1

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

EPA’s 2011 Proposed Revisions

to 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

PREFACE

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 these work assignment were from 

September 09 to December 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, which is applied in this RIA. However, in late November 2010, 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 waste 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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 Which 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 104

Option 2: Implement Alternative RCRA Subtitle C Regulation for Offsite Transfer Recycling 105

Option 3: Revise the 2008 DSW Exclusion for Generator-Controlled Recycling 115

Option 4: Revise the Recycling “Legitimacy” Provisions of the 2008 DSW Final Rule 117

Option 5: Revise the 1985 Partial Recycling Variance & 2008 DSW Non-Waste Petition Processes 126

Option 6: Add a “Re-Manufacturing” 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

Chapter 6 Sensitivity Analyses (6 Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors) 175

Chapter 7 Supplemental Analyses 188

7A. Regulatory Planning and Review (1993 Executive Order 12866) 188

7B. Small Business Impact 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 such materials as 

wastes in compliance with the relatively more costly terms and conditions of RCRA Subtitle C “hazardous waste” regulations.

Affected Entities: 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 (Options 1 thru 6) could affect EPA’s most recent 2008 DSW recycling exclusions 

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 industrial recycling; (2) improved environmental 

compliance; and (3) reduced liability, 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 (2011$ @7% 

discount rate over 50-years 2015 to 2064):

 Base case 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 $47.5 million per year (Options 1 to 7) affecting 3,671 average 

annual facilities expected to implement the 2011 proposed DSW revisions, plus 100% of the 5,321 pre-2008 DSW exclusion facilities.

Net Impact: Netting out the $7.3 to $13.1 million average annual future costs for the 7 proposed revisions, from the 2011$-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 year for 13% adoption rate of the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions – yields 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 Analyses: 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” threshold; (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 governments under Executive Order 13132: Federalism Implications; and (5) to not have an adverse effect on energy supply, 

distribution, or use under Executive Order 13211: Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use.
5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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 types of industrial recycling from the 

“definition of solid waste” (DSW) under Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The DSW recycling 

exclusions involve industrial hazardous secondary materials intended for recycling (i.e., reclamation, recovery, regeneration, or reuse) rather 

than discard (i.e., disposal). Some of the DSW recycling exclusions date back to 1985, whereas other DSW recycling exclusions are relatively 

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 criteria, 

and comply with certain operating conditions and requirements. Under the DSW exclusions, industrial recyclable materials are not “wastes” 

because they are recycled, not discarded (i.e., not disposed), and thus are considered “hazardous secondary materials” rather than “hazardous 

wastes” if alternatively discarded rather than recycled.

EPA’s 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions are in response to a January 2009 petition submitted to the EPA by the Sierra 

Club (San Francisco, CA), claiming potential increases in risks to human health and the environment associated with recycling of DSWexcluded industrial hazardous secondary materials. With these proposed revisions EPA intends 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 revisions 

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)

Option 1: Withdraw the 2008 DSW Exclusion 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 offsite for the 

purpose of reclamation, and replace it with alternative 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 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” 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.

(3E) Eliminate 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

Revise the 2008 DSW definition of legitimate recycling (i.e., legitimacy) by:

(4A) Apply 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-apply 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 variance for partially recycled materials:

(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 petitioners must demonstrate why they 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 types of solvent chemicals only.

(2) Three types of solvent “processing aid” functional uses only (i.e., chemical manufacturing 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 chemical gets consumed (destroyed) in chemical manufacturing reactions.

(3) Four manufacturing sectors only (NAICS 325199 basic organic chemical manufacturing, NAICS 325211 plastics & resins 

manufacturing, NAICS 325412 pharmaceutical manufacturing, and NAICS 325510 paints & coatings manufacturing).

(4) Five exclusion conditions for both generators and re-manufacturers (initial and biennial notification, re-manufacturing plan, 3-year 

recordkeeping of shipments, management in tanks or containers, and no speculative accumulation). (6B) Use of intermediate storage 

facilities not allowed for this exclusion.

(6C) 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 roughly- and incompletelydefined 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:

(8A) ”Contained” performance standard for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion.

(8B) Intermediate facility restriction for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion.

(8C) 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-year period of 2015 to 2064, as well as two alternative discount rates (0% and 

3%) for purpose of sensitivity analysis. 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-2008 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-year (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 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.

 74% “upper-bound” adoption scenario: Based on the count of currently 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): If 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 Options 2 and 6 are excluded 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 Register notice 

of the proposed revisions to the DSW exclusions. The cost (or cost savings) estimates for the set of options included as Option 8 are presented 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 ($millions in 2011$)

@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 (Only Options 3 to 7)

Proposed Revisions

(Regulatory Options)

Average annual 

future affected 

industrial facilities

Cost estimates ($millions in 2011$)

@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 RCRAregulated universe of potentially relevant and eligible facilities, facilities would not be expected 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 in 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 exclusion, 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 6C 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 uncertainty factors which may influence the future 

annual cost of each option in any given year. 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 necessarily additive (i.e., compounding) in any given year.

Exhibit C

Sensitivity of Estimated 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 “Baseline”

13% “Base Case” Adoption Scenario for All Options 1 to 7; 50-year period-of-analysis 2015 to 2064; 2011$; 7% discount rate

Type of cost Uncertainty Factor*

Numerical Uncertainty Range in Factor*

Cost Estimate Range

($millions)

Low-end High-end Low-end High-end

Average Annual 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 fluctuations in annual tonnages of hazardous secondary materials generated and 

destined for recycling

-58% +42% $5.5/year $18.6/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 Physical & chemical quality of secondary materials available for viable recycling -10% -10% $11.8/year $11.8/year

6 Expected accuracy of impact estimates -20% +30% $10.5/year $17.0/year

Range across all 6 factors = -58% +263% $5.5/year $47.5/year

Note:

* A potential 7th cost 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

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 Revisions

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 Clearer and more specific regulatory standards improve environmental compliance (Options 3, 4, 7, 8).

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

o Self-reporting requirements (e.g., notification requirements) improve environmental compliance (Options 2, 3, 5, 7).

o Increased likelihood of detection and potential penalty for non-compliance improves environmental compliance (Options 2, 3, 4, 

5, 7).

 Benefit #3: More 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 by 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 inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Finding: Based on the cost analyses 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 

economy 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% base case adoption: $7.2 million per year (all Options 1 to 7) and $13.1 million per year (only Options 3 to 7).
13

o 74% upper-bound adoption: $7.4 million per year (all Options 1 to 7) and $47.5 million per year (only Options 3 to 7).

 0% discount rate: Annual costs 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 incrementally increase future costs to industrial facilities for complying 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 businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. EPA’s 2011 proposed DSW revisions could potentially affect the 

following cumulative counts of facilities by year 2064 over the 50-year 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 level (as listed in Appendix A). This RIA evaluated 27 NAICS 

industries with the largest number of facilities potentially affected (i.e., in NAICS sub-sectors 32, 33, 54, 56, 61, 62, 92). The percentage of 

small businesses 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 be affected 

by the 2011 proposed revisions are owned by small businesses.

This RIA evaluated potential impacts on small businesses, by comparing the total compliance 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 significantly 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%, respectively, 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 “SISNOSE decision process” 

table of EPA’s November 2006 final guidance for RFA compliance, this RIA concludes that the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling 

exclusions 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 (Options 2, 4, 6, & 7)

2. Receive, review and file reclamation plan (Option 2)

3. Receive, Review and approve emergency plans (Option 2)

4. Receive, review 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 (Options 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 under existing 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 processes and types, 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 not an 

unfunded mandate according to this UMRA cost threshold.

E4. Federalism Implications (1999 Executive Order 13132)

The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 (Federal Register, Vol.64, No. 153, 10 Aug 1999) furthers the policies of the 1995 Unfunded 
15

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state/local government 

consultation process for the development of Federal regulations that have federalism implications. Federalism implications refers to 

regulations and other Federal policies and actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the Federal 

government and the states, or on 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 guidance2for 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 more3

 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 could 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, review and file reclamation plan (Option 2)

3. Receive, Review and approve emergency plans (Option 2)

4. Receive, review 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 processes and 

types, and air emission standards for tanks, surface impoundment 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.gov/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% lower 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 the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and 

notices of proposed rulemaking that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order and is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by OMB as a significant energy action. 

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 & Regulatory Review (2011 Executive Order 13563)

The basic framework, scope, and contents of this RIA represent a “benefit-cost analysis” which is the type 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 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, employment, competitiveness, health, safety, and the natural environment. The January 2011 Executive Order 13563 “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 monetized 

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 employment 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 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 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, 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 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 exclusions, is some states do not 

believe some of the exclusions are fully 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 not 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 2008 DSW exclusions by all states.

For the 32 existing pre-2008 RCRA industrial recycling exclusions an average of eight states representing 5.3% of nationwide total RCRA 

industrial hazardous waste generation have not yet adopted 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 underprotectiveness 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

CHAPTER 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 Conservation 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 relatively 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 DSW 

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 material 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 processed to recover a usable product, or if it is regenerated. Examples are recovery of lead values from 

spent batteries and regeneration of spent solvents. In addition, for purposes of Sec. Sec. 261.2(a)(2)(ii), 261.4(a)(23), and 261.4(a)(24) 

smelting, melting, and refining furnaces are considered to be solely engaged in metals reclamation if the metal recovery from the hazardous 

secondary materials meets the same requirements as those specified for metals recovery from hazardous waste found in Sec. 266.100(d)(1)-

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

 A material is ``used or reused'' if it is either: (i) Employed as an ingredient (including use as an intermediate) in an industrial process to 

make a product (for example, distillation bottoms from one process used as feedstock in another process). However, a material will not satisfy 

this condition if distinct components of the material are recovered as separate end products (as when metals are recovered from metalcontaining secondary materials); or (ii) Employed in a particular function or application as an effective substitute for a commercial product 

(for example, spent pickle liquor used as phosphorous precipitant and sludge conditioner in wastewater treatment).

