,159) ($59,404) ($68,012) $184,036 $175,428 12 49 Postal, Messengers, Storage 29 $77,636 ($3,052) ($16,247) ($18,602) $58,337 $55,982 13 51 Information 11 $33,347 ($1,145) ($6,093) ($6,976) $26,110 $25,227 14 53 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 13 $18,194 ($1,431) ($7,616) ($8,719) $9,148 $8,044 15 54 Prof, Scientific & Tech Services 161 $381,677 ($17,073) ($90,883) ($104,053) $273,722 $260,552 16 55 Mgt of Companies/Enterprises 4 $11,538 ($477) ($2,539) ($2,906) $8,522 $8,155 17 56 Admin, Waste, & Remediation 151 $343,943 ($16,024) ($85,298) ($97,658) $242,621 $230,261 18 61 Educational Services 171 $477,349 ($18,122) ($96,468) ($110,447) $362,759 $348,780 19 62 Health Care, Social Assistance 84 $197,178 ($8,870) ($47,219) ($54,061) $141,089 $134,247 20 71 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 6 $8,788 ($668) ($3,554) ($4,069) $4,566 $4,051 21 81 Other Services 80 $154,700 ($8,489) ($45,188) ($51,736) $101,023 $94,475 22 92 Public Administration 192 $544,611 ($20,411) ($108,653) ($124,398) $415,547 $399,802 Column totals = 4,933 $12,925,960 ($523,627) ($2,787,418) ($3,191,336) $9,614,915 $9,210,997 Im pact for Exclusion 3 = 74 $2,128,086 $0 $0 $0 $2,128,086 $2,128,086 Com bined impact (Excl. 1 + Excl. 2 + Excl. 3) = 5,007 $15,054,046 ($523,627) ($2,787,418) ($3,191,336) $11,743,001 $11,339,083

### 126 

## Option 5 : Revise the 1985 Partial Recycling Variance and 2008 DSW Non -Waste Determination Petition

Processes The Agency

is proposing to modify

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 the protectiveness of the implementation of the solid waste variances and non

- waste determinations. Specifically , EPA is proposing to do the following: 1. Revise 40 CFR 260.33(c) to require facilities to re

- apply for a variance in the event of a change in circumstances that affects how a materi al meets the criteria upon which a solid waste variance has been based; 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 b y § 260.42 of this chapter; 3. Revise th e criteria for the partial 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 supports other criterion; 4. Revise the criteria for the non

- waste determination in 40 CFR 260.34 to require that petitioners explain or demonstrate why their hazardous secondary

materials cannot meet, or should not have to meet, the existing D SW exclusions under §§ 261.2 or 261.4; and 5. Designate the Regional Administrator as the EPA recipient of petitions for variance and non

- waste determinations. Option 5 A: Requirement that an Applicant Re - apply in the Event the Material No Longer Meets the Relevant Criteria 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 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 wa ste. The procedures for these variances and non

- waste determinations are found in 40 CFR 260.33. EPA is proposing two changes to 40 CFR 260.33. First, EPA is proposing to make all variances subject to the provision in 40 CFR 260.33(c) requiring an app licant to re

- appl y for a variance in the event that the material no longer meets the relevant criteria. Second, EPA is proposing to make all variances and non

- waste determinations subject to the biennial notification requirements in 40 CFR 260.42 (see Option 4B)

. 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) any conditi ons as specified b y the regulatory

authority and the applicant fails to re

- appl y 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 6471 2

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

### 127

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 ass ist in its implementation, but only focused on the non

- waste determination provisions because that was the scope of that rule. EPA is now proposing to explicitly appl y 40 CFR 260.33(c) to all the solid waste variances, as well as the non

- waste determinati on 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 b y the regulatory authority to ensure that those criteria continue to be met. Codifying this requirement would 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. Acc ording to EPA’s DSW I CR, 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 technical labor at $69.32/hour and $25.87 in O&M costs for a total of $5,225/application (2011$). This RIA assumes that a non - waste determination application needs to be re

- submitted every 10 years due to changes in the process. The aggregate annual cost savings is approximately $ 2 8 ,0 00 per year , calculated as follows: [ (73.5 average annual non

- waste determination petition facilities/10 ) x ( $ 5,225/non - waste determination petition facility) x ( 72.9492 % cost adjustment reflecting 7% discount rate for the 2 0
- year future period of anal ys is selected to be consistent with the 2008 DSW rule b aseline anal ys is) ]
. 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 b y EPA Regional Offices

. The 2011 DSW I CR estimated an annual paperwork burden cost of 8,483 per variance application (2011$). The cost for a new variance application is assumed to be the same both pre

- and post

- rule. The incremental cost is z ero. However, the 2011 DSW I CR 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 t echnical labor at $69.32/hour and $25.87 of O&M costs and equals $5,225/variance re

- application (2011$). The 2011 DSW I CR assumes four (4) re

applications for variances per year. The average annual cost is $ 15 ,9 45 per year , calculated as follows: [ ($5,225 /variance re - application x 4 variance re - applications /year x 0.76290 cost adjustment factor to discount costs from the first year the rule is in effect in 2015 to 2011$ at a 7% discount rate ) ]
. Option 5 B : Biennial Notification Labor hour estimates were obtained from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Inform ation Collection Request Number 2310.01 Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Final Rule)”, October 28, 2008. 51 

### Labor wage rates were obtained from the 2011 DSW ICR, June 30, 2011. The total cost is $ 2.91 for re

- notification/facility every two ye ars which equals $ 1.46 /facility /year (20 11 $). The aggregate annual cost savings is approximately $ 7 8 per year for non

- waste determination facilities (7 3.5 average annual non - waste determination petition

51 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200905
- 2050
- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200905

- 2050
- 001
.

### 128

facilities x $ 1.46 /facility

/year) x ( 72.9492 % cost adjustment reflecting 7% discount rate for the 2 0
- year future period of anal ysis selected to be consistent with the 2008 DSW rule baseline anal ysis ). The aggregate annual cost savings is approximately $ 206 per year for v ariance application facilities , calculated as follows: [ ( 305 average annual variance facilities ) x ( $ 1.46/facility /year) x (4 6
. 3457 % cost adjustment refle cting 7% discount rate for the 5 0
- year future period of anal ys is ) ]
. In addition, facilities are required to u pdate and submit notif

ication 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 process of notifying biennially

. Finally , EPA intends to provid e 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 annually

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. Option 5 C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials 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 determination will be based on the following factors ”. This regulatory language implies that all six factors must be applied, whi ch furth er implies that Option 4C will not have any impact relative to the average annual success:to:failure ratio according to the baseline decision

making process for these variance applications. This scenario constitutes the "lower

-bound" $0 per -year cost estimate for Option 4C in this RIA. Upper

-Bound Cost Estimate On the other hand, some RCRA stakeholders may argue that the phrase “ may rely on any... ” implies that facilities have onl y had to comply /conform with one of the six factors. Therefore, if all six factors become mandatory , regulators may reject as many

as 83% (i.e., 5/6 = 83%) of future annual applicants, resulting in higher incurred cost to recycle as hazardous waste under Subtitle C. Relevant to the I CR’s 10 average annual applicants, implies a possible average annual future rejection of 8 variance applications per year (i.e., (10 average annual variance applications) x (83%) = 8). Under this alternative upper

- bound impact scenario, this RIA assigns a higher RCRA

- regulated recycling cost to thos e rejected variance applicants (i.e., facilities) in each future ye ar of the 50

- ye ar period

- of

- anal ys is applied in this RIA, as an “upper

bound” cost estimate for Option 4C . The calculation of this upper

- bound cost estimate is displayed in Exhibit 5 G belo w, and is estimated at $3.706 million per- ye ar in average annual future cost (0% discount rate). The Exhibit also display s the average annual value of this cost at tw o alternative discount rates of 3% ($2.452 million per year) and 7% ($1.402 million per year). According to the background information for Option 4C provided in EPA’s Federal Register notice for the 2011 proposed revisions to DSW, in

### 129

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 $19,205 (2011$) average annual per

- facility cost savings associated with the “Exclusion 2” offsite transfer

-based recycling exclusion, as estimated in EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule and updated in Chapter 4 of this RIA. 52 

### Option 5 D : Non -Waste Determination Petitioners Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing DSW Recycling Exclusions This RIA assumes that this cost is already included in the preparation of a petition included in the baseline costs. 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 already included in the baseline cos t savings estimates. The net cost impact is zero. Option 5 E: Change the Word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” to Receive Variance and 2008 DSW Non -Waste Determination Petitions This RIA assumes that this wording change will not have a cost impact on industrial facilities.

52 The $19,205 average annual cost (2011$) is calculated in this RIA by dividing the $89.421,946 nationwide annual cost savings for the “Exclusion 2: Transfer

-based” from Column D of Exhibit 4G, by the 4,656 nationwide facility count for the “Exclusion 2: Transfer

-based” from Column D of Exhibit 4E

### 130 Exhibit 5G Upper- Bound Estimate of Potential Future Cost to Industry for Modifying the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) Variance

for Partially Recycled Materials for DSW Exclusion (Option 5 C ) 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 Option 5C upper bound annual rejections (@83% rate) Option 5C upper bound cumulative rejections Reduction in cost

savings if 83% future variance applications rejected

- 4 2011 10 20 $0 0 0 $0

- 3 2012 10 30 $0 0 0 $0

- 2 2013 10 40 $0 0 0 $0

- 1 2014 10 50 $0 0 0 $0 1 2015 10 60 $1,152,300 8 8 $159,402 2 2016 10 70 $1,344,350 8 17 $318,803 3 2017 10 80 $1,536,400 8 25 $478,205 4 2018 10 90 $1,728,450 8 33 $637,606 5 2019 10 100 $1,920,500 8 42 $797,008 6 2020 10 110 $2,112,550 8 50 $956,409 7 2021 10 120 $2,304,600 8 58 $1,115,811 8 2022 10 130 $2,496,650 8 66 $1,275,212 9 2023 10 140 $2,688,700 8 75 $1,434,614 10 2024 10 150 $2,880,750 8 83 $1,594,015 11 2025 10 160 $3,072,800 8 91 $1,753,417 12 2026 10 170 $3,264,850 8 100 $1,912,818 13 2027 10 180 $3,456,900 8 108 $2,072,220 14 2028 10 190 $3,648,950 8 116 $2,231,621 15 2029 10 200 $3,841,000 8 125 $2,391,023 16 2030 10 210 $4,033,050 8 133 $2,550,424 17 2031 10 220 $4,225,100 8 141 $2,709,826 18 2032 10 230 $4,417,150 8 149 $2,869,227 19 2033 10 240 $4,609,200 8 158 $3,028,629 20 2034 10 250 $4,801,250 8 166 $3,188,030 21 2035 10 260 $4,993,300 8 174 $3,347,432 22 2036 10 270 $5,185,350 8 183 $3,506,833 23 2037 10 280 $5,377,400 8 191 $3,666,235 24 2038 10 290 $5,569,450 8 199 $3,825,636 25 2039 10 300 $5,761,500 8 208 $3,985,038 26 2040 10 310 $5,953,550 8 216 $4,144,439 27 2041 10 320 $6,145,600 8 224 $4,303,841 28 2042 10 330 $6,337,650 8 232 $4,463,242

### 131 Exhibit 5G Upper- Bound Estimate of Potential Future Cost to Industry for Modifying the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) Variance

for Partially Recycled Materials for DSW Exclusion (Option 5 C ) 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 Option 5C upper bound annual rejections (@83% rate) Option 5C upper bound cumulative rejections Reduction in cost

savings if 83% future variance applications rejected 29 2043 10 340 $6,529,700 8 241 $4,622,644 30 2044 10 350 $6,721,750 8 249 $4,782,045 31 2045 10 360 $6,913,800 8 257 $4,941,447 32 2046 10 370 $7,105,850 8 266 $5,100,848 33 2047 10 380 $7,297,900 8 274 $5,260,250 34 2048 10 390 $7,489,950 8 282 $5,419,651 35 2049 10 400 $7,682,000 8 291 $5,579,053 36 2050 10 410 $7,874,050 8 299 $5,738,454 37 2051 10 420 $8,066,100 8 307 $5,897,856 38 2052 10 430 $8,258,150 8 315 $6,057,257 39 2053 10 440 $8,450,200 8 324 $6,216,659 40 2054 10 450 $8,642,250 8 332 $6,376,060 41 2055 10 460 $8,834,300 8 340 $6,535,462 42 2056 10 470 $9,026,350 8 349 $6,694,863 43 2057 10 480 $9,218,400 8 357 $6,854,265 44 2058 10 490 $9,410,450 8 365 $7,013,666 45 2059 10 500 $9,602,500 8 374 $7,173,068 46 2060 10 510 $9,794,550 8 382 $7,332,469 47 2061 10 520 $9,986,600 8 390 $7,491,871 48 2062 10 530 $10,178,650 8 398 $7,651,272 49 2063 10 540 $10,370,700 8 407 $7,810,674 50 2064 10 550 $10,562,750 8 415 $7,970,075

Present value @ 0% $292,876,250 $203,236,913 Present value @ 3% $107,816,575 $71,267,718 Present value @ 7% $37,465,042 $22,704,673 Average annual@ 0% $5,857,525 $4,064,738 Average annual@ 3% $4,190,345 $2,769,855 Average annual@ 7% $2,714,711 $1,645,177

### 132 

## Option 6: Add a “Re-

Manufacturing” DSW Recycling Exclusion This re

- manufacturing option as proposed applies to spent solvent “processing aids” which may be sent offsite for “re

- manufacturing” (distillation) by

another company , for continued use as processing aids. This exclusion could either replace the 2008 DSW offsite transfer exclusion (i.e., in conjunction with Option 1 of this RIA), or be a specific ty pe of offsite transfer exclusion in addition to the more general 2008 DSW offsite recycling exclusion (i.e., without Option 1 of this RIA). The re - manufacturin g exclusion has four elements evaluated in this RIA: 6A. Meet the five eligibility criteria of the exclusion: 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 che mical m anufacturing , plastics/resins m anufacturing , pharmaceutical m anufacturing , paints/coating m anufacturing) 5. Five conditions for both generators & re

- manufacturers (notification, re

- manufacturing plan, 3

- ye ar shipment recordkeeping, store solvents in tanks/containers meeting RCRA Subtitle C, no speculative accumulation). 6B. Restriction against using intermediate storage/consolidation facilities under this exclusion. 6C. Additional possible administrative requirements (e.g., financial assurance, public p articipation). 6D. Petition process for adding to the eligibility criteria (e.g., adding industries, adding chemicals) of the exclusion. The impact anal ys is for Option 6 is organized into two sections for the purpose of distinguishing the potential regula tory impact of (a) complying with the exclusion based on the proposed eligibility criteria (i.e., elements 6A, 6B, 6C), and (b) compl ying with the exclusion through the petition process (i.e., .elements 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D)

 Impacts of Re - manufacturing Option 6 Based on Proposed Eligibility Criteria and Conditions (6A + 6B + 6C) Element 6A: Potential Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities From the baseline perspective of this RIA defined in relation to the 2008 DSW final rule projected future cost saving s, the potential future RCRA de

- regulatory

annual c ost s avings to industry for participating under the solvent “re

- manufacturing” DSW exclusion are already included, to a lesser or greater extent, in the 2008 DSW final rule cost savings baseline for the 20 08 DSW offsite exclusion. The two categories of solvent recycling evaluated for future de

- regulatory cost savings in the 2008 RIA, according to the four exclusions of the DSW final rule (i.e., generator onsite recycling, same company offsite recycling, of fsite toll recycling, and offsite 2 nd 

### party transfer recycling) were: 1. Solvent recycling : 456 facilities currentl y rec ycling 328,931 tons per ye ar (2007) RCRA

- regulated spent solvents (consisting of 106,147 tons onsite + 222,784 tons offsite), as displayed above in Exhibit 3A based on the Biennial Report (BR) H020 solvent recovery code.

### 133

2. Solvent disposal : Upwards of 1,968 facilities (shown in Exhibit 3T, row B1, column F) currentl y disposing 595,345 tons/year (2007) RCRA
- regulated solvents (this tonnage is displayed above in Exhibit 3W for “Commodity Group #2” and identified based on BR data for a combination of (a) five W202, W203, W204, W209, W211 chemical form codes, (b) G01 and G06 industrial process/ activity generation source codes, and (c) eight hazardous waste codes (F001, F002, F003, F004, F005, F024, F025, K086). The above two spent solvent management categories (i.e., recycling + disposing) total upwards of 2,424 current facilities inv olving 2.92 million tons spent solvents per year (i.e., 328,931 tons/year current recycling + 595,345 tons/ye ar current disposal), as updated in this RIA to the 2007 BR data ye ar. In comparison, based on EPA’s 2009 “Toxics Release Inventory” (TRI) database as displayed in Appendix C to this RIA, the four eligible NAI C S code industries reported generating 507,715 tons/year of waste for 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). 53 

### As displayed in the final table of Appendix C , based on recent US average market prices for 16 of the 18 chemicals ranging between $0.14 and $0.82 per pound (which is equivalent to $280 to $1 ,640 per 2,000
- pound short

- ton), the annual US market value of these 16 chemicals which could potentially be remanufactured is $ 42.2 million/year under the 13 % “base case” adoption scenario. 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 potential future cost savings for Option 6. Potential cost savings for Option 6

– already included in the baseline of this RIA

-- were calculated as the difference in annual off

- site solvent recovery

costs pre - and post

- ex clusion. The 2008 RIA baseline (i.e., “pre

- rule” without the 2008 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 54 

### identified in the baseline cost estimates of the 2008 DSW final rule. Under the 2008 DSW “offsite transfer” recycling exclusion (i.e., “post

- rule”) the spent solvents are treated as “hazardous secondary materials” and facilities n o longer need to compl y with the 14 RCRA Subtitle C requirements if they meet the 12 conditions 55 

### specified b y the

53 For purpose of gauging the possible under

- or over - estimation of this option, the 2008 RIA’s data screening proces s resulted in a total of 595,345 tons per year (2007) of current RCRA
- regulated solvent disposal for potential switchover (i.e., diversion) to offsite recycling (from Exhibit 3W in this RIA). In comparison, as displayed in Appendix C to this RIA, a query of EPA’s 2009 Toxics Releas e Inv entory (TRI) database indicate that 1,303 facilities in the four NAICS codes eligible fo r Option 6 disposed 507,715 tons pe r year (2009) of the 16 chemicals eligible for Option 6, although the TRI database does not explicitly indicate whether the 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.. However, these BR and TRI tonnages are not directly comparable because:  D ifferent data years (2007 vs. 2009); and  T he BR tonnage is the entire physical mass including all other matter (e.g., water, non - solvent chemicals, debris) which may be contained with spent solvent s , whereas the TR tonnage is only the mass of the 16 specific solvent chemicals excluding the weight/volume of any other constituents in the solvents such as water, other chemicals, debris, etc. In order f or the lower TRI tonnage to equal the higher BR tonnag e, the average concentration of the 16 solvents disposed by the four industrial sectors would hav e to be 85% pure (i.e., 507,715 / 595,345), with other matter constituting 15 % of the disposed spent solvent physical/chemical mass

. 54 The 14 RCRA Subtitle C b urden elements are: 1. obtain EPA ID number, 2. personnel training, 3. recordkeeping, 4. manifest exception reporting, 5. biennial reporting, 6. Part B permit renewal, 7. use manifests, 8. Preparedness, 9. prevention, 10. contingency plan, 11. emergency pl an, 12. closure, 13. post clo sure, and 14. accumulation time. 55 The 12 exclusion conditions of the 2008 DSW final rule are: 1. no speculative accumulation, 2. initial notification and biennial notification, 3. notification signed by a corporate official, 4
. non - waste determination petition, 5. ma intain records of all shipments to recycling, 6. confirmation of shipment receipt, 7. recycler has liability

### 134

2008 DSW final rule. 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 final rule exclusions. The 2008 RIA cost savings estimate for spent solvents consists of the following components according to the three offsite rec yc ling exclusions from the 2008 DSW final rule. The cost savin gs are alternatively displayed below based on (a) 100% adoption as assumed in the 2008 RIA, and (b) the 13 % “base case” adoption assumed in this RIA:

 2008 RIA 100% A ssumption : I f 100% of potentially relevant industrial facilities (i.e., 5,007) adopt the 2008 DSW exclusions: o As displayed in Exhibit 5H 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 facil ities are in the four eligible NAICS codes for Option 6. o As displayed in Exhibit 5I below, these 386 facilities transfer 71,575 tons of solvent off site for recovery based on 2005 BR data as anal yz ed in EPA’s 2008 RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule.
 53,960 (7 5%) of the 71,575 tons per year sent offsite is associated with the four eligible NAICS codes for Option 6. o As displayed in Exhibit 5J 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 $3.03 million/year (65%) is for the four eligible NAI CS codes.
 The 2007$ b aseline cost savings estimate of $4,639,037 may be updated to 201 1 $ by

appl ying the GDP deflator multiplier as follows: ( $4,639,037 per ye ar) x (1.0 505 ye ar 201 1 update multiplier) = $4. 87 million per year cost savings.
 This cost savings estimate represents an average annual de

- regulatory cost savings of:  Per
- facility : $12, 6 00 per
- ye ar per- facility sending spent solvents offsite for recycling.  Per
- ton: $6 8 per- ton of spent solvent recycled offsite.
 65% of the 201 1
- updated $4.87 million per year cost savings for the four eligible NAI CS codes = $3.1 7 million/year.

 2011 RIA 13 % “Base Case” Assumption : 13 % of potentially relevant industrial facilities ( 662 of 5,007) adopt the 2008 DSW exclusions and the 2011 proposed revisions: o 7% discount rate : Appl yi ng this 201 1
- updated cost saving estimate to the 13 % “base case” adoption scenario produces ( $4,8 73,308 per ye ar) x ( 0.0 63423 cost adjustment reflecting a 13 % base case rate and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of analysis ) = $ 309,080 per year. (Exhibit 5O ).
 65% for the four eligible NAI CS codes = $ 200,909 /year. o 3% discount rate : $ 485,294 c ost savings per ye ar (Exhibit 5P ).
 65% for the four eligible NAI CS codes = $ 306,254 /year. o 0% discount rate : $ 653,520 cost savings per ye ar (Exhibit 5Q ).
 65% for the four eligible NAI CS codes = $ 424,78 8/year.
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 legitimacy, and 12. export materials require notice and consent and an annual report).

### 135 Exhibit 5H Count* of Industrial Facilities Projected to Recycle Solvents Offsite Under the 2008 DSW Exclusions

Which May be Potentially Eligible for Option 6 (“Re - Manufacturing” Exclusion)
Item Industry NAICS code A B C D Exclusion 1B (Same co. offsite) Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling) Exclusion 2

(Transfer

-based) Com bined 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 conducts both a same company transfer and an offsite transfer to a non

- owned facility for recovery).

### 136 Exhibit 5I Annual Tonnage* of Industrial Solvents Projected to Recycle Offsite Under the 2008 DSW Exclusions

Which May be Potentially Eligible for Option 6 (“Re - Manufacturing” 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) Com bined 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.

### 137 Exhibit 5J Annual De - Regulatory Cost Savings* to Industrial Facilities Projected to Recycle Solvents Offsite Under the 2008 DSW Exclusions

Which May be Potentially Eligible for Option 6 (“Re - Manufacturing” 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) Com bined 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.

### 138

For purpose of estimating in this RIA the incremental impact of Option 6, the incremental costs estimated below for elements 6B (intermediate facility restriction) and 6C (additional administrative requirements), should theoreticall y be subtracted from the 6A baseline cost savings if Option 1 is finalized (i.e., withdraw the 2008 DSW “offsite transfer” recycling exclusion). Otherwise, if Option 1 is not finalized (i.e., the 2008 DSW “offsite transfer” exclusion is left in place), then the incremental impact of Option 6 theoretically should exclude the baseline cost savings estimated above (i.e., only consist of the costs estimated below for elements 6B and 6C), to avoid double

- counting the spent solvent recycling benefits already included in the baseline of this RIA which is formulated in reference to the 2008 DSW final rule cost savings. However, given the fact that this re

- manufacturing exclusion is voluntary, not mandatory , if the 2008 DSW offsite transfer exclusions remain in place (i.e., Option 1 is no t selected) , then facilities engaged in solvent recycling could cho o se to operate under either the 2008 exclusion or under the re

- manufacturing exclusion based on which ever provides the most cost savings to the fa cility . Consequentl y, the incremental analysis below for Option 6 indicates potential incremental costs for elements 6B and 6C if Option 1 is selected. If Option 1 is not selected, i.e., the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions are retained, these facilities will not incur th e se added costs, if those c osts for any single facility are over and above the costs for meeting the conditions of the 2008 exclusions. Note : Although the industrial scope of this option applies only to (a) four specific NAICS codes (i.e., 325199, 325211, 325412, 3 25510), (b) 18 specific chemical solvents, and (c) “processing aid” solvent uses (i.e., not cleaning or degreasing solvent uses), this RIA evaluates the potential im pact of this option 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 estimation inaccuracy for Option 6: 1. T he count of affected facilities, annual solvent tonnages, and cost savings could be over

- estimated below , because the 2008 RIA evaluated (a) mo re than four NAICS codes, (b) more than 18 specific solvents, and (c) all types of solvent 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 whic h could under

- estimate potential cost savings for this option: (a) it only included one (i.e., G06) of the four potentially relevant BR industrial source codes (i.e., G06, G07, G08, G09) 1 , and (b) it excluded solvents used for onsite incineration or energy recovery because of the large capital investments already 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” conditions of the 2008 DSW final rule, rather subtraction of “post

- rule” costs based on the smaller set of 5 conditions actually proposed under Option 6 of this RIA (i.e., 1. notification, 2. re

- manufacturing plan, 3. shipment recordkeeping, 4. storage standards & air emission controls, and 5. no speculative accumulation). However, addition of the cos ts associated with element 6C corrects this cost - savings e stimation, because sub

- option 6C proposes conditions similar to the 12 2008 DSW condition s (e.g., financial assurance).

### 139

Element 6B: Intermediate Facility Restriction Regarding proposed element 6B, a question to help assess the regulatory impact of this restriction is whether a facility generating spent solvent according to the terms of the eligibility criteria, would use an intermediate facility to ship spent solvents to a remanufacturer in the absence of this restriction. For facilities in the four specific NAI CS codes, there are several reasons why a generator facility

has little incentive to use an intermediate facility , even if there was no restriction against it, to ship spent solvents to a re

- manufacturer: 1. High annual volume

– facilities meeting the criteria of the exclusion are using these 18 chemicals in sufficiently high volumes as processing aides that they could ship full loads directl y to the re

- manufacturer without difficulty. 2. Proximity

– the majority of generators and potential re

- manufacturers are c o - located within geographical clusters (as illustrated in the example maps provided below in Appendix C based on one of the 18 eligible solvent chemicals (toluene) for each of the four eligible industries), so transport to re

- manufacturers would usually be accomplished in one direct trip on regional or smaller scale (reference sample mapping of toluene generator/re - manufacturing sector facilities). 3. Economics

– if the scale of business opportunity were so small as to be dealing with partial shipments over si gnificant distances, a generator facility

would likely

forego using this exclusion altogether. 4. Material c ontrol

– if the generator doesn’t need to use an intermediate facility , then it doesn’t have to concern itself with tracking and ensuring the load was handled separatel y from other material under the intermediate facility’s control. Based on the foregoing, this RIA estimates zero incremental cost to facilities in the four eligible NAICS code industries, for restricting intermediate facilities. Thus, the annual cost to restrict generators meeting the proposed re - manufacturing eligibility criteria from using intermediate facilities is estimated to be $0 per ye ar. However, this RIA does estimate a cost for this proposed intermediate facility restriction below in conjunction with the petition element ( i.e., element 6D). Element 6C: Possible Additional Requi r emen ts (e.g., Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Management Standards, Financial Assurance Requirements, and Public Participation Requirements ) Future annual costs associated with meeting the five eligibility conditions and possible additional administrative requirements (element 6C) were included in the baseline cost savings estimated as part of the 2008 DSW final rule, and are captured in the baseline cos t savings estimate presented in 6A above. Thus, the incremental cost for facilities to me et the proposed eligibility criteria, intermediate facility restriction, and additional requirements (i.e., elements 6A + 6B + 6C) is zero.

.

### 140

Element 6D. Potential Impact of the Petition Process Although the proposed petition process could hyp otheticall y in the future involve adding other (a) chemicals, (b) industries, and/or (c) chemical functions to the re - manufacturing exclusion, the “proxy anal ys is” method applied in this RIA is based on the offsite solvent recycling results of the 2008 DSW final rul e RIA, which represents a limited potential expansion of scope along these three dimensions: the proxy method of this RIA onl y considers (a) all other spent solvent chemicals covered b y the RCRA Biennial Report, (b) nine additional spent solvent generator industries a s displayed above in Exhibits 5H, 5I , 5J , and (c) all other spent solvent chemical functions covered b y the RCRA Biennial Report. This “prox y anal ys is” method does not consider other chemicals (e.g., spent metals, spent acids) or their associated industries and potential re

manufacturing uses (i.e., chemical functions). To estimate aggregate cost impacts, this RIA assumes that in any given future year a relativel y small fraction of between 0% and 10% (midpoint 5%) of all the offsite spent solv ent recycling facilities identified in the 2008 RIA, may file a petition to add chemicals, industrial, and/or chemical functions to the re - manufacturing exclusion. The economic impact of the exclusion on facilities using the petition process is the sum of the costs of complying with elements 6B, 6 C, and 6 D of the re

- manufacturing exclusion as listed above, offset by any de

- regulatory

cost savings from transactions permissible under the exclusion

. Element 6D.1: Potential Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities

 2008 RIA 100% A ssumption : I f 100% of potentially relevant industrial facilities (i.e., 5,007) adopt the 2008 DSW exclusions: o As displayed in Exhibit 5J above 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 $3.03 million/year (65%) is for the four eligible NAICS codes.
 The 2007$ b aseline cost savings estimate of $4,639,037 may be updated to 201 1 $ by

appl ying the GDP deflator multiplier as follows: ( $4,639,037 per ye ar) x ( 1.0505 ye ar 201 1 update multiplier) = $4.8 7 million per year cost savings.  65% of the 201 1
- updated $4.8 7 million per year cost savings for the 4 eligible NAICS codes = $3.1 7 million/year  35% of the 201 1
- updated $4.8 7 milli on per year cost savings for the 9 petition NAI CS codes = $ 1. 70 million/year

 2011 RIA 13 % “Base Case” Assumption : 13 % of potentially relevant industrial facilities ( 662 of 5,007) adopt the 2008 DSW exclusions and the 2011 proposed revisions: o 7% discount rate : Appl yi ng this 201 1
- updated cost saving estimate to the 13 % “base case” adoption scenario produces ( $4,8 73,308 per ye ar) x ( 0.0 03171 cost adjustment reflecting a 13 % base case rate , 5% filing petitions, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is ) = $ 15,453 cost savings per ye ar. ( Exhibit 5O ).
 35% for the 9 petition NAI CS codes = $ 5,409 /year. o 3% discount rate : $ 23,557 cost savings per ye ar ( Exhibit 5P ).
 35% for the 9 petition NAI CS codes = $ 8,245 /year. o 0% discount rate : $ 32,677 cost savings per ye ar ( Exhibit 5Q ).