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

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. Revisions to 2008 DSW exclusions: Revise the 2008 DSW exclusions for certain types of hazardous secondary materials that are 

conditionally 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 include (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 definition 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 is 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 revisions 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. Within a reasonable time following receipt of such petition, the [EPA] Administrator 

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 environmental 

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 substances 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 that 

contaminate air, soil, and water, especially in the minority and low-income neighborhoods disproportionately affected by 

pollution. By EPA’s own analysis the winners are those who wish to “recycle” hazardous waste without the burden of 

safeguards that have proven effective in reducing harm. The losers are those 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 Recycling Coalition (MIRC) – this organization is a coalition of the following organizations:

a. American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI)

b. Copper & Brass Fabricator's Council

c. Copper Development Association Inc. (CDA)

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

e. Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA)

f. Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA)

6. National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA)

7. Treated Wood Council (TWC)

8. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA)

This letter requested that EPA deny the Sierra Club's petition on the grounds that the 2008 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 significant 

economic and conservation benefits, while imposing significant controls on the hazardous secondary material recycling industry that are fully

protective of the environment. The letter also responds to each of the specific points raised by the Sierra Club in its petition. 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 avail 

themselves of the Rule's exclusions are significant. These conditions, entirely ignored by Sierra Club, are based on the evidence 

in the record, and are designed to ensure that hazardous secondary materials reclaimed under the Rule's exclusions, are done 

so legitimately while protecting public health and the environment from potential hazards associated with such hazardous 

secondary 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.”

 June 2009 EPA Public Meeting

In response to the Sierra Club’s administrative petition, EPA issued a May 27, 2009, Federal Register notice (74 FR 25200) describing possible 

actions and optional paths forward and announcing a public meeting on June 30, 2009, to allow the public and interested stakeholders to 

provide input to the decision-making process. EPA’s May 2009 published notice announcing the planned public meeting, described the scope 

of possible EPA action. The concept of “discard” was the main concept governing the realm of action. As stated in RCRA section 1004(27):

“[S]olid waste'' is defined as “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air 

pollution control facility and other discarded material ,,, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural 

activities.''

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

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

expect to completely repeal the 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 repeal 

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 ways that could increase 

environmental protection, while still appropriately defining when a hazardous secondary material being reclaimed is a solid 

waste” (74 FR 25203).

A total of 33 individuals4provided 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 would 

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 rule 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 the 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 materials 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, particularly 

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 of several potential changes to the three 2008 

DSW exclusions. In addition, 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 the 2008 DSW final rule would have no adverse environmental impacts, and 

therefore would have no disproportional adverse impacts to minority and low-income communities, is unsupported by the administrative 

record. Many commentors (including those at EPA’s 2009 public meeting and those who responded with written comments) expressed strong 

concerns that EPA did not adequately address environmental justice (EJ) in the rulemaking.

In response to these concerns, EPA committed to perform a more rigorous and thorough analysis of the EJ impacts of the 2008 DSW final rule. 

EPA committed to producing a new EJ analysis 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 populations). EPA’s shared its January 2009 draft methodology5for the EJ analysis with the 

public in January 2010, and presented the draft methodology to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC) and 

discussed it at three public roundtable meetings (January 28, 2010 New Orleans, LA; February 23, 2010 EPA Potomac Yard Conference 

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

6

EPA considered the public comments raised in those meetings and 

conducted the new EJ analysis. EPA’s EJ analysis 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 Population,” 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

CHAPTER 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 Exclusion 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 offsite for the 

purpose of reclamation, and replace it with alternative 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:

(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 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.

(3E) Eliminate 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) Apply the codified definition to all industrial recycling under the pre-2008 set of regulatory exclusions.

(4B) Make all 4 legitimacy factors7 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-apply 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 variance for partially recycled materials:

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 determination of whether to grant requests for 

these variances “will be based on the following criteria/factors.” However, when EPA originally promulgated this variance 

on 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 authorized 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 process; 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 CFR 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 - Comparison 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 hazardous 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 factors 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 specifically, EPA believes the six criteria for 

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 the 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 variances.

(5D) Non-waste determination petitioners to demonstrate why they 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 the regional- and case-specific 

nature of non-waste determinations.

Option 6: Add a “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 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-butyl ether

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 types 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 only:

1. NAICS 325199 basic organic chemical manufacturing

2. NAICS 325211 plastics & resins manufacturing

3. NAICS 325412 pharmaceutical manufacturing

4. NAICS 325510 paints & coatings manufacturing

(6A.4) Five exclusion conditions for both the generator and the re-manufacturer:

1. Initial notification and update notification every 2-years.

2. Maintain onsite a copy of a re-manufacturing plan.

3. 3-year 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-life closure of 

containers and tanks, respectively; 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, 

respectively.

5. No speculative accumulation according to the RCRA hazardous waste regulation 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8): during a calendar 

year at least 75% of the material accumulated onsite from the beginning of the year to be recycled (either onsite or 

offsite) is actually recycled.
28

(6B) Use of intermediate storage facilities not allowed for this exclusion.

(6C) 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 

roughly- and incompletely-defined sub-option.

(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

Revise the pre-2008 DSW recycling exclusions for recyclable materials by requiring:

(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:

(8A) Contained performance standard for transfer-based exclusion,

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

(8C) Provision for facilities in non-adopting states to qualify under the transfer-based exclusion, and

* Note: Exhibit 2A below identifies the three different sets of 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 few months 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 have 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

(types 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 nonwaste 

determinations

Meet eligibility 

criteria; terms of 

variance or nonwaste 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 byproducts 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

(types 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; onetime 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 OilBearing 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

(types 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) Comparable 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

(types 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; must 

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

24 261.6(a)(3)(ii) Scrap metal None Yes Yes Yes No

25 261.6(a)(3)(iii)

Waste-derived fuels 

from refining 

processes

None Yes Yes Yes No 

26 261.6(a)(3)(iv)

Unrefined wastederived fuels and 

oils from petroleum 

refineries

No distillation; 

meets used oil specs 

under 279.11

Yes Yes Yes No

27 261.6(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

28 261.7

Residues of 

hazardous waste in 

empty 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

(types 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

30 266 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.)

31 266 Subpart G

Spent Lead-Acid 

Batteries Being 

Reclaimed

Multiple conditions. Yes Yes Yes No

32 266 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” = 30 31 31 18

* Note: Criteria for Selecting Conditions:

Legitimate Recycling - Must involve recycling/recovery

Notification - Must have conditions that need compliance monitoring

Contained- Must not already contain management standards

Changes to Speculative Accumulation
34

CHAPTER 3

Baseline Industrial Entities & Materials Potentially Affected

by the 2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

This chapter identifies the types and associated counts/quantities of industrial facilities, hazardous secondary materials, and hazardous wastes 

potentially affected by the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW exclusions. These counts/quantities form the physical basis in this RIA for 

estimating potential industry costs 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 potentially affect the pre-2008 DSW exclusions, this chapter 

presents two separate populations of potentially affected facilities/materials/wastes, each based on different databases.

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

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 types, waste quantities, and methods of hazardous waste generation, shipment, receipt, and 

TSDR management (i.e., treatment, storage, disposal, recycling) at two classes of RCRA-regulated facilities:

 Generators: RCRA hazardous waste large quantity generators (i.e., LQG sites which generate 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) or 

more of hazardous waste in any single calendar month). LQGs are required to complete a single “Form GM” for each 

hazardous waste generated in each data year. In 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 by LQGs in each data year.

 Receivers: RCRA hazardous waste TSDR facilities are required to complete a “Form WR” for all hazardous wastes received in the 

data year. Each Form WR contains separate “waste blocks” (i.e., data fields) for reporting data on separate waste 

streams received from different generators. In 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 year.

The RCRA Biennial Report (BR) includes both one-time generated industrial wastes (e.g., equipment closure, corrective action site cleanup) as 

well as annually recurring generated industrial process wastes. This database is the primary source used in this RIA to identify the 2008 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 month) and conditionally exempt small quantity generators (i.e., 

CESQGs which generate less than 100 kilograms per month) are not required to submit hazardous waste data to the BR. However, SQG waste 

quantities may be reflected in the BR because SQGs typically rely on offsite commercial TSDRFs for management of their hazardous wastes.
35

The BR is the most complete set of data on industrial hazardous waste generation available given it is a census of LQGs and TSDRFs. It is the 

best existing database for evaluating changes to RCRA regulations, given the fact that data are reported on the waste stream level by single 

facilities (some facilities may generate multiple and different waste streams within any given year). As mentioned previously, the Biennial 

Report does not explicitly include data for SQGs and CESQGs. Consequently, the regulatory cost savings estimates might be expected to 

increase if the universe of SQGs and CESQGs were explicitly included in this RIA. However, this increase would mostly occur from 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 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. 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 analysis reflects the RCRA exclusion of SQGs from reporting to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report. Consequently, 

EPA does not collect regularly updated data on RCRA waste volumes generated by SQGs. Omission of explicit data on SQGs does not 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) company employee count or (b) 

company annual sales revenues, two alternative measures used by the Small Business Administration to define “small business” 

(http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/officials/size/index.html).

 Furthermore, many SQGs are not in the same industries and markets with LQGs; for example, the top-5 largest LQG industries in 2003 based on annual tons waste 

generated are (1) NAICS 3251 Basic Chemical Mfg, (2) NAICS 3241 Petroleum & Coal Products Mfg, (3) NAICS Waste Treatment & Disposal, (4) NAICS 3252 

Resin, Synthetic Rubber, Synthetic Fibers & Filaments Mfg, and (5) NAICS 3311 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloy Mfg, all of which are capital-intensive industries 

predominantly populated with relatively larger size companies (source: Exhibit 1.9 at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/national03.pdf). In contrast, 

SQGs are predominantly in different industries; for example, the top-5 SQG industries in aggregate 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 generation volumes (i.e., tons per year) indicate that SQGs 

are probably much smaller in average size than LQGs. Consequently, most SQGs send their wastes offsite for treatment, disposal or recycling by commercial 

hazardous waste management facilities because they lack economy-of-scale to manage the wastes themselves, and for other business reasons. Based on 1997 data

(source: Steven Brown, Margaret James & Gary Light, ICF Consulting, “SQG Up-Date” 31 July 2000 memorandum to Peggy Vyas, OSW), 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 equivalent to 24 to 37 barrels per year, or 2 to 3 barrels per month (@8 lbs/gallon 

and @55 gallons/barrel). Compared to the 17,700 LQGs which generate 30,176,000 tons for an average LQG waste size of 1,705 tons/year (as of 2003) --- which 

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 3G below summarize the Biennial Report (BR) dataset for baseline hazardous waste recycling for 2007 for wastes affected by

the 2008 DSW final rule. Data year 2007 is used in this RIA to represent the current (i.e., baseline) year because EPA had to launch this RIA 

before the more recent data year 2009 became available. The BR database only contains the primary NAICS code for each waste generator and 

waste management facility. However, many industrial facilities have more than one NAICS code corresponding to different types of industrial 

operations within a single facility, but the entire quantity of hazardous waste undergoing recycling is reported under a single NAICS code for 

each single facility in the BR dataset.

For each historical data year (i.e., 1991, 1993, 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. Some hazardous waste tonnages may be double-counted in “management” because they undergo two or more management steps in a 

management train.

2. Some wastes may have been generated near year-end but managed (i.e., treated, recycled or disposed) in the next year.

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

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

Exhibit 3A 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 

wastes 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 

temperature 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, nonsolvent 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 

million

(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 facility 

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 3B 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 3B

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 

Generators

Tons Per Year 

Generated

Count of 

Receivers

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% 94.5%

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 3C below presents the 2007 data for the three recycling methods (i.e., H010, H020, H039) according to 2-digit NAICS economic subsector.

Exhibit 3C

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 management 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 3D

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 3D

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 Imported 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 3E

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 Compressed 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 3E

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 Gypsum 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 sludge - 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??? Physical 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 3F

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 3G 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 significantly contributing to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness 

(Source: 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)).

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

hazard code (H) and include:

 All 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 3G

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 1,330,513* 25 <0.01%

H020: Solvents recovery 328,929 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 (BR) based on selecting recycling data corresponding to (a) all of the Pxxx codes and (b) six 

of the 28 Fxxx codes which are designated as “acute” hazardous wastes in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR .261.33 and 261.31, 

respectively).

* Metals Recovery tonnage does not match the 2007 BR volume number in BR exhibits 2.5-2.7 because of updates to the 2007 data since the BR 

was 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 year, between what the generator reports shipping offsite for recycling on 

BR Form GM, and what the TSDR facilities report receiving from generators for recycling on BR Form WR. Also note that the recycling 

tonnages presented in Exhibits 3A through 3G above will not match the baseline recycling tonnages used in the de-regulatory cost savings 

analysis. Exhibits 3A through 3G present the national baseline recycling picture based on BR data reporting logic. However, the recycling 

quantities presented will be higher than those used in the cost analysis. 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 analysis of this RIA are those reported in Form GM, 

Section 2, On-site Process System 1 and On-site Process System 2. These numbers sometimes do not match because either:

 There is a data reporting or data entry error, or

 Not all of the 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 analysis given 
46

the waste is not physically generated on site (see Exhibit 3D, Item 34) by the generator.

o The off-site recycling totals in Exhibit 3A (column F) are based on Form 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 types of industrial hazardous secondary materials. These pre-2008 DSW recycling exclusions span 1985 and 1998. The 

respective counts of industries, facilities, and waste streams potentially affected by 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 because they are not subject 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 year, some LQG and TSDRF 

data records in the BR may be inaccurately or incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily) included in the BR database for at least three reasons:

1. Misreporting of data

2. State regulatory reporting requirements for hazardous waste data are more stringent than Federal RCRA requirements in some states:

a. Some states require SQGs and CESQGs to report hazardous waste generation data

b. Some states require LQGs to report state-regulated waste data, in addition to Federal-regulated waste data

3. The BR may incorrectly contain data from some facilities for wastes that are already excluded.

The 2007 BR includes 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 incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily). Approximately 292,000 tons of hazardous materials 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 exclusion data and baseline costs. 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, Section 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

Type of Excluded 

Material Description Biennial Report Data Code to Identify the Excluded Material

2007 Recycling

(tons/year)

1. Oil Recovery Reported waste 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 process”; 

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 Byproducts 

Exhibiting 

Characteristic of 

Hazardous Waste

Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded 

under the existing DSW exclusion for “by-products” exhibiting a 

characteristic of hazardous waste that are not solid wastes when 

reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).

 D001 (ignitability characteristic) or

 D002 (corrosivity characteristic) or

 D003 (reactivity characteristic) or

 D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and

 G07 source code “Product & by-product processing”

253,355*

3. Recycled 

Sludge Exhibiting 

Characteristic of 

Hazardous Waste

Reported wastes quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded 

under the existing DSW exclusion for “sludges” exhibiting a 

characteristic of hazardous waste that are not solid wastes when 

reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).

 D001 (ignitability characteristic) or

 D002 (corrosivity 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” when reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).

 G11 source code “Discarding off-spec or out-of-date 

chemicals or products: unused chemicals or products –

corresponds to P and U hazardous waste codes”)

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 

wastes

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 recycling.”
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 not 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 NAICS code industries over 

certain annual threshold quantities. For purpose of estimating in this RIA the baseline de-regulatory cost savings associated with the pre-2008 

DSW recycling exclusions, Exhibit 3I below displays NAICS codes which this 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 SIC) 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 were obtained 

for data year 2007 from two EPA databases:

1. TRI: EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory database: Facility counts associated with 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 TRI and BR databases, and (b) is the most recent common year 

relative to 2008, the year 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 wastes containing toxic chemicals 

affiliated with the NAICS 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 generators 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 TRI recycled wastes containing toxic chemicals will necessarily qualify as RCRA hazardous waste if not recycled, 

this may be an over-estimate 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 

wastes 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-wastewater 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 codes used for TRI 

data query to represent pre2008 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

Total 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

(nonOnsite Offsite Onsite Offsite Onsite Offsite duplicative)

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 Incld. 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 (nonduplicative) 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 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Recycling (from 

Exhibit 3K)

Count of Facilities 

Assumed to Have

Pre-2008 DSW 

Onsite Offsite Recycling Exclusions

Nonduplicative 

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 7,371 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 Biennial Report (BR) databases.
54

3C. Annual Rate of Future Adoption of the 2008 DSW Exclusions

3C.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 hazardous waste to 

become excluded under the DSW recycling exclusions, relative to the quantities reported in the 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 the number of 

facilities expected to use the 2008 DSW exclusions during each year in the 50-year 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 thereafter.9 Data published by EPA indicate that, as of April 26, 2011, 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. Iowa 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 notifications under the 2008 DSW final 

rule by the end of April 2011. Given that these notifications were submitted to EPA over a two-year, 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 year) continue to adopt the 2008 DSW exclusion(s) on an annual 

basis for the 50-year future period of analysis (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 years after its effective date in 2015 (this 2-year 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 analysis 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 October 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 facilities

3C.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” adoption 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 of this RIA.

3C.3 Adoption Scenario (pre-2008 DSW exclusions future baseline)

For the population of baseline hazardous secondary material industrial recycling associated with pre-2008 recycling exclusions, 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 

wastes. 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 by the same company, or an off-site coking 

process unit owned by another company. At that time, crude oil tank sludge and clarified slurry oil sludge were typically managed in Subtitle 

D landfill or land treatment units. In order to comply with the listing in the absence of the coking exemption, the identified facilities managed 
56

these types 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, for 

both the “base case” and the “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

3D.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 disposal to 

recycling, either by using offsite commercial recyclers, or by 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 only 

evaluates the possibility of disposal switchover to commercial offsite recycling. The entire quantity of each waste potentially switching-over to 

recycling is used to estimate total cost savings post-rule, not just the valuable portion (i.e., constituent) of the material. The generator sends 

along all the material to the recycler and then the recovery facility extracts the valuable constituent. Therefore, when calculating cost savings 

to the generators, it’s the entire quantity (i.e., the “waste matrix” mass) that is relevant.

The disposal baseline forms the basis in this RIA, for evaluating the potential for disposed wastes to switch from disposal to recycling, based 

on (a) the market value of the primary constituent material (e.g., metal or organic solvent) in the disposed waste, in comparison to (b) their 

current estimated average annual cost for disposal. This RIA estimates the future potential for switchover by applying a “breakeven test”

which determines on a micro-level waste stream-by-waste stream basis (i.e., not on 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 by a minimum of $0.01, the 

current average 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 disposal methods (i.e., H050 onsite burning waste as fuel, and H061 blending waste for use as fuel 

offsite) are in-eligible methods for the DSW recycling exclusions, although these two methods are displayed in this exhibit only for the purpose 

of evaluating them for potential switchover to future recycling.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 desirable practice [of energy recovery from 

hazardous wastes in cement kilns]” and “would encourage energy-bearing hazardous secondary materials to move away from energy recovery in cement kilns and towards 

other less-regulated forms of recycling.”
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 

waste 

streams

2007 Count of Facilities Disposing 2007 Tons Disposed (management quantity)

Onsite

Offsite

(Received)

Total

(nonduplicative)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. Tonnages for management method code H141 (wastes stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or disposal at the 

transferring site) are not included in this exhibit because 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**

Nonbeneficial 

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

Imported 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 Compressed 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 wastes <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 Gypsum 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 sludge 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??? Physical 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 offspec 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 offspec commercial chemical products 1,866 28,963 30,829 < 1%

6 Mixed Assigned with multiple waste codes from 2 or 

more 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 Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Wastes Currently Disposed

This section presents the data screening (i.e., data selection) criteria applied in this RIA to the baseline disposal data displayed in Exhibits 3M 

to 3Q above. As described below, this screening process involves two steps:

 Step1: Primary screening criteria to identify disposed wastes containing constituents of potential commodity value

 Step 2: Secondary screening criteria to identify commodity-containing wastes of sufficient physical quality for recovery

The purpose of these complementary screening steps is to identify the baseline disposal quantities (i.e., 2007 tons per year) that may be 

physically and chemically sufficient for potential future switchover to recycling under the DSW final rule exclusions. The baseline disposal 

types and associated annual quantities which remain after applying 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 

streams to obtain the potential 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, respectively.