### 141  35% for the 9 petition NAI CS codes = $ 11,437/year. Element 6D.2: Potential Future Cost to Submit Petitions This RIA assumes the cost to file a petition under the re

- manufacturing exclusion to add certain chemicals, industries, and/or chemical functions will be similar in cost to filing a legitimacy petition proving that all four legitimacy factors are met. Costs for a legitimacy petition are assumed to be equivalent to making a non

- waste determination plus conducting a waste characterization test. Hour estimates for a non

waste determination were obtained from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2310.01 Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Final Rule)”, October 28, 2008

. 56 

### Labor rates were obtained from the 2011 DSW I CR. This RIA assumes future legitimacy petitions are a relativel y rare frequency applied to 5% of the facilities. 57 

### 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 equals $ 10,173 /facility (20 11$ ). From EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule , characterization of hazardous waste (secondary materials) and recycled materials is estimated to include sampling labor burden and waste characterization analy tical costs. The sampling is estimated to require a labor burd en of 2 hours of field technician labor at $69.32/hour which equals $138.64/sample . The analy tical costs were estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software at a cost of $284 per sample (2007 $ ). 58 

### The 2011 DSW I CR inflated this cost to $306/sample (2011$) us ing the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. One sample is collected for each waste or recycled materials for a total cost of $ 445 (20 11 $). The total cost is estimated to be $ 10,617 /facility (20 11$ ). Assume a petition is submitted every 5 ye ars 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 (20 11$ ). As displayed in Exhibit 5H above there are 386 facilities estimated to engage in offsite spent solvent recycling in 13 industries, including the four eligible industries. The aggregate annual cost to prepare a petition is $ 2,753 per year calculated as follows: [ (386 facilities) x ( $ 2,123 per facility per year) x (0. 3360 % cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, and only 5% of notifying facilities submitting petitions and a 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of anal ys is )] 59 )



### . Element 6D.3 : Intermediate Fa cility Restriction for Petition Facilities To assess the regulatory

impact of this restriction, it is important to have a sense of whether a generator facilities operating under a petition would use an intermediate facility to ship spent chemicals to a re - manufacturer in the absence of this restriction. For some industries, this restriction may

not result in a change from current shipment practices, and thus not be an incremental cost impact, for three reasons:

56 D ocument can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200905
- 2050
- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200905

- 2050
- 001
. 57 5% “rare” future annual frequency assumed in this RIA represents the midpoint of a 0% to 10% range in any given future year. 58 RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentatio n.htm. 59 See Appendix B of this RIA for how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Option 3F, this RIA applied (a) an average cost per - facility of $ 2,123 for 386 affected facilities, (b) the wei ghted fraction of notifiers which are re

- manufacturing facilities (386/4,933), and (c) 5% of facilities submitting a petition.

### 142

1. A facility

would never choose to incur unnecessary costs. If the transfer

-based exclusion of the 2008 DSW final rule is retained (Option 1 is not selected), and if the facility found it more economical to operate under the transfer

-based exclusion than the re - manufacturing exclusion (Option 6), it would choose to operate under the transfer

-based exclusion. The transfer

- based exclusion is already shown in the 2008 DSW RIA to produce cost savings. Operating under the transfer

- based exclusion would avoid the intermediate facility restriction of th e re - manufacturing exclusion (Option 6). 2. Even if the transfer

-based exclusion of the 2008 DSW final rule i s not retained (Option 1 is selected), a facility will still choose to not incur unnecessary

costs. Implementation costs of the re - manufacturing rule using a rule variance would still be offset by cost savings as cost savings attributed to Option 1 in the 2008 DSW RIA would then shift to Option 6. A facility would take advantage of tho se cost savings, leaving the net cost of the Option 6 intermediate facility restriction at zero. 3. A facility

operating under the re - manufacturing exclusion with a rule variance may have other options for transport other than intermediate facilities. Very often generator facilities and potential re - manufacturing facilities are in geographical clusters (as illustrated in the example maps in Appendix C below for the four eligible solvent recycling industries). Frequentl y the incentive for operating under Option 6 is that there are such annual volumes of spent chemical involv ed as to make it worthwhile to operate under Option 6, making the shipment of full loads not difficult. However, based on the national RCRA hazardous waste “Biennial Report” database which formed the data foundation for the 2008 DSW final rule RIA, upward s of 50% of facilities involved in recycling hazardous wastes, currentl y use intermediate facilities for shipping low

- volume partial loads. For those facilities, restricting use of intermediate facilities could result in an incremental cost relative to ba seline. However, the incremental cost as estimated below would not, in most if not all cases, offset the overall net cost savings for recycling. Facilities will make more shipments to reclamation facilities and incur higher shipping costs without interme diate facilities consolidating hazardous secondary

materials among different generators. One a ssumption for the cost estimate in this RIA is that no consolidation of wastes for reclamation is conducted by an intermediate facility to achieve full truck loads. P artial truck loads are assumed . A sample of generators who ship directly

to off

- site metals recycl ers was obtained from Exhibit D12 of EPA’s 2008 DSW RIA and used in Exhibit 5N

. The weighted

average partial truck load size is 10.5 tons. The unit c ost calculation involved the following three steps:

 Step 1 : Assume that 50% of all shipments destined for recycling go through an interm ediate facility . From Exhibit 3 A there were 8,584 waste streams recycled in 2007. From the footnote in Exhibit 3M there were 107,877 waste streams disposed and 58,958 waste streams went to intermediate facilities. 60 

### Of the total of 175 ,419 waste streams at leas t 34% (58,958/175,419 x 100% = 33.61%) went to intermediate facilities . The instructions for the RCRA Biennial Report form are to report the ultimate disposition of the waste. Many of the waste streams reported going to recycling and disposal could have gone through an intermediate facility

. Therefore, this RIA assumes 50% of the waste s treams go through an intermediate facility

.  Step 2 : The calculation for the number of shipments (or loads) for material shipped via full truck loads derives from dividing 50% of the

60 Intermediate facilities were identified using BR management method code H141 ( wa stes stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or di sposal at the transferring site).

### 143

tons shipped to offsite recycling (via intermediate facilities) by 18 tons per truck load (typical truck size). This results in the estimate of the number of shipments shipped to intermediate facilities for consolidation and ultimate shipment for reclamation.  Step 3 : G iven the lack of consolidation with like wastes at an intermediary consolidator , smaller loads of secondary materials will ship directly to the reclaimers. The calculation for the number of partial truck loads derives from dividing 50% of the tons shipped to offsite recycling (via intermediate facilities) by 10.5 tons per truck load. The increase in the number of shipments (10.5

- ton truck l oads minus 18
- ton truck loads) for the 50% of shipments originally going to intermediate facilities , multiplied by the following unit costs results in an estimate for the increase in shipping costs. From the 2008 DSW RIA, DPRA used professional judgment and RACER cost estimating software 61 

### and inflat ed RACER 2005 unit costs to 2011 $ using a GDP implicit price deflator to develop these cost estimates

.

 Waste Testing (20 11 $ ) = $ 445 /load  Transport for Recovery (20 11 $ ) Acid Recovery : $ 2,243 /load Solvent Recovery : $ 2,279 /load Metal Recovery : $ 3,412 /load Average = $ 2,644/load In creases in prices charged by commercial metal, solvent and acid recovery facilities for excepting smaller loads and the inc rease in handling costs are not estimated. The average annual cost for restricting use of intermediate facilities is $ 3,089 per shipment (or $11, 676 per facility assuming 50% of the tonnage shipments will go from 18

- ton loads to 10.5

- ton partial loads without the intermediate consolidating facility which results in approximately 3.78 more partial shipments per year per facility). It is applied to transfer

-based exclusion facilities only

. As displayed in Exhibit 5H above there are 386 affected offsite transfer solvent re - manufacturing exclusion facilities , and as displayed in Exhibit 5I above, 71,575 affected solvent tons from “re

- manufacturing facilities”. The aggregate annual cost to restrict the use of intermediate facilities is $ 7 ,561 per year computed as follows: [ (386 facilities) x ( $ 11, 676 /facility per year) x ( 0. 1 680 % cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, 50% of tonnage shipped through intermediate facilities, 5% of facilities file petition, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is )] 62



### .

 Option 6 Total Cost (6A+6B+6C+6D) The net cost savings estimates for Option 6 in conjunction with Option 1 (i.e., withdraw the 2008 DSW “offsite transfer” exclusion) are as follows under the 13 % “base case” adoption scenario:

 7% discount rate : Incremental c ost for sub

- options 6B + 6C+6D estimated at $ 10,300 per year, which reduces the baseline cost savings

61 RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm 62 See Appendix B of this RIA for an example of how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Option 9B, this RIA applied an average cost per

- facility of $ 11,676
. .

### 144

from $ 206,300 per ye ar to $ 196,000 per ye ar (Exhibit 5O ).  3% discount rate : Incremental cost for sub

- options 6B + 6C+6D estimated at $ 15,700 per year, which reduces the baseline cost savings from $ 314,500 per ye ar to $ 298,800 per year ( Exhibit 5P ).  0% discount rate : Incremental costs for sub

- options 6B + 6C+6D estimated at $ 21,800 per ye ar, which reduces the baseline cost savings from $ 436,200 per ye ar to $ 414,400 per year ( Exhibit 5Q ).

### 145 

## Option 7: Revis e the Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions Option 7A : Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation Facilities will incur costs for labeling and recordkeeping associated with operating a speculative accumulation storage area. Recordkeeping costs are a ssume d to be similar to L QG accumulation recording keeping requirements under 262.34. Cost estimates were obtained from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal),” January

2008. 63 

### The cost estimate u se s documentation of procedure and compliance costs for containment building requirements 264.34(a)(1)(iv) and labeling requirements for 264.3 4(a)(2) and (3) and 264.34(c).  The cost for preparing procedures ensuring waste is stored no more than one year includes 1.0 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and 0.1 hour clerical labor at $24.67/hour and equals $ 71.79 /facility (20 11 $). Preparation of these procedures is assumed to occur every three ye ars and the annual cost is estimated to be $23.93/facility ($71.79/facility

/3 ye ars).  The cost to document that storage procedures are satisfied includes 0.25 hours technical labor at $69.32/hour and equals $ 17.33 /facility (20 11 $ ).  The cost to prepare a description of waste generation and waste management practices includes 1.5 hours technical labor at $69.32/hour and 0.1 hour clerical labor at $24.67/hour and equals $ 106.45 /facility (20 11 $ ).  Documentation of these storage procedures is assumed to occur every three years and the annual cost is estimated to be $34.48/facil ity ($106.45/facility

/3years).  The cost to document that the unit is emptied at least once a ye ar includes 1 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and 0.4 hours clerical la bor at $24.67/hour and equals $ 79.19 /facility (20 11 $ ).  The cost to label containers in storage area includes 1 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and equals $ 69.32 /facility (20 11 $ ).  The cost to label containers in satellite storage areas includes 0.5 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and equals $ 34.66 /facility (20 11 $ ). The total cost is $2 59 /facility (20 11 $). For the total population of pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities the aggregate annual cost for speculative accumulation recordkeeping is $ 1.05 million per year calculated as follows: [ (5,321 facilities) x ( $ 2 59 per facility per year) x (0.7 6290 cost adjustment factor to discount costs from the first year the rule is in effect in 2015 to 201 1 $ at a 7% discount rate ) ]
. Option 7B : Notificatio n Requires submittal of a notification using EPA Form 8700

- 12 prior to operating, and thereafter biennially . Labor hour and O&M cost estimates were obtained from EPA’s IC R for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2310.0 1 Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Final Rule)”, October 28, 2008. 64 

### Labor rate estimates were obtained from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for Revisions to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Proposed Rule) OMB Control No. 2050

- 0 202, EPA I CR No.

63 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200801

- 2050
- 002 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200801

- 2050
- 002 

### . 64 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 200905

- 2050
- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=200905

- 2050
- 001
.

### 146

2310.02,” June 30, 2011. 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 unit costs are estimated to be $ 33.87 per initial notification/facility and allocated over 20 years (expected life of facility) equaling $1.69/facility

/year (2011$)

.  Re
- notification includes 0.1 hours of clerical labor at $24.67 and equals $ 2.91 for re

- notification/facility (2011$ ). Re
- notification occurs every

two years and equals $1.46/facility (2011 $).  Updating and submitting notification that the hazardous secondary materials are no longer managed in accordance with the exclusion includes 0.1 hours of clerical labor at $24.67 and equals $ 2.91 for re

- notification/facility (2011$ ). The 2011 DSW I CR assumes this update occurs at 5% of the facilities (or every 20 years). The average annual cost is $0.15/facility /year ($2.91/facility

/20 years). The aggregate annual cost is $3.30/facility /year. For the total population of pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities the aggregate annual cost for biennial notification is $ 13,400 per year, calculated as follows: [ (5,321 facilities x $ 3.30 /facility/year x 0.7 6290 cost adjustment factor to discount costs from the first year the rule is in effect in 2015 to 201 1 $ at a 7% discount rate ) ]
. Option 7 C: Contained Standard Although not actually

required by

the rule, affected facilities are expected to incur costs associated with reading the rule in order to understand and comply

with the new requirements. Cost estimates were obtained from EPA’s IC R for the “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2308.02: Revisions to the Requirements for Transboundary Shipments of Wastes between OECD Countries, the Requirements for Export Shipments of Spent L ead Acid Batteries, the Requirements on Submitting Exception Reports for Export S hipments of Hazardous Wastes, and the Requirements for Impo rts of Hazardous Wastes,” December 2009. 65 

### First year (one

- time) cost for reading the regulations is assumed equivalent to the estimate for the SLAB Rul e at $260/facility (2007$ ). Cost includes 1.0 hours of managerial labor at $101.68/hour and 2.5 hours o f technical labor at $69.32/hour . It is a ssum ed that changeover in staff responsible for compliance and/or refresher with the rule every 3 years on average will result in new familiarization with regulations . An average annual co st of $ 274.99 /facility divided by

3 ye ars equals $ 91.66 /facility /year (20 11 $ ). For the total population of pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities the aggregate annual cost to meet 2008 legitimacy technical provisions is $ 372 ,000 per year calculated as follows: (5,321 facilities) x ( $ 91.66 per facility per year) x (0.7 6290 cost adjustment factor to discount costs from the first year the rule is in effect in 2015 to 201 1 $ using a 7% discount rate )

. Option 7 Total Cost (7A+7B+7C) A total of 5,321 facilities are estimated to operate their recycling activities under the pre

- 2008 DSW exclusions. Assuming an average annual per- facility

cost to comply

with the three proposed revisions to the 2011 DSW proposed rule and the proposed codification of the legitimacy definition under Option 4 A , produces an estimate of $ 4.5 million (201 1 $ ) ($3.1 million for legitimacy petitions or documents and $1.4 million

65 Document can be obtained under ICR Reference No: 201002

- 2050
- 001 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201002

- 2050
- 001
.

### 147

for the revisions described under Options 7A, 7B and 7C) in average annual compliance costs to thes e facilities under the p re - 2008 DSW exclusions. The cost savings estimates as displayed in Exhibit 5K (in columns B and I) below are:

 7% discount rate : Baseline cost savings associated with the pre

- 2008 DSW industrial recycling exclusions are reduced from $79.3 million to $77.4 million per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule

.  3% discount rate : Costs are estimated to be $ 5.2 milli on per year with baseline cost savings reduced from $ 92.4 million per year to $ 90.2 million per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule  0% discount rate : Costs are estimated to be $ 5.9 milli on per year with baseline cost savings reduced from $ 103.9 million to $ 101.5 millio n per year post 2011 DSW proposed rule

.

### 148 Exhibit 5K Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post- Rule Cost Savings for Meeting Revision Options to the 2011 Proposed Revisions to the pre - 2008 DSW Exclusions (Option 7)

Item Industry NAICS code and

Pre
- 2008 Exclusion A B D E F G H I (B+...+H) Option 4A Option 4A Option 7A Option 7B Option 7C Option 4 & 7 Count of Affected Facilities Baseline Cost

Savings (pre

2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions) Legitimacy

Petition Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Legitimacy

Documentation Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Record

keeping for Speculative Accumulation Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Biennial

Notific ation Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Codified

Standard Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Post Rule

Cost Savings with Four Factors Legitimacy Definition (relative to pre - 2008 DSW Rule baseline)

7% Discount Rate (2011$) 1 31,32,33 Manufacturing 5,291 $78,840,663 ($428,473) ($2,611,405) ($1,045,450) ($13,320) ($369,984) $76,983,435 2 562920 Materials

Recovery Facilities 3 $44,703 ($243) ($1,481) ($593) ($8) ($210) $43,650
3 2122 Minerals

Mining 27 $402,324 ($2,187) ($13,326) ($5,335) ($68) ($1,888) $392,847 Column totals = 5,321 $79,287,690 ($430,903) ($2,626,212) ($1,051,378) ($13,396) ($372,082) $77,419,932 3% Discount Rate (2011$) 1 31,32,33 Manufacturing 5,291 $91,830,283 ($499,067) ($3,041,655) ($1,217,696) ($15,515) ($430,942) $89,667,062 2 562920 Materials

Recovery Facilities 3 $52,068 ($283) ($1,725) ($690) ($9) ($244) $50,841
3 2122 Minerals

Mining 27 $468,610 ($2,547) ($15,522) ($6,214) ($79) ($2,199) $457,571 Column totals = 5,321 $92,350,961 ($501,897) ($3,058,901) ($1,224,601) ($15,603) ($433,386) $90,175,475 0% Discount Rate (2011$) 1 31,32,33 Manufacturing 5,291 $103,343,812 ($561,640) ($3,423,012) ($1,370,369) ($17,460) ($484,973) $100,909,370

### 149 Exhibit 5K Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post- Rule Cost Savings for Meeting Revision Options to the 2011 Proposed Revisions to the pre - 2008 DSW Exclusions (Option 7)

Item Industry NAICS code and

Pre
- 2008 Exclusion A B D E F G H I (B+...+H) Option 4A Option 4A Option 7A Option 7B Option 7C Option 4 & 7 Count of Affected Facilities Baseline Cost

Savings (pre

2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions) Legitimacy

Petition Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Legitimacy

Documentation Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Record

keeping for Speculative Accumulation Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Biennial

Notific ation Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Codified

Standard Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Post Rule

Cost Savings with Four Factors Legitimacy Definition (relative to pre - 2008 DSW Rule baseline)

2 562920 Materials

Recovery Facilities 3 $58,596 ($318) ($1,941) ($777) ($10) ($275) $57,216
3 2122 Minerals

Mining 27 $527,364 ($2,866) ($17,468) ($6,993) ($89) ($2,475) $514,941 Column totals = 5,321 $103,929,772 ($564,824) ($3,442,421) ($1,378,139) ($17,559) ($487,723) $101,481,527

### 150 Exhibit 5L Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post- Rule Cost Savings for Meeting Revision Options to the Pre - 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions (Option 7)

(201 1 $; 7% discount rate) A B C D E F
Pre
- 2008 DSW exclusion (row item) Affiliated NAICS Codes

(from column F of Exhibit 3I) Count of Facilities Assumed to Have Pre
- 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions (from Column E of Exhibit 3J) Baseline RCRA

Regulatory Cost Savin gs (from Column D of Exhibit 4M ) (pre

- 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions) Options 4 A & 7 Com pliance Costs (incremental to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) Option 4 A & 7

Post
- Rule Cost Savings (relative to pre - 2008 Industrial Recycling Exclusions Baseline) 1 31 +32 + 33 manufacturing 5,291 $ 78,840,500 ( 4,468,633 ) $ 76,983,435 2 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 3 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 4 322110 pulp mills In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 5 325188 other basic inorganic chem mfg In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 6 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 7 321114 wood preservation In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 8 324199 coke oven products In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 9 331111 iron & steel manufacturing In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 10 324110 petroleum refineries In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 11 562920 materials recovery facilities 3 $ 44,703 ($2, 534 ) $ 43,650 12 Assume captured in item 11 above In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 In item 11 13 2122 minerals mining 27 $ 402,323 ($ 22,803 ) $ 392,847 14 32519 organic chemical mfg In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 15 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 16 Assume captured in item 1 above In item 1 In item 1 In item 1 In item 1

Non
- duplicative column totals = 5,321 $7 9,287,526 ($ 4,493,970 ) $ 77,419,932

### 151 

## Option 8 : Other Possible Revisions to the 2008 DSW Recycling Exclusions Evaluated in this RIA Not Listed Above Upon launching this RIA in September 2010, EPA evaluated other options prior to limiting the 2011 proposed revisions to Optio ns 1 thru Options 7 above. There are three sub

- options under Options 8 that relate to possible revisions to the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. These anal ys es are retained in this section. Option 8 A : Add a “ Contained ” Performance Standard for 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion Add a definition of “contained” that specifies performance

-based storage standards, but not full Subtitle C tank and container standards. The rationale is that it would make the standard more enforceable and more protective, but still workable. The net cost impact i s a ssumed to be zero because affected facilities are assumed to meet the contained standard already . Performance standard would make standard more enforceable and more protective Option 8 B : Prohibit Intermediate Facilities to Obtain the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion Prohibit intermediate faciliti es to obtain the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. The rational is that it removes potential confusion over the location of shipments and extended storage times. Facilities will make more shipments to reclamation facilities and incur higher shipping costs without intermediate facilities consolidating hazardous secondary materials among different generators. One a ssumption for the cost estimate is that no consolidation of wastes for reclamation is conducted by an intermediate facility to achi eve full truck loads. P artial truck loads are assumed . A sample of generators who ship directly to off

- site metals recycl ers was obtained from Exhibit D12 of the 2008 DSW RIA and used in Exhibit 5N below (weighted

- average partial truck load size = 10.5 tons). The unit cost calculation involved the following steps:

 Step 1 : This RIA assumes that 50% of all shipments destined for recycling go through an intermediate facility . From Exhibit 3 A there were 8,584 waste streams recycled in 2007. From the footnote in Exhibit 3M there were 107,877 waste streams disposed and 58,958 waste streams went to intermediate facilities. 66 

### Of the total of 175 ,419 waste streams at leas t 34% (58,958/175,419 x 100% = 33.61%) went to intermediate facilities . The instructions for the RCRA Biennial Report form are to report the ultimate disposition of the waste. Many of the waste streams reported going to recycling and disposal could have gone through an intermediate facility

. Therefore, this RIA assumes 50 % of the waste s treams go through an intermediate facility

.  Step 2 : The number of shipments (or loads) for material shipped via full truck loads is calculated b y dividing 50% of the tons shipped to offsite recycling (via intermediate facilities) by 18 tons per truck load (typ ical truck size). This provides an estimate of the number of shipments shipped to intermediate facilities for consolidation and ultimate shipment for reclamation.  Step 3 : G iven the lack of consolidation with like wastes at an intermediary consolidator , smaller loads of secondary materials will ship directly to the reclaimers. The number of partial truck loads is calculated by dividing 50% of the tons shipped to offsite recycling (via

66 Intermediate facilities were identified using BR management method code H141 (wa stes stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or di sposal at the transferring site).

### 152

intermediate facilities) by 10.5 tons per truck load. The increase in the number of shipments (10.5

- ton truck l oads minus 18

- ton truck loads) for the 50% of shipments originall y going to intermediate facilities is multiplied by the following unit costs to estimate the increase in shipping costs. From the 2008 DSW RIA, DPRA used professional judgment and RACER cost estimating software 67 

### and inflated RACER 2005 unit costs to 20 11 $ using a GDP implicit price deflator to develop these cost estimates

.
 Waste Testing (20 11$ ) = $ 445 /load  Transport for Recovery (2 0 11$ ) Acid Recovery : $ 2,243 /load Solvent Recovery : $ 2,279 /load Metal Recovery : $ 3,412 /load Average = $ 2,644/load In creases in prices charged by commercial metal, solvent and acid recovery facilities for ac cepting smaller loads and the increase in handling costs are not estimated. The average annual cost for restricting use of intermediate facilities inflated to 2011 $ is $3,089 per shipment (or $11,676 per facility assuming 50% of the tonnage shipments will go from 18

- ton loads to 10.5

- ton partial loads without the intermediate consolidating facility

which results in approximately 3.78 more partial shipments per year per facility). Itis applied to o ffsite transfer recycling exclusion facilities only

. From Exhibit 4E and Exhibit 4F , respectivel y, there are 4,656 affected offsite transfer

-based exclusion facilities and 887,457 affected tons from offsite transfer recycling facilities. The aggregate annual cost to restrict the use of intermedi ate facilities is $ 1.7 million per year calculated as foll ows: [ 4,656 facilities

– 201 re
- manufacturing exclusion facilities

– (386

- 201 ) x (5% re

- manufacturing exclusion petition facilities)] x ( $ 11,676 /facility

per year) x ( 3.3598 % cost adjustment reflecting a 13 % base case adoption scenario, 50% of tonnage shipped through intermediate facilities, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- year future period of anal ys is 68 

### ). Option 8 C : Non - adopting States Under the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion Clarify that generators in states that have not adopted the rule may send hazardous secondary materials to other states for reclamation if they comply with requirements for notification, reasonable efforts (unless sending to a permitted facility), speculative accumulation, containment, recordkeeping for shipments, and legitimacy . The rationale is it allows generators in state that do not adopt the DSW standards for reclaimers to still participate in the rule. Generators in non

- adopting states likel y will incur higher shipping costs to reclaim hazardous secondary materials out

- of

- state. InExhibit 12A of the 2008 DSW RIA, the EPA estimated , based on a review of comments , that 4 states may not adopt the generator

- controlled exclusion and 12 states may not adopt the off

- site transfer exclusion. The sensitivity anal ys is presented in that exhibit indicated that estimated cost savings would decrease by 23 % if these states did not adopt the rule.

67 RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm 68 See Appendix B of this RIA for an example of how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Option 9B, this RIA applied an average cost per

- facility of $ 11,256
. .

### 153

For this sub

- option, this RIA assume s that 23 % of the facilities that notify will be located in non - adopting states and they will need to ship waste 50% farther out

- of

- state. From Exhibit D4 and Exhibit D2 of the 2008 DSW RIA, the di stance to metals recovery will increase from 521 miles to 781 miles. The per mile transport cost will decrease from $3.21/mile to $3.03/mile with a $37.89/ton loading/unloading cost ($682/load) for van trailer transport and from $3.40/mile to $3.13/mile with a $50.20/ton loading/unloading cost ($904/load) for tanker truck transport. The transport cost increas es approximately 25%. Average transport to recovery costs will change from $2,517/load to $3,146/load (2007$)

. Under the base case adoption scenari o, 13 % of facilities are anticipated to adopt the 20 11 DSW proposed revisions. Assuming that 23% of these facilities wi ll be located in “non
- adopting” states and 23 % of the affected tonnage will come from “non

- adopting” states , and further assuming that the affect ed tonnage shipments will be full truck loads (18 tons per load) , the number of shipments (i.e., loads) multiplied by the incremental cost increase per load ($3,146/lo ad

- $2,517/load = $629/load in 2007$ ) may be used as a unit cost to estimate th e potential cost impact of this sub

- option. The average annual cost for non

- adopting state participation in flated to 2011 $ is $6 61 per shipment (or $1, 612 per facility assuming for 23% of the tonnage shipments come from “non

- adopting” states which calculates to approximately 2.44 shipments per facility per year). It is applied to offsite transfer recycling exclusion facilities only

. From Exhibit 4E and Exhibit 4F , respectivel y, there are 4,656 affected transfer

-based exclusion facilities and 887,457 affe cted tons from transfer

- based facilities. The aggregate annual cost to restrict the use of intermediate facilities is $ 109 , 5 00 per year (4,656 facilities x $ 1, 612 /facility /year x 1.4587 % cost adjustment reflecting the 13 % base case adoption scenario, 23% of tonnage shipped by facilities in non

- adopting states, and 7% discount rate for the 50

- ye ar future period of anal ys is 69 

### ).

69 See Ap pendix B of this RIA for an example of how the cost adjustment factor and rate of exclusion notification were derived. To derive the factors for Option 8C, this RIA applied an average cost per

- facility of $ 1,612
. .