 Disposal Data Observation 1: Low quality physical form of baseline disposal hazardous wastes:

Based on the physical form data presented in Exhibit 3N, a relatively 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 27.1%

Exhibit 3P row 12 Disposal of W105 Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid 4.26 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 36 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 described below in 

Exhibit 3R.

 Step 1: Primary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Waste Disposal Data (Commodity Values)

The first data screening step is structured according to each of the three RCRA baseline recycling methods (i.e., metals recovery, solvent 

recovery, and other recovery). Each materials recovery method is assigned as a “commodity group” according to the respective types of 

materials involved in each of these 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 selection criteria 

involving 43 different Biennial Report (BR) and RCRA waste codes:

 Wxxx: 16 BR physical/chemical form codes

 Gxx: 4 BR industrial process/activity source codes

 Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx: 23 RCRA regulatory waste codes

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 types 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 Exhibits 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 pertaining 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 System 2. These numbers sometimes do not match 

because either there is a reporting/data entry error, not all of the quantity generated is recovered (i.e., some may be disposed), or not all 

of the quantity generated in 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 physically generated 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 analysis 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 that eliminate much of the disposed quantities presented in Exhibits 3I through 3O.

Exhibit 3R

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 #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 & coating

For wastes with no reported form codes and not reporting G01 or G06 

include RCRA waste codes: (n=8)

 F001, F002, F003, F004, F005 spent solvents

 F024, F025 chlorinated aliphatic mfg

 K086 solvent washes of ink equipment

Commodity Group #3: For Possible Other Recovery (Carbon Regeneration and Sodium Fluoride)*

Include form codes: (n=1)

 W310 filters, solid adsorbents, ion exchange resins 

and spent carbon (this RIA evaluates carbon only)

 Note: not included are spent acids >5% (W103)***

---

 For wastes with no reported form codes include RCRA waste codes 

and form code W312 reported with K088 waste code move from 

Category 1 to Category 3: (n=1)

 K088 aluminum production spent potliners (sodium fluoride)

Total codes A =16 Total codes B =4 Total codes C =23

Explanatory Notes: 

 * IF THEN = The three criteria in this exhibit represent sequential database query criteria within each waste type row. First the form code data were pulled 

(criterion A), and for remaining data with missing form codes, the generator source code data were pulled (criterion B), then for remaining data with missing form 

codes, the regulatory waste code data were pulled (criterion C).

 **There are a total 47 Wxxx codes, 47 Gxxx codes, 40 Dxxx codes, 28 Fxxx codes, 120 Kxxx, codes, 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 review of W103 spent acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or caustic cleaning, and G05 metal forming and treatment waste streams nearly all the waste 

is not suitable for switchover to off-site other recovery. Much of the waste are dilute acid wastes that are disposed in on-site wastewater treatment systems 

followed by POTW/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 small 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 by 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 continue 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 likely to 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, generators are unlikely to go through the notification 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 likely 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 for a one-time waste generation event.

(4) Remove wastes with waste descriptions indicating they are “rinsewaters” or “groundwaters” to ensure the physical quality of the waste 

(i.e., the minimal recoverable material concentration) is technically sufficient for recovery. These dilute aqueous-based wastes typically 

do not contain recoverable fractions of valuable materials. This screening criterion was only applied to waste streams with no reported 

form code. Normally wastes like these would have a reported form code of W101 very dilute aqueous waste containing more than 99% 

water and W105 acidic aqueous wastes less than 5% acid.

(5) Remove some miscellaneous disposed wastes:

a. Onsite Commodity Group #2 baseline disposal quantities were primarily disposed by non-beneficial incineration (H040), or by

beneficial energy recovery (H050), or beneficial fuel blending (H061). For the purposes of this RIA, it is assumed that facilities 

which both generate and dispose wastes on site via beneficial energy or fuel recovery (i.e., H050 or H061) will not change to a 

materials recovery process under the DSW final 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 allows 

reporting together in this single code, four different types 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 types, only spent carbon from these four 

waste types 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 data year, it is 

beyond the time and resource constraints of this RIA to individually examine each narrative comment for baseline disposed wastes 

containing these "other" code sub-categories to determine 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 analyzed elsewhere in this RIA for potential DSW 

exclusion de-regulatory cost savings. The “other” form codes already were removed by their exclusion from the “primary” screening 

selection criteria.

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

2,398,534 2,398,534

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 2,042,503

5. Remove Other Waste Specific Quantity -178,020 1,864,483

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 types and quantities (i.e., tons per year in relation to the baseline data year 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 Tons Disposed (management tons/year)

Onsite

Offsite

(Shipped)

Total

(nonduplicative)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 Tons Disposed (management tons/year)

Onsite

Offsite

(Shipped)

Total

(nonduplicative)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

Exhibit 3U

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposed Hazardous Wastes for Recycling Breakeven Test

By Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Disposed (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

(22%)

1,420,271

(78%)

1.81 million

(100%)

329,767

(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%)

595,345

(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 Physical Form Code

Commodity Group 1 

disposal

(tons/year)

Commodity 

Group 2 disposal

(tons/year)

Commodity 

Group 3 disposal

(tons/year)

Total disposal

(tons/year)

1 W001 Lab packs w/out acute haz waste 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 Compressed 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 Physical Form Code

Commodity Group 1 

disposal

(tons/year)

Commodity 

Group 2 disposal

(tons/year)

Commodity 

Group 3 disposal

(tons/year)

Total disposal

(tons/year)

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 Gypsum 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 sludge 0 0 0 0

47 W609 Other organic sludge 0 0 0 0

Subtotal organic sludges = 0 0 0 0

48 W??? Physical 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 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135 + H141.
76

3D.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 baseline for analysis 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

CHAPTER 4

Estimate of Baseline Regulatory Cost Savings to Industry

for the Existing DSW Recycling Exclusions

4A. Baseline Cost Savings Estimation Methodology

Prior to the 2008 DSW 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 recycling (i.e., reported wastes managed by metals, 

solvent or other recovery in the 2007 BR) and facilities that were not yet recycling but might if costs decreased (i.e., disposed 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 by industries to meet these 12 conditions. EPA estimated these cost 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 changes 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 2011. 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 2011.

This chapter presents estimates for baseline (i.e., current) regulatory cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions 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 2008 DSW final rule.

4. The technical provisions of the 2011 DSW proposed revisions will add regulatory costs reducing the baseline cost savings associated 

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 baseline 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 management units, waste transport manifesting, and meeting RCRA Subtitle C 

technical standards for design, construction, operation and closure of hazardous waste management units. These are the baseline costs

eliminated by 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 determines its generator status and continued RCRA regulatory burden. For example, if LQGs, 

SQGs, and CESQGs recycle more waste they may further reduce their generator status (i.e., switch from LQG to SQG, or switch from LQG to 

CESQG, or switch from SQG to CESQG status, or may no longer be a RCRA hazardous waste generator under any of these three regulatory

categories). CESQGs already have exclusions from many RCRA regulatory requirements because of their small annual generation rate (i.e., 

less than 100 kilograms per month which is equivalent to 1.3 tons per year). SQGs and CESQGs have fewer RCRA regulatory administrative 

requirements than LQGs under 40 CFR Part 262 of RCRA Subtitle C (i.e., relatively less baseline burden for RCRA personnel training, 

biennial reporting of hazardous waste generation and management activities, and preparation of contingency plans).

As part of the 2008 DSW final rule industry had to meet 12 conditions associated with the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions to obtain an 

exclusion from the definition of solid waste. For example, one condition is the requirement to notify RCRA-authorized state governments (or 

EPA regional offices) for excluded materials, which represents an implementation cost for compliance with the de-regulatory exclusions under 

the 2008 DSW final rule. Exhibit 4B presents a summary of the 12 baseline conditions for the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions. 

Implementation of these 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 longer 

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 shift from RCRA Subtitle C regulated hazardous waste management to de-regulated 

management, although RCRA “characteristic” hazardous waste residuals will continue to require management as hazardous waste (40 

CFR 261 Subpart C of the RCRA regulations defines “characteristic” hazardous wastes according to four classifications: 261.21 

ignitability, 261.22 corrosivity, 261.23 reactivity, and 261.24 toxicity).
79

Exhibit 4A

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Burden Requirements by Industry Facility Classification

A B C D E F G

Item

RCRA Subtitle C 

Requirement

Facility Regulatory Classification Potential Change in Baseline 

Regulatory Burden Costs Under the 

LQG SQG CESQG TSDRF 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions

1 Obtain EPA ID 

Number

Required Required Not required Required Assumed no cost savings because 

generators already have incurred costs 

for obtaining EPA ID numbers (i.e., 

assumed “sunk cost”)

2 Personnel Training Required (40 CFR 

262.34)

Basic training required 

(40 CFR 262.34)

Not required Required Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion.

3 Recordkeeping Required for manifests, 

exception report, and 

biennial report.

Required for manifests 

and exception reports.

Not required Required for 

manifests, 

exception report, 

and biennial 

report

Cost savings incurred if recycled waste 

not defined as a hazardous waste or if 

generator becomes a SQG or CESQG 

with exclusion. 

4 Exception Report Required within 45 

days of hazardous 

waste being accepted 

by initial transporter

Required within 60 days 

of hazardous waste 

being accepted by initial 

transporter

Not Required See Generator 

Requirements

Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion. 

5 Biennial Reporting Required Not required Not required Required Cost savings incurred if generator 

becomes a SQG or CESQG with 

exclusion.

6 Storage 

Requirements for 

Accumulated 

Hazardous Waste

Full compliance with 

management of 

containers or tanks

Basic requirements with 

technical standards for 

containers or tanks

None Full 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 renewal savings. 

Otherwise, they will only incur savings 

associated with the permit renewal for 

the storage area associated with the 

recycling process.

8 Use Manifests Required Required, unless the 

waste 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

Exhibit 4A

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Burden Requirements by Industry Facility Classification

A B C D E F G

Item

RCRA Subtitle C 

Requirement

Facility Regulatory Classification Potential Change in Baseline 

Regulatory Burden Costs Under the 

LQG SQG CESQG TSDRF 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions

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 Conditions for EPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

Conditions

Exclusion 1:

Generator 

Controlled 

Recycling

Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer 

Recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Variance Potential Baseline Costs Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule 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 

obtain the signature of a corporate official. 

4 Generator submits 

petition to EPA to 

demonstrate that 

materials are not solid 

wastes

N/A N/A Yes Costs will be incurred to conduct waste characterization (totals and 

TCLP) to demonstrate waste has metal, solvent or other material values 

warranting recovery.

5 Maintain records of all 

offsite shipments for 

recycling

No (onsite)

Yes (if 

involving 

offsite 

company 

affiliate, or 

tolling 

agreement)

Yes N/A Costs 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 Recycler 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 No 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 residuals as listed waste, so 

cost savings will be incurred because “listed” waste definitions will no 
82

Exhibit 4B

Summary of 12 Baseline Conditions for EPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

Conditions

Exclusion 1:

Generator 

Controlled 

Recycling

Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer 

Recycling

Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case 

Variance Potential Baseline Costs Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions

environmentallyprotective mannerlonger 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 four “legitimate recycling” factors (2 mandatory factors, plus 2 non-mandatory factors) 

which are common to all three recycling exclusions and are substantively the same as the current legitimacy policy, (b) do not distinguish 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 exceeds 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 applying a financial “breakeven test” to estimate the portion of baseline 

hazardous wastes which might switchover from disposal (either onsite or offsite disposal) to offsite recycling. This switchover impact 

represents a relatively less certain, hypothetical future scenario. It is important to emphasize that this disposal switchover to recycling scenario 

does not represent a “prediction” or “forecast” in this RIA, but represents a “futures analysis” method often used by EPA:

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 underlying 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 economical 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 longer 

considered a listed hazardous waste, the residuals generated by the waste recycling processes may no longer be regulated as 

“hazardous waste” under the RCRA "Derived-from Rule" (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). 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 

characteristically hazardous (40 CFR 261 Subpart C).

3. Reduction and elimination of baseline 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 complying 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/env_scen.htm.
84

 Potential market value to recyclers of the recovered material commodities (if hypothetically recycled rather than disposed)

All of these elements are integrated 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 cost data and baseline 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 hazardous 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 DSW 

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 labor hour estimates contained in Information Collection Request 

(ICR) supporting statements for the RCRA hazardous waste program.15 An ICR describes reporting, record keeping, survey, or other 

information collection requirements imposed on the public (e.g., households, industry) by a Federal agency such as the EPA. ICR supporting 

statements provide overviews of the information collection, and provide estimates of the costs and labor hours imposed on the public to 

respond to ICRs. ICR paperwork burden, referred to as RCRA administrative requirements in this chapter, are evaluated for compliance with 

40 CFR 262 generator standards such as manifest, pre-transport, recordkeeping, reporting, and differences in regulatory requirements for 

facilities that are LQG, SQG, CESQG, and TSDF regulatory status. Industrial disposal and recycling costs are based on RACER 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 values 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 estimates for the 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 year (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 

analysis of the potential impact of the 2011 DSW proposed revisions to the 2008 DSW final rule. The other 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 savings #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 savings 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 costs to meet 12 terms/conditions for the 2008 DSW final rule recycling exclusions:

Annual industry baseline 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

 2008 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 

hazardous waste streams from baseline disposal to new future recycling under the 2008 DSW final rule exclusions are estimated in the

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 DSW 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 million per year average annual cost savings from the 2008 DSW RIA19 is updated in this RIA to 2011 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 2007 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 4C

Annual Quantities of RCRA Hazardous Wastes 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 4C

Annual Quantities of RCRA Hazardous Wastes 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 2011 (costs in the 2008 DSW RIA are based on 2007$). For the price level adjustment factor, 

aggregate costs are all inflated from 2007$ to 2011$ using an implicit price deflator of 1.0505 (based on data from Table 1.1.9 Implicit 

Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product, Bureau of Economic Analysis 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 1.0505 (111.668/106.296 = 1.0505).

 

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:2011 update multiplier of 1.0750, whereas in comparison the BEA implicit 

price deflator is 1.0505. Thus, the dollar values (i.e., costs and cost savings) estimated in this RIA are about 2% lower (i.e., (1.0505 / 1.0750) 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 2011:to:2007 = (564.8 CEPCI January 2011 preliminary) / (525.4 CEPCI 2007 annual) = 1.0750 cost 

update multiplier. The 2007 and 2011 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 Facility Count: 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 recycling 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 reported 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; the 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 

wastes that are 

recycled

2007 count 

of facilities 

generating 

wastes that 

are recycled

Percent Change 

in Generators 

Recycling

H010: Metals recovery:

high temperature metals recovery, retorting, secondary smelting, & other metals 

recovery (e.g., ion exchange, reverse osmosis, acid leaching). 2,352 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 exclusion notifications for baseline 

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 2011

Exhibits 4E through 4I below present the updated 2008 RIA baseline facility counts, annual recycling tonnages, and annual net de-regulatory

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

 Exclusion 1A Generators who recycle on site.

 Exclusion 1B Offsite transfer recycling at a different facility under the control of the generator (i.e., same company).

 Exclusion 1C Offsite transfer recycling under a tolling contract. Tolling arrangement offsite recycling indirectly estimated using 

baseline offsite recycling for NAICS industry code 32519 Other Organic Chemical Mfg.

 Exclusion 2: Offsite transfer recycling based on all other offsite recycling not covered under Exclusion 1 (i.e., mutually-exclusive 

non-duplicative impact), plus all baseline disposal estimated to potentially shift to offsite recycling.

 Exclusion 3: Case-by-case “non-waste determination” variance. Note that each exhibit of this chapter does not present Exclusion 3 

as a separate exhibit column according to the 2-digit NAICS code itemization, 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 currently recycling hazardous waste and those projected to switch 

from baseline disposal of hazardous waste to new future recycling. Results are presented on a 2-digit NAICS code basis for affected industrial 

facility counts and affected annual 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 exclusions.

 Exhibit 4F: Presents estimated annual tonnages of affected hazardous wastes for the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions (1.499 

million tons total).

 Exhibit 4G: Presents the dollar-value of estimated baseline annual net cost savings to industry according to 2-digit NAICS sectors 

for the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions ($96.6 million per year).

 Exhibit 4H: Presents the combined impact for all three exclusions.

 Exhibit 4I: Presents the estimated shift in baseline RCRA regulatory generator status of affected industrial facilities 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 generated or managed at each potentially 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 facilities (e.g., small businesses) which generate a relatively 

small number (i.e., <5) of small tonnage hazardous waste streams annually, and less beneficial to the relatively small 

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

streams annually.
91

Exhibit 4E

Counts 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)

Combined

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 Companies/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

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 74

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = 5,007
92

Exhibit 4F

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)

Combined

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*

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = 118,476

Combined 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 4G

Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the Three 2008 DSW Final Rule Exclusions

(Baseline Recycling Plus Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling* @100% Adoption Rate & 2011$)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

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

Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)

Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $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 

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,311,182 

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) = $97.7 million

* 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.
94

Exhibit 4H

Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings for Baseline Recycling and Baseline 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

Impact on Baseline Recycling Impact on Baseline Disposal

(Switchover to Recycling)

Facilities Tons/year Net savings Facilities Tons/year Net savings

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 2 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 4I

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 recycling

Generator 

Status*

A B C D E F G H I (H-D)

Baseline Facility Status Counts Post-Rule Facility Status Counts

Facilities 

Affected 

by 

Exclusion 

1

Facilities 

Affected 

by 

Exclusion 

2

Facilities 

Affected 

by 

Exclusion 

3

Combined 

Exclusion 

(1+2+3)

Facilities 

Affected 

by 

Exclusion 

1

Facilities Affected by 

Exclusion 2

Facilities 

Affected 

by 

Exclusion 

3

Combined Exclusion 

(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-year, four-month period (i.e., between 

December 28, 2008 and April 26, 2011), which represents an annual average of 21 facilities per-year adopting the 2008 DSW recycling 

exclusions (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 

scenario over the 50-year future period of analysis (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 rule 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 year) 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%) are 

prescribed in OMB’s 2003 “Circular A4” regulatory analysis guidance25 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 4,455 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 long 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, 2011$, 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)

Combined

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 Companies/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 

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $2,128,086

Combined 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 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.
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, 2011$, 3% Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

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

Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)

Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $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 

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,453,803

Combined 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, 2011$, 7% Discount Rate)

Item Industry 2-digit NAICS code

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

Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)

Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1 11 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $0 $0 $0 $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 

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for Exclusion 3 not estimated) = $1,311,182

Combined 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 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.
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 readily available because they are not subject to biennial reporting to EPA under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste 

regulations. This RIA assumes that the avoided RCRA regulatory costs for facilities operating under the pre-2008 DSW exclusions, will on a 

per-facility average annual basis, be the same as the 14 RCRA regulatory requirements avoided as presented in Exhibit 4A above for the 2008 

DSW exclusions. 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 year26 for the 

estimated 5,321 facilities with pre-2008 DSW exclusions (from Exhibit 3L above), produces an estimate of $103.9 million per year (2011$ @ 

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 $79.3 million per year at 7%.

Exhibit 4M

Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the

Pre-2008 DSW Industrial Recycling Exclusions (2011$)

A B C D

Pre-2008 

DSW 

exclusion 

(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 3L)

Baseline RCRA 

Regulatory Cost 

Savings ($ per year)

1 31 +32 + 33 manufacturing 5,291 $78,840,500

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 $44,703

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 $19,532 per-facility (2011$) average annual RCRA regulatory cost savings from Exhibit 4G.
102

Exhibit 4M

Estimated Baseline Annual Cost Savings to Industry for the

Pre-2008 DSW Industrial Recycling Exclusions (2011$)

A B C D

Pre-2008 

DSW 

exclusion 

(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 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 $79.3 million

@3% discount rate = $95.1 million

@0% discount rate = $103.9 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 4B) for the excluded materials identified in the 2007 BR. However, the 2011 DSW proposed rule for pre2008 DSW excluded materials proposes two of these conditions (conduct due diligence to determine legitimacy of recyclers and biennial 

notification). Thus, the estimate double-counts 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 4G 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 approximately $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 $86.7 million per year (2011$):

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 $103.1 million per year (2011$).

o 2008 DSW exclusions contribute $10.8 million per year to this total assuming a 13% rate of DSW exclusion notification.

o Pre-2008 DSW exclusions contribute $92.3 million per year.