### 154 Exhibit 5M Estimated Average Truck Load Size for Materials Shipped Directly to Reclamation Facility (i.e., No Intermediate Facility Used)

Generator Type* & Waste Shipment Weighted

- Average

Size No. of

data points* Percent Average Truck Load Size for Wastes Shipped to Metals Recovery Facilities Pre
- 2008 DSW Final Rule (tons/load)* Accumulation

Time Pre
- 2008 DSW Final Rule Accumulation

Time Post
- 2008 DSW Final Rule Number of

Shipments Post
- 2008 DSW Final Rule (full truck load of 18 tons) Average Truck

Load Size Pre
- 2008 DSW Final Rule (tons/load) Small LQG

- small shipment (<13.2 tons/year) 31 35.6% 1 90 days 360 days 1 4 Small LQG

- large shipment (13.2 to <60 tons/year) 36 41.4% 3 90 days 360 days 1 12 Large LQG shipment (60 tons/year or greater) 20 23.0% 9 90 days 360 days 2 18 Weighted

- Average Truck Load Size 3.7 10.5 * Generator Type Categories and data from Exhibit D12 of 2008 DSW RIA

### 155 

## Summary of Estimated Industry Costs to Meet Options 1 to 7 (Excluding Option 8 )

 13 % “ base case ” adoption scenario (see Exhibits 5N , 5 O , and 5 P below at 7%, 3%, and 0% discount rates, respectivel y): o The potential cost to industry to meet the seven primary sets of options to the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions and the pre

2008 exclusions are estimated to be between:
 $7.2 million per year (only Options 3 to 7)
 $13.1 million per year (all Options 1 t o 7) o These incremental compliance costs reduce the total estimated baseline cost savings from $86.7 million per year to between $73.6 million per year and $7 9.5 million per year at a 7% discount rate. 70 

### o The estimates vary

depending whether EPA finalizes Options 1 and 2. The inclusion of Options 1 and 2 with the additions of Options 3, through 7 completely negate the $7.4 million per year in baseline cost savings of the 2008 DSW final rule with $8. 6 million per year in compliance costs (Exhibit 5N, Column C).
 Option 1 withdraws the transfer

-based exclusion and its associated $5 .7 million per year in cost savings under the 2008 DSW final rule.
 Option 2, the corollary to Option 1, adds back in $2.6 million per year in one

- year accumulation time transportatio n cost savings and $2.7 million per year in compliance costs for a net of $0.1 million per year in post rule costs to meet the requirements of the alternative RCRA Subtitle C regulation of offsite transfers for reclamation. o O nly including Options 3 through 7 maintains some of the baseline cost savings of the 2008 DSW final rule. The $ 7 .4 million per year in baseline cost savings of the 2008 DSW final rule are reduced to $ 4.8 million per year (Exhibit 5N, Column D )

. o The application of Optio ns 4, 5, and 7 to the pre

- 2008 exclusions add $4.5 million per year in compliance costs reducing baseline cost savings from $79.3 million per year to $74.8 million per year (Exhibit 5N, Column E).

 74 % “ upper- bound” adoption scenario (see Exhibits 5 Q , 5 R , and 5 S below at 7%, 3%, and 0% discount rates, respectivel y): o The potential co st to industry to meet the seven primary sets of options to the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions and the pre

2008 exclusi ons are estimated to be between:
 $7.4 million per year (only Options 3 to 7)
 $47.5 million per year (all Options 1 to 7) o These incremental compliance costs reduce the total estimated baseline cost savings from $131.7 million per year to between $84.1 million per year and $ 124.3 million per ye ar at a 7% discount rate. o The estimates vary

depending whether EPA finalizes Options 1 and 2. The inclusion of Options 1 and 2 with the additions of Options 3, through 7 adds $41.4 million in compliance costs per ye ar and reduces the $52.4 million per year in baseline cost savings of the 2008 DSW final rule to $11.0 million per year (Exhibit 5Q, Column C).
 Option 1 withdraws the transfer

-based exclusion and its associated $47.4 million per year in cost savings under the 2008

70 Total baseline cost savings includes b oth the 2008 DSW rule and pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions populations of affected facilities and is obtained by adding together either Column C + Column E or Column D + Column E in Exhibit 5N.

### 156 DSW final rule.
 Option 2, the c orollary to Option 1, adds back in $22.0 million per year in one

- year accumulation time transportation cost savings and $13.3 million per year in compliance costs for a net of $8.7 million per year in post rule cost savings to meet the requirements of the alternative RCRA Subtitle C regulation of offsite transfers for reclamation. o Only including Options 3 through 7 maintains most of the baseline cost savings of the 2008 DSW final rule. The $ 52.4 million per year in baseline cost savings of the 2008 DSW fin al rule are reduced to $ 51.1 million per year (Exhibit 5R , Column D). o The application of Options 4, 5, and 7 to the pre

- 2008 exclusions add $ 6.1 million per year in compliance costs reducing baseline cost savings from $79.3 million per year to $ 73.2 millio n per year (Exhibit 5S , Column E).

### 157 Exhibit 5N Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% A doption Rate and 7% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars)
A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions Baseline Cost Savings = $7,424,696 $7,424,696 $79,287,690 1 Option 1 Withdraw the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer - Based Exclusion ($5,671,409)

2 Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for 2008 DSW Excluded Hazardous Recyclable Materials that Are Transferred Offsite for Reclam ation 2A Requirement 2A Transportation Cost Savings from Extension of Accumulation Time to One Year $2,633,407 2B Requirement 2B Notification Compliance Costs ($413) 2C Requirement 2C Advance Arrangements Compliance Costs ($48,041) 2D Requirement 2D Accumulation Restrictions Compliance Costs ($1,164,838) 2E.1 Requirement 2E.1 Speculative Accumulation Labeling $0 2E.2 Requirement 2E.2 Contingency Plan Com pliance Costs ($28,338) 2F.1 Requirement 2F.1 Recordkeeping of Offsite Shipments Com pliance Costs ($192,648) 2F.2 Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Com pliance Costs ($1,298,353)

Subtotal Option 2 Compliance Costs = ($99,224) 3 Option 3 Revisions to Generator - controlled Exclusions 3A Option 3A Definition of “Contained” Compliance Costs $0 $0 3B Option 3B Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) Com pliance Costs $0 $0 3C Option 3C Speculative Accumulation Labeling Compliance Costs $0 $0 3D Option 3D Recordkeeping Requirement for Reclamation Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements Compliance Costs $0 $0

### 158 Exhibit 5N Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% A doption Rate and 7% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars)
A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions 3E Option 3E Eliminate the 2008 DSW “Toll Manufacturing” Recycling Exclusion ($180,753) $0
3F Option 3F Re

- structure the location of the non

- land based and land

-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 Com pliance Costs ($39) ($39)

Subtotal Option 3 Compliance Costs = ($180,792) ($39) 4 Option 4 Revisions to Legitimacy Recycling Provisions 4A/4B Options 4A & 4B Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs ($399,473) ($399,473) ($430,903) 4A/4C Options 4A & 4C Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs ($2,434,660) ($2,243,621) ($2,626,212)

Subtotal Option 4 Compliance Costs = ($2,834,133) ($2,643,095) ($3,057,114) 5 Option 5 Revisions to 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW Non Waste Determination Petition Process 5A Option 5A Partial Variance and Non

- waste determination re

applications ($28,015) ($28,015) ($15,945) 5B Option 5B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($78) ($78) ($206) 5C Option 5C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials $0

5D Option 5D Non

- wa ste Determination Petitioner Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing DSW Exclusions Compliance Costs $0 $0 5E Option 5E Change the Word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30 to 260.34. $0 $0 $0

Subtotal Option 5 Compliance Costs = ($28,094) ($28,094) ($16,151) 6 Option 6 DSW Re - Manufacturing Exclusion
6A Element 6A Potential Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $200,909 Not applicable because Option 6 is voluntary, and facilities would

### 159 Exhibit 5N Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% A doption Rate and 7% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars)
A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions 6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0 not incur additional costs to switch from operating under the 2008 DSW exclusions to Option 6. 6C Element 6C Possible Additional Requirements (e.g., Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Management Standards, Financial Assurance Requirements, and Public Participation Requirements) Included in Option 6A Baseline Cost Savings

6D.1 Element 6D.1 Potential Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $5,409 6D.2 Element 6D.2 Petition Process ($2,753) 6D.3 Element 6D.3 Intermediate Facility Restriction for Petition Facilities ($7,571) Subtotal Option 6 Compliance Costs $195,994 $0 $0 7 Option 7 Revisions to Pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 7A Option 7A Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation Com pliance Costs ($1,051,378) 7B Option 7B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($13,396) 7C Option 7C Contained Standard Compliance Costs ($372,082) Subtotal Option 7 Compliance Costs = ($1,436,856)

Total Compliance Costs = ($8,617,658) ($2,671,227) ($4,510,121) Post Rule Cost Savings = ($1,192,962) $4,753,469 $74,777,569 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = ($13,127,779) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = $73,584,607 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = ($7,181,348) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = $79,531,038

### 160 Exhibit 5O Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% Adoption Rate and 3% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars)
A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions Baseline Cost Savings = $10,772,866 $10,772,866 $92,350,961 1 Option 1 Withdraw the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer - Based Exclusion ($8,645,145)

2 Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for 2008 DSW Excluded Hazardous Recyclable Materials that Are Transferred Offsite for Reclam ation 2A Requirement 2A Transportation Cost Savings from Extension of Accumulation Time to One Year $4,014,202 2B Requirement 2B Notification Compliance Costs ($629) 2C Requirement 2C Advance Arrangements Compliance Costs ($73,230) 2D Requirement 2D Accumulation Restrictions Compliance Costs ($1,775,608) 2E.1 Requirement 2E.1 Speculative Accumulation Labeling $0 2E.2 Requirement 2E.2 Contingency Plan Compliance Costs ($43,196) 2F.1 Requirement 2F.1 Recordkeeping of Offsite Shipments Com pliance Costs ($293,661) 2F.2 Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Com pliance Costs ($1,512,266)

Subtotal Option 2 Compliance Costs = $315,611 3 Option 3 Revisions to Generator - controlled Exclusions 3A Option 3A Definition of “Contained” Compliance Costs $0 $0 3B Option 3B Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) Com pliance Costs $0 $0 3C Option 3C Speculative Accumulation Labeling Compliance Costs $0 $0 3D Option 3D Recordkeeping Requirement for Reclamation Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements Compliance Costs $0 $0 3E Option 3E Eliminate the 2008 DSW “Toll Manufacturing” Recycling Exclusion ($275,529) $0

### 161 Exhibit 5O Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% Adoption Rate and 3% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars)
A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions
3F Option 3F Re

- structure the location of the non

- land based and land

-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 Com pliance Costs ($59) ($59)

Subtotal Option 3 Compliance Costs = ($275,588) ($59) 4 Option 4 Revisions to Legitimacy Recycling Provisions 4A/4B Options 4A & 4B Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs ($465,290) ($465,290) ($501,897) 4A/4C Options 4A & 4C Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs ($2,835,790) ($2,544,582) ($3,058,901)

Subtotal Option 4 Compliance Costs = ($3,301,079) ($3,009,872) ($3,560,798) 5 Option 5 Revisions to 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW Non Waste Determination Petition Process 5A Option 5A Partial Variance and Non

- waste determination re

applications ($32,247) ($32,247) ($18,569) 5B Option 5B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($90) ($90) ($319) 5C Option 5C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials $0

5D Option 5D Non

- wa ste Determination Petitioner Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing DSW Exclusions Compliance Costs $0 $0 5E Option 5E Change the Word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30 to 260.34. $0 $0

Subtotal Option 5 Compliance Costs = ($32,337) ($32,337) ($18,888) 6 Option 6 DSW Re - Manufacturing Exclusion
6A Element 6A Potential Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $306,254 Not applicable because Option 6 is voluntary, and facilities would not incur additional 6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0

### 162 Exhibit 5O Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% Adoption Rate and 3% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars)
A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions

6C Element 6C Possible Additional Requirements (e.g., Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Management Standards, Financial Assurance Requirements, and Public Participation Requirements) Included in Option 6A Baseline Cost Savings costs to switch from operating under the 2008 DSW exclusions to Option 6.

6D.1 Element 6D.1 Potential Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $8,245 6D.2 Element 6D.2 Petition Process ($4,197) 6D.3 Element 6D.3 Intermediate Facility Restriction for Petition Facilities ($11,541) Subtotal Option 6 Compliance Costs $298,761 $0 $0 7 Option 7 Revisions to Pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 7A Option 7A Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation Com pliance Costs ($1,224,601) 7B Option 7B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($15,603) 7C Option 7C Contained Standard Compliance Costs ($433,386) Subtotal Option 7 Compliance Costs = ($1,673,589)

Total Compliance Costs = ($11,639,777) ($3,042,267) ($5,253,275) Post Rule Cost Savings = ($866,911) $7,730,598 $87,097,686 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = ($16,893,052) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = $86,230,774 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = ($8,295,543) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = $94,828,284

### 163 Exhibit 5P Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% Adoption Rate and 0% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions Baseline Cost Savings = $15,054,046 $15,054,046 $103,929,772 1 Option 1 Withdraw the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer - Based Exclusion ($11,991,206)

2 Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for 2008 DSW Excluded Hazardous Recyclable Materials that Are Transferred Offsite for Reclam ation 2A Requirement 2A Transportation Cost Savings from Extension of Accumulation Time to One Year $5,567,880 2B Requirement 2B Notification Compliance Costs $0 2C Requirement 2C Advance Arrangements Compliance Costs ($101,574) 2D Requirement 2D Accumulation Restrictions Compliance Costs ($2,462,848) 2E.1 Requirement 2E.1 Speculative Accumulation Labeling $0 2E.2 Requirement 2E.2 Contingency Plan Compliance Costs ($59,915) 2F.1 Requirement 2F.1 Recordkeeping of Offsite Shipments Com pliance Costs ($407,322) 2F.2 Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Com pliance Costs ($1,701,872)

Subtotal Option 2 Compliance Costs = $834,349 3 Option 3 Revisions to Generator - controlled Exclusions 3A Option 3A Definition of “Contained” Compliance Costs $0 $0 3B Option 3B Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) Com pliance Costs $0 $0 3C Option 3C Speculative Accumulation Labeling Compliance Costs $0 $0 3D Option 3D Recordkeeping Requirement for Reclamation Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements Compliance Costs $0 $0 3E Option 3E Eliminate the 2008 DSW “Toll Manufacturing” Recycling Exclusion ($382,154) $0

### 164 Exhibit 5P Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% Adoption Rate and 0% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions
3F Option 3F Re

- structure the location of the non

- land based and land

-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 Com pliance Costs ($82) ($82)

Subtotal Option 3 Compliance Costs = ($382,236) ($82) 4 Option 4 Revisions to Legitimacy Recycling Provisions 4A/4B Options 4A & 4B Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs ($523,627) ($523,627) ($564,824) 4A/4C Options 4A & 4C Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs ($3,191,336) ($2,787,418) ($3,442,421)

Subtotal Option 4 Compliance Costs = ($3,714,963) ($3,311,045) ($4,007,245) 5 Option 5 Revisions to 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW Non Waste Determination Petition Process 5A Option 5A Partial Variance and Non

- waste determination re

applications ($35,420) ($35,420) ($20,900) 5B Option 5B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($99) ($99) ($445) 5C Option 5C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials $0

5D Option 5D Non

- wa ste Determination Petitioner Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing DSW Exclusions Compliance Costs $0 $0 5E Option 5E Change the Word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30 to 260.34. $0 $0

Subtotal Option 5 Compliance Costs = ($35,519) ($35,519) ($21,345) 6 Option 6 DSW Re - Manufacturing Exclusion
6A Element 6A Potential Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $424,788 Not applicable because Option 6 is voluntary, and facilities would not incur additional costs to switch from 6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0

### 165 Exhibit 5P Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (13% Adoption Rate and 0% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions

6C Element 6C Possible Additional Requirements (e.g., Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Management Standards, Financial Assurance Requirements, and Public Participation Requirements) Included in Option 6A Baseline Cost Savings operating under the 2008 DSW exclusions to Option 6.

6D.1 Element 6D.1 Potential Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $11,437 6D.2 Element 6D.2 Petition Process ($5,821) 6D.3 Element 6D.3 Intermediate Facility Restriction for Petition Facilities ($16,008) Subtotal Option 6 Compliance Costs $414,395 $0 $0 7 Option 7 Revisions to Pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 7A Option 7A Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation Com pliance Costs ($1,378,139) 7B Option 7B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($17,559) 7C Option 7C Contained Standard Compliance Costs ($487,723) Subtotal Option 7 Compliance Costs = ($1,883,421)

Total Compliance Costs = ($14,875,179) ($3,346,645) ($5,912,012) Post Rule Cost Savings = $178,867 $11,707,401 $98,017,760 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = ($20,787,191) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = $98,196,627 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = ($9,258,657) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = $109,725,161

### 166 Exhibit 5Q Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 7% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions Baseline Cost Savings = $52,378,431 $52,378,431 $79,287,690 1 Option 1 Withdraw the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer - Based Exclusion ($47,374,266)

2 Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for 2008 DSW Excluded Hazardous Recyclable Materials that Are Transferred Offsite for Reclam ation 2A Requirement 2A Transportation Cost Savings from Extension of Accumulation Time to One Year $21,997,305 2B Requirement 2B Notification Compliance Costs ($3,446) 2C Requirement 2C Advance Arrangements Compliance Costs ($401,292) 2D Requirement 2D Accumulation Restrictions Compliance Costs ($9,730,099) 2E.1 Requirement 2E.1 Speculative Accumulation Labeling $0 2E.2 Requirement 2E.2 Contingency Plan Compliance Costs ($236,711) 2F.1 Requirement 2F.1 Recordkeeping of Offsite Shipments Com pliance Costs ($1,609,226) 2F.2 Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Com pliance Costs ($1,298,353)

Subtotal Option 2 Compliance Costs = $8,718,178 3 Option 3 Revisions to Generator - controlled Exclusions 3A Option 3A Definition of “Contained” Compliance Costs $0 $0 3B Option 3B Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) Com pliance Costs $0 $0 3C Option 3C Speculative Accumulation Labeling Compliance Costs $0 $0 3D Option 3D Recordkeeping Requirement for Reclamation Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements Compliance Costs $0 $0 3E Option 3E Eliminate the 2008 DSW “Toll Manufacturing” Recycling Exclusion ($1,505,797.06) $0

### 167 Exhibit 5Q Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 7% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions
3F Option 3F Re
- structure the location of the non

- land based and land

-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 Com pliance Costs ($39) ($39)

Subtotal Option 3 Compliance Costs = ($1,505,836) ($39) 4 Option 4 Revisions to Legitimacy Recycling Provisions 4A/4B Options 4A & 4B Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs ($399,473) ($399,473) ($430,903) 4A/4C Options 4A & 4C Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs ($2,434,660) ($838,881) ($2,626,212)

Subtotal Option 4 Compliance Costs = ($2,834,133) ($1,238,354) ($3,057,114) 5 Option 5 Revisions to 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW Non Waste Determination Petition Process 5A Option 5A Partial Variance and Non

- waste determination re

applications ($28,015) ($28,015) ($15,945) 5B Option 5B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($78) ($78) ($206)
5C Option 5C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials ($1,645,177)

5D Option 5D Non

- wa ste Determination Petitioner Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing DSW Exclusions Compliance Costs $0 $0 5E Option 5E Change the Word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30 to 260.34. $0 $0 $0

Subtotal Option 5 Compliance Costs = ($28,094) ($28,094) ($1,661,328) 6 Option 6 DSW Re - Manufacturing Exclusion
6A Element 6A Potential Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $1,678,230 Not applicable because Option 6 is voluntary, and facilities would not incur additional costs to switch from operating under the 2008 DSW exclusions 6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0

### 168 Exhibit 5Q Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 7% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions

6C Element 6C Possible Additional Requirements (e.g., Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Management Standards, Financial Assurance Requirements, and Public Participation Requirements) Included in Option 6A Baseline Cost Savings to Option 6.

6D.1 Element 6D.1 Potential Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $45,183 6D.2 Element 6D.2 Petition Process ($22,999) 6D.3 Element 6D.3 Intermediate Facility Restriction for Petition Facilities ($63,244) Subtotal Option 6 Compliance Costs $1,637,170 $0 $0 7 Option 7 Revisions to Pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 7A Option 7A Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation Com pliance Costs ($1,051,378) 7B Option 7B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($13,396) 7C Option 7C Contained Standard Compliance Costs ($372,082) Subtotal Option 7 Compliance Costs = ($1,436,856)

Total Compliance Costs = ($41,386,980) ($1,266,486) ($6,155,298) Post Rule Cost Savings = $10,991,451 $51,111,945 $73,132,392 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = ($47,542,278) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = $84,123,843 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = ($7,421,785) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = $124,244,337

### 169 Exhibit 5R Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 3% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars ) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions Baseline Cost Savings = $63,581,974 $63,581,974 $92,350,961 1 Option 1 Withdraw the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer - Based Exclusion ($57,635,306)

2 Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for 2008 DSW Excluded Hazardous Recyclable Materials that Are Transferred Offsite for Reclam ation 2A Requirement 2A Transportation Cost Savings from Extension of Accumulation Time to One Year $26,761,816 2B Requirement 2B Notification Compliance Costs ($4,192) 2C Requirement 2C Advance Arrangements Compliance Costs ($488,210) 2D Requirement 2D Accumulation Restrictions Compliance Costs ($11,837,592) 2E.1 Requirement 2E.1 Speculative Accumulation Labeling $0 2E.2 Requirement 2E.2 Contingency Plan Compliance Costs ($287,981) 2F.1 Requirement 2F.1 Recordkeeping of Offsite Shipments Com pliance Costs ($1,957,777) 2F.2 Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Com pliance Costs ($1,512,773)

Subtotal Option 2 Compliance Costs = $10,673,290 3 Option 3 Revisions to Generator - controlled Exclusions 3A Option 3A Definition of “Contained” Compliance Costs $0 $0 3B Option 3B Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) Com pliance Costs $0 $0 3C Option 3C Speculative Accumulation Labeling Compliance Costs $0 $0 3D Option 3D Recordkeeping Requirement for Reclamation Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements Compliance Costs $0 $0 3E Option 3E Eliminate the 2008 DSW “Toll Manufacturing” Recycling Exclusion ($1,831,946) $0

### 170 Exhibit 5R Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 3% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars ) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions
3F Option 3F Re

- structure the location of the non

- land based and land

-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 Com pliance Costs ($59) ($59)

Subtotal Option 3 Compliance Costs = ($1,832,004) ($59) 4 Option 4 Revisions to Legitimacy Recycling Provisions 4A/4B Options 4A & 4B Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs ($465,290) ($465,290) ($501,897) 4A/4C Options 4A & 4C Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs ($2,835,790) ($894,372) ($3,058,901)

Subtotal Option 4 Compliance Costs = ($3,301,079) ($1,359,662) ($3,560,798) 5 Option 5 Revisions to 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW Non Waste Determination Petition Process 5A Option 5A Partial Variance and Non

- waste determination re

applications ($32,247) ($32,247) ($18,569) 5B Option 5B Biennial Notification Com pliance Costs ($90) ($90) ($319) 5C Option 5C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials ($2,769,855)

5D Option 5D Non

- wa ste Determination Petitioner Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing DSW Exclusions Compliance Costs $0 $0 5E Option 5E Change the Word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30 to 260.34. $0 $0 $0

Subtotal Option 5 Compliance Costs = ($32,337) ($32,337) ($2,788,743) 6 Option 6 DSW Re - Manufacturing Exclusion
6A Element 6A Potential Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $2,041,726 Not applicable because Option 6 is voluntary, and facilities would not incur additional costs to switch from 6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0

### 171 Exhibit 5R Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 3% Discount Rate) (2011 dollars ) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions

6C Element 6C Possible Additional Requirements (e.g., Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Management Standards, Financial Assurance Requirements, and Public Participation Requirements) Included in Option 6A Baseline Cost Savings operating under the 2008 DSW exclusions to Option 6.

6D.1 Element 6D.1 Potential Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $54,970 6D.2 Element 6D.2 Petition Process ($27,980) 6D.3 Element 6D.3 Intermediate Facility Restriction for Petition Facilities ($76,942) Subtotal Option 6 Compliance Costs $1,991,773 $0 $0 7 Option 7 Revisions to Pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 7A Option 7A Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation Com pliance Costs ($1,224,601) 7B Option 7B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($15,603) 7C Option 7C Contained Standard Compliance Costs ($433,386) Subtotal Option 7 Compliance Costs = ($1,673,589)

Total Compliance Costs = ($50,135,663) ($1,392,058) ($8,023,130) Post Rule Cost Savings = $13,446,312 $62,189,916 $84,327,831 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = ($58,158,793) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = $97,774,142 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = ($9,415,188) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = $146,517,747

### 172 Exhibit 5S Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 0% Discount Rate) (2011 dolla rs) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions Baseline Cost Savings = $73,867,654 $73,867,654 $103,929,772 1 Option 1 Withdraw the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer - Based Exclusion ($66,551,644)

2 Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for 2008 DSW Excluded Hazardous Recyclable Materials that Are Transferred Offsite for Reclam ation 2A Requirement 2A Transportation Cost Savings from Extension of Accumulation Time to One Year $30,901,942 2B Requirement 2B Notification Compliance Costs $0 2C Requirement 2C Advance Arrangements Com pliance Costs ($563,738) 2D Requirement 2D Accumulation Restrictions Compliance Costs ($13,668,899) 2E.1 Requirement 2E.1 Speculative Accumulation Labeling $0 2E.2 Requirement 2E.2 Contingency Plan Compliance Costs ($332,533) 2F.1 Requirement 2F.1 Recordkeeping of Offsite Shipments Com pliance Costs ($2,260,651) 2F.2 Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility Com pliance Costs ($1,701,872)

Subtotal Option 2 Compliance Costs = $12,374,250 3 Option 3 Revisions to Generator - controlled Exclusions 3A Option 3A Definition of “Contained” Compliance Costs $0 $0 3B Option 3B Notification (Requirement vs. Condition) Com pliance Costs $0 $0 3C Option 3C Speculative Accumulation Labeling Com pliance Costs $0 $0 3D Option 3D Recordkeeping Requirement for Reclamation Under Toll Manufacturing Agreements Compliance Costs $0 $0 3E Option 3E Eliminate the 2008 DSW “Toll Manufacturing” Recycling Exclusion ($2,115,253) $0

### 173 Exhibit 5S Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 0% Discount Rate) (2011 dolla rs) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions
3F Option 3F Re
- structure the location of the non

- land based and land

-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 Com pliance Costs ($82) ($82)

Subtotal Option 3 Compliance Costs = ($2,115,335) ($82) 4 Option 4 Revisions to Legitimacy Recycling Provisions 4A/4B Options 4A & 4B Legitimacy Petition Compliance Costs ($523,627) ($523,627) ($564,824) 4A/4C Options 4A & 4C Legitimacy Documentation Compliance Costs ($3,191,336) ($949,576) ($3,442,421)

Subtotal Option 4 Compliance Costs = ($3,714,963) ($1,473,203) ($4,007,245) 5 Option 5 Revisions to 1985 Variance and 2008 DSW Non Waste Determination Petition Process 5A Option 5A Partial Variance and Non

- waste determination re

applications ($35,420) ($35,420) ($20,900) 5B Option 5B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($99) ($99) ($445) 5C Option 5C: Modify the 1985 40 CFR 260.31(c) DSW Variance for Partially Recycled Materials ($4,064,738)

5D Option 5D Non

- wa ste Determination Petitioner Must Demonstrate Why They Cannot or Should Not Meet Existing DSW Exclusions Compliance Costs $0 $0 5E Option 5E Change the Word “Administrator” to “Regional Administrator” in 40 CFR 260.30 to 260.34. $0 $0

Subtotal Option 5 Compliance Costs = ($35,519) ($35,519) ($4,086,083) 6 Option 6 DSW Re - Manufacturing Exclusion
6A Element 6A Potential Future Cost Savings for Eligible Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $2,357,587 Not applicable because Option 6 is voluntary, and facilities would not incur additional 6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0

### 174 Exhibit 5S Summary of Estimated Baseline Cost Savings, Compliance Costs, and Post - Rule Cost Savings for Industry to Implement the Seven 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions (Options 1 thru 7) (74% Adoption Rate and 0% Discount Rate) (2011 dolla rs) A B C D E

Item Revision Options Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 Selected Revisions to 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions If Options 1 and 2 NOT Selected Revisions to Pre 2008 Exclusions

6C Element 6C Possible Additional Requirements (e.g., Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, Management Standards, Financial Assurance Requirements, and Public Participation Requirements) Included in Option 6A Baseline Cost Savings costs to switch from operating under the 2008 DSW exclusions to Option 6.

6D.1 Element 6D.1 Potential Future Cost Savings for Petition Facilities (Baseline cost savings added only if Option 1 selected, otherwise included in baseline cost savings) $63,473 6D.2 Element 6D.2 Petition Process ($32,309) 6D.3 Element 6D.3 Intermediate Facility Restriction for Petition Facilities ($88,845) Subtotal Option 6 Compliance Costs $2,299,906 $0 $0 7 Option 7 Revisions to Pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 7A Option 7A Recordkeeping for Speculative Accumulation Com pliance Costs ($1,378,139) 7B Option 7B Biennial Notification Compliance Costs ($17,559) 7C Option 7C Contained Standard Compliance Costs ($487,723) Subtotal Option 7 Compliance Costs = ($1,883,421)

Total Compliance Costs = ($57,743,304) ($1,508,803) ($9,976,750) Post Rule Cost Savings = $16,124,350 $72,358,851 $93,953,022 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = ($67,720,054) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 Selected (Columns C+E) = $110,077,372 Total Compliance Costs if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = ($11,485,553) Total Post Rule Cost Savings if Options 1 and 2 are NOT Selected (Columns D+E) = $166,311,873

### 175 

# C HAPTER 

# 6 Sensitivity Analyse s (6 Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors) This chapter derives six sensitivity anal ys is factors which are applied in the Executive Summary of this RIA to the average annualized total cost estimate. The purpose of these factors is to illustrate the relative degree by which the industry

impact estimates of this RIA

--- which are in large part founded on affected industrial facility counts from the 2007 RCRA Biennial Report data year --- may fluctuate in any

given future ye ar. These cost estimation uncertainty factors are not necessaril y additive; f or example, sensitivity

analysis factor #3 is a sub

- component of sensitivity

anal ys is factor #2. A potential 7th cost estimation uncertainty factor is future fluctuations in market prices of recovered commodities from recycled materials. However, the 7th 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 relativel y small frac tion of the total industry implementation cost savings estimate for the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions and the 2011 proposed revisions.