 0% discount rate: The total baseline de-regulatory costs savings is estimated at $119.0 million per year (2011$).

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 $103.9 million per year.
104

CHAPTER 5

Estimate of Industry Costs to Comply with the

2011 Proposed Revisions to the DSW Recycling Exclusions

This chapter estimates the potential future costs to industry to comply 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 by 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 analysis 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 exclusion 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-year future 

period of analysis29)].

 

28 EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule RIA is titled “Regulatory Impact Analysis: USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the Industrial Recycling Exclusions of the RCRA 

Definition of Solid Waste” 25 Sept 2008, 204 pages, available for free download as document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0602 at http://www.regulations.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 extending 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. One 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 

required 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. 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 case” adoption scenario produces $2,633,406/year (2011 $), calculated 

as follows:

[($40,530,443 per year) 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-year future period of analysis30)].

Requirement 2B: 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 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, 2008.31 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. 2050-0202, EPA ICR 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 $24.67/hour with $0.44 in postage. The unit costs are estimated to be 

$33.87 per initial notification/facility and $2.91 for re-notification/facility (2011$). The total cost is $2.91 for re-notification/facility every two 

years which equals $1.46/facility (2011$) 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 update 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 (6.3423% cost adjustment reflecting the 13% base case adoption scenario, and 7% discount 

rate for the 50-year future period of analysis)].

32

Requirement 2C: Require Advance Arrangements (Reclamation Plan)

Requires advance arrangements (including reclamation plan) for 2008 DSW excluded recycling. The rationale is that it would prevent the 

problem of generators accumulating potentially unrecyclable hazardous secondary materials. Documenting contractual arrangements will 

result in incurred costs. As a proxy 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 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 2008.33 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 exporter and 

importer

 Certification that the information is complete and correct

 Certification of financial guarantee if required by any concerned country (importing and transit).

The requirement for advance arrangements is assumed to be a contract similar to the costs for exporting to OECD 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) includes 1.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and $0.55 for copies 

for a total of $104.58 per facility (2011$). 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 years 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 

$65.26/facility (2011$). As a proxy, 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 $0.22/facility (2011$). The total cost is $170.02 per facility

(2011$).

 

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 cost is applied to transfer-based exclusion facilities only. From Exhibits 4E and 4G (columns D of both), respectively, minus remanufacturing exclusion counts from Exhibits 5G and 5H (Column C of both), respectively, there are 4,455 affected offsite recycling exclusion 

facilities and 833,499 affected tons from transfer-based facilities. The aggregate annual cost to prepare advance arrangements is $48,000 per 

year, 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-year future period of analysis34)].

Requirement 2D: Accumulation Restrictions

Allows accumulation of hazardous recyclable materials by the generator for 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 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. Under the new requirement restricting accumulation to up to one year, the remaining 25% by weight 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 year. The number of shipments (or loads) is determined by dividing the tons 

recycled by 18 tons per truck load (typical truck size). From the 2008 DSW RIA, DPRA used professional judgment and RACER cost 

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 speculative accumulation time period to one year inflated to 2011$ is $2,644/load. There are 4,455

affected transfer-based exclusion facilities generating 833,499 tons per year (from Exhibit 4E and Exhibit 4FColumn D, respectively, 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 ($2,644/load) x (15% of tonnage speculatively accumulated 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 

analysis)

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

Requirement 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 types of units not amenable to 

labeling. The rationale is that without a record of a start date for accumulation, this provision is difficult to enforce. While it is 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 likely that facilities already are placing the accumulation start date on 

containers to ensure compliance with the one year accumulation limit: “Speculative accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that 

during a calendar year (beginning Jan 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 material at the beginning of the period.

Requirement 2E.2: Contingency and Emergency Plans

Requires facilities to develop a spill control/contingency plan including personnel training and a chemical analysis plan, and 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 contingency

plans and emergency plans. Unit cost estimates were obtained and estimated from EPA’s ICR for the “Supporting Statement for EPA 

Information 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 following 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/LQG 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 clerical labor at 

$24.67/hour and equals $163.32/LQG (2011$).

 Document whether authorities decline arrangement includes 0.1 clerical hours at $24.67/hour and equals $2.47/LQG (2011$).

 Write contingency plan includes 6.0 technical labor at $69.32/hour and 2.0 clerical hours at $24.67/hour and equals

$466.29/LQG (2011$).

 Maintain contingency plan includes 0.1 clerical hours at $24.67/hour and equals $2.47/LQG (2011$).

 Submit contingency plan to relevant emergency centers includes 0.16 clerical hours at $24.67/hour and equals $3.95/LQG and 

$4.07/LQG in postage and copying (2011$).

 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 $0.11 in photocopying and equals $94.10/LQG (2011$).

Total contingency plan cost for LQGs is $736.67/LQG (2011$). 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 by LQGs:

 Collecting information required in emergency report includes 1.0 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and 1.0 hour clerical labor

at $24.67/hour and equals $93.99/LQG (2011$).

 Writing an emergency report includes 0.17 hours of legal at $133.37/hour and 1.0 hour of technical labor at $69.32/hour and 

equals $91.99/LQG (2011$).

 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 labor at $69.32/hour and equals $72.56/LQG and $10.38 in O&M costs (2011$).

 The total cost is $268.92/LQG (2011$).

Under emergency procedure requirements in 265.34(d) the following costs are incurred by SQGs:

 Observing scene of hazardous waste discharge includes 0.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and equals $34.66/SQG 

(2011$);

 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 $39.85/SQG (2011$);

 Documenting that local officials declines to enter into arrangements for coordinating response includes 0.1 hour technical labor

at $69.32/hour and equals $6.93/SQG (2011$); and 

 Providing post-emergency information by phone includes 0.1 hours clerical labor at $24.67/hour and equals $2.47/SQG (2011$).

 The total cost is $83.91/SQG (2011$).

Under certification of compliance in 265.56(i) the following costs are incurred by 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 labor at $24.67/hour and equals $47.00/LQG (2011$).

 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 and equals $69.67/LQG (2011$).

 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 $4.94/LQG (2011$).

 Compile information demonstrating compliance includes 0.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour and 0.5 hours of clerical 

labor at $24.67/hour and equals $47.00/LQG (2011$).

 Total cost is $168.61/LQG (2011$). This RIA assumes the total cost for SQGs is two-thirds of the LQG labor cost at 

$112.73/SQG plus $0.99/SQG for postage and photocopies (2011$).

Cumulative total cost is $1,201.25/LQG, $194.64/SQG and $0/CESQG (2011$). 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 LQGs (80.6%), 829 SQGs (17.8%), and 75 CESQGs (1.6%). The weighted-average 

cumulative cost calculates to $1,002.86/facility (2011$). Assume contingency plans are revised 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 $28,000

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 analysis37).

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 years). The rationale is that materials most likely to pose a hazard during transport will still be subject 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 direct labor costs for a staff engineer to conduct annual record 

keeping associated with RCRA hazardous waste management. Labor hours and labor costs are estimated based on DPRA professional 

judgment (2007$): LQGs use 9.0 hours of labor at a cost of $702 per year 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 2011$ 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 

$193,000 per year, calculated as follows:

[(4,455 facilities x $682/facility/year x 6.3423% cost adjustment reflecting the 13% base case adoption scenario, and 7% discount rate 

for the 50-year future period of analysis38)].

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 “discard.” 

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 $1,620,000 per year (2007$) 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 2011$ 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 analysis ($1,702,000/(1.07)4).

Option 2 (Plus Option 1) Total Cost 

Option 2 is implemented in conjunction with Option 1. The total cost for Option 2 equals baseline cost savings plus Option 1 plus Option 2.

 7% discount rate: The modified baseline cost 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 year. Baseline 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 savings 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 year. Baseline cost savings associated with the 2008 DSW final rule are reduced from 

$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 due 

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% Adoption Rate, 2011$, 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 

TransferBased 

Facilities

Affected 

TransferBased 

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 

Plan 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 2008 

DSW Rule)

Requirement 

2F.1 

Recordkeeping 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, For, 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, Msgrs, 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 Transfer 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, 2011$, 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 

TransferBased 

Facilities

Affected 

TransferBased 

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 

Plan 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 2008 

DSW Rule)

Requirement 

2F.1 

Recordkeeping 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, For, 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, Msgrs, 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&Tech 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)

(13% Adoption Rate, 2011$, 0% Discount Rate)

Item

Industry 2-digit

NAICS code

A B C D E F G H I J (C+...+I)

Count of 

Affected 

TransferBased 

Facilities

Affected 

TransferBased 

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 

Plan 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 2008 

DSW Rule)

Requirement 

2F.1 

Recordkeeping 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, For, 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, Msgrs, 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&Tech 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) restructure the regulations. An 

annual cost savings of $180,000 per year 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 notification 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 Accumulation Recordkeeping & Labeling

The net cost impact of this revision is zero because it is likely that facilities already are placing the accumulation start date on containers to 

ensure compliance with the one year accumulation limit: “Speculative accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a 

calendar year the amount of material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or 

volume, of material at the beginning of the period. This 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, 2011, 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 only a very small fraction of hazardous waste generators. This RIA assumes that the net cost impact of this revision is zero 

because generators 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 Columns 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-year future 

period of analysis. The annual cost for withdrawing the toll manufacturing exclusion is estimated to be $180,000 per year 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 requirements 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 by 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 only one section of the DSW regulations in the CFR, rather than two sections. The estimated hourly

rate for technical labor at hazardous waste generator facilities is $69.32/hour from EPA’s 2011 DSW ICR, June 30, 2011.