.



## Sensitivity Analysis #1 : State Government Adoption Uncertainty Perhaps the largest uncertainty factor in this RIA is the future count and annual rate of state government adoption of the finalized DSW revisions. The future state government adoption rate will affect the discounted present value of both future costs and future benefits associated with the final revisions, as well as the ultimate count of industrial facilities and annual waste volumes (tonnages) that are affe cted. To illustrate this uncertainty , Exhibit 6A below displays this RIA’s “base case” adoption scenario for the 50

- ye ar period o f anal ys is (i.e., 2015 to 2064), and the alternative “upper

-bound” adoption scenario. The alternative rate is based on the premise that a lower adoption rate occurred after the October 2008 DSW final rule because of the limitations in its implementation c onditions (as identified in the Chapter 1 “Problem Statement” of this RIA), and the 2011 DSW proposed rule is designed to remedy these conditions. Therefore, a higher future adoption rate c ould occur after the 2011 proposed rule is finalized in 2013. To illustrate an upper

-bound adoption potential, Exhibit 6A below displays an upper-bound facility adoption rate associated with the counts of entities in the 44 states identified as potential adopters in Exhibit 6A of EPA’s September 2008 RIA for the October 2008 DSW final rule. The upper-bound estimate assumes all facilities in 44 states will adopt the 2008 DSW rule (as revised) within a four

- ye ar period beginning in 2015, at a rate of 25% of the 3,655 facilities located in these 44 states per year. This f actor results in a cost multiplier equal to 432%. Note : To avoid duplication of text and numerical Exhibits in this RIA, refer to Exhibit C of the “

Executive Summary ” at the front of this RIA to view how eac h of these six sensitivity factors potentially a ffects the total industry cost estimate for the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions

.

### 176 Exhibit 6 A Sensitivity Analysis #1 Altern ative Implementation Scenarios “Base Case ” & “ Upper - Bound ” for Future Adoption of 2008 DSW Exclusions Period of Analysis Year 13 % “ Base Case ” Adoption Scenario C ount of Industri al Facilities Adopting 74 % “ Upper

-Bound ” Adoption Scenario Count of Industrial Facilities Adopting Annual Count Cumulative Count Annual Count Cumulative Count

- 4 2011 21 63 21 63

- 3 2012 21 84 21 84

- 2 2013 21 105 (2011 DSW proposed revisions assumed finalized in the Federal Register) 21 105

- 1 2014 21 126 21 126 1 2015 21 147 (state government adoption of the 2013 finalized DSW revisions assumed to begin*) 914 (25% x 3,655 facilities located in estimated 44 adopting states) 1, 040

2 2016 21 168 914 ( 25% x 3,655 facilities located in estimated 44 adopting states) 1,954
3 2017 21 189 914 (25% x 3,655 facilities located in estimated 44 adopting states ) 2,867
4 2018 21 210 914 (25% x 3,655 facilities located in estimated 44 adopting states ) 3,781
5 2019 21 231 0 3,781 6 2020 21 252 0 3,781 7 2021 21 273 0 3,781 8 2022 21 294 0 3,781 9 2023 21 315 0 3,781 10 2024 21 336 0 3,781 11 2025 21 357 0 3,781 12 2026 21 378 0 3,781 13 2027 21 399 0 3,781 14 2028 21 420 0 3,781 15 2029 21 441 0 3,781 16 2030 21 462 0 3,781 17 2031 21 483 0 3,781 18 2032 21 504 0 3,781 19 2033 21 525 0 3,781 20 2034 21 546 0 3,781

### 177 Exhibit 6 A Sensitivity Analysis #1 Altern ative Implementation Scenarios “Base Case ” & “ Upper - Bound ” for Future Adoption of 2008 DSW Exclusions Period of Analysis Year 13 % “ Base Case ” Adoption Scenario C ount of Industri al Facilities Adopting 74 % “ Upper

-Bound ” Adoption Scenario Count of Industrial Facilities Adopting Annual Count Cumulative Count Annual Count Cumulative Count 21 2035 21 567 0 3,781 22 2036 21 588 0 3,781 23 2037 21 609 0 3,781 24 2038 21 630 0 3,781 25 2039 21 651 0 3,781 26 2040 21 672 0 3,781 27 2041 21 693 0 3,781 28 2042 21 714 0 3,781 29 2043 21 735 0 3,781 30 2044 21 756 0 3,781 31 2045 21 777 0 3,781 32 2046 21 798 0 3,781 33 2047 21 819 0 3,781 34 2048 21 840 0 3,781 35 2049 21 861 0 3,781 36 2050 21 882 0 3,781 37 2051 21 903 0 3,781 38 2052 21 924 0 3,781 39 2053 21 945 0 3,781 40 2054 21 966 0 3,781 41 2055 21 987 0 3,781 42 2056 21 1008 0 3,781 44 2057 21 1,029 0 3,781 43 2058 21 1,050 0 3,781 45 2059 21 1,071 0 3,781 46 2060 21 1,092 0 3,781 47 2061 21 1,113 0 3,781 48 2062 21 1,134 0 3,781 49 2063 21 1,155 0 3,781 50 2064 21 1,176 0 3,781

Average annual 2015 to 2064 = 662 (662 / 5,007 = 13%) Average annual 2015 to 2064 = 3,671 (3,671 / 5,007 = 74%) * Note: To establish a future period

- of

- analysis, this RIA assumes that state governments begin adoption of the 2013 finalized DSW revisions two years after, to account for a time lag for state governments to make legislative changes to their RCRA
- authorized program hazardous waste statutes and regulations. By=um ber may not add due to rounding.

### 178 Exhibit 6B Sensitivity Analysis #1 (continued) Graph of Two Alternative Implementation Scenarios for the 2008 DSW Exclusions Based on Facility Counts from Exhibit 6A

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,0002010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040204220442046204820502052205420562058206020622064 74% "Upper

- bound" cumulative count 13% "Base case" cumulative count

### 179 

## Sensitivity Analysis #2: Future Annual Fluctuation in Affected Materials Quantities Because this RIA is based on 200 7 RCRA Biennial Report data, it is important to recognize the year - to - ye ar variability (fluctuations) in hazardous waste generation and man agement tonnage as reported to the Biennial Report in prior data ye ars (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007; prior years are at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm ). This variability is an indicator of the extent to which future year tonnages may fluctuate. In particular, year- to - ye ar fluctuations in the tonnages of hazardous waste recycling and hazardous waste disposal affected b y the DSW final rule exclusions

– which would otherwise be RCRA

- regulated in absence of this final rule

– implies that the actual impacts o f the DSW final rule will fluctuate in future years, compared to the estimates presented in this RIA based on the 200 7 single

- ye ar data snapshot

. For purpose of illustrating the potential magnitude of future annual fluctuations in recycling and disposal tonnages , Exhibits 6C and 6D present 1997
- 200 7 historical time

- trend data for annual facility counts and annual hazardous waste quantities (tons/year) recycled (Exhibit 6C ) and disposed (Exhibit 6D ). This retrospective is truncated at 1997 rather than extending to 1991 because the RCRA Biennial Report methodology included wastewater data until 1995. As a result, 1995 and prior ye ars include both w astewater 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

. 71 

### Exhibits 6C and 6D provide annual percentage deviations for two time

- trend metric s (i.e., annual facility counts and annual tonnages ), relative to the annual average values for the 1997
- 2007 histo rical time period. The 1997

- 200 7 hazardous waste data trends show that:

 Baseline hazardous waste recycling has varied (from Exhibit 6C ): o - 58% to +42% b y annual recycler facility count o - 40% to +40% b y annual tonnage recycled  Baseline hazardous waste disposal has varied (from Exhibit 6D ): o - 22% to +32% b y annual disposal facility count o - 19% to +20% b y annual tonnage disposed. Based on the minimum and maximum annual deviation percentages over these four ranges, the national impacts of the DSW rule could range from - 58% to +42% on any given future ye ar, 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 19 97
- 2007 annual counts of industrial facilities which reported recycling RCRA hazardous wastes to the RCRA Biennial Report, compared to the average count over that 11
- ye ar time period. The purpose of this time

- trend deviation computation is to provide an aggregate indic ator of how national waste quantities fluctuate year- to - ye ar.

71 Source: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm

### 180

There are at least four reasons for annual fluctuations in the quantity of hazardous wastes reported as disposed and recycled : 1. W ithin

- ye ar discrepancies between generation tonnage and management tonnage (addressed as Sensiti vity Analysis #3 in this RIA). 2. The economic level of industrial activity in any gi ven year (addressed by Sensitivity

Anal ys is #4 of this RIA). 3. D ata over - reporting to the Biennial Report by L QGs and TSDRFs involving reporting of non

- required data for state - regulated hazardous wastes. 4. A lthough not in itself quantified as a separate f actor 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. A dding new 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 hazardous wastes that may be affected in any future year by the DSW rulemaking. EPA publishes in the Federal Register its Regulatory Agenda twice per ye ar. EPA ’s Fall 2010 Re gul atory Agenda published on Dec ember 2 0, 2010, lists 32 p lanned future actions for OSWER, of which 12 may affect (i.e., increase or decrease) future annual waste quantities managed under the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program for certain industries and waste ty pe s. 72

72 Source: EPA Fall 2010 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda : Part Two - Regulatory Agenda ; the 3 0 OSWER actions are listed on pages 13 & 14 at http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/documents/regagendabook

- fall10.pdf The 15 RCRA

- related actions in the Fall 2010 regulatory agenda consis t of: 1. RIN: 2050
- AE34 Management of Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) 2. RIN: 2050
- AE51 Modifications to RCRA Rules Associated With Solvent

- Contaminated Industrial Wipes 3. RIN: 2050
- AE81 Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Elec tric Power Producers 4. RIN: 2050
- AG34: Revisions to Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Standards and Amendments to Recycling Requirements for Spent 5. Petroleum Refining Hydrotreating and Hydrorefining Catalysts 6. RIN: 2050
- AG39 Amendment to the Universal Waste Rule: Addition of Pharmaceuticals 7. RIN: 2050
- AG44 Identification of Non

- Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Wastes 8. RIN: 2050
- AG45 Standards for the Safe and Environmentally Protective Placement of Coal Combustion Residuals as Minefill in Coal Mine s Not Regulated Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 9. RIN: 2050
- AG51 Episodic Generation Rulemaking 10. RIN: 2050
- AG54 Identifying the Universe of Government Research in Laboratories and Determining Student Involvement in Generating Laboratory Hazardous Waste 11. RIN: 2050
- AG55Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Removing Saccharin and Its Salts From the Lists of Hazardous Constituents, Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Substances 12. RIN: 2050
- AG57 Withdrawal of Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuels Exclusion 13. RIN: 2050
- AG60 Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Injectate in Geo logical Sequestration Activities

### 181 Exhibit 6C Sensitivity Analysis #2: 11 -Year Time - Trend (1997 - 2007) 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 (

- 4 8 %) 2.138 (+3 %) 2 1999 88 0.720 111 0.368 46 0.152 245 (

- 58 %) 1.240 (

- 40 %) 3 2001 191 1.462 534 0.425 97 1.026 822 (+42 %) 2.913 (+40 %) 4 2003 159 1.152 523 0.263 85 0.729 767 (+33 %) 2.144 (+3 %) 5 2005 137 1.420 493 0.297 74 0.328 704 (+22 %) 2.045 (

- 2%) 7 2007 137 1.330 456 0.329 65 0.335 624 (+8%) 1.995 (

- 4%) 11
- year average = 5 77 2.0 7 9 Deviation range = - 5 8 % to +4 2 % - 4 0 % to + 40 % Explanatory Notes: (1) Data source: EP A RCRA Hazardous Waste “National Analysis” Biennial Reports: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm (2) * EPA RCRA Biennial Report waste management “method codes” changed in 2001 from M

- codes to H

- cod es. (3) ** “Other Recovery” in this exhibit excludes (1) energy recovery and (2) fuel blending because they are not eligible for the DSW final rule exclusions. (4) *** Facility row total counts overstate actual counts because row totals are duplicative of facilities operating two or more recycling methods. 

### Exhibit 6D S ensitivity Analysis #2 11 -Year Time - Trend (1997 - 2007) 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 Im

poundment 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 (

- 12%) 30.647 (+20%) 2 1999 62 2.115 149 1.454 92 17.473 303 (

- 22%) 21.042 (

- 18%) 3 2001 69 1.807 174 1.646 268 24.177 511 (+32%) 27. 630 (+8%) 4 2003 72 1.676 162 1.273 184 17.856 418 (+8%) 20.805 (

- 19%) 5 2005 68 2.038 164 1. 564 184 2 4 .2 25 415 (+7%) 2 7
. 827 (+9%) 7 2007 66 1.939 140 1.031 135 22.694 341 (

- 12%) 25.664 (+0%) 11
- year average = 3 8 8 25. 603 Deviation range = - 2 2 % to +32 % - 19% 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 (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 two or more disposal methods.

### 18 2 

## Sensitivity Analysis #3: Within -Year Discrepancy Between Generation Tons & Management Tons This factor may

be a sub

- component, in part or in whole, of Sensitivity Analysis #2. For any single data year, the total tons of hazardous wastes reported as “generated” in the RCRA Biennial Report by L QGs does not match the total tons of hazardous wastes reported as “managed” b y TSDRFs. This discrepancy may to a large degree result from the fact that typicall y 15% to 24% of hazardous wastes gene rated in recent ye ars (1997

- 2007 ) 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, rather than managed onsite by the LQG. Because the economic impacts estimated in this RIA are proportional to the annual tonnage of affected material s, this within

- ye ar discrepancy suggests that the estimated net cost savings in this RIA based on 200 7 BR data, could vary between - 34% to +39% for any future year. This range is not a statistical confidence interval; it represents the overall minimum and maximum range in percentage variation between 1997

- 2007 generation quantities of RCRA hazardous wastes compared to the within

- year management quantities reported to the Biennial Report over that 11

- ye ar p eriod as displayed in Exhibit 6E below.
Exhibit 6E Sensitivity Analysis #3 11 -Year Time Trend (1997 - 2007) in Hazardous Waste Generation & Management Tonnages

Indicator 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 1. Million tons generated 40.7 40.0 40.8 30.2 38.3 46.7 2. Million tons managed 37.7 26.3 45.4 42.1 43.9 50.5 Percent discrepancy indicated by ratio of tons managed:to:generated ((2

- 1) / 1) - 7.4% - 34.3% +11.3% +39.4% +14.6% +7.5 Notes Data source: EPA RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Reports at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm

.



##  Sensitivity Analysis #4: RCRA SQGs in this RIA S mall quantity

generators 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 Repo rt which contains data reported b y LQGs and TSDFs but not by SQGs, the complete SQG fac ility universe count is not included in this RIA, onl y the small fraction of TSDFs which are also SQGs. The cost estimated in this RIA is likel y under

- estimated by the following percentage range: Between 1993 and 2005 , there was a low estimate of 84,000 SQGs (1993) to a high estimate of 236,000 SQGs (Source: page 4 of “Work Assignment 7 Task 5 Quick Response Task 1 Memorandum: Study of Impact of Imposing Part 262 Manifest Requirements on Generator s of HWIR
- Exited Waste , ” prepared 01 Feb 1999 b y Dynamac Corp for EPA Office of Solid Waste ).

### 183

Step 1: Apply

the same 26% ratio of LQGs who recovery waste/all LQGs (source: 4,321 recycling LQGs from Exhibit 3A Column A divided by

16,387 total LQGs from Exhibit 3B Column A), to these SQG counts suggest that 22,150 to 62,230 SQGs generate hazardous wastes which are managed b y recovery or recycling. Step 2: Subtract the 846 SQGs included in this RIA (Exhibit 4I Column D) produces a range of about 21,300 to 61,400 SQGs

omitted from this RIA. Step 3: Cost impacts for SQGs are estimated to be $ 316 /facility /year [ ( assume half the transportation accumulation time savings in Exhibit 5N, Option 2, Item 4 at $1.3 2 million/year to reflect SQG accumulation time increasing from 180 days to 360 days instead of LQGs increasing from 90 to 360 days and subtract costs for requirements listed in It ems 5 through 1 1 at $2.73 million/year) /4, 455 facilities from Exhibit 5A, Column A = $ 316 /facility /year) assuming the 13 % base case adoption scenario, and a 7% discount rate. Multiply the 21,300 to 61,400 SQGs by the $ 316 per- facility average annual costs to comply with the set of revisions to the 2008 DSW final rule transfer

- based exclusion = $6. 7 million to $1 9.4 million per year in additional industry

co mpliance costs. Step 4: Compare these estimate s to the net impact estimate for the 2011 DSW proposed rule (Exhibit 5 N , Item 49) to establish

percentage range for this sensitivity anal ys is factor [($6. 7 million to $1 9.4 million per year) / ($ 13.1 million/ye ar)] results in + 51 % to + 1 48 % in additional cost impacts. 

## Sensitivity Analysis # 5 : Physical/Chemical Quality of Secondary Materials for Viable Recovery/Recycling The methodology

applied in Chapter 5 of this RIA for identifying baseline disposal wastes for potential switchover to recycling under the DSW final rule, may

be overl y inclusive in the physical/chemical types and industrial sources identified. Exhibit 6F below identifies nine categories of baseline disposed wastes that may not be suitable for recycling, and their corresponding tonnages in the 2007 Biennial Report, as an indicator of potential industry cost savings over

- estimation in this RIA from possible over

- estimation of the baseline disposal tonnage that may switch

- over to recycling under the DSW final rule.
Exhibit 6 F Sensitivity Analy sis #5 Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Ty pes of Disposed Haz Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Recycling Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C 2007 Generation (tons) Phy sical/ 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 For wastes not reporting source code G61 include:  W205 oil

- water emulsion  W206 waste oil 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 3H or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes:  F024 heavy end, tars reactor clean

- out process wastes 470,042

### 184 Exhibit 6 F Sensitivity Analy sis #5 Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Ty pes of Disposed Haz Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Recycling Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C 2007 Generation (tons) Phy sical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes wa stes)  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  F032, F034 chlorophenolic & creosote wood preservative wastewaters  F037, F038 petroleum refinery oil/water separation sludge  K00 1 wood preserving bottom sediment sludges  K018, K030, K035, K042, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052, K087, K096, K101, K107, K108, K115 heavy ends, overheads  K141, K142, K143, K144, K147, K148 coking operation tars  K169, K170 oil tank sediment 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 wa ste codes listed in Exhibit 3H or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes:  F020, F021, F022, F023 listed for dioxins/furans  F026, F027, 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 11,968

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 wa ste codes listed in Exhibit 3H or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes:  K044, K045, K046, K047 explosives mfg wa stewaters, sludge, spent carbon 80,690

4. Already subject to 4a.

Distillation residuals (may be better 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 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 3H or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes: 63,172

### 185 Exhibit 6 F Sensitivity Analy sis #5 Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Ty pes of Disposed Haz Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Recycling Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C 2007 Generation (tons) Phy sical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes recovery/ recycling suited for

energy recovery) product distillation or recovery  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 4b. Acid recovery residuals 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 3H 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 mud s 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 3H or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes:  F028 residues from incineration of contaminated soil  K060 ammonia still lime s ludge  K102 residue from use of activated carbon for de

colorization 845,749

6. Materials not eligible for DSW final rule exclusions* For wastes not reporting source code G61 include:  W309 (lead

- acid batteries)  W320 electrical devices (lam ps, thermostats, CRTs) 276,367

7. Materials not currently widely recovered/ recycled**  W401 used or discarded pesticide solids  W503 gypsum sludges 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 3H or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes:  D004 arsenic 11,472

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 wa ste codes:  K031, K043, K097, K099, K123, K124, K125, K126, K131, K132 pesticide mfg wastewaters, sludges, absorbents, solids  K062 iron & steel spent pickle liquor 2,879,521

### 186 Exhibit 6 F Sensitivity Analy sis #5 Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Ty pes of Disposed Haz Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Recycling Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C 2007 Generation (tons) Phy sical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes 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. 42 Column total = 4,639,023 Percentage of 2007 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report total hazardous waste generation (46.693 million tons, Exhibit 1.3) = - 10% Notes: Some materials identified in this exhibit may contain potential beneficial re - use market value (e.g., construction fill, soil amendments, cement additives) which is not covered under the DSW final rule exclusions, and therefore not included in this RIA for evaluation of potential switchover from baseline disposal to future recycling. * Or which may be managed as excluded materials under other RCRA exemptions (e.g., as “universal wastes”). ** As determined by

c om parison with the physical/chemical ty pes or co nstituent s of RCRA hazardous wastes currently being recovered/ recycled according to H010, H020, or H039 management method codes in the 2007 Biennial Report. *** Note that these data were initially pulled from the 2007 BR under Commodity Group #3 in Exhibit 3R
. Upon review of W103 spent concentrated acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or caustic cleaning, and G05 metal forming and treatment wa ste streams nearly all the waste is not suitabl e for switchover to of f

- site other recovery. Much of the wa ste are dilute acid wa stes that are disposed in on - site wastewater treatment systems followed by POTW/sewer or NPDES discharge or disposed by C lass I UIC permitted deep

- well injection. T hese disposal methods are less expensive com pare d to offsite recovery, therefo re it should be more costly to ship these wastes offsite for other recovery. It is beyond the time and resource constraints of this RIA to individually carry these records through the analysis. A s mall quantity (< 1,000 tons) of spent pickle liquor (K062 ) was identified. The quantity is too small to carry forward through the analysis.

### 187 

## Sensitivity Analysis #6 : Expected Accuracy of Impact Estimates This RIA is based on a semi

- detailed cost data designed to provide semi

- detailed estimates rather than ex act engineering cost and benefit estimates for each of the 622 different industries con sisting of about 9,1 00 of facilities which are generating and managing 10,000s of individual waste stream s which may be affected by

the proposed revisions to the DSW and other RCRA industrial recycling exclusions . For purpose of classifying relative degrees of estimation accuracy , the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE ) defines five generic classes of cost estimation accuracy for application in engineering, procurement, and industry

. 73 

### AACE defined these classes in relation to ANSIstandards Z94.0 and Z94.2. 74 

### Inthe 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 impacts 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 po int estimate. The five accuracy classes are formulated to refl ect varying, relative degrees of:

 Project definition, design, and planning maturity level ( e.g. , <2% vs. >50% complete),  End usage purpose of cost estimates (e.g., initial concept screening vs . contract bid),  Ty pe of estimation methodology (e.g., judgment vs. detailed unit costs), 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

- magnitude” typ e 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 tighter +/

- accuracy

range assigned to it according to the accuracy classification scheme. The impact estimates of this RIA may be classified as a “Class 3” semi

- detailed ty pe of estimate with expected accuracy range of - 20% to +30% , because this RIA includes semi

- detailed unit costs, but which are less than the thousands of highl y detailed unit costs and other details that ty

pify a "Class 2" type estimate with

- 15% to +20% expected accuracy range.

73 Source: AACE International Recommended Practice No. 17R

- 97 “Cost Estimate Classification System” , 12 Aug 1997, and Recommended Practice No. 18R

- 97 “Cost Estimate Classification System

– As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries”, 15 June 1998; http://www.aacei.org/technical/rp.shtml. 74 ANSI = American National Standards Institute. ANSI standard Z94.0 was originally published in 1972, then revised as Z94

- 1983 in 1983, revised as Z94.0

- 1989 in 1990, and revised again as Z94.2 in 1998. The ANSI Z94.2 st andard is one element of the set of 17 standards (i.e., Z94.1 to Z94.17) are for the field of industrial engineering, which is concerned with the design, improvement, and installation of integrated systems of people, materials, in formation, equipment, and energy. Industrial engineering draws upon specialized knowledge and skill 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 obtain ed from such systems. Additional background information about ANSI Z94 standards is available from the Institute for Industrial Engineers at: http://www.iienet2.org/Details.aspx?id=2644.

### 188 

# C HAPTER 

# 7 Supplemental Analyses This chapter addresses the special anal ytic topics, evaluative criteria, supporting data, and analy tic results, associated wi th the Federal regulatory

agency evaluations required under four White House Executive Orders and two Congress ional laws, spanning 1980 to 201 1: 7A. Regulatory

Planning and Review (1993 Executive Order 12866) 7B. Impact Anal ys is (1980 RFA/1996 SBREFA) 7C. Unfunded Mandat es Analysis (1995 UMRA) 7D. Federalism Implic ations (1999 Executive Order 13132) 7E. Energy

Impact Anal ys is (2001 Executive Order 13211) 7F. Improving Regulation & Regulatory Review (2011 Executive Order 13563)



## 7A. Regulatory Planning and Review ( 1993 Executive Order 12866) Executive Order 12866, as amended b y Executive Order 13258, requires EPA to determine whether a regulatory action is "signifi cant" 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 regulatory

action that is likely

to result in a rule that may : 1. H ave 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 g overnments or communities; 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 Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

Income Populations. (2) 1997 EO

- 1 3045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risk & Safety Risks. (3) 1998 EO

- 13084 Consultation & Coordination with 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 2011 DSW proposed revisions. See EPA’s 2011 Federal Register notice for the DSW proposed revisions for information about these other analyses and the EJ reference document.

### 189

2. C reate a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned b y another agency; 3. Materiall y alter budgetary impact s of enti tlements, grants, user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 4. Raise novel legal or policy issues ari sing out of legal mandates, President's priorities, or principles se t forth in the Executive Order. Based on the cost estimates presented in this RIA , this RIA concludes that the 2011 proposed 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 proposed 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 show that the future average annualized costs are expected to total between (201 1 $ @7% discount rate):

 13 % base case adoption scenario: $ 7.2 million and $ 13.1 million per year  74 % upper
-bound adoption scenario: $ 7.4 million and $ 47.5 million per year Even at a 0% discount rate and the 74 % upper
-bound scenario, annual costs are between $ 11.5 million and $ 67.7 million per year. 

## 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 ys is (RFSA) to make this determination. This section presents the methodology and findings for the RFSA conducted for the proposed rule. Unless Agencies are able to certify

that a particular regulatory action is not expected to have a SI SNOSE, the RFA/SBREFA requires a formal anal ys is 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 anal ys is of this RIA follows the four anal ytic steps described in EPA’s November 2006 RFA/SBREFA compliance f inal guidance: 75 

### Step 1: Determine which small entities are subject to the rule’s requirem ents. 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 (SI SNOSE). Step 4: Docum ent the screening anal ys is and include the appropriate RFA statements in the preamble.

75 EPA’s RFA/SBREFA guidance: “EPA’s Action Development Process: Final 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/sbrefa/documents/rfaguidance11

- 00
- 06.pdf

### 190

Step 1: Identification of Small Entities Based on the baseline and impact anal ys es presented in EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule, the 2011 proposed rule revision s to the DSW could potentially

affect 5, 321 facilities currently (as of 2007) operating under pre

- 2008 RCRA recycling exclusions plus between 662 and 3,671 facilities currently

recycling or disposing hazardous waste regulated which could eventually operate under the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions. This range of 5,983 to 8,992 potentially affected facilities is in a wi de range of industries up to 622 industries (as listed in Appendix A). For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA anal ys is only 27 NAICS industries with the largest number of facilities potentially affected were evaluated. This RIA identified the 27 industries by first looking at the count of facilities by 6
- digit NAICS for the current population of facilities recovering hazardous secondary materials base d on the 2005 Biennial Report data from the 2008 DSW RIA. This data anal ys is was a further refinement of the facility counts presented in Exhibit 3E by six

- digit NAI CS. This list of industries was then expanded to capture the largest industries in the li st of affected pre

- 2008 DSW exclusion facilities ( from Exhibit 3J) identified in the 2007 TRIdatabase. This data anal ys is was a further refinement of the facility counts presented b y six

- digit NAI CS. Exhibit 7A presents small business size standards fo r the 27 major industries expected to be affected b y the rule.

### 191 Exhibit 7A Small Business Size Standards for 27 Major Industries Potentially Affected by the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions
Item NAICS Industry Description 2007 Count of Companies in Industry* 2007 Count of

Establishments in Industry* SBA s mall b usiness s ize s tandards

in number of employees or annual revenue s ** 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 Mf g 396 632 1 , 000 4 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Mf g 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 Mf g 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 S econdary Smelting, Refining & Alloying of Non ferrous Metal

(except Copper, Aluminum) 205 233 750 12 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing <3,698 3,698 500 1 3 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and

Allied Services to Manufacturers 2,370 2,579 500 1 4 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing and Coloring 2,622 2,731 500 1 5 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabri cated Metal Product Mf g 3,567 3,636 500 16 333415 Air Conditioning, Warm Air Heating Equipment, and

Commercial & Industrial Refrigerator Equipment Manufacturing <902 902 750 1 7 334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 681 716 500 1 8 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 Mf g 770 890 1 , 000 2 3 541710 Research & Development in Physical, Engineering, Life Sciences 11,382 14,457 750 2 4 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal <751 751 $12.5 million 2 5 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 2 7 928110 National Security No data No data No data Notes: * The number of companies and establishments are the totals reported in the 2007 Census of Manufacturers. Only a subset of the se com panies and establishments should be affected by the 2011 DSW proposed rule if promulgated. ** Source: US Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Effective N ovem

ber 5, 2010.