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 assumed that changeover in staff responsible for 

compliance and/or refresher with the rule every 3 years on average will result in new familiarization with DSW regulations. Average annual 

cost is $6.93/facility divided by 3 years equals $2.31/facility/year (2011$). The aggregate annual cost savings is $39 per year 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-year future period of analysis41)].

 

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: Revise 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 exempt 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 further 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 rulemaking 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 only 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 provisions include:

4A. Apply the same codified definition of legitimate recycling to all 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 4A: 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 legitimacy 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 

codified 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 costs 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 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, 2008.42 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 $10,173/facility (2011$). 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 analytical costs. The sampling is 

estimated to require a labor burden of 2 hours of field technician labor at $69.32/hour. The analytical costs were estimated using RACER 2005 

cost estimating software at a cost of $284 per sample (2007$).44 The 2011 DSW ICR 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 $445 (2011$). 

The total cost is estimated to be $10,617/facility (2011$). 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

$2,123/facility/year (2011$). For the total population of pre-2008 DSW recycling exclusion facilities the aggregate annual cost to prepare 

legitimacy petitions is $431,000 per year calculated as follows:

[(5,321 facilities) x ($2,123 per facility per year) x (5% of facilities prepare legitimacy petition x cost 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 ICR, June 30, 2011. The 95% of 

facilities assumed not to file a legitimacy petition are assumed to prepare and submit legitimacy documentation. Due diligence can be 

conducted three ways:

1. Generator conduct reasonable efforts for intermediate facilities and reclaimers and prepare certification statement using either in-house 

employer audits ($1,919/facility),

2. Outside vendor ($3,714/facility), or

3. Readily available information ($481/facility).

The average cost of these three methods is $2,038/facility (2011$). The cost to maintain for a minimum of three years documentation and 

certification that reasonable efforts were made is $1.23/facility (2011$), while the cost to make documentation and certification available upon 

request by a regulatory authority within 72 hours, or within a longer period of time as specified by the regulatory authority is $2.91/facility

(2011$). 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 years 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 $681/facility/year (2011$). 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 adjustment 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_documentation.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% use 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 facilities 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 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.

45

 Labor rates were obtained from the 2011 DSW ICR. This RIA assumes future legitimacy petitions are a 

relatively 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 $10,173/facility (2011$). 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 analytical costs. The sampling is estimated to require a labor burden of 2 hours of field technician labor at $69.32/hour. The 

analytical costs were estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software at a cost of $284 per sample (2007$).47 The 2011 DSW ICR 

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 $445 (2011$). The total cost is estimated to be $10,617/facility (2011$). Assume a petition is submitted 

 

45 Document 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_documentation.htm.
120

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 $2,123/facility/year (2011$). 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/year x 3.8145% cost adjustment reflecting the 13% base case adoption scenario, and only 5% of 

notifying facilities submitting legitimacy petitions and a 7% discount rate for the 50-year future period of analysis)]48).

For the non-waste 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. A higher estimated non-waste determination cost estimate was

used ($11,451 in 2007$) in the 2008 DSW RIA baseline because higher labor rates than those in the ICR were used. Therefore, no additional 

waste characterization costs 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, the 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 costs were not applied to notifying off-site transfer (Exclusion 2) facilities 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. If Option 1 is selected costs are 

applied to all facilities. Cost estimates were obtained from EPA’s 2011 DSW ICR. 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. Generator conduct reasonable efforts for intermediate facilities and reclaimers and prepare certification statement using either in-house 

employer audits ($1,919/facility),

2. Outside vendor ($3,714/facility), or

3. Readily available information ($481/facility).

The average cost of these three methods is $2,038/facility (2011$). The cost to maintain for a minimum of three years documentation and 

certification that reasonable efforts were made is $1.23/facility (2011$), while the cost to make documentation and certification available upon 

request by a regulatory authority within 72 hours, or within a longer period of time as specified by the regulatory authority is $2.91/facility

(2011$). The total cost is $2,042/facility (2011$).

To estimate aggregate cost impacts, it is assumed that 5% of 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 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 

(2011$). If Option 1 is NOT selected a legitimacy documentation cost is applied to generator-controlled facilities under the 2008 DSW 

exclusions and non-notifying RCRA hazardous waste recyclers. As mentioned previously, 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 year calculated as follows:

[(4,933 facilities) x ($681 per facility per year) x (66.7883% cost adjustment reflecting the 13% base case adoption scenario, nonnotifying facilities, and 95% of notifying facilities submitting legitimacy documentations and 7% discount rate for the 50-year 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-year future period of analysis)]50.

For the non-waste 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 costs 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 

year, respectively, 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, 

respectively, 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 pre2008 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 associated 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 year, 

respectively, whether Option 1 is selected or not. Baseline cost savings associated 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 pre2008 exclusion facilities 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, 

respectively, 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, respectively, 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 2008 DSW "Legitimacy" 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 4B 

Legitimacy 

Petition 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 2008 DSW 

Rule)

Option 4C 

OPTION 1 NOT 

SELECTED 

Legitimacy 

Documentation 

Compliance 

Costs(incremental 

to 2008 DSW Rule)

Option 4C 

OPTION 1 

SELECTED 

Legitimacy 

Documentation 

Compliance 

Costs(incremental to 

2008 DSW Rule)

Option 4

OPTION 1 NOT 

SELECTED Post 

Rule Cost Savings 

(relative to pre2008 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

Impact for Exclusion 3 = 74 $1,311,182 $0 $0 $0 $1,311,182 $1,311,182

Combined 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 2008 DSW "Legitimacy" 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 4B 

Legitimacy 

Petition 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 2008 DSW 

Rule)

Option 4C 

OPTION 1 NOT 

SELECTED 

Legitimacy 

Documentation 

Compliance 

Costs(incremental 

to 2008 DSW Rule)

Option 4C 

OPTION 1 

SELECTED 

Legitimacy 

Documentation 

Compliance 

Costs(incremental to 

2008 DSW Rule)

Option 4

OPTION 1 NOT 

SELECTED Post 

Rule Cost Savings 

(relative to pre2008 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 $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

Impact for Exclusion 3 = 74 $1,453,803 $0 $0 $0 $1,453,803 $1,453,803

Combined 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 2008 DSW "Legitimacy" 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 4B 

Legitimacy 

Petition 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 2008 DSW 

Rule)

Option 4C 

OPTION 1 NOT 

SELECTED 

Legitimacy 

Documentation 

Compliance 

Costs(incremental 

to 2008 DSW Rule)

Option 4C 

OPTION 1 

SELECTED 

Legitimacy 

Documentation 

Compliance 

Costs(incremental to 

2008 DSW Rule)

Option 4

OPTION 1 NOT 

SELECTED Post 

Rule Cost Savings 

(relative to pre2008 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

Impact for Exclusion 3 = 74 $2,128,086 $0 $0 $0 $2,128,086 $2,128,086

Combined 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 

material 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 by § 260.42 of this chapter;

3. Revise the 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 DSW 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 5A: 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 waste. 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 applicant to re-apply 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 conditions as specified by 

the regulatory authority and the applicant fails to re-apply to the Administrator for a formal determination, the hazardous secondary materials 

may be determined to be solid and hazardous waste and subject to the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements (73 FR 64712–13, 

October 30, 2008). This requirement was codified at 40 CFR 260.33(c).
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 assist 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 apply 40 CFR 260.33(c) to all the solid 

waste variances, as well as the non-waste determination provisions listed in 40 CFR 260.30 to ensure that if there are changes that may impact 

how hazardous secondary materials meet the relevant criteria, that such changes be considered by the regulatory authority to ensure that those 

criteria continue to be met. Codifying this requirement 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.

According to EPA’s DSW ICR, June 30, 2011, the cost to re-apply for a non-waste determination petition if the material no longer meets 

relevant criteria includes 75 hours of 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 $28,000 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 20-year future period of analysis selected to be consistent with the 2008 DSW rule 

baseline analysis)].

According to the latest (December 2007) OMB approved “Information Collection Requirement” (ICR) 1189.20 (Exhibit 3, page 66, bottom 

row), there is a nationwide average annual count of 10 variance applications under 40 CFR 260.31(c) processed by EPA Regional Offices. The 

2011 DSW ICR 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 zero. However, the 2011 DSW ICR estimates that the cost for the 

new requirement to re-apply for a variance if material no longer meets relevant variance criteria includes 75 hours of technical labor at 

$69.32/hour and $25.87 of O&M costs and equals $5,225/variance re-application (2011$). The 2011 DSW ICR assumes four (4) reapplications for variances per year. The average annual cost is $15,945per 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 5B: Biennial Notification

Labor hour estimates 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, 2008.51 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 years which equals $1.46/facility/year (2011$). The aggregate 

annual cost savings is approximately $78 per year for non-waste determination facilities (73.5 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 20-year future period of analysis selected to be 

consistent with the 2008 DSW rule baseline analysis). The aggregate annual cost savings is approximately $206 per year for variance 

application facilities, calculated as follows:

[(305 average annual variance facilities) x ($1.46/facility/year) x (46.3457% cost adjustment reflecting 7% discount rate for the 50-year 

future period of analysis)].

In addition, facilities are required to update and submit notification that the hazardous secondary materials are no longer managed in 

accordance with the solid waste variances and non-waste determination. This cost is assumed to be captured through the process of notifying 

biennially.

Finally, EPA intends to provide 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 5C: 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, which further 

implies that Option 4C will not have any impact relative to the average annual success:to:failure ratio according to the baseline decisionmaking 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 only 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 ICR’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 those rejected variance applicants (i.e., facilities) in each future year of the 50-year period-of-analysis applied in this RIA, as an “upperbound” cost estimate for Option 4C. The calculation of this upper-bound cost estimate is displayed in Exhibit 5G below, and is estimated at 

$3.706 million per-year in average annual future cost (0% discount rate). The Exhibit also displays the average annual value of this cost at two 

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 5D: 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 cost savings estimates. The net cost impact is zero.