### 192

Any business, small or large, has the option of choosing to be subject to the regulation. Any business that chooses to be subject to the proposed rule would have to abide by the requirements of the rule. A ccordingl y, the business woul d be required to meet specific requirements of the rule, as described in previous chapters of this RIA. Two assumptions are used to estimate the number of businesses which may v oluntaril y choose to be subject to the 2011 DSW revi sions, providing a “base c ase” and an alternative “upper bound” scenario, defined as follows:

 Base case adoption scenario : The number of businesses choosing to be subject to the rule (aka “notifiers”) is assumed to be equal to the number of average annual notifiers under the 2008 DSW final rule. This is equivalent to a total of 21 businesses per ye ar, for a total number of businesses of 1,176 adopting the DSW recycling exclusion revisions through ye ar 2064.  Upper
-bound adoption scenario : The upper bound estimate is based on assuming that all of the 44 states will adopt the 2011 DSW proposed rule within a four

- year period beginning in 2015, at a rate of 25% of the 44 states adopting in each of the four years following 2014. B y the end of those four years all facilities in those 44 states will notify under the DSW recycling exclusions, for an ultimate total of 3,781 businesses adopting the DSW recycling exclusion revisions through year 2064
. The numbers of small businesses that are expected to notify under both the “base case” and “upper bound” adoption scenarios, are estimated based on an analysis of actual notifiers under the 2008 DSW final rule, as presented in Appendix D of this RIA. O f the 37 industrial facilities which had notified under the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions final rule during the notification data period anal yz ed , a total of five of the 31 facilities are owned by

small businesses, which is 14% of all notif iers (i.e., 5/37 = 14%). Thus, for those facilities adopting the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions, 14% are assumed in this RIA to be small businesses. Step 2: Select appropriate measures for determining economic impacts on these sm all 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 proposed rule:

 Sal es test: Annualized compliance costs as a percentage of sales  Cash flow test: Debt

- financed capital compliance costs relative to current cash flow  Profit test: Annualized compliance costs as a percentage of profits For purposes of this RIA, the sales t est method was used to determine if small entities may be significantly

impacted by

the proposed rule. Step 3 & Step 4: Determine and document whether the proposed rule may be certified as having “No SISNOSE” This RIA determined whether each regulatory option may

have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities” (i.e., SI SNOSE) which may

choose to be subject to the requirements of the proposed rule. This determination involved comparing the average e stimated

### 193

regulatory

compliance cost s for each entity in each industry

with the respective annual revenues for each entity. The percentage results calculated for each small entity were compared to the three impact thresholds defined in Table 2 of EPA’s November 2006 RFA/S BREFA guidance as reproduced in Exhibit 7B below, regarding the appropriate SI SNOSE determination category

. Exhibit 7B Reproduction of Table 2 “Example SISNOSE Certification Decision Process ” from

EPA’s November 2006 RFA/SBREFA Guidance
Im pact 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 Certification 1 , 000 or more Any percent Presumed Ineligible for Certification 

### The estimated impacts on small entities are presented below in Exhibits 7C ( 13 % base case adoption scenario) and 7D ( 74 % upper bound adoption scenario). As shown in the Exhibits, the average annual impact on small businesses is estimated to be significantly less than 1% of annual sales for all smal l entities. The highest impact as a percentage of sales is estimated at 0. 41 % of annual sales. The total number of small businesses impacted at this level is estimated at 21 small entities under the 13% base

- case adoption scenario, and 30 small entities under the 74% adoption scenario, which represents 2.3% to 2.4%, respectively , of the 910 (13% scenario) to 1,274 (74% scenario) small entities which could be impacted b y the proposed revisions to the 2008 and pre

- 2008 recycling exclusions . Based on this analysis, this RIA concludes that the 2011 proposed 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 D etermination The assumption of this RIA that 14% of recycling exclusion notifiers will be small businesses was based on data from actual notifiers under the 2008 DSW rule in the 2.3 years of its effective period to date (i.e., December 2008 to April 2011) , and may not be representative of future notifiers , nor of facilities operating under pre

- 2008 RCRA industrial recycling exclusions

.

### 194

This RIA did not evaluate annual revenue data specific to small businesses. Instead, this RIA developed a prox y for annu al revenues based on establishment data from the Census of Manufacturers. For example if the small business size standard was 1 , 000 employees, the average value of shipments for those facilities with 10

- 500 employees was used as a proxy for small business revenues. This value may not be an accurate representation of actual notifiers under the rule

. This RIA estimates that under the 13% base

- case adoption scenario 910 small entities could be affected by today's proposal (if p romulgated) out of a total 6,4 97 affected small plu s non - small entities (i.e., 14.0%; from Exhibit 7C), and 1,274 small entities could be affected out of a total 9,102 potentially

affected small plus non

- small entities (i.e., 14.0 %) under the 74% upper

-bound adoption scenario (from Exhibit 7D)

. These facility counts include facilities currentl y operating under the pre

- 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (32 exclusions), plus additional current RCRA hazardous waste recyclers which in the future could potentiall y operate under the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (3 exclu sions). However, these facility

count estimates are based on anal ys es presented in EPA's RIA involving EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database for the pre

- 2008 exclusions, and EPA's RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial 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 conditionally

- exempt small quantity generators (CE SQGs) 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 database 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 onl y estimated for 27 of the industries that will have the largest number of impacted fac ilities out of 621 6
- digit NAI CS code industries ( as listed in Appendix A) that may be affected b y 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.

### 195 Exhibit 7C Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions on Small Bus inesses ( 13 % base case adoption scenario ) 1/ A B C D E F G H I J

Item NAICS Industry Small Company Average Annual Revenue ( 2011 $/yr) 2/ Average

Annual Cost Im pact Per Facility ( 2011 $/yr) Annual

Cost Im pact as Percent of Annual Revenue (%) 3/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 4/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 5/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Year 2064 6/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Year 2064 7/ 1 323110 Commercial Lithographic Printing $7,655,524 $15,303 0.200% 13 2 24 3 2 324110 Petroleum Refineries $1,441,928,214 $15,303 0.001% 83 12 105 15 3 325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical

Manufacturing $45,983,586 $15,303 0.033% 61 8 72 10 4 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing $111,235,602 $15,303 0.014% 88 12 111 15 5 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing $88,876,271 $15,303 0.017% 87 12 104 15 6 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing $88,315,826 $15,303 0.017% 29 4 49 7 7 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing $29,517,080 $15,303 0.052% 120 17 143 20 8 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product

and Preparation Manufacturing $26,680,578 $15,303 0.057% 55 8 68 10 9 326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing $12,424,800 $15,303 0.123% 49 7 58 8 10 331111 Iron and Steel Mills $136,490,820 $15,303 0.123% 64 9 76 11 11 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and

Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) $52,091,967 $15,303 0.029% 41 6 45 6 12 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing $12,859,681 $15,303 0.119% 86 12 88 12 13 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry

and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers $11,002,159 $15,303 0.139% 96 13 115 16 14 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing,

Anodizing and Coloring $4,457,248 $15,303 0.343% 178 25 240 34 15 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal

Product Manufacturing $8,723,677 $15,303 0.175% 101 14 109 15 16 333415 Air

- Conditioning and Warm Air Heating

Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing $21,511,990 $15,303 0.071% 72 10 75 10 17 334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing $3,714,108 $15,303 0.412% 121 17 148 21 18 334413 Semiconductor and Related Device

Manufacturing $27,339,212 $15,303 0.056% 40 6 55 8

### 196 Exhibit 7C Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions on Small Bus inesses ( 13 % base case adoption scenario ) 1/ A B C D E F G H I J

Item NAICS Industry Small Company Average Annual Revenue ( 2011 $/yr) 2/ Average

Annual Cost Im pact Per Facility ( 2011 $/yr) Annual

Cost Im pact as Percent of Annual Revenue (%) 3/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 4/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 5/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Year 2064 6/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Year 2064 7/ 19 334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic

Assembly) Manufacturing $12,450,771 $15,303 0.123% 143 20 147 21 20 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts

Manufacturing $16,892,517 $15,303 0.091% 102 14 110 15 21 336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts

Manufacturing $27,299,207 $15,303 0.056% 46 6 54 8 22 336413 Other Aircraft Part and Auxiliary

Equipment Manufacturing $23,568,125 $15,303 0.065% 41 6 55 8 23 541710 Research & Development in Physical,

Engineering, Life Sciences $6,249,609 $13,637 0.218% 3 0 25 4 24 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal $6,534,593 $13,637 0.209% 1 0 10 1 25 611310 Colleges, Universities and Professional

Schools $7,834,683 $13,637 0.174% 4 1 35 5 26 622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals NA $13,637 NA 2 0 14 2 27 928110 National Security NA $13,637 NA 4 1 35 5 All Other Industries NA NA NA NA 3,737 523 4325 Total Number of Facilities Impacted All Options

- - - 5,468 766 6 , 497 910 1/ The 13% base case adoption scenario is based on the assumption that 21 facilities adopt the 2011 DSW proposed rule each year. By year 2064 a total of 1,176 faciliti es will have notified under one of the DSW recycling exclusions. Annual cost impact per facility is discounted by 3% to reflect c hange i n price level from 2015 to 2011. 2/ Small company annual revenue is approximated using the average establishment value of shipments from Census of Manufacturers 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 intended to serve as a conservativ e value of annual revenue for small businesses. Annual cost impact per facility is discounted by 3% to reflect change in price level from 2015 to 2011. 3/ Column E divided by Column D times 100%. 4/ In the first two years and four months following the 2008 DSW final rul e 49 facilities have notified under one of the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions. This rate of 21 facilities notifying per year is continued up through 2015. At this rate, by 2015, 147 facilities will notify under one of the DSW recycling exclusions. See fo otnote 1 for the years 2015 and later. 5/ Based on industry notifications under the 2008 DSW final rule, approximately 14% of notifiers were small businesses. Calculated as Column G * 0.14. 6/ Total Number of Businesses Impacted in Year 2064 is based on th e assump tion discussed in footnote 1. 7/ Based on industry notifications under the 2008 DSW final rule where approximately 14% of notifiers were small businesses. Calculated as Column I * 0.14.

### 197 Exhibit 7D Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions on Small Businesses ( 67% upper -bound adoption scenario ) 1/ A B C D E F G H I J

Item NAICS Industry Small Company Average Annual Revenue ( 2011 $/yr) 2/ Average Annual Cost Impact Per Facility ( 2011 $/yr) Annual Co st Im pact as Percent of Annual Revenue (%) 3/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 4/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 5/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Years 2018 through 2064 6/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Years 2018 through 2064 7/ 1 323110 Commercial Lithographic

Printing $7,655,524 $15,303 0.200% 23 3 53 7 2 324110 Petroleum Refineries $1,441,928,214 $15,303 0.001% 102 14 161 22 3 325188 All Other Basic Inorganic

Chemical Manufacturing $45,983,586 $15,303 0.033% 70 10 100 14 4 325199 All Other Basic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing $111,235,602 $15,303 0.014% 108 15 168 23 5 325211 Plastics Material and Resin

Manufacturing $88,876,271 $15,303 0.017% 102 14 146 20 6 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation

Manufacturing $88,315,826 $15,303 0.017% 47 7 101 14 7 325510 Paint and Coating

Manufacturing $29,517,080 $15,303 0.052% 140 20 200 28 8 325998 All Other Miscellaneous

Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing $26,680,578 $15,303 0.057% 67 9 103 14 9 326199 All Other Plastics Product

Manufacturing $12,424,800 $15,303 0.123% 57 8 81 11 10 331111 Iron and Steel Mills $136,490,820 $15,303 0.123% 74 10 107 15 11 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining,

and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) $52,091,967 $15,303 0.029% 45 6 57 8
12 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal

Manufacturing $12,859,681 $15,303 0.119% 88 12 94 13
13 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving

(except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers $11,002,159 $15,303 0.139% 113 16 165 23
14 332813 Electroplating, Plating,

Polishing, Anodizing and $4,457,248 $15,303 0.343% 232 32 396 55

### 198 Exhibit 7D Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions on Small Businesses ( 67% upper -bound adoption scenario ) 1/ A B C D E F G H I J

Item NAICS Industry Small Company Average Annual Revenue ( 2011 $/yr) 2/ Average Annual Cost Impact Per Facility ( 2011 $/yr) Annual Co st Im pact as Percent of Annual Revenue (%) 3/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 4/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 5/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Years 2018 through 2064 6/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Years 2018 through 2064 7/ Coloring 15 332999 All Other Miscellaneous

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing $8,723,677 $15,303 0.175% 108 15 130 18

16 333415 Air

- Conditioning and Warm

Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing $21,511,990 $15,303 0.071% 74 10 80 11

17 334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board

Manufacturing $3,714,108 $15,303 0.412% 145 20 218 30 18 334413 Semiconductor and Related

Device Manufacturing $27,339,212 $15,303 0.056% 53 7 93 13 19 334418 Printed Circuit Assembly

(Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing $12,450,771 $15,303 0.123% 147 21 159 22 20 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts

Manufacturing $16,892,517 $15,303 0.091% 109 15 129 18 21 336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine

Parts Manufacturing $27,299,207 $15,303 0.056% 53 7 74 10 22 336413 Other Aircraft Part and

Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing $23,568,125 $15,303 0.065% 53 7 91 13
23 541710 Research and Development in

the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences $6,249,609 $13,637 0.218% 22 3 81 11 24 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment

and Disposal $6,534,593 $13,637 0.209% 9 1 31 4 25 611310 Colleges, Universities and

Professional Schools $7,834,683 $13,637 0.174% 31 4 112 16 26 622110 General Medical and Surgical NA $13,637 NA 13 2 46 6

### 199 Exhibit 7D Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions on Small Businesses ( 67% upper -bound adoption scenario ) 1/ A B C D E F G H I J

Item NAICS Industry Small Company Average Annual Revenue ( 2011 $/yr) 2/ Average Annual Cost Impact Per Facility ( 2011 $/yr) Annual Co st Im pact as Percent of Annual Revenue (%) 3/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 4/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Year 2015 5/ Total

Count of Businesses Im pacted in Years 2018 through 2064 6/ Count of

Small Businesses Im pacted in Years 2018 through 2064 7/ Hospitals 27 928110 National Security NA $13,637 NA 31 4 112 16 All Other Industries NA NA NA 4,247 595 5,814 814 Total Number of Facilities Impacted All Options

- - - 6,361 891 9,102 1,274 Notes: 1/ The upper bound adoption rate is based on the assumption that all of the 44 states will adopt the 2011 DSW proposed rule within a four

- year period beginning in 2015, at a rate of 25% of the 44 states adopting in each of the four years following 2014. B y the end of those four years all facilities in those 44 states will notify under one of the DSW recycling exclusions. Annual cost impact per facility is discounted by 3% to reflect change in price level from 2015 to 2011. 2/ Small company annual revenue is approximated using the average establishment value of shipments from Census of Manufacturers Data. For example the numb er is the average establishment value of shipments for small establishments (e.g., for industries with an SBA small business size s tandard of 1,000 employees, the number is the average value of shipments for facilities with less than 500 employees). This estimate is intended to serve as a conservativ e value of annual revenue for small businesses. Annual cost impact per facility is discounted by 3% to reflect change in price level from 2015 to 2011. 3/ Column E divided by Column D times 100%. 4/ In the first two years and four months following the 2008 DSW final rule 49 facilities have notified under one of the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions. This rate of 21 facilities notifying per year is continued up through 2014. At this rate, by 2015 147 facilities will notify under one of th e DSW recycling exclusions plus those facilities notifying per footnote 1. 5/ Based on industry notificati ons under the 2008 DSW final rule, approximately 14% of notifiers were small businesses. Calculated as Column G * 0.14. 6/ Total Number of Businesses Impacted in Year 2018 through 2064 is based on the assumption discussed in footnote 1. Though year 2015 it is estimated that 126 facilities will have notified. In the following four years (2015

- 2018) a total 3,655 additional facilities located in 44 states that adopt the rule are estimated to notify in the upper bound estimate for a total of 3,781 facilities that notified. This total number of notifiers remains constant for the years 2018 through 2064. 7/ Based on industry notifications under the 2008 DSW final rule where approximately 14% of notifiers were small businesses. Calculated as Column I * 0.14.

### 200 

## 7C . Unfunded Mandates Analysis ( 1995 UMRA) The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires that federal agencies assess the effects of federal regulations on state, lo cal, and tribal governments and the private sector. In particular, UMRA requires that agencies prepare a written statement to accompany any rulemaking that “includes any federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, o r by the private sector, of $100 million or more (annually ad justed for inflation) in any one year” (Section 202(a)). Potential future annual added direct costs to state, local, and tribal governments c ould include the following eleven paperwork activities associated with Option 2, Option 4, Option 5, Option 6, and Option 7 of the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions: 1. Receive, review and file biennial notifications (Option s 2, 4 , 6, & 7) 2. Receive, r eview and file reclamation plan ( Option 2) 3. Receive, Review and approve emergency plans (Option 2) 4. Re ceive, r eview and file notification of compliance regarded affected release area (Option 2) 5. Review RCRA permit applications and enter into database (Option 2) 6. Evaluate legitimacy

petitions (Option 4 ) 7. Evaluate legitimacy

documentation (Option s 4 ) 8. Receive, r eview, and file re

- application for variance or non

- waste determination (Option 5) 9. EPA provides online public access to a list (including documentation) of facilities receiving non

- waste determinations (Option 5 ). 10. Petition process for re

- manufacturing exclusion (Option 6) 11. Other State paperwork requirements under existing paperwork requirements covering 2008 revisions to the RCRA definition of solid waste, RCRA hazardous waste manifest s ys tem requirements, hazardous waste generator standards, hazardous w aste specific unit requirements and special waste processes and typ es, and air emission standards for tanks, surface impoundment and containers. The state government share of estimated future average annualized direct costs under all options is displayed below in Exhibit 7E, which indicates that the maximum annual cost to state governments is $ 8.5 million for the 13 % base case adoption scenario , and $ 9.1 million for the 74 % upper bound adoption scenario. No impacts are expected for local or tribal governm ents. 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 conclude s that the 2011 DSW rule is not an unfunded mandate based on this UMRA cost criterion.

### 201 Exhibit 7 E Estimated Maximum Annual State Cost Burden Associated with 2011 DSW Rules (201 1 $) 1/

Item Ty

pe of Direct Compliance Cost 13% Base Case Adoption Scenario 74% Upper Bound Adoption Scenario
Notes Maximum Count of Submissions State Cost

per Submission Total

Annual Cost Maximum

Count of Submissions State Cost

per Submission Total

Annual Cost 1 Receive, Revie w and File Biennial Notifications (Option 2A, Option 4B, Option 6, and Option 7B) 3,312 $6 $20,799 4,673 $6 $29,346 2 2 Receive, Revie w and File Reclamation Plan (Option 2, Requirement 2B) 1,176 $38 $44,735 3,781 $38 $143,829 3 3 Revie w and Approve Emergency Plans (Option 2, Requirement 2D) 118 $90 $10,589 378 $90 $34,044 4
4 Receive, Revie w and File Notification of Compliance Regarding Affected Release Area (Option 2, Requirement 2D) 118 $225 $26,488 378 $225 $85,163 5 5 Revie w RCRA Permit Applications and Enter Into Database (Option 2, Requirement 2E) 19 $1,194 $22,572 19 $1,194 $22,572 6 6 Evaluation of Legitimacy Petitions (Options 4A, 4B) 76 $8,551 $649,846 103 $8,551 $880,712 7 7 Evaluation of Legitimacy Documentation (Options 4A and 4C) 3,247 $2,138 $6,940,950 3,247 $2,138 $6,940,950 8 8 Receive, Revie w and File Re

- application for Variance or Non
- waste Determination (Option 5A) 78 $8,550 $666,900 78 $8,550 $666,900
9 EPA provides online public access to a list (including supporting documentation) of facilities receiving non

wa ste determinations (Option 5B) 37 $75 $2,787 37 $75 $2,787 9 10 Petition Process for Re
- manufacturing Exclusion (Option 6D) 5 $13,640 $68,199 16 $13,640 $218,238 11 Other State Paperwork Requirements under Existing Paperwork Requirements NA NA $60,605 NA NA $60,605 10 12 Total Annual Costs $ 8,514,470 $9,085,146 Notes: 1/ Data depict the maximum annual costs that will be incurred by states in any one year. For the lower bound adoption rate this is ye ar 2064; for the upper bound adoption rate the maximum impacts occur in years 2018

- 2064. The maximum number of adoptions under Op tion 2 is estimated at 1,176 and 3,781 under the lower and upper bound estimates, respectively. The maximum number of adoptions under Option 4 is all 5,321 pre

- 2008 exclusion facilities and all 4,933 RCRA recycling facilities at 10,254. The maximum numbe r of adoptions under Option 5 is estimated at 74 non

- waste determinations and 4 variances. The maximum number under Option 6 is estimated at 53 and 170 for re

- manufacturing notifications and 5 and 16 for petitions under the lower and upper bound estimate s, respectively. The maximum number of adoptions under Option 7 is estimated at 5,321. 2/ 50% for the total number of facilities opting for coverage under the rule submit notifications every year. State cost est imate obtained from the "Supporting Statement for Revisions to the RCRA Defini tion of Solid Waste (Proposed Rule), June 30, 2011 (i.e., 2011 DSW ICR). 3/ State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR. 4/ Assumes plan is resubmitted every 10 years. State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR. 5/ Assumes plan is resubmitted every 10 years. State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR. 6/ 189 off

- site recyclers accepting hazardous waste identified in Exhibit 3A. Permits are assumed to be renewed every 10 years.

### 202 Exhibit 7 E Estimated Maximum Annual State Cost Burden Associated with 2011 DSW Rules (201 1 $) 1/ 7/ 5% of facilities su

bmit petitions every five years. State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR. 8/ 95% of facilities submit documentation every three years. State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR. 9/ State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR. 10/ State cost estimate obtained from 2011 DSW ICR. The 2011 DSW ICR identifies other agency costs under existing paperwork requirements that cover 2008 revisions to the RCRA definition of solid waste, RCRA hazardous waste manifest system requirements, hazardous waste generator standards, hazardous waste specific unit requirements and special waste processes and types, and air emission standards for tanks, surface impoundment and containers.

### 203 

## 7D . Federalism Implications ( 1999 Executive Order 13132) The 1999 Federalis m 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 policy making criteria, and a state/local governm ent consultatio n 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 Fe deral government and the states, or on the 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 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions (i.e., Option 1 thru Option 7 ) may “ impose substantial direct compliance costs ” on state/local governments. EPA’s 2008 guidance 76 

### for compliance with EO 13132 describes two numerical methods (i.e., numeric al tests) for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications with 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 77


###  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, local, and tribal governments c ould include the following eleven paperwork activities associated with Option 2, Option 4 , Option 5 , Option 6, and Option 7: 1. Receive, review and file biennial notifications (Option s 2, 4 , 6, & 7) 2. Receive, r eview and file reclamation plan ( Option 2) 3. Receive, Review and approve emergency plans (Option 2) 4. Receive, r eview and file notification of compliance regarded affected release area (Option 2) 5. Review RCRA permit applications and enter into database (Option 2) 6. Evaluate legitimacy

peti tions (Option 4 ) 7. Evaluate legitimacy

documentation (Option s 4 ) 8. Receive, review, and file re

- application for variance or non

- waste determination (Option 5) 9. EPA provides online public access to a list (including documentation) of facilities receiving non

- was te determinations (Option 5 ). 10. Petition process for re

- manufacturing exclusion (Option 6) 11. Other State paperwork requirements under existing paperwork requirements covering 2008 revisions to the RCRA definition of solid waste, RCRA hazardous waste manifest s ys tem requirements, hazardous waste generator standards, hazardous waste specific unit requirements and special waste processes and typ es, and air emission standards for tanks, surface impoundment and containers.

76 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 77 Although o ne of the stated purposes of EO 13132 in its first paragraph is “to further the policies of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Ac t (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.

### 204

As also displayed in the prior (UMRA) section of this RIA in Exhibit 7E, the state government share of estimated future annual direct costs indicates that the maximum annual direct cost to state governments is $ 8.5 million per year for the 13 % base case adoption scenario , and $ 9.1 million per year for the 74 % upper bound adoption scenario. 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 2011 DSW rule does not meet the Federalism implication
“substantial direct compliance costs ” criterion.


## 7E . Energy Impact Analysis (2001 Executive Order 13211) Executive Order 13211 “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy

Suppl y, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 2 2, 2001)) requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to OMB for those matters identified as significant 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 n otices of proposed rulemaking, and notices o f proposed rulemaking that: 1. I s 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. I s designated by

OMB as a significant energy action. This rule does not involve the supply , dis tribution, or use of energy and is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to this rule.


## 7F. Improving Regulation & Regulatory Review (2011 Executive Order 13563) The basic framework, scope, and contents of this RIA represent a “benefit

- cost anal ys is” which is the ty pe of analysis required under section 6(a)(2)(B) of the 1993 Executive Order 12866 for regulatory actions which are “significant” according to one or more of four criteria: 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 c ommunities; 2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency ; 3. Materiall y alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.

### 205

Furthermore, for regulatory actions which are expected to have more than a $100 million per year “ eco nomically significant” annual effect on the economy according to the first criterion listed above , Section 6(a)(2)(C) of Executive Order 12866 requires Federal regulatory agencies (such as the EPA) to assess the potential effects of the benefits and costs of the proposed regulation on economic and market efficiency , productivity , employ

ment, competitiveness, health, safety, and the natural environment. The January 2011 Executive Order 13563 “ Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review ” reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions established by Executive Order 12866. However, because the 2011 DSW proposed rule is not expected to be an “ economically significant” rule according to the quantified and monetized benefits (i.e., cost savings) and costs as estimated in the prior chapters of this RIA, this RIA does not provide quantitative assessments of these other effe cts, but below provides a brief qualitative assessment of these other economic effects . The following chapter (Chapter 8) provides a qualitative assessment of potential effects (i.e., benefits) on health, safety and the natural environment
. EPA anticipates the 2011 DSW proposed rule, if promulgated, may create jobs in the long

- term (i.e., 3 to 5 years beyond its effective date after states adopt it) , for the following reason. EPA is proposing revisions to a set of 35 existing exclusio ns to RCRA industrial waste management regulations which EPA promulgated between 1985 and 2008. EPA promulgated three of the 35 exclusions in 2008, and the 32 other exclusions EPA promulgated between 1985 and 2002. Facilities in industries which are elig ible to operate under these exclusions realize annual savings in regulatory

costs, compared to operating under full RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations without these exclusions. How ever, not all state governments have adopted each of these existing 35 exclusions, particularly with regard to the most recent 2008 set of three RCRA exclusions for operations involving industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials which are not discarded. As of alm ost three years after EPA's promulgation of the 2008 exclusions, only four states (ID, IL, NJ, and PA) have voluntarily adopted the exclusions, and only 49 industrial facilities have notified EPA regional offices they are operating under the 2008 exclusions. One explanation of why more states have not yet adopted the 2008 DSW exclusions, as well as not yet adopted all of the 32 pre - 2008 exclusions, is some states may not believe one or more of the exclusions are fully protective of human health and the environment. During EPA's 2008 DSW exclusions rul emaking, 12 state governments commented to EPA on the 2007 re - proposal of the DSW exclusions that th ey were not likel y to adopt one or more of the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. These 12 states account for 23% of foregone RCRA regulatory cost savin gs to industries compared to nationwide cost savings potential under hypothetical total adoption of the 2008 DSW exclusions by

all states. For the 32 existing pre - 2008 RCRA industrial recycling exclusions, as displayed in Exhibit 7F below an average of ei ght s tates representing 5.3% of nationwide total RCRA industrial hazardous waste generation have not yet adopted 12 of th e 32 exclusions , and 24 states have not adopted at least one of the 32 exclusions . Because it is EPA's intention in the 2011 DSW propo sed rule, to remedy the concerns of non adopting states about the under

-protectiveness of these exclusions, EPA anticipates that once promulgated, more states may be induced to adopt both the pre

- 2008 and the 2008 DSW exclusions, thereb y making more facili ties eligible for regulatory cost savings in additional industries (Appendix A indicates only a 49% overlap in the ty

pes of industries that currentl y operate under the pre - 2008 exclusions, compared to the ty pes of industries which may become eligible in the future to operate under the 2008 DSW exclusions) . If those facilities pass

- thru their cost savings , in whole or in part, to customers in the form of lower prices for goods and services , the proposed revisions to the recycling exclusions could impro ve output productivity , improve market competitiveness, stimulate business growth , and create jobs in those industries.

### 206 Exhibit 7F Count of States Which Have Not Adopted the 32 pre - 2008 RCRA Regulatory Exclusions for Industrial Recycling A B C D E F G H I

Count of pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 40 CFR Citation RCRA Base Program Code Count of

States Adopting (out of 52 w/DC & Guam) Count

of Non

Adoptin g States Identity of States

Not Adopting Exclusion 2009

Hazardous Waste Generation Tons of Non
Adopting States % of 2009

US Total Hazardous Waste Generation Tons ** 260 & 261 Definition of Solid Waste 1 260.3 Procedures for variances & non

- waste determinations 13 52 0 2 261.2 (e) Use/Reuse 13 52 0 3 261.2 Table 1 Characteristic sludges being reclaimed 13 52 0 4 261.2 Table 1 Characteristic by

-products being reclaimed 13 52 0 5 261.2 Table 1 Commercial chemical products being reclaimed 13 52 0 261.4(a) Exclusions from the Definition of Solid Waste 6 261.4(a)(6) Pulping Liquors 13 52 0 7 261.4(a)(7) Spent Sulfuric Acid 13 52 0 8 261.4(a)(8) Closed

- Loop Recycling 28N 52 0 9 261.4(a)(9) Spent Wood Preservatives 167F 46 6 FL, GU, HI, MA, ME, NH 211,016 0.60% 10 261.4(a)(10) Coke By

- Product Wastes 85 45 7 MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, RI, WA 185,689 0.53% 11 261.4(a)(11) Splash Condenser Dross Residue 95 47 5 GU, MD, ME, NH, RI 46,835 0.13% 12 261.4(a)(12) Hazardous Oil

- Bearing Secondary Materials and Recovered Oil from Petroleum Refining Operations 135 46 6 GU, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH 181,605 0.51% 13 261.4(a)(13) Processed Scrap Metal 157 46 6 AL, GU, MD, ME, NH, RI 2,110,444 5.97% 14 261.4(a)(14) Shredded Circuit Boards 157 46 6 AL, GU, MD, ME, NH, RI 2,110,444 5.97% 15 261.4(a)(16) Com parable Fuels 168 42 10 CA, CO, CT, GU, HI, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT 810,437 2.29%
16 261.4(a)(17) Mineral Processing Spent Materials 167D 40 12 AZ, FL, GU, HI, MA, MD, ME, MS, NE, NH, VT, WA 2,315,145 6.55%
17 261.4(a)(18) Petrochemical Recovered Oil 169 44 8 AZ, CA, GU, HI, 768,493 2.18%

### 207 Exhibit 7F Count of States Which Have Not Adopted the 32 pre - 2008 RCRA Regulatory Exclusions for Industrial Recycling A B C D E F G H I

Count of pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 40 CFR Citation RCRA Base Program Code Count of

States Adopting (out of 52 w/DC & Guam) Count

of Non

Adoptin g States Identity of States

Not Adopting Exclusion 2009

Hazardous Waste Generation Tons of Non
Adopting States % of 2009

US Total Hazardous Waste Generation Tons ** MD, ME, NH, RI 18 261.4(a)(19) Spent Caustic Solutions from Petroleum Refining 169 44 8 AZ, CA, GU, HI, MD, ME, NH, RI 768,493 2.18% 19 261.4(a)(20) Hazardous Secondary Materials Used to Make Zinc Fertilizers 200 39 13 AZ, CA, CT, GU, HI, KS, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, WY 2,706,707 7.66%

20 261.4(a)(21) Zinc Fertilizers Made from Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials 200 39 13 AZ, CA, CT, GU, HI, KS, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, WY 2,706,707 7.66%

21 261.4(a)(22) Used Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) ND* ND* ND* ND* ND* ND* 261.4(b) Solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes 22 261.4(b)(12) Spent Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants 84 49 3 MA, ME, TX 13,498,069 38.20% 23 261.4(b)(14) Used Oil Distillation Bottoms used to manufacture asphalt products 122 43 9 AZ, CA, GU, MA, MD, ME, NE, NH, PA 1,114,499 3.15% 261.6 Requirements for recyclable materials (hazardous wastes) 24 261.6(a)(3)(ii) Scrap metal IA 52 0 25 261.6(a)(3)(iii) Waste
- derived fuels from refining processes 13 52 0 26 261.6(a)(3)(iv) Unrefined waste - derived fuels and oils from petroleum refineries 19 49 3 MD, ME, RI 41,876 0.12% 27 261.6(c)(2) Reclaimers that do not store 13 52 0 261.7 Residues of hazardous waste in empty containers 28 261.7 Residues of hazardous waste in empty containers IA 52 0 Part 266 Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes 29 266 Subpart C Recyclable Materials Used in a Manner Constituting Disposal 13 52 0 30 266 Subpart F Materials Utilized for Precious Metal Recovery 13 52 0 31 266 Subpart G Spent Lead

- Acid Batteries Being Reclaimed 13 52 0 32 266 Subpart H Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers & Industrial Furnaces 85 45 7 MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, RI, WA 502,906 1.42%

### 208 Exhibit 7F Count of States Which Have Not Adopted the 32 pre - 2008 RCRA Regulatory Exclusions for Industrial Recycling A B C D E F G H I

Count of pre - 2008 Recycling Exclusions 40 CFR Citation RCRA Base Program Code Count of

States Adopting (out of 52 w/DC & Guam) Count

of Non

Adoptin g States Identity of States

Not Adopting Exclusion 2009

Hazardous Waste Generation Tons of Non
Adopting States % of 2009

US Total Hazardous Waste Generation Tons ** Statistical Summary for Exclusions with One or More Non - Adopting States: Minimum = 39 3 41,876 0.1% Maximum = 49 13 13,498,069 38.2% Average = 44 8 1,879,960 5.3%

Non
- duplicative identity/totals for states not adopting at least one exclusion = 28 24 AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GU, HI, KS, MA, MD, ME , MN, MS, NE, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, TX, VT, WA, WY 20,819,873 58.9%

Footnotes:  Columns A, B, C data source: Table from section XIII of EPA's 2011 DSW proposed rule Federal Register notice.  Column D data source 1 of 2: EPA RCRA Rule List StATS database for 52 states (including DC & Guam) as of March 31, 2011 at http://www.epa.gov/waste/laws

regs/state/stats/allrules.pdf  Column D data source 2 of 2: EPA StATS "Consolidated Checklists C1

- C11" for 52 states (including DC & Guam) as of December 31, 2002 at http://www.epa.gov/waste/laws

- regs/state/revision/cclists.htm  Columns E, F, G data source: Authorization Status by Rule from EPA StATS database for 52 states (including DC & Guam) as of M arch 31, 2011 at http://www.epa.gov/waste/laws

- regs/state/stats/authall.pdf  Columns H & I data source: Exhibit 1.1 of EPA's 2009 "National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report" at 

### http://www.epa.gov/waste/inforesources/data/br09/national0 9.pdf
 * ND = No data available in the "Consolidated Checklists C1

- C11" because EPA promulgated this particular exclusion after the most current StATS data (Dec 31, 2002).  ** 2009 US total industrial hazardous waste generated by 56 states (including DC, Guam, Navajo Nation, Puerto Rico, Trust Territories, Virgin Islands) = 35,331,398

### 209 

# C HAPTER 

# 8 Potential Environmental & Economic Benefits For the 2011 Proposed 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 2011 DSW proposed revisions. 78 

### This chapter identifies at least o ne benefit for each of the seven options presented in the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions. Some options have multiple potential benefits associated with multiple revisions proposed under some options (all Options except Option 1 have multiple components, i.e., sub

- options). 8A. Reduction in future environmental damages associated with industrial recycling of hazardous secondary materials (Options 1, 2, 6). 8B. Improved environmental compliance: B1. C learer and more specif ic regulatory

standards improve environmental compliance (Options 3, 4 , 7, 8 ). B2. More stringent recordkeeping provisions improve environmental compliance (Options 3, 4 , 7). B3. S elf

- reporting requirements (e.g., notification requirement s) improve environmental compliance (Options 2, 3, 5 , 7). B4. In creased likelihood of detection and potential penalty for non

- compliance improves environmental compliance (Options 2, 3, 4, 5, 7). 8C. M ore specific standards result in reduced liability , less uncertainty for the regulated entity, and lower legal and credit costs (Options 3, 4 , 7, 8 ). 

## 8A. Reduction in Future Environmental Damage Cases Associated With Hazardous Secondary Materials Industrial Recycling Option 1 proposes to withdraw the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion, and Option 2 proposes to replace that 2008 e xclusion with alternative RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations for offsite transfer recycling. After anal yz ing the potential for adverse impact to human health and the environment from discarded material under the 2008 offsite recycling exclusion, including the po tential for disproportionate impact to minority and low

- income populations, the most appropriate regulatory approach may

be to keep most ty

pes of third

party transfers of hazardous secondary material regulated under RCRA Subtitle C, rather than excluded from it.

78 Benefit categories 8B and 8C in this Chapter are from a 2010 unpublished EPA white paper on the potential RCRA regulatory compliance

- related benefits which may be associated with EPA’s 2011 proposed 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)

– Office of Compliance

– Planning, Measures and Ov ersight Division.

### 210

As noted in the preamble to the 2008 DSW rule (74 FR 64675), generators of hazardous secondary materials who do not reclaim these materials themselves often ship the materials to be reclaimed to a commercial facility or another manufacturer in orde r to avoid the costs of disposing of the material. Because of low commercial value and high potential liability associated with most ty

pes of hazardous secondary materials, 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 secondary materials. In such situations, the generator has relinquished control of the hazardous secondary

materials and the entity

receiving such materi als may not have the same incentives to manage them as a useful product. This behavior is evidenced by the results of EPA’s 2007 “industrial recycling historical damages study

. 79 

### ” The study identified a total of 208 historical environmental damage cases f rom industrial hazardous secondary materials recycling spanning between 1983 and 2005. The study selected ye ar 1983 as the historical cut

- off ye ar because EPA published the bulk (i.e., base program) of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations between 1980 and 1982 . A sub

- total 195 (94%) of the recycling damage cases were associated with off

- site third

-party

recyclers, with clear instances of recyclable materials discard resulting in risks to human health and the environment, including cases of large

- scale soil and ground water contamination. The ty pes and prevalence of environmental damages associated with the 208 sites included (source: p.7 o f 2007 study):

 Soil & groundwater contamination 41%  Abandoned hazardous materials 33%  Soil contamination 30%  Air polluti on 10%  Surface water contamination 9%  Sediment contamination 8%  Groundwater contamination 6% As displayed in Exhibit 8A below, an average annual rate of nine recycling damage cases have occurred since the RCRA Subtitle C regulations were promulgated . As also displayed in the Exhibit, based on cleanup cost data for 89 of the 208 historical cases for which the study found cleanup cost data, the average annual cleanup cost for an average of nine recycling damage cases is $62.7 million per year, b ased o n an average of $6.9 million cleanup cost per industrial recycling environmental damage case. However, the summary of cleanup costs displ ayed in Exhibit 8A is based on a mix of price levels during the 1983 to 2005 data collection period in the 2007 EPA st udy . Based on updating the historical cleanup costs to ye ar 201 1 (i.e., 201 1 $) as displayed in Exhibit 8B below, the 201 1
- updated average annual cleanup cost is $86 million per year based on the historical average annual nine damage cases per ye ar extrapo lated to year 201 1
.

79 “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated With Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials,” January 11, 2007 document ID nr. EPA

–HQ

–RCRA

–2002

– 0031

–0355 available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ
- RCRA
- 200 2
- 0031
- 0355

### 211 Exhibit 8A Estimate of Average Annual Historical Cleanup Costs Involving 208 Industrial Recycling Environmental Damage Cases Between 1983 and 2005* A. Estimation of Average Cleanup Cost Per Dam age Case Based on Data for a Sample of 89 of the 208 Industrial Recycling Environmental Dam age Cases Between 1983 and 2005* A B C D ((B+C)/2) E F (D x E) Cleanup cost range Lo w - end

cleanup cost High

- end

cleanup cost Cleanup cost range

midpoints Count of damage

cases in cost range Total cleanup cost

for each cost range 1 $10,000 $100,000 $55,000 6 $330,000 2 $100,000 $250,000 $175,000 8 $1,400,000 3 $250,000 $500,000 $375,000 11 $4,125,000 4 $500,000 $1,000,000 $750,000 12 $9,000,000 5 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $1,750,000 20 $35,000,000 6 $2,500,000 $5,000,000 $3,750,000 14 $52,500,000 7 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $7,500,000 10 $75,000,000 8 $10,000,000 $100,000,000 $55,000,000 8 $440,000,000 Sub

- total = 89 $617,355,000 Average cleanup cost per damage case = $6.9 million per dam age case B. Estim ation of Average Annual Cleanup Cost Based on Extrapolation of Per - Dam age Case Cleanup Cost to All 208 Historical Cases Total industrial recycling damage cases over 23

- year period (1983 to 2005) = 208

Average count of damage cases per year (1983 to 2005) = 9.0

Average annual cleanup cost over 23

- year period (1983 to 2005) = $62.7 million per year * Notes:  Source: Based on data from page 13 of EPA’s January 11, 2007 industrial recycling damage case study “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials” available as document ID nr. EPA

- HQ
- RCRA
- 2002
- 0031
- 0355 at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ
RCRA
- 2002
- 0031
- 0355  From page 13 of the source document: “It is entirely possible that these cost data are not a truly accurate representation of actual cleanup costs for the entire sample of 208 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 208 cases are likely to be some what lower than these data suggest.”  Costs in this table are at mixed price levels spanning the 23

- year damage ca st period (1983 to 2005).

### 212 Exhibit 8B 201 1 $ Update of the 1983 - 2005 Average Annual Historical Cleanup Costs Associated with Industrial Hazardous Secondary Materials Recycling Damage Cases A B C D E F ((2011 value in E) / E) G (D x F)

Item Year Reference period Average annual cleanup cost* GDP price deflator** (2005 = 100) Price update multiplier

based on deflator 2011$ updated average annual cleanup cost 1 1983 Historical cases $62,730,747 57.603 1.9392 $121,649,928 2 1984 Historical cases $62,730,747 59.766 1.8691 $117,247,278 3 1985 Historical cases $62,730,747 61.576 1.8141 $113,800,845 4 1986 Historical cases $62,730,747 62.937 1.7749 $111,339,924 5 1987 Historical cases $62,730,747 64.764 1.7248 $108,199,012 6 1988 Historical cases $62,730,747 66.988 1.6676 $104,606,808 7 1989 Historical cases $62,730,747 69.518 1.6069 $100,799,805 8 1990 Historical cases $62,730,747 72.201 1.5472 $97,054,069 9 1991 Historical cases $62,730,747 74.76 1.4942 $93,731,953 10 1992 Historical cases $62,730,747 76.533 1.4596 $91,560,514 11 1993 Historical cases $62,730,747 78.224 1.4280 $89,581,213 12 1994 Historical cases $62,730,747 79.872 1.3986 $87,732,883 13 1995 Historical cases $62,730,747 81.536 1.3700 $85,942,416 14 1996 Historical cases $62,730,747 83.088 1.3444 $84,337,098 15 1997 Historical cases $62,730,747 84.555 1.3211 $82,873,879 16 1998 Historical cases $62,730,747 85.511 1.3063 $81,947,361 17 1999 Historical cases $62,730,747 86.768 1.2874 $80,760,198 18 2000 Historical cases $62,730,747 88.647 1.2601 $79,048,370 19 2001 Historical cases $62,730,747 90.65 1.2323 $77,301,719 20 2002 Historical cases $62,730,747 92.118 1.2126 $76,069,832 21 2003 Historical cases $62,730,747 94.1 1.1871 $74,467,596 22 2004 Historical cases $62,730,747 96.77 1.1543 $72,412,946 23 2005 Historical cases $62,730,747 100 1.1171 $70,074,008 24 2006 Extrapolated $62,730,747 103.257 1.0818 $67,863,688 25 2007 Extrapolated $62,730,747 106.296 1.0509 $65,923,467 26 2008 Extrapolated $62,730,747 108.619 1.0284 $64,513,583

### 213 Exhibit 8B 201 1 $ Update of the 1983 - 2005 Average Annual Historical Cleanup Costs Associated with Industrial Hazardous Secondary Materials Recycling Damage Cases A B C D E F ((2011 value in E) / E) G (D x F)

Item Year Reference period Average annual cleanup cost* GDP price deflator** (2005 = 100) Price update multiplier

based on deflator 2011$ updated average annual cleanup cost 27 2009 Extrapolated $62,730,747 109.615 1.0191 $63,927,390 28 2010 Extrapolated $62,730,747 110.488 1.0110 $63,422,280 29 2011 Extrapolated $62,730,747 111.706 1.0000 $62,730,747 Average annual updated to 2011$= $86 million per year Notes: * Source: Column C average annual cost from Exhibit 8A. ** Source: Column D from “Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product” from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis National Economic Accounts at http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=Y; First quarter implicit price deflator us ed for 2011. All other years are annual implicit price deflators.


### In addition, EPA’s 2006 “industrial recycling market forces study80 

### ” in the docket for the 2008 DSW final rule supports the conclusion that the pattern of discard at off

- site, third

-party rec yclers (e.g., commercial recyclers) is a result of inherent differences between commercial recycling and normal 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 res pond differentl y than traditional manufacturers to economic forces and incentives, accumulating more inputs (hazardous secondary materials) than can be recycled, which could potentially be lead to environmental contamination (e.g., ground water leaching, container leaks) durin g protracted storage periods if not sufficiently contained. The 2008 DS W final rule attempted to address this pattern of adverse impacts to human health and the environment from discarded material transferred to offsite third

-party rec yclers, b y setting conditions for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. The intent of those conditions was to define when transfers to offsite third

-party rec ycl ers would not result in discard. However, as explained in EPA’s 2001 DSW environmental justice analysis (available from the docket for the 2011 DSW proposed revisions), EP A failed to take into account how the

80 “A Study of Potential Effects of Market Forces on the Management of Hazardous Secondary Materials Intended for Recycling,” November 21, 2006 , 91 pages, document ID nr. EPA

–HQ

–RCRA

–2002

–0031

–0358 available at http://www.regulations.gov.

### 214

conditions of the 2008 DSW offsite recycling exclusion would work when implemented. EPA’s analy sis of the 2008 DSW final rul e assumed that compliance with the DSW offsite recycling exclusion conditions would be the same as compliance 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 provisions ensure a greater level of EPA regional office and state government oversight of the Subtitle C requirements, thereb y potentially improving industry

compliance:

 Recycling operating permits : Most important of which is the Subtitle C recycl ing permit requirement which ensures that an EPA regional office or state government agency has reviewed a facility ’s planned recycling operations before recycling begins, an d 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 ye ars by an EPA regional office or state government agency

. When Congress enacted these Subtitle C recycling provision s, 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 RCRA statute and its legislative history

suggest that Congress expected EPA to regulate as solid and hazardous wastes, certain industrial hazardous materials that are destined for recycling. Based on the evidence of EPA’s 2007 industrial recycling historical damage case study and EPA’s 2008 recycling market forc es study , most transfers of hazardous secondary material for recycling do involve discard, and EPA’s attempt to define such material as “not discarded” solely by setting additional management conditions poses the danger of circular reason. In other words, adding conditions, many

of which resemble hazardous waste requirements, in order to attempt to prevent the discard of hazardous seco ndary materials that would otherwise be subject to full hazardous waste requirements, is potentially counter to the original intent of RCRA. At the same time, some specific types of hazardous secondary materials may be more like valuable commodities than solid waste s, and the act of transferring them to a third

-party does not automatically involve discard. Many of the other DSW recycling exclusions in 40 CFR 261.4(a) are for these types of recyclable materials, and the 2008 DSW non

- waste determination process under 40 CFR 260.34(c) provides an administrative process for determining that additional hazardous secondary material s are indistinguishable from a product and therefore are not waste. Option 6 proposes a DSW re

- manufacturing exclusion for certain high

- value hazardous secondary materials (i.e., solvents used as chemical processing aids) whose management is more like man ufacturing than waste management. However, the 2008 DSW offsite recycling exclusion applies equally to all hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling, and is not limited to materials that are indistinguishable from products. Thus, given the evi dence of past industrial recycling damage cases posing significant risks to human health and the environment, and the underlying perverse incentives of the recycling market to over

- accumulate hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling ultimately resulting in discard of the materials, withdrawing the offsite recycling exclusion (Option 1) and replacing it with alternative Subtitle C recycling regulations (Option 2), as well as adding a re

- manufacturing recycling exclusion (Option 6), may serve to reduce the future frequency

### 215

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. 

## 8B. Improved Environmental Compliance 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. Thi s second potential environmental benefits category consists of four components: 8B.1. C learer and M ore Specific Regulatory Standards Improve Environmental Compliance There is evidence that clearer and less complicated regulations would improve environmental compliance b y making it easier for industry to comply with and for regulators to enforce the provisions. David B. Spence , u sing evidence from behavioral ps ychology, the courts , 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 Environmental 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”. 81 

### In the paper “Rational or Confused Polluters? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Compliance” S. Stafford 82 

### found the following : “In support of the complexity

critique, the results show that larger facilities and facilities of multi

-plant companies are less likel y to violate, while facilities that are subject to more complex regulations 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 spec ific case example provided in the Stafford article indicated: “... an anal ys is by the Colorado Department on Public Health and the Environment found that a number of facilities were frequentl y violating hazardous waste storage requirements because they were unaware of their regula tory status.” 83 

### A number of the DSW revision options, including Option s 3A, 3E, 4 A , 4 B , 7 A , and 8 D, should result in clearer and more specific regulatory requirements, which in turn should improve environmental compliance:

 Option 3A codifying the word “contained,” should improve environmental compliance because it reduces the need b y the generator and the enforcement staff to interpret the provision. The codification makes the provision more enforceable than the undefined term, while

81 Spe nce, 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. 82 Stafford, S. 2006. Rational or Confused Polluters? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Compliance

. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 5 : Issue . 1, Article 21. 83 Ibid

.

### 216

still providing the generator with some flexibility, including land

-based storage.  Option 3 E, by

removing the tolling provision from generator exclusion, would eliminate a somewhat complicated provision that is difficult to explain and, therefore, could be difficult to enforce.  Option 4 A applies the same codified standards of legitimate recyclin g to all recycled hazardous secondary materials. This should provide greater clarity

to recyclers and should make enforcement more straightforward and easier, thereby increasing environm ental compliance. Furthermore, Option 4 A which codifies the legitimacy provision, should provide greater enforceability and clarity on legitimacy

by providing the same legitimacy definition standard throughout the program.  Option 4 B requires all four legitimacy factors be met to be considered a legitimate recycler, unless the facility submits a petition and receives approval from the implementing agency

. The state agencies will make these legitimacy determinations public and accessible on the internet. This provision should make easier enforcement ensuring greater compliance. The petition process will give the EPA oversight when any one of the four standards is not met; publishing the information online should increase consistency across state programs, which should also help improve compliance and enforcement.  Option 7 A creates a “ contained ” standard that should be more enforceable than the undefined term, resulting in improved environmental compliance.  Option 8 D makes clearer the status of hazardous secondary material in a unit from which a release to the environment occurred . This revision should make the provision more enforceable and improve compliance because it should avoid the confusion of defining a “significant release” and instead make the regulatory status of the material in the unit based on the likelihood of the release occurring again in the future based on the elements in the definition of “contained”. 8B.2. More Stringent Recordkeeping Provisions Improve Environmental Compliance Although no studies were found indicating that recordkeeping improve s environmental compliance, a study of OSHA’s recordkeeping rules found that changes to the recordkeeping standard in 1995 and 2001 were responsible for a significant decline in the number of workplace injuries and illnesses observed from 1992

- 2003. 84 

### The ob served declines corresponded with two major OSHA rule changes requiring recordkeeping. The precipitous declines could not be explained by changes in employ

ment, productivity, OSHA enforcement activity , reporting bias , and other factors which were adjusted for in the study

. Recordkeeping requirement s in the 2011 DSW proposed revisions should increase awareness of overall regulatory requirements and also increase the likelihood of detecting n oncompliance , both of which serve to promote compliance. Options 3C , 4 C , and 7 C would use recordkeeping to improve environmental compliance:

 Option 3C 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 w ould be difficult to enforce.

84 Friedman and Forst. 2007. “ The Impact of OSHA Recordkeeping Regulation Changes on Occupational Injury and Illness Trends in the Us: a Time

- series Analysis”. Occupational and Environmental Medicine

. Volume 64:pgs. 454

–460

### 217

 Option 4 C would require documentation of legitimacy to the generator

- controlled and transfer

-based exclusions and the non

determination petition process. 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.  Option 7 C would also require recordkeeping for speculative accumulation , thereby making the provision more enforceable. 8B.3. Self

- Re porting Requirements (e.g., Notification Requirement s ) Improve Environmental Compliance A 1998 study by

Ruhnka and Boerstler 85 

### found that government incentives for corporate self

- regulation are succeeding based on the number of Fortune 1000 implementing voluntary corporate codes of conduct. An example of the ty pe 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 be yond 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 P erformance Track program ended in March 2009. Based on results from 2000

- 2007 (the most re cent year for which data are available), “Performance Track members reported that they collectivel y reduced their water use by 2.87 billion gallons, c onserved more than 24,860 acres of land, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by nearl y 367,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.” 86 

### The members also prevented the generation of 1,261,006 tons of non

- hazardous waste and 68,146 tons of hazardous waste. A 2010 study

on the Performance Track program by the RAND Corporation found that the program had mixed su ccess 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.” 87 

### The prob lem 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 originall y proposed program, and ambiguous announcements about the program’s membership contributed to stakeholders developing different understandings and expectations for the program.” RAND Corporation recommended that future programs should strive for program concepts and expectations that are clea r for all stakeholder groups, tightl y focused on specific environmental program s , and protect the EPA’s brand. In defense of the P erformance Track program , RAND found that “ Performance Track members reported that the program’s requirements to have and us e EMSs, set continuous improvement goals, and increase community outreach led to beneficial changes in corporate culture, including improved employee engagement, morale, recruiting, and retention. EPA shoul d continue to experiment with providing positive recognition and other strategies that encourage changes in corporate culture.” Option s 2B , 3B, 5B and 7B would require biennial noti fication and would enable RCRA

- authorized state government agencies and EPA regional offices to monitor environmental compli ance at industrial facilities. However, according to the October 2010 OECA review on industry compliance with EPA regulations, EPA regional office and RCRA

- authorized state government agency inspections of industrial facilities for the purpose of enforcing RCRA Subtitle C regulations, onl y covered 3.14% of the 586,183 nationwide universe of RCRA

-
85 Ruhnka and Boerstler. 1998. “Governmental Incentives for Corporate Self

- Regulation.” Journal of Business Ethics 17 : 309

–326
. 86 RAND Corporation. 2010. An Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Environmental Performance Track Program

. 87 Ibid

.

### 218

regulated industrial facilities (as of 2001). 88 

### 8B.4. Increasing the Likelihood Of Detection and Potential Penalty for 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

- Science White Paper by Jay Shimshack : “Most recently , Glicksman and Earnhart [2007] analy

zed both qualitative and quantitative evidence of specific deterrence for water discharges in the chemical industry . The statistical database anal ys is examined how plants’ composite BOD and TSS discharges responded to EPA/state enforcement actions. The survey component covered 267 of the 1003 originally solicited chemical facilities (a 27% response rate). Glicksman and Earnhart [2007] established that inspections and fines both produced significant deterrence effect s. Nearly 75% of survey

respondents reported that fines were an effective deterrent and approximately 87% reported that inspections definitel y or probably effectivel y induced water pollution compliance. Similarly , the statistical results indicated that b oth inspections and enforcement actions resulted in decreased aggregate conventional water pollution emissions.” 89 

### Stafford 90 

### studied the response of 8 , 411 hazardous waste

- generating facilities to a rule change that significantly increased financial penalti es for violation. The 10 to 20 fold increase in potential fine magnitudes generated an approximately 15% reduction in regulated plants’ violation probabilities. Shimshack and Ward91 

### found that levying fines resulted in a significant reduction in the statewide water pollution violation rate in the year following the fine s . Nearly all of this was attributable to spillover effects, as the average deterrence impact on each of the other plants in a s tate was almost as strong as the impact on the sanctioned fac ility

. 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. Other results included the finding that non

- monetary enforcement responses like notices of violation alone had little influence on plant

- level compliance. Options 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the 2011 DSW proposed revisions should help enforcement personnel more readily identify violations. For example, the a

bsence of required records 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 compliance.

88 Source: page 14 of the unpublished presentation “Improving Environmental Compliance” by Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrato r, EPA Office of Enforcement & Com pliance, October 13, 2010. 89 Shimshack, Jay. 2007. Monitoring, Enforcement, & Environmental Compliance: Understanding Specific & General Deterrence

. State
- of

- Science White Paper p repared for the EPA ORD and OECA

. 90 Stafford, Susan. 2002. “ The Effect of Punishment on Firm Compliance with Hazardous Waste Regulations. ” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management . 44, pgs. 290
- 308. 91 Shimshack and Ward. 2005. “Regulator Reputation, Enforcement, & Environmental Compliance. ” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3.50: pp. 519
- 540.

### 219 

## 8C. More Specific Standards Result in Reduced Liability, Less Uncertainty for the Regulated Entity, and Lower Legal & Credit Costs While more specific regulatory requirements are believed to improve environmental compliance, more specific standards are als o expec ted to reduce facilities’ liability , resulting in lower legal and other costs. For example, one of the most frequently identified root cause s of noncompliance was where the facility was unaware of the applicability of a regulation. 92 

### Inanother study of pulp and paper mills in Canada, Laplante , et al., found that the presence of clear and strong standards accompanied with a significant and credible penalty s ys tem does send appropriate signals to the regulated community which responds by lowering pollution emissions. 93 

### Clearer regulatory

requirements should result in higher compliance rates. In turn, higher levels of compliance should likely lower legal costs and potentially

more favorable investment and credit markets. For example anal ys ts 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 rev eals a superior performance, and downward when a poor performance is revealed. 94 

### Moreover, in recent years, the importance of investor interest has increased and suppliers of financing, industrial equipment, and engineering services are increasingl y reluct ant to do business with firms experiencing problems with environmental regulations. 95 

### Options 3A , 3E , 4 A , 4 B , 7 C, 8 A and 8 D would all reduce uncertainty for regulated entities.

 Option 3A , codifying the word “contained” would create a specific standard with which entities must comply , therefore re ducing regulatory

uncertainty.  Option 3E , by removing the tolling provision from generator exclusion , would eliminate a somewhat complicated provision from the regulated entity perspective and , therefore, would make it easier for them to comply with the provisions.  Option 4 A applies the same codified standards of legitimate recycling to all recycled hazardous secondary materials. Both of these measures should make compliance more straight

- forward and publ ishing the legitimacy determinations online should increase transparency

and ensure cons istency

across state programs. Further more, Option 4 A , which codifies the legitimacy definition , should provide greater clarity

and less uncertainty b y having the same definition throughout the program.  Option 4 B require s all four legitimacy factors be met to be considered a legitimate recycler, unless the facility submits a petition and receives approval from the implementing agency

. The state agencies will make these legitimacy determinations public and accessible on the internet.

92 EPA, (1999). “EPA/CMA Root Cause Analysis Pilot Project: An Industry Survey.” EPA

- 305
- R
- 99
- 001. 93 Laplante, Lanoie & Foulon . 2000. Incentives for Pollution Control

- Regulation and Public Disclosure ; No 2291, Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank

. 94 Ibid. 95 For a thorough revie w 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.

### 220

 Option 7 A create s a “ contained ” s tandard that should provide greater cl arity than the undefined term.  Option 8 A add s regulatory definition of “ contained” that specifies performance

-based sto rage standards, but does not require full Subtitle C tank and container standards. The performance

-based standard both reduces uncertainty and maintains a workable standard.  Option 8 D reduce s regulatory uncertainty

by clearly defining terms.

### 221 

# A PPENDICES

### 222 

# A PPENDIX 

# A 2007 Count of 6 -Digit NAICS Code Industries Potentially Affected 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 1 111120 2 113110 3 115114 4 211111 5 211112 6 212210 7 212220 8 212221 212221 Overlap 9 212222 212222 Overlap 10 212231 11 212234 212234 Overlap 12 212299 212299 Overlap 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 28 221320 29 221330 30 233310 31 234110 32 235910 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 55 311520 56 311611 57 311612 58 311613 59 311615 60 311712 61 311812 62 311822 63 311919 64 311920 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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

### 223

2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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

### 224

2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 211 327310 327310 Overlap 212 327320 327320 Overlap 213 327331 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 247 331521 331521 Overlap 248 331522 331522 Overlap 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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

### 225

2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 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

### 226

2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 439 337121 337121 Overlap 440 337122 337122 Overlap 441 337124 337124 Overlap 442 337127 337127 Overlap 443 337211 337211 Overlap 444 337212 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 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 477 422720 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 511 484110 512 484121 513 484122 514 484220 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 544 532120 545 532299 546 532411 547 532412 548 541330 549 541380 550 541420 551 541512 552 541620

### 227

2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 568 562211 569 562212 570 562213 571 562219 572 562910 573 562920 562920 Overlap 574 562998 575 611110 576 611210 577 611310 578 611519 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 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 

### 2007 Count of Affected Industries 2007 non dup licative c ount 2007 BR

NAICS code 2007 TRI

NAICS code Code

o verlap count 605 812331 606 812332 607 812921 608 812922 609 814110 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 = 546 378 302 (49% overlap) Note: Jointly

- shaded NAICS codes indicate those NAICS codes specifically queried in the TRI database to represent the 32 pre

- 2008 RCRA industrial recycling exclusions.

### 228 

# A PPENDIX 

# B Calculation of Cost Adjustment Factors The five Exhibits below (i.e., Appendix Exhibits B1 to B 7 ) present five examples of how the cost adjustment factors applied in Chapter 5 of this RIA were calculated. The cost adjustment factors are used to modify the cost estimates assuming a 100% rate of adoption (i.e., rate of 2008 DSW exclusion notification) to reflect the “ 13 % base case” or the “ 74 % upper bound” adoption scenarios applied in this RIA, and applying either a 7%, 3%, or 0% discount rate. The following information is presented in the Exhibits:

 The first column in each exhibit represents the year of the analysis up through 2064.  The second column in each exhibit is a count of the year included in the analysis.  The third column indicates the number of facilities operating under a DSW exclusion notification in that year. o Exhibit B1: The lower bound assumes that 21 facilities file a DSW exclusion notification per year under Exclusions 1 and 2 of the 2008 DSW rule for the baseline savings adjustment factor beginning in 2009

. o Exhibit B2: The lower bound assumes that 21 facilities x (4,656 Exclusion 2 f acilities/4,933 Exclusion 1&2 facilities) = 19.8 facilities file a DSW exclusion notification per year under Exclusion 2 of the 2008 DSW rule for the baseline savings adjustm ent factor beginning in 2009. o Exhibit B3: The lower

-bound count of facilities increases by 18 .9 facilities per year because Option 2, Requirement 2C , (reclamation plan) onl y affects transfer

-based exclusions under Exclusion 2 of the 2008 DSW final rule which represent approximately

90 % of the affected facilities (4,455 Exclusion 2 facil ities minus re

- manufacturing faciliti es/4933 Exclusion 1 and 2 facilities x 21 facilities notifying per ye ar)

. o Exhibit B 4 : The count of facilities includes 246 (5%) of the total of 4,933 notifying and non

- notifying facilities filing a legitimacy

petition

. o Exhibit B5: The count of facilities includes 4,686 ( 95% ) of the total of 4,933 facilities submitting legitimacy documentation. o Exhibit B 6 : The upper bound estimate of facilities that file a DSW exclusion notification per ye ar under Exclusions 1 and 2 of th e 2008 DSW rule for the baseline savings adjustment factor. 21 facilities are assumed to adopt per year b eginning in 2009 through 2014. Betw een 2015 and 2018, 25% of the 3,655 facilities in 44 states assumed to adopt the rule notify each of these ye ars. o Exhibit B 7: The upper-bound count of facilities increases by 18 .9 facilities per year in years 2009 through 2014 because Option 2, Requirement 2C , (reclamation plan) only affects transfer

-based exclusions under Exclusion 2 of the 2008 DSW final rule which represent approximately 90 % of the affected facilities (4,455 Exclusion 2 facilities minus re

- manufacturing facilities/4933 Exclusion 1 and 2 facilities x 21 facilities notifying per year)

. Betw een 2015 and 2018, 25% of the 3,655 facilities in 44 states a ssumed to adopt the rule notify each of these years times of which 90% are Exclusion 2 affected facilities.  The 4 th 

### column in each exhibit is either the aggregate savings or costs for each ye ar which is calculated by multiplying the number o f notifying fac ilities by

the average savings/facility or average costs/facility

.  The 5 th 

### , 6 th 

### and 7 th 

### columns in each exhibit estimate the aggregate or total present worth savings or costs over the 201 1 through 2064

### 229

period of analysis using either a 7%, 3%, or 0% discount rate.  The bottom rows of each exhibit present the following numbers/factors that are used in the cost analysis in Chapter 5 of this RIA: o Total present worth savings or costs are annualized to create an annual baseline cost savings estimate or an annual compliance cost estimate over the period of anal ys is (labeled as “Annualized Savings” or “Annualized Costs”). o “Average Number of Facilities” affected per ye ar over the 50
- ye ar period of anal ys is (2015

- 2064) is calculated. o “Percent of Facilities Notify” fac tor is derived b y dividing the “Average Number of Facilities” b y the total number of “Exclusion 1 and/or 2 Affected Facilities” multiplied by 100%. Appendix Exhibit B 1 Lower Bound

– Exclusion 1 & 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Factor Calculation
Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying Facilities Aggregate Annual Savings

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Ag gregate Present Value Savings @ 7% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 3% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 0% 2011
- 4 63 $0 $0 $0 $0 2012
- 3 84 $0 $0 $0 $0 2013
- 2 105 $0 $0 $0 $0 2014
- 1 126 $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 1 147 $2,871,184 $2,047,115 $2,476,709 $2,871,184 2016 2 168 $3,281,353 $2,186,504 $2,748,082 $3,281,353 2017 3 189 $3,691,523 $2,298,895 $3,001,546 $3,691,523 2018 4 210 $4,101,692 $2,387,222 $3,237,913 $4,101,692 2019 5 231 $4,511,861 $2,454,153 $3,457,966 $4,511,861 2020 6 252 $4,922,030 $2,502,111 $3,662,453 $4,922,030 2021 7 273 $5,332,199 $2,533,290 $3,852,094 $5,332,199 2022 8 294 $5,742,369 $2,549,680 $4,027,582 $5,742,369 2023 9 315 $6,152,538 $2,553,084 $4,189,579 $6,152,538 2024 10 336 $6,562,707 $2,545,131 $4,338,722 $6,562,707 2025 11 357 $6,972,876 $2,527,291 $4,475,624 $6,972,876 2026 12 378 $7,383,045 $2,500,893 $4,600,870 $7,383,045 2027 13 399 $7,793,214 $2,467,132 $4,715,023 $7,793,214 2028 14 420 $8,203,384 $2,427,085 $4,818,623 $8,203,384 2029 15 441 $8,613,553 $2,381,719 $4,912,189 $8,613,553 2030 16 462 $9,023,722 $2,331,901 $4,996,216 $9,023,722 2031 17 483 $9,433,891 $2,278,408 $5,071,181 $9,433,891 2032 18 504 $9,844,060 $2,221,934 $5,137,541 $9,844,060 2033 19 525 $10,254,230 $2,163,098 $5,195,734 $10,254,230 2034 20 546 $10,664,399 $2,102,450 $5,246,178 $10,664,399 2035 21 567 $11,074,568 $2,040,480 $5,289,275 $11,074,568

### 230 Appendix Exhibit B 1 Lower Bound

– Exclusion 1 & 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Factor Calculation
Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying Facilities Aggregate Annual Savings

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Ag gregate Present Value Savings @ 7% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 3% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 0% 2036 22 588 $11,484,737 $1,977,620 $5,325,412 $11,484,737 2037 23 609 $11,894,906 $1,914,252 $5,354,957 $11,894,906 2038 24 630 $12,305,076 $1,850,711 $5,378,262 $12,305,076 2039 25 651 $12,715,245 $1,787,291 $5,395,668 $12,715,245 2040 26 672 $13,125,414 $1,724,248 $5,407,497 $13,125,414 2041 27 693 $13,535,583 $1,661,804 $5,414,059 $13,535,583 2042 28 714 $13,945,752 $1,600,151 $5,415,652 $13,945,752 2043 29 735 $14,355,921 $1,539,453 $5,412,559 $14,355,921 2044 30 756 $14,766,091 $1,479,848 $5,405,052 $14,766,091 2045 31 777 $15,176,260 $1,421,453 $5,393,391 $15,176,260 2046 32 798 $15,586,429 $1,364,365 $5,377,823 $15,586,429 2047 33 819 $15,996,598 $1,308,663 $5,358,587 $15,996,598 2048 34 840 $16,406,767 $1,254,410 $5,335,910 $16,406,767 2049 35 861 $16,816,937 $1,201,654 $5,310,007 $16,816,937 2050 36 882 $17,227,106 $1,150,433 $5,281,087 $17,227,106 2051 37 903 $17,637,275 $1,100,770 $5,249,347 $17,637,275 2052 38 924 $18,047,444 $1,052,682 $5,214,975 $18,047,444 2053 39 945 $18,457,613 $1,006,174 $5,178,153 $18,457,613 2054 40 966 $18,867,782 $961,246 $5,139,052 $18,867,782 2055 41 987 $19,277,952 $917,891 $5,097,835 $19,277,952 2056 42 1 , 008 $19,688,121 $876,094 $5,054,660 $19,688,121 2057 43 1 , 029 $20,098,290 $835,837 $5,009,675 $20,098,290 2058 44 1 , 050 $20,508,459 $797,098 $4,963,023 $20,508,459 2059 45 1 , 071 $20,918,628 $759,850 $4,914,838 $20,918,628 2060 46 1 , 092 $21,328,798 $724,065 $4,865,250 $21,328,798 2061 47 1 , 113 $21,738,967 $689,710 $4,814,381 $21,738,967 2062 48 1 , 134 $22,149,136 $656,750 $4,762,348 $22,149,136 2063 49 1 , 155 $22,559,305 $625,152 $4,709,262 $22,559,305 2064 50 1 , 176 $22,969,474 $594,877 $4,655,228 $22,969,474 Average annual = 662 $19,532 Total Present Worth Cost Savings $84,334,127 $239,645,048 $646,016,464 Annualized Savings $6,110,851 $9,315,003 $12,920,329 Exclusion 1 & 2 Total Annual Cost Savings if 100% Adoption (Average Savings/Facility x Exclusion 1 & 2 Affected Facilities) $96,350,694 $96,350,694 $96,350,694 Exclusion 1 & 2 Affected Facilities 4 , 933

### 231 Appendix Exhibit B 1 Lower Bound

– Exclusion 1 & 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Factor Calculation
Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying Facilities Aggregate Annual Savings

(Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Ag gregate Present Value Savings @ 7% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 3% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 0% Percent of Facilities Notify 13% Cost Adjustment Factor (Annualized Savings/Total Annual Cost Savings 100% Adoption 6.3423% 9.6678% 13.4097%

### 232 Appendix Exhibit B 2 Lower Bound

– Exclusion 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Fa ctor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying Facilities Aggregate Annual

Savings (Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Ag gregate Present Value Savings @ 7% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 3% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 0% 2011
- 4 59 $0 $0 $0 $0 2012
- 3 79 $0 $0 $0 $0 2013
- 2 99 $0 $0 $0 $0 2014
- 1 11 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 1 13 9 $2,664,712 $1,899,903 $2,298,604 $2,664,712 2016 2 15 9 $3,045,386 $2,029,269 $2,550,462 $3,045,386 2017 3 178 $3,426,059 $2,133,577 $2,785,699 $3,426,059 2018 4 198 $3,806,732 $2,215,553 $3,005,069 $3,806,732 2019 5 218 $4,187,405 $2,277,671 $3,209,297 $4,187,405 2020 6 23 8 $4,568,078 $2,322,179 $3,399,079 $4,568,078 2021 7 25 8 $4,948,752 $2,351,116 $3,575,083 $4,948,752 2022 8 277 $5,329,425 $2,366,328 $3,737,951 $5,329,425 2023 9 297 $5,710,098 $2,369,488 $3,888,299 $5,710,098 2024 10 317 $6,090,771 $2,362,106 $4,026,717 $6,090,771 2025 11 33 8 $6,471,444 $2,345,549 $4,153,774 $6,471,444 2026 12 35 8 $6,852,118 $2,321,049 $4,270,013 $6,852,118 2027 13 37 8 $7,232,791 $2,289,716 $4,375,957 $7,232,791 2028 14 396 $7,613,464 $2,252,549 $4,472,108 $7,613,464 2029 15 416 $7,994,137 $2,210,446 $4,558,945 $7,994,137 2030 16 436 $8,374,810 $2,164,210 $4,636,929 $8,374,810 2031 17 45 6 $8,755,483 $2,114,564 $4,706,504 $8,755,483 2032 18 47 6 $9,136,157 $2,062,151 $4,768,092 $9,136,157 2033 19 49 6 $9,516,830 $2,007,546 $4,822,099 $9,516,830 2034 20 515 $9,897,503 $1,951,259 $4,868,916 $9,897,503 2035 21 535 $10,278,176 $1,893,746 $4,908,914 $10,278,176 2036 22 55 5 $10,658,849 $1,835,406 $4,942,452 $10,658,849 2037 23 57 5 $11,039,523 $1,776,594 $4,969,872 $11,039,523 2038 24 59 5 $11,420,196 $1,717,623 $4,991,502 $11,420,196 2039 25 614 $11,800,869 $1,658,763 $5,007,656 $11,800,869 2040 26 634 $12,181,542 $1,600,254 $5,018,634 $12,181,542 2041 27 654 $12,562,215 $1,542,301 $5,024,725 $12,562,215 2042 28 674 $12,942,889 $1,485,082 $5,026,203 $12,942,889 2043 29 694 $13,323,562 $1,428,748 $5,023,333 $13,323,562 2044 30 714 $13,704,235 $1,373,429 $5,016,365 $13,704,235 2045 31 733 $14,084,908 $1,319,234 $5,005,543 $14,084,908

### 233 Appendix Exhibit B 2 Lower Bound

– Exclusion 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Fa ctor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying Facilities Aggregate Annual

Savings (Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Ag gregate Present Value Savings @ 7% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 3% Aggregate PV

Savings @ 0% 2046 32 753 $14,465,581 $1,266,251 $4,991,095 $14,465,581 2047 33 773 $14,846,255 $1,214,555 $4,973,242 $14,846,255 2048 34 793 $15,226,928 $1,164,203 $4,952,195 $15,226,928 2049 35 813 $15,607,601 $1,115,241 $4,928,155 $15,607,601 2050 36 832 $15,988,274 $1,067,703 $4,901,315 $15,988,274 2051 37 852 $16,368,947 $1,021,612 $4,871,857 $16,368,947 2052 38 872 $16,749,621 $976,981 $4,839,957 $16,749,621 2053 39 892 $17,130,294 $933,818 $4,805,783 $17,130,294 2054 40 912 $17,510,967 $892,121 $4,769,493 $17,510,967 2055 41 932 $17,891,640 $851,883 $4,731,241 $17,891,640 2056 42 951 $18,272,313 $813,092 $4,691,170 $18,272,313 2057 43 971 $18,652,987 $775,730 $4,649,420 $18,652,987 2058 44 991 $19,033,660 $739,777 $4,606,123 $19,033,660 2059 45 1,011 $19,414,333 $705,208 $4,561,403 $19,414,333 2060 46 1,031 $19,795,006 $671,996 $4,515,381 $19,795,006 2061 47 1,051 $20,175,679 $640,111 $4,468,170 $20,175,679 2062 48 1,070 $20,556,353 $609,522 $4,419,879 $20,556,353 2063 49 1,090 $20,937,026 $580,196 $4,370,610 $20,937,026 2064 50 1,110 $21,317,699 $552,098 $4,320,462 $21,317,699 Average annual = 624 $19,206 Total Present Worth Cost Savings $78,269,511 $222,411,750 $599,560,281 Annualized Savings $5,671,409 $8,645,145 $11,991,206 Exclusion 2 Total Annual Cost Savings if 100% Adoption (Average Savings/Facility x Exclusion 2 Affected Facilities) $89,421,946 $89,421,946 $89,421,946 Exclusion 2 Affected Facilities 4,656
% Facilities Notify 13% Cost Adjustment Factor (Annualized Savings/Total Annual Cost Savings 100% Adoption 6.3423% 9.6678% 13.4097%

### 234 Appendix Exhibit B 3 Lower Bound

– Option 2 Requirement 2C Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of Notifying Facilities

(Number of Annual Notifiers x ( 4,656 Exclusion 2 facilities

– 201 Re
- manufacturing Exclusion facilities) / 4,933 Excl. 1 & 2 facilities)) Aggregate Annual Cost s (Number of Fa cilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Aggregate

Present Value Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 0% 2011
- 4 5 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 2012
- 3 7 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 2013
- 2 9 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 2014
- 1 11 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 1 13 3 $22,571 $16,093 $19,470 $22,571 2016 2 15 2 $25,796 $17,189 $21,603 $25,796 2017 3 17 1 $29,020 $18,072 $23,596 $29,020 2018 4 1 90 $32,245 $18,767 $25,454 $32,245 2019 5 20 9 $35,469 $19,293 $27,184 $35,469 2020 6 22 8 $38,693 $19,670 $28,792 $38,693 2021 7 24 7 $41,918 $19,915 $30,282 $41,918 2022 8 26 6 $45,142 $20,044 $31,662 $45,142 2023 9 28 5 $48,367 $20,070 $32,935 $48,367 2024 10 303 $51,591 $20,008 $34,108 $51,591 2025 11 322 $54,816 $19,868 $35,184 $54,816 2026 12 341 $58,040 $19,660 $36,169 $58,040 2027 13 360 $61,265 $19,395 $37,066 $61,265 2028 14 379 $64,489 $19,080 $37,881 $64,489 2029 15 398 $67,713 $18,723 $38,616 $67,713 2030 16 417 $70,938 $18,332 $39,277 $70,938 2031 17 436 $74,162 $17,911 $39,866 $74,162 2032 18 455 $77,387 $17,467 $40,388 $77,387 2033 19 474 $80,611 $17,005 $40,845 $80,611 2034 20 493 $83,836 $16,528 $41,242 $83,836 2035 21 512 $87,060 $16,041 $41,580 $87,060 2036 22 531 $90,285 $15,547 $41,865 $90,285 2037 23 550 $93,509 $15,048 $42,097 $93,509 2038 24 569 $96,734 $14,549 $42,280 $96,734 2039 25 58 8 $99,958 $14,050 $42,417 $99,958 2040 26 607 $103,182 $13,555 $42,510 $103,182 2041 27 626 $106,407 $13,064 $42,561 $106,407 2042 28 645 $109,631 $12,579 $42,574 $109,631 2043 29 664 $112,856 $12,102 $42,550 $112,856 2044 30 683 $116,080 $11,633 $42,491 $116,080

### 235 Appendix Exhibit B 3 Lower Bound

– Option 2 Requirement 2C Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of Notifying Facilities

(Number of Annual Notifiers x ( 4,656 Exclusion 2 facilities

– 201 Re
- manufacturing Exclusion facilities) / 4,933 Excl. 1 & 2 facilities)) Aggregate Annual Cost s (Number of Fa cilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Aggregate

Present Value Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 0% 2045 31 703 $119,305 $11,174 $42,399 $119,305 2046 32 722 $122,529 $10,726 $42,277 $122,529 2047 33 740 $125,754 $10,288 $42,125 $125,754 2048 34 759 $128,978 $9,861 $41,947 $128,978 2049 35 778 $132,203 $9,447 $41,743 $132,203 2050 36 796 $135,427 $9,044 $41,516 $135,427 2051 37 816 $138,651 $8,653 $41,267 $138,651 2052 38 834 $141,876 $8,275 $40,996 $141,876 2053 39 853 $145,100 $7,910 $40,707 $145,100 2054 40 872 $148,325 $7,557 $40,399 $148,325 2055 41 891 $151,549 $7,216 $40,075 $151,549 2056 42 910 $154,774 $6,887 $39,736 $154,774 2057 43 929 $157,998 $6,571 $39,382 $157,998 2058 44 948 $161,223 $6,266 $39,016 $161,223 2059 45 967 $164,447 $5,973 $38,637 $164,447 2060 46 986 $167,671 $5,692 $38,247 $167,671 2061 47 1,005 $170,896 $5,422 $37,847 $170,896 2062 48 1,024 $174,120 $5,163 $37,438 $174,120 2063 49 1,043 $177,345 $4,914 $37,021 $177,345 2064 50 1,062 $180,569 $4,676 $36,596 $180,569 Average annual = 597 $170 Total Present Worth Costs $662,974 $1,883,915 $5,078,512 Annualized Costs $48,039 $73,228 $101,570 Exclusion 2 minus Re

- manufacturing Exclusion Total Annual Cost Savings if 100% Adoption (Average Savings/Facility x ( Exclusion 2 Affected Facilities

– Re
- manufacturing exclusion facilities) ) $757,439 $757,439 $757,439 Exclusion 2 Affected Facilities minus Re

- manufacturing exclusion facilities 4,455

% Facilities Notify 13% Cost Adj Factor (Annualized Costs/Total Annual Costs is 100% Adoption) 6.3423% 9.6678% 13.4097%

### 236 Appendix E xh ibit B 4 Lower Bound -- Option 4 B Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying & RCRA Facilities (5% Submit Legitimacy Petition) Aggregate Annual

Cost s (Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) A g gregate

Present Value Costs @ 7% Aggregate

PV Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Cost s @ 0% 2011
- 4 247 $0 $0 $0 $0 2012
- 3 247 $0 $0 $0 $0 2013
- 2 247 $0 $0 $0 $0 2014
- 1 247 $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 1 247 $523,638 $373,347 $451,695 $523,638 2016 2 247 $523,638 $348,922 $438,539 $523,638 2017 3 247 $523,638 $326,095 $425,766 $523,638 2018 4 247 $523,638 $304,762 $413,365 $523,638 2019 5 247 $523,638 $284,824 $401,325 $523,638 2020 6 247 $523,638 $266,191 $389,636 $523,638 2021 7 247 $523,638 $248,777 $378,287 $523,638 2022 8 247 $523,638 $232,502 $367,269 $523,638 2023 9 247 $523,638 $217,291 $356,572 $523,638 2024 10 247 $523,638 $203,076 $346,186 $523,638 2025 11 247 $523,638 $189,790 $336,103 $523,638 2026 12 247 $523,638 $177,374 $326,314 $523,638 2027 13 247 $523,638 $165,770 $316,810 $523,638 2028 14 247 $523,638 $154,926 $307,582 $523,638 2029 15 247 $523,638 $144,790 $298,623 $523,638 2030 16 247 $523,638 $135,318 $289,926 $523,638 2031 17 247 $523,638 $126,465 $281,481 $523,638 2032 18 247 $523,638 $118,192 $273,283 $523,638 2033 19 247 $523,638 $110,460 $265,323 $523,638 2034 20 247 $523,638 $103,233 $257,595 $523,638 2035 21 247 $523,638 $96,480 $250,092 $523,638 2036 22 247 $523,638 $90,168 $242,808 $523,638 2037 23 247 $523,638 $84,269 $235,736 $523,638 2038 24 247 $523,638 $78,756 $228,870 $523,638 2039 25 247 $523,638 $73,604 $222,204 $523,638 2040 26 247 $523,638 $68,789 $215,732 $523,638 2041 27 247 $523,638 $64,289 $209,448 $523,638 2042 28 247 $523,638 $60,083 $203,348 $523,638 2043 29 247 $523,638 $56,152 $197,425 $523,638 2044 30 247 $523,638 $52,479 $191,675 $523,638

### 237 Appendix E xh ibit B 4 Lower Bound -- Option 4 B Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying & RCRA Facilities (5% Submit Legitimacy Petition) Aggregate Annual

Cost s (Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) A g gregate

Present Value Costs @ 7% Aggregate

PV Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Cost s @ 0% 2045 31 247 $523,638 $49,045 $186,092 $523,638 2046 32 247 $523,638 $45,837 $180,672 $523,638 2047 33 247 $523,638 $42,838 $175,410 $523,638 2048 34 247 $523,638 $40,036 $170,301 $523,638 2049 35 247 $523,638 $37,417 $165,341 $523,638 2050 36 247 $523,638 $34,969 $160,525 $523,638 2051 37 247 $523,638 $32,681 $155,849 $523,638 2052 38 247 $523,638 $30,543 $151,310 $523,638 2053 39 247 $523,638 $28,545 $146,903 $523,638 2054 40 247 $523,638 $26,677 $142,624 $523,638 2055 41 247 $523,638 $24,932 $138,470 $523,638 2056 42 247 $523,638 $23,301 $134,437 $523,638 2057 43 247 $523,638 $21,777 $130,521 $523,638 2058 44 247 $523,638 $20,352 $126,720 $523,638 2059 45 247 $523,638 $19,021 $123,029 $523,638 2060 46 247 $523,638 $17,776 $119,446 $523,638 2061 47 247 $523,638 $16,613 $115,967 $523,638 2062 48 247 $523,638 $15,527 $112,589 $523,638 2063 49 247 $523,638 $14,511 $109,310 $523,638 2064 50 247 $523,638 $13,561 $106,126 $523,638 Annual average = 247 $2,123 Total Present Worth Costs $5,513,134 $11,970,658 $26,181,898 Annualized Costs $399,482 $465,299 $523,638 Total Annual Costs $10,472,759 Exclusion 1 & 2 Affected Facilities 4 , 933 Pct Facilities Submit Legitimacy Petition 5.0%
% Facilities Affected 5.00% Cost Adjustment Factor (Annualized Costs/Total Annual Costs is 100% Adoption) 3.8145 % 4.4430% 5.0000%

### 238 Appendix E xh ibit B 5 Lower Bound -- Option 4C Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying & RCRA Facilities Aggregate Annual

Costs Aggregate Present

Value Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV Costs @ 0% 2011
- 4 4,686 $0 $0 $0 $0 2012
- 3 4,686 $0 $0 $0 $0 2013
- 2 4,686 $0 $0 $0 $0 2014
- 1 4,686 $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 1 4,686 $3,191,404 $2,275,427 $2,752,933 $3,191,404 2016 2 4,686 $3,191,404 $2,126,567 $2,672,751 $3,191,404 2017 3 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,987,446 $2,594,904 $3,191,404 2018 4 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,857,426 $2,519,324 $3,191,404 2019 5 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,735,913 $2,445,946 $3,191,404 2020 6 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,622,348 $2,374,705 $3,191,404 2021 7 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,516,213 $2,305,538 $3,191,404 2022 8 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,417,022 $2,238,387 $3,191,404 2023 9 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,324,319 $2,173,191 $3,191,404 2024 10 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,237,682 $2,109,894 $3,191,404 2025 11 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,156,712 $2,048,441 $3,191,404 2026 12 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,081,039 $1,988,778 $3,191,404 2027 13 4,686 $3,191,404 $1,010,317 $1,930,852 $3,191,404 2028 14 4,686 $3,191,404 $944,221 $1,874,614 $3,191,404 2029 15 4,686 $3,191,404 $882,450 $1,820,013 $3,191,404 2030 16 4,686 $3,191,404 $824,720 $1,767,003 $3,191,404 2031 17 4,686 $3,191,404 $770,766 $1,715,537 $3,191,404 2032 18 4,686 $3,191,404 $720,342 $1,665,570 $3,191,404 2033 19 4,686 $3,191,404 $673,217 $1,617,058 $3,191,404 2034 20 4,686 $3,191,404 $629,175 $1,569,959 $3,191,404 2035 21 4,686 $3,191,404 $588,014 $1,524,232 $3,191,404 2036 22 4,686 $3,191,404 $549,545 $1,479,837 $3,191,404 2037 23 4,686 $3,191,404 $513,594 $1,436,735 $3,191,404 2038 24 4,686 $3,191,404 $479,994 $1,394,889 $3,191,404 2039 25 4,686 $3,191,404 $448,593 $1,354,261 $3,191,404 2040 26 4,686 $3,191,404 $419,246 $1,314,816 $3,191,404 2041 27 4,686 $3,191,404 $391,818 $1,276,521 $3,191,404 2042 28 4,686 $3,191,404 $366,185 $1,239,341 $3,191,404 2043 29 4,686 $3,191,404 $342,229 $1,203,243 $3,191,404

### 239 Appendix E xh ibit B 5 Lower Bound -- Option 4C Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of

Notifying & RCRA Facilities Aggregate Annual

Costs Aggregate Present

Value Costs @ 7% Aggregate PV Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV Costs @ 0% 2044 30 4,686 $3,191,404 $319,840 $1,168,197 $3,191,404 2045 31 4,686 $3,191,404 $298,916 $1,134,172 $3,191,404 2046 32 4,686 $3,191,404 $279,361 $1,101,138 $3,191,404 2047 33 4,686 $3,191,404 $261,085 $1,069,066 $3,191,404 2048 34 4,686 $3,191,404 $244,005 $1,037,928 $3,191,404 2049 35 4,686 $3,191,404 $228,042 $1,007,697 $3,191,404 2050 36 4,686 $3,191,404 $213,123 $978,347 $3,191,404 2051 37 4,686 $3,191,404 $199,181 $949,851 $3,191,404 2052 38 4,686 $3,191,404 $186,150 $922,186 $3,191,404 2053 39 4,686 $3,191,404 $173,972 $895,326 $3,191,404 2054 40 4,686 $3,191,404 $162,591 $869,248 $3,191,404 2055 41 4,686 $3,191,404 $151,954 $843,931 $3,191,404 2056 42 4,686 $3,191,404 $142,013 $819,350 $3,191,404 2057 43 4,686 $3,191,404 $132,722 $795,486 $3,191,404 2058 44 4,686 $3,191,404 $124,040 $772,316 $3,191,404 2059 45 4,686 $3,191,404 $115,925 $749,821 $3,191,404 2060 46 4,686 $3,191,404 $108,341 $727,982 $3,191,404 2061 47 4,686 $3,191,404 $101,253 $706,779 $3,191,404 2062 48 4,686 $3,191,404 $94,629 $686,193 $3,191,404 2063 49 4,686 $3,191,404 $88,439 $666,207 $3,191,404 2064 50 4,686 $3,191,404 $82,653 $646,803 $3,191,404 Avg. nr. Facilities 4 , 686 Present Worth Costs $33,600,775 $72,957,297 $159,570,218 Exclusion 1 & 2 and Non

- notifying RCRA Hazardous Waste Recycler Annualized Costs $2,434,712 $2,835,850 $3,191,404 Annualized Costs $3,359,373 $3,359,373 $3,359,373 Ex c lusion 1 & 2 and Non

- notifying RCRA HW recycler Affected Facilities 4 , 933 Pct Facilities Submit Legitimacy Documentation 95.0%
Percent of Facilities 95.00% Cost Adjustment Factor (Annualized Costs/Total Annual Costs is 100% Adoption) 72.4752% 84.4161% 95.0000%

### 240 Appendix Exhibit B 6 Upper Bound

– Exclusion 1 & 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year 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 @ 0% 2011
- 4 63 $0 $0 $0 $0 2012
- 3 84 $0 $0 $0 $0 2013
- 2 105 $0 $0 $0 $0 2014
- 1 126 $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 1 1,040 $20,308,258 $14,479,507 $17,518,081 $20,308,258 2016 2 1,954 $38,155,500 $25,424,621 $31,954,631 $38,155,500 2017 3 2,867 $56,002,742 $34,875,693 $45,535,355 $56,002,742 2018 4 3,781 $73,849,985 $42,981,364 $58,297,860 $73,849,985 2019 5 3,781 $73,849,985 $40,169,499 $56,599,864 $73,849,985 2020 6 3,781 $73,849,985 $37,541,588 $54,951,324 $73,849,985 2021 7 3,781 $73,849,985 $35,085,596 $53,350,800 $73,849,985 2022 8 3,781 $73,849,985 $32,790,277 $51,796,894 $73,849,985 2023 9 3,781 $73,849,985 $30,645,118 $50,288,246 $73,849,985 2024 10 3,781 $73,849,985 $28,640,297 $48,823,540 $73,849,985 2025 11 3,781 $73,849,985 $26,766,633 $47,401,495 $73,849,985 2026 12 3,781 $73,849,985 $25,015,545 $46,020,869 $73,849,985 2027 13 3,781 $73,849,985 $23,379,014 $44,680,455 $73,849,985 2028 14 3,781 $73,849,985 $21,849,546 $43,379,083 $73,849,985 2029 15 3,781 $73,849,985 $20,420,136 $42,115,614 $73,849,985 2030 16 3,781 $73,849,985 $19,084,239 $40,888,946 $73,849,985 2031 17 3,781 $73,849,985 $17,835,738 $39,698,006 $73,849,985 2032 18 3,781 $73,849,985 $16,668,914 $38,541,753 $73,849,985 2033 19 3,781 $73,849,985 $15,578,424 $37,419,178 $73,849,985 2034 20 3,781 $73,849,985 $14,559,275 $36,329,299 $73,849,985 2035 21 3,781 $73,849,985 $13,606,799 $35,271,164 $73,849,985 2036 22 3,781 $73,849,985 $12,716,635 $34,243,849 $73,849,985 2037 23 3,781 $73,849,985 $11,884,705 $33,246,455 $73,849,985 2038 24 3,781 $73,849,985 $11,107,201 $32,278,112 $73,849,985 2039 25 3,781 $73,849,985 $10,380,562 $31,337,972 $73,849,985 2040 26 3,781 $73,849,985 $9,701,460 $30,425,216 $73,849,985 2041 27 3,781 $73,849,985 $9,066,785 $29,539,045 $73,849,985 2042 28 3,781 $73,849,985 $8,473,631 $28,678,684 $73,849,985 2043 29 3,781 $73,849,985 $7,919,281 $27,843,383 $73,849,985

### 241 Appendix Exhibit B 6 Upper Bound

– Exclusion 1 & 2 Baseline Savings Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year 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 @ 0% 2044 30 3,781 $73,849,985 $7,401,197 $27,032,410 $73,849,985 2045 31 3,781 $73,849,985 $6,917,007 $26,245,059 $73,849,985 2046 32 3,781 $73,849,985 $6,464,492 $25,480,639 $73,849,985 2047 33 3,781 $73,849,985 $6,041,581 $24,738,485 $73,849,985 2048 34 3,781 $73,849,985 $5,646,338 $24,017,946 $73,849,985 2049 35 3,781 $73,849,985 $5,276,951 $23,318,395 $73,849,985 2050 36 3,781 $73,849,985 $4,931,730 $22,639,218 $73,849,985 2051 37 3,781 $73,849,985 $4,609,094 $21,979,823 $73,849,985 2052 38 3,781 $73,849,985 $4,307,564 $21,339,634 $73,849,985 2053 39 3,781 $73,849,985 $4,025,761 $20,718,092 $73,849,985 2054 40 3,781 $73,849,985 $3,762,393 $20,114,652 $73,849,985 2055 41 3,781 $73,849,985 $3,516,255 $19,528,788 $73,849,985 2056 42 3,781 $73,849,985 $3,286,220 $18,959,989 $73,849,985 2057 43 3,781 $73,849,985 $3,071,234 $18,407,756 $73,849,985 2058 44 3,781 $73,849,985 $2,870,312 $17,871,608 $73,849,985 2059 45 3,781 $73,849,985 $2,682,534 $17,351,076 $73,849,985 2060 46 3,781 $73,849,985 $2,507,042 $16,845,704 $73,849,985 2061 47 3,781 $73,849,985 $2,343,029 $16,355,053 $73,849,985 2062 48 3,781 $73,849,985 $2,189,747 $15,878,692 $73,849,985 2063 49 3,781 $73,849,985 $2,046,493 $15,416,206 $73,849,985 2064 50 3,781 $73,849,985 $1,912,610 $14,967,190 $73,849,985 Avg. No. of Facilities 3,671 Avg. Savings/Facility $19,532 Total Present Worth Cost Savings $704,457,665 $1,597,661,589 $3,585,415,792 Annualized Savings $51,045,002 $62,101,106 $71,708,316 Exclusion 1 and 2 Total Annual Cost Savings $96,350,694 $96,350,694 $96,350,694 Exclusion 1 & 2 Affected Facilities 4 , 933

Percent of Facilities Notify 74.42% Cost Adjustment F actor (Annualized Cost Savings/Total Annual Cost Savings is 100% Adoption) 52.9783% 64.4532% 74.4243%

### 242 Appendix Exhibit B 7 Upper Bound Option 2, Requirement 2 C Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of Notifying

Facilities (Number of Annual Notifiers x 4,455 Exclusion 2 facilities/ 4,933 Excl. 1 and 2 facilities)) Aggregate

Annual Savings (Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Aggregate

Present Value Costs @ 7% Aggre gate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 0% 2011
- 4 5 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 2012
- 3 7 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 2013
- 2 9 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 2014
- 1 11 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 2015 1 939 $159,649 $113,827 $137,714 $159,649 2016 2 1,764 $299,951 $199,870 $251,204 $299,951 2017 3 2,589 $440,253 $274,167 $357,966 $440,253 2018 4 3,41 5 $580,555 $337,888 $458,295 $580,555 2019 5 3,41 5 $580,555 $315,783 $444,947 $580,555 2020 6 3,41 5 $580,555 $295,125 $431,987 $580,555 2021 7 3,41 5 $580,555 $275,817 $419,405 $580,555 2022 8 3,41 5 $580,555 $257,773 $407,190 $580,555 2023 9 3,41 5 $580,555 $240,910 $395,330 $580,555 2024 10 3,41 5 $580,555 $225,149 $383,815 $580,555 2025 11 3,41 5 $580,555 $210,420 $372,636 $580,555 2026 12 3,41 5 $580,555 $196,654 $361,783 $580,555 2027 13 3,41 5 $580,555 $183,789 $351,245 $580,555 2028 14 3,41 5 $580,555 $171,765 $341,015 $580,555 2029 15 3,41 5 $580,555 $160,528 $331,082 $580,555 2030 16 3,41 5 $580,555 $150,026 $321,439 $580,555 2031 17 3,41 5 $580,555 $140,212 $312,077 $580,555 2032 18 3,41 5 $580,555 $131,039 $302,987 $580,555 2033 19 3,41 5 $580,555 $122,466 $294,162 $580,555 2034 20 3,41 5 $580,555 $114,454 $285,595 $580,555 2035 21 3,41 5 $580,555 $106,967 $277,276 $580,555 2036 22 3,41 5 $580,555 $99,969 $269,200 $580,555 2037 23 3,41 5 $580,555 $93,429 $261,359 $580,555 2038 24 3,41 5 $580,555 $87,317 $253,747 $580,555 2039 25 3,41 5 $580,555 $81,604 $246,356 $580,555 2040 26 3,41 5 $580,555 $76,266 $239,181 $580,555 2041 27 3,41 5 $580,555 $71,276 $232,214 $580,555 2042 28 3,41 5 $580,555 $66,614 $225,451 $580,555 2043 29 3,41 5 $580,555 $62,256 $218,884 $580,555

### 243 Appendix Exhibit B 7 Upper Bound Option 2, Requirement 2 C Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year Analysis

Year Number of Notifying

Facilities (Number of Annual Notifiers x 4,455 Exclusion 2 facilities/ 4,933 Excl. 1 and 2 facilities)) Aggregate

Annual Savings (Number of Facilities x Avg. Savings/facility) Aggregate

Present Value Costs @ 7% Aggre gate PV

Costs @ 3% Aggregate PV

Costs @ 0% 2044 30 3,41 5 $580,555 $58,183 $212,509 $580,555 2045 31 3,41 5 $580,555 $54,376 $206,320 $580,555 2046 32 3,41 5 $580,555 $50,819 $200,310 $580,555 2047 33 3,41 5 $580,555 $47,495 $194,476 $580,555 2048 34 3,41 5 $580,555 $44,387 $188,812 $580,555 2049 35 3,41 5 $580,555 $41,484 $183,312 $580,555 2050 36 3,41 5 $580,555 $38,770 $177,973 $580,555 2051 37 3,41 5 $580,555 $36,233 $172,789 $580,555 2052 38 3,41 5 $580,555 $33,863 $167,757 $580,555 2053 39 3,41 5 $580,555 $31,648 $162,871 $580,555 2054 40 3,41 5 $580,555 $29,577 $158,127 $580,555 2055 41 3,41 5 $580,555 $27,642 $153,521 $580,555 2056 42 3,41 5 $580,555 $25,834 $149,050 $580,555 2057 43 3,41 5 $580,555 $24,144 $144,708 $580,555 2058 44 3,41 5 $580,555 $22,564 $140,494 $580,555 2059 45 3,41 5 $580,555 $21,088 $136,402 $580,555 2060 46 3,41 5 $580,555 $19,709 $132,429 $580,555 2061 47 3,41 5 $580,555 $18,419 $128,572 $580,555 2062 48 3,41 5 $580,555 $17,214 $124,827 $580,555 2063 49 3,41 5 $580,555 $16,088 $121,191 $580,555 2064 50 3,41 5 $580,555 $15,036 $117,661 $580,555 Avg. rn. Facilities 3,31 5 Avg. Costs/Facility $170 Total Present Worth Costs $5,537,934 $12,559,654 $28,185,932 Annualized Costs $401,279 $488,194 $563,719 Total Annual Costs if 100% Adoption $757,439 $757,439 $757,439 Exclusion 2 Affected Facilities 4,455 $ of Facilities Notify 74.42% Cost Adt Factor (Annualized Costs/Total Annual Costs is 100% Adoption) 52.9783% 64.4532% 74.4243%

### 244 

# A PPENDIX 

# C 2009 EPA “Toxics Release Inventory” (TRI) Chemical Waste Data Reported by the Four Industries Eligible for the “Re - Manufacturing” Option 6 Source: Provided 03 March 2011 to EPA

- ORCR by Kathy Davey & Sharon Austin, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics 1 of 4: Pharmaceutical Manufacturing - 16 Chemicals Total Facilities: 114

Facilities reporting 16 chemicals: 66 facilities from 53 parent companies 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 472Note: The TRI database does not explicitly indicate whether these chemicals actually function as “solvents” (or function for for example, such as chemical reactants or catalyst chemical data. TRI
- reporting facilities in the processing aid applications for which they are reporting the



### 245 Note: The TRI database does not explicitly indicate whether these chemicals actually function as “solvents” (or function for other purposes,

### 246 

# Appendix C (continued) 2 of 4: Paint & Coating Manufacturing - 16 Chemicals Total Facilities: 430 Facilities reporting 16 chemicals: 297 facilities from 200 parent com panies Total Parents: 250 Releases (pounds) Waste

(pounds) 960 960 Submissions for 16 selected chemicals

– Paint&Coating 1,647,483 76,814,939 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 processing aid applications for which they are reporting the chemical data.

# Appendix B (continued) 247

### 248 

# Appendix C (continued) 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.

# Appendix B (continued) 249

### 250 

# Appendix C (continued) 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.

### 251

### 252

### 253 

# Appendix C (Continued)

Market Value: Pharm aceutical, 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% 10077 10,077 Total Submissions - Pharm aceutical 145,695,573 3,906,271,887 DSW RIA Base Case Upper Bound Total lbs # of Submissions Release (lbs) WASTE (lbs) price /lb 1 3 % 74 % 1 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene 184 149,502 4,968,209 $0.82 $529,611 $3,014,709 2 Acetonitrile 48 16,224,534 44,793,931 $0.70 $4,076,248 $23,203,256 3 Chlorobenzene 28 126,247 5,015,426 $0.68 $443,364 $2,523,762 4 Chloroform 32 188,712 21,562,195 $0.35 $981,080 $5,584,609 5 Chlorom ethane 30 329,737 11,193,444 $0.44 $640,265 $3,644,585 6 Cyclohexane 54 1,604,275 53,104,007 $0.60 $4,142,113 $23,578,179 7 Dichlorom ethane 79 813,585 27,061,286 $0.43 $1,512,726 $8,610,901 8 Ethylbenzene 228 330,886 21,238,659 $0.53 $1,463,344 $8,329,802 9 Methanol 429 10,669,901 488,328,143 $0.14 $8,887,572 $50,590,796 10 Methyl isobutyl ketone 145 374,227 24,693,202 $0.44 $1,412,451 $8,040,107 11 Methyl tert - butyl ether 28 89,675 3,422,737 $0.43 $191,331 $1,089,115 12 NN - dimethylform amide 34 625,719 10,012,894 $0.50 $650,838 $3,704,771 13 N - butyl alcohol 202 877,555 27,424,877 $0.55 $1,960,879 $11,161,925 14 N - hexane 99 1,064,486 38,130,601 $0.45 $2,230,640 $12,697,490 15 Toluene 388 2,279,340 155,383,764 $0.43 $8,685,952 $49,443,114 16 Xylene (mixed isomers) 379 1,340,494 79,096,488 $0.43 $4,421,494 $25,168,502 $42,229,907 $240,385,623 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 Ethanol not on TRI $0.47 Tetrahydrofuran not on TRI $1.55

### 254 

# A PPENDIX 

# D Sm all B usiness Count Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Analysis Appendix Exhibit D 1 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 18 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Generator- Controlled Exclusions for Onsite Recycling 23 August 2010 (Mark Eads, Economist, EPA
- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or non

small business? Business size facts & source 1 Curries 12th St NW facility IA0000362905 332321 <500 em ployees Non
- small

(Assa Abloy parent company is non - small) 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 ABLOY 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: Assa Abloy has 32,723 employees (2008). Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/ASSA_ABLOY_AB/hjrchi

- 1.html 2 Curries 9th Street fa cility IAD043490150 332321 <500 em ployees Non
- small

(Assa Abloy parent company is non - small) 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 ABLOY 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: Assa Abloy has 32,723 employees (2008). Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/ASSA_ABLOY_AB/hjrchi

- 1.html 3 Fres
- co System USA Inc
. IAR000007013 323111 <500 em ployees 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, I A. Current estimates show this company has annual revenue of $20 to $50 million and employs approximately 50 to 99 staff. Source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmcs7kw/fresco

- system 4 John Deere Davenport Works IAD073489726 333120 <750 em ployees Non
- small 51,300 employees . John Deere is one of the wo rld'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 Construction & 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.html

### 255 Appendix Exhibit D 1 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 18 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Generator- Controlled Exclusions for Onsite Recycling 23 August 2010 (Mark Eads, Economist, EPA
- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or non

small business? Business size facts & source 5 John Deere Des Moines Works IAD069624500 333111 <500 em ployees Non
- small 51,300 employees . John Deere is one of the wo rld'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 Construction & 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.c om

/company/Deere__Company/rfccci

- 1.html 6 John Deere Dubuque Works IAD005269527 333120 <750 em ployees Non
- small 51,300 employees . John Deere is one of the wo rld'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 Construction & Forestry make up its Equipment Operations; the Credit division is part of Financial Services. Deere operates factories and sales o ffices around the world. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Deere__Company/rfccci

- 1.html 7 John Deere Engine Works IAD000678094 333618 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small 51,300 employees . John Deere is one of the wo rld'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 Construction & Forestry make up its Equipment Operations; the Credit division is part of Fi nancial Services. Deere operates factories and sales offices around the world. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Deere__Company/rfccci

- 1.html 8 John Deere Waterloo Works IAD000805168 333111 <500 em ployees Non
- small 51,300 employees . John Deere is one of the wo rld'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 Construction & 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.html 9 Siegwerk USA IAD078096732 325910 <500 em ployees Non
- small

(Germany parent company is non - small) Siegwerk is a world

- leading supplier of printing ink for packaging and publications. International

family business of 3,900 employees strives to exceed customers’ expectations of quality, reliability and support. In 2009, generated revenues of 774 million Euros. Headquarters is located in Siegburg near Cologne (Germany). Source: http://www.siegwerk.com/en/company.html 10 Vogel Paint & Wax Company Inc IAD007276728 325510 <500 em ployees Non
- small

(Diamond

Vogel parent company is non - small) 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 wa s 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 Aluminum 331314 <750 Non
- small One of the largest privately held aluminum extruders in the US, Aluminum Shapes is an operating

### 256 Appendix Exhibit D 1 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 18 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Generator- Controlled Exclusions for Onsite Recycling 23 August 2010 (Mark Eads, Economist, EPA
- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or non

small business? Business size facts & source Shapes LLC NJD002338267 em ployees (Shapes/Arch

parent company is non - small) subsidiary of Shapes/Arch Holdings LLC. Source:

http://www.hoovers.com/company/Aluminum_Shapes_LLC/rfxfkhi

- 1.html 900 employees
. Source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/Shapes/Arch_Holdings_LLC/shxyktkfx

- 1.html 12 Siegfried USA NJD064344575 325411 <750 em ployees Non
- small

(Swiss Siegfried Group parent company is non - small) 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 facilities

- production of APIs and advanced pharmaceutical

- related intermediates

- are supported by tec hnologically 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.co m/partners/siegfried.html 13 Carpenter Technology Corp PAD002344315 331111 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small 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 products, 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 14 John Maneely Com pany Wheatland Tube Division PAD004338091 331210 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small

(Carlyle Group and Novolipetsk parent companies are non - small) Source #1: The Carlyle Group acquired John Maneely Com pany in 2006. The deal included Wheatland Tube and John Maneely sister 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 eleven 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 15 John Maneely Com pany Wheatland Tube Division PAR000038067 331210 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small

(Carlyle Group and Novolipetsk parent companies are non - small) Source #1: The Carlyle Group acquired John Maneely Company in 2006. The deal included

Wheatland Tube and John Maneely sister 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 eleven 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

### 257 Appendix Exhibit D 1 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 18 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Generator- Controlled Exclusions for Onsite Recycling 23 August 2010 (Mark Eads, Economist, EPA
- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or non

small business? Business size facts & source

Russia, Europe and the United States. Source: http://www.carlyle.com/media%20room/news%20archive/2008/item10533.html 16 John Maneely Com pany Wheatland Tube Division PAD004322863 331210 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small

(Carlyle Group and Novolipetsk parent companies are non - small) Source #1: The Carlyle Group acquired John Maneely Company in 2006. The deal included

Wheatland Tube and John Maneely sister 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 eleven plants in five US states and one Canadian province. Novolipetsk Stee l, 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 revenue s 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 17 Johnson Matthey Emissions Control Technology PAD980829287 336399 <750 em ployees Non
- small

(Johnson Matthey PLC UK parent company is non - small) 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 Catalysts 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/rtyjcxi

- 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 P latinum, 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 Catalysts 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 18 Hovensa LLC VID980536080 324110 <1,500 em ployees & <125,000 barrels

-per day capacity Non
- small

(Hess parent company is non - small) 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 Corporation (formerly Amerada Hess) is an integrated oil and gas exploration and production company primarily in Algeria, Australia, Azerbaijan , Brazil, Denmark, Egypt,

### 258 Appendix Exhibit D 1 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 18 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Generator- Controlled Exclusions for Onsite Recycling 23 August 2010 (Mark Eads, Economist, EPA
- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or non

small business? Business size facts & source

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 g asoline through 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 % of facilities owned by small businesses = 1/18 = 5.5%

### 259 Appendix Exhibit D 2 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 19 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions for Offsite Transfer Recycling (24 August 2010, Mark Eads, Economist, EPA

- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or

non - small business? Business size facts & source 1 Iowa Contract Fabricators Inc IA0000990762 336211 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small

(Oshkosh Corp parent company is non - small) 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=110007503040 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 US states and in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, the Netherl ands and Romania. The company currently em ploy s approximately 12,600 employees worldwide (source: http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_profile.cfm ). 2 Iowa Mold Tooling Com pany Inc IAD005286539 333120 <750 em ployees Non
- small

(Oshkosh Corp parent company is non - small) Source #1: EPA’s Federal Registry System (FRS) indicates Oshkosh Corp is the parent company

source: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000910998 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 US states and in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, the Netherlands and Romania. The company currently em ploy s approximately 12,600 employees worldwide (source: http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_profile.cfm ). 3 Aleris Rolled P roducts Inc NJD051415909 331315 <750 em ployees Non
- small 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 production fa cilities throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. The company employs more than 6,500 people . Source: http://www.aleris.com/about

- aleris 4 Anadigics Inc NJR000036301 334413 <500 em ployees Non
- small 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 (source: 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 ) 5 Safety

- Kleen Sy stems 562211 <$10.5 million Non
- small $1.03 billion revenues projected for 2010 (source: http://wasteage.com/companies/safety

- kleen/ )

### 260 Appendix Exhibit D 2 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 19 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions for Offsite Transfer Recycling (24 August 2010, Mark Eads, Economist, EPA

- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or

non - small business? Business size facts & source Com pany NJD002182897 revenues/year 6 Sancoa International NJD986629491 323111 <500 em ployees Small 335 employees (source: http://www.hoovers.com/comp any/sancoa_international_company_lp/rkhhtkfjx

- 1.html and http://www.manta.com/c/mmd32jk/sancoa

- international

- company - l

-p ) 7 Siegfried USA NJD064344575 325411 <750 em ployees Non
- small

(Swiss Siegfried Group parent company is non - small) 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 Europ e (Zofingen, Switzerland). Each of the multi

-purpose cGMP facilities

- 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 8 Veolia ES Technical Solutions LLC NJD002454544 562211 <$10.5 million revenues/year Non
- small

(Veolia Enviro nment parent is non - small) 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 se rvices company, with over 100,000 employees in 42 countries generating revenues of $13.0 billion in 2009 (source: http://veoliaes.com/About%20Us ) 9 Viking Yacht Com pany NJD002482545 336612 <500 em ployees Non
- small April 10, 2009

-- Viking Yacht Co. concluded its final round of layoffs and furloughs last week, bringing the total to 560 fewer em ployees 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 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 mo re l ayoffs 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/ind ex.ssf/2009/04/viking_yacht_one_of_south_jers.html ) 10 BAE Systems Land & Armaments PAD003025418 336992 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small Source #1: Land & Armaments is o of four business divisions of its parent company BAE Systems (http://www.baesystems.com/AboutUs/CompanyStructure/index.htm ). Source #2: BAE Systems is a global defense, security and aerospace company with 107,000 employees wo rldwide. The Company delivers a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, IT solutions and customer support services. In 2009 BAE Systems reported sales of $36.2 billion. It is the 2nd largest global defen se company based on 2009 revenues (source: http://www.baesystems.com/AboutUs/FactSheet/index.htm ) 11 Carpenter 331111 <1,000 Non
- small 3,200 employees (2009). Company makes a variety of corrosion

- resistant materials; most of its sales

### 261 Appendix Exhibit D 2 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 19 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions for Offsite Transfer Recycling (24 August 2010, Mark Eads, Economist, EPA

- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or

non - small business? Business size facts & source Technology Corp PAD002344315 em ployees come from stainless steel products and alloys that provide special heat

- or wear - resistance or special magnetic or conductive properties. Carpenter also makes titanium products, 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 /com pany/Carpenter_Technology_Corporation/rftski

- 1.html 12 Cherokee Pharmaceuticals LLC PAD003043353 325411 <750 em ployees Non
- small

(PRWT parent company is non - small) 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 )

13 Erie Plating Co PAD005031448 332813 <500 em ployees Small Source #1: Erie Plating is a private company categorized under Electroplating/Polishing/Anodizing Manufacturers and located in Erie, PA. Records show it was established in 1925 and incorporated in Pennsylvania. Current estimates show this company has annua l revenues of $10 to $20 million and approximately 100 to 249 employees (source: http://www.manta.com/c/mmcx9xm/erie

- plating

- co ) Source #2: In 2008, Erie Plating Company employs about 125 employ ees at its 100,000 square feet (9,300 m2) central plant, which ranks among the top 40% of the cleanest industrial facilities in the United States according to Scorecard's Environmental Release Survey (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Plating_Company?oldid=0 ). 14 International Metals Reclamation Com pany Inc PAD087561015 331491 <750 em ployees Non
- small

(Horsehead parent company is non - small) 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

-based 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, headquartered 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 ) 15 Jerr
- Dan Corp PAD047518014 336211 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small

(Oshkosh Corp parent company is non - small) Jerr
- Dan is owned by the Oshkosh Corporation. Founded in 1917, Oshkosh Corporation has

manufacturing operations in 11 US states and in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, the Netherlands and Romania. The company currently employs approximately 12,600 e mployees worldwide (source: http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_profile.cfm ). 16 Jerr
- Dan Corp Wrecker Division 336211 <1,000 em ployees Non
- small

(Oshkosh Corp parent Jerr
- Dan is owned by the Oshkosh Corporation. Founded in 1917, Oshkosh Corporation has

manufacturing operations in 11 US states and in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, the Netherlands and Romania. The company currently employs approximately 12,600 e mployees

### 262 Appendix Exhibit D 2 Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Small Business Impact Analysis: 19 Facilities That Submitted Notifications to EPA as of August 4, 2010 for 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions for Offsite Transfer Recycling (24 August 2010, Mark Eads, Economist, EPA

- ORCR)
Item Business name

& EPA ID number NAICS

industry code SBA small

business definition Small or

non - small business? Business size facts & source PAR000029769 company is non - small) worldwide (source: http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_profile.cfm ). 17 Spectrum Control Technology Inc PAD043882323 334414 <500 em ployees Non
- small Source #1: 1,481 full- tim e 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 )
18 Triangle Circuits PAD981037377 334412 <500 em ployees Small Source #1: Triangle Circuits is one of three subsidiary companies owned by the Millennia Group, which consists of three subsidiary companies (Millennia Design, Triangle Circuits and Millennia Technology) source: http://www.1tmg.com/TMG

-profile.html Source #2: The Millennia Group parent company has 190 employees (source: http://www.answers.com/topic/the

- millennia

- group - inc and http://www.manta.com/c/mmlltzn/the

millennia

- group - inc ) 19 Worl d Resources Com pany PAD981038227 327999 <500 em ployees 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 support on a global basis. These offices are provided detailed material analytical 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 waste water treatment sludges and associated recyclable materials, serving over 1,500 companies in more than 40 countries, including 41 states in the USA (source: http://www. wo rldresourcescompany.com/about/company.aspx ) Source #3: 102 employees (source: http://www.hoovers.com/company/World_Resources_Company/cxycfkcs

- 1.html ) % of facilities owned by small businesses = 4/19 = 21.0%