Option 5E: 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 5C)

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 upperbound annual 

rejections 

(@83% rate)

Option 5C upperbound 

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 5C)

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 upperbound annual 

rejections 

(@83% rate)

Option 5C upperbound 

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 type 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-manufacturing 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 chemical manufacturing, plastics/resins manufacturing, pharmaceutical 

manufacturing, paints/coating manufacturing)

5. Five conditions for both generators & re-manufacturers (notification, re-manufacturing plan, 3-year 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 participation).

6D. Petition process for adding to the eligibility criteria (e.g., adding industries, adding chemicals) of the exclusion.

The impact analysis for Option 6 is organized into two sections for the purpose of distinguishing the potential regulatory impact of (a) 

complying with the exclusion based on the proposed eligibility criteria (i.e., elements 6A, 6B, 6C), and (b) complying 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 savings, the potential future 

RCRA de-regulatory annual cost savings 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 2008 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, offsite toll recycling, and offsite 2nd party transfer recycling) were:

1. Solvent recycling: 456 facilities currently recycling 328,931 tons per year (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) currently 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 involving 2.92 

million tons spent solvents per year (i.e., 328,931 tons/year current recycling + 595,345 tons/year current disposal), as updated in this RIA to 

the 2007 BR data year.

In comparison, based on EPA’s 2009 “Toxics Release Inventory” (TRI) database as displayed in Appendix C to this RIA, the four eligible 

NAICS 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-exclusion. 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 costs54 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 no longer need to comply with the 14 RCRA Subtitle C requirements if they meet the 12 conditions55 specified by the 

 

53 For purpose of gauging the possible under- or over-estimation of this option, the 2008 RIA’s data screening process 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 Release Inventory (TRI) database indicate that 1,303 facilities in the four NAICS codes eligible for Option 6 

disposed 507,715 tons per 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:

 Different data years (2007 vs. 2009); and

 The BR tonnage is the entire physical mass including all other matter (e.g., water, non-solvent chemicals, debris) which may be contained with spent solvents, 

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 for the lower TRI tonnage to equal the higher BR tonnage, the average concentration of the 16 solvents disposed by the four 

industrial sectors would have 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 burden 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 plan, 12. closure, 13. post closure, 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. maintain 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 recycling exclusions 

from the 2008 DSW final rule. The cost savings 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% Assumption: If 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 facilities 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 analyzed in EPA’s 2008 RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule.

 53,960 (75%) 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 NAICS codes.

 The 2007$ baseline cost savings estimate of $4,639,037 may be updated to 2011$ by applying the GDP deflator 

multiplier as follows: ($4,639,037 per year) x (1.0505 year 2011 update multiplier) = $4.87 million per year cost savings.

 This cost savings estimate represents an average annual de-regulatory cost savings of:

 Per-facility: $12,600 per-year per-facility sending spent solvents offsite for recycling.

 Per-ton: $68 per-ton of spent solvent recycled offsite.

 65% of the 2011-updated $4.87 million per year cost savings for the four eligible NAICS codes = $3.17 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: Applying this 2011-updated cost saving estimate to the 13% “base case” adoption scenario produces

($4,873,308 per year) x (0.063423 cost adjustment reflecting a 13% base case rate and 7% discount rate for the 50-year future 

period of analysis) = $309,080 per year. (Exhibit 5O).

 65% for the four eligible NAICS codes = $200,909/year.

o 3% discount rate: $485,294 cost savings per year (Exhibit 5P).

 65% for the four eligible NAICS codes = $306,254/year.

o 0% discount rate: $653,520 cost savings per year (Exhibit 5Q).

 65% for the four eligible NAICS codes = $424,788/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)

Combined

1B+1C+2**

1 32511 Petrochemical Manufacturing 3 3 1 6

2 325132 Synthetic Organic Dye & Pigment Manufacturing 3 0 0 3

3 325181 Alkalies & Chlorine Manufacturing 2 0 0 2

4 325191 Gum & Wood Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0 0

5 325192 Cyclic Crude & Intermediate Manufacturing 0 3 0 3

6 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing 0 36 2 36

7 325199 Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0 0

8 325211 Plastics Material & Resin Manufacturing 0 0 43 43

9 32532 Pesticide & Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 6 6

10 3254 Pharmaceutical & Medicine Manufacturing 0 0 66 66

11 3255 Paint, Coating, & Adhesive Manufacturing 0 0 92 92

12 3259 Other Chemical Product & Preparation Manufacturing 1 0 42 42

13 3261 Plastics Product Manufacturing 1 0 87 87

Column totals = 10 42 339 386

Subtotal items 7+8+10+11 = 0 0 201 201

(52%)

Notes:

*Estimate based on 100% full state adoption and the 2005 Biennial Report data according to the 2008 RIA for EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule methodology.

** Columns A + B + C may not equal Column D because some facilities are counted in more than one column (e.g., a facility 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)

Combined

1B+1C+2

1 32511 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1 1 954 956

2 325132 Synthetic Organic Dye & Pigment 

Manufacturing

135 0 0 135

3 325181 Alkalies & Chlorine Manufacturing 2 0 0 2

4 325191 Gum & Wood Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0 0

5 325192 Cyclic Crude & Intermediate Manufacturing 0 7 0 7

6 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing 0 5,611 1,316 6,927

7 325199 Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0 0

8 325211 Plastics Material & Resin Manufacturing 0 0 10,397 10,397

9 32532 Pesticide & Other Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing

0 0 1,182 1,182

10 3254 Pharmaceutical & Medicine Manufacturing 0 0 25,232 25,232

11 3255 Paint, Coating, & Adhesive Manufacturing 0 0 18,331 18,331

12 3259 Other Chemical Product & Preparation 

Manufacturing

739 0 2,271 3,010

13 3261 Plastics Product Manufacturing 4 0 5,392 5,396

Column totals = 881 5,619 65,075 71,575

Subtotal items 7+8+10+11 = 0 0 53,960 53,960

(75%)

*Note: Estimate based on 100% full state adoption and the 2005 Biennial Report data according to the 2008 RIA for EPA’s 2008 DSW final rule 

methodology.
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)

Combined

1B+1C+2

1 32511 Petrochemical Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

2 325132 Synthetic Organic Dye & Pigment Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

3 325181 Alkalies and Chlorine Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

4 325191 Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

5 325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

6 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing $0 $38,200 $8,960 $47,160

7 325199 Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing $0 $0 $0 $0

8 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing $0 $0 $789,380 $789,380

9 32532 Pesticide & Other Agricultural Chemical Mfg $0 $0 $123,724 $123,724

10 3254 Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing $0 $0 $1,086,977 $1,086,977

11 3255 Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing $0 $0 $1,154,960 $1,154,960

12 3259 Other Chemical Product & Preparation Manufacturing $39,284 $0 $816,249 $855,533

13 3261 Plastics Product Manufacturing $956 $0 $580,347 $581,303

Column totals = $40,240 $38,200 $4,560,597 $4,639,037

Average per affected facility ($/facility) = $4,024 $910 $13,454 $12,018

Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) = $46 $7 $70 $65

Subtotal items 7+8+10+11 = $0 $0 $3,031,317 $3,031,317

(65%)

Note: Estimate based on 100% full state adoption and the 2005 Biennial Report data according to the 2008 RIA for EPA’s 2008 DSW final 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 theoretically 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 not selected), then facilities engaged in solvent recycling could choose to operate under either the 2008 exclusion or 

under the re-manufacturing exclusion based on which ever provides the most cost savings to the facility. Consequently, 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 these added costs, if those costs 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, 325510), (b) 18 

specific chemical solvents, and (c) “processing aid” solvent uses (i.e., not cleaning or degreasing solvent uses), this RIA evaluates the potential 

impact of this 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. The count of affected facilities, annual solvent tonnages, and cost savings could be over-estimated below, because the 2008 RIA evaluated (a) 

more 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 which 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 costs associated with element 6C corrects this 

cost-savings estimation, because sub-option 6C proposes conditions similar to the 12 2008 DSW conditions (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 NAICS 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 directly to the re-manufacturer without difficulty.

2. Proximity – the majority of generators and potential re-manufacturers are co-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 significant distances, a 

generator facility would likely forego using this exclusion altogether.

4. Material control – 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 separately 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 year. 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 Requirements (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 cost savings estimate 

presented in 6A above. Thus, the incremental cost for facilities to meet 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 hypothetically in the future involve adding other (a) chemicals, (b) industries, and/or (c) chemical 

functions to the re-manufacturing exclusion, the “proxy analysis” method applied in this RIA is based on the offsite solvent recycling results of 

the 2008 DSW final rule RIA, which represents a limited potential expansion of scope along these three dimensions: the proxy method of this 

RIA only considers (a) all other spent solvent chemicals covered by the RCRA Biennial Report, (b) nine additional spent solvent generator 

industries as displayed above in Exhibits 5H, 5I, 5J, and (c) all other spent solvent chemical functions covered by the RCRA Biennial Report. 

This “proxy analysis” method does not consider other chemicals (e.g., spent metals, spent acids) or their associated industries and potential remanufacturing uses (i.e., chemical functions). To estimate aggregate cost impacts, this RIA assumes that in any given future year a relatively 

small fraction of between 0% and 10% (midpoint 5%) of all the offsite spent solvent recycling facilities identified in the 2008 RIA, may file a 

petition to add chemicals, industrial, and/or chemical functions to the 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, 6C, and 

6D 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% Assumption: If 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$ baseline cost savings estimate of $4,639,037 may be updated to 2011$ by applying the GDP deflator 

multiplier as follows: ($4,639,037 per year) x (1.0505 year 2011 update multiplier) = $4.87 million per year cost savings.

 65% of the 2011-updated $4.87 million per year cost savings for the 4 eligible NAICS codes = $3.17 million/year

 35% of the 2011-updated $4.87 million per year cost savings for the 9 petition NAICS 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: Applying this 2011-updated cost saving estimate to the 13% “base case” adoption scenario produces

($4,873,308 per year) x (0.003171 cost adjustment reflecting a 13% base case rate, 5% filing petitions, and 7% discount rate for 

the 50-year future period of analysis) = $15,453 cost savings per year. (Exhibit 5O).

 35% for the 9 petition NAICS codes = $5,409/year.

o 3% discount rate: $23,557 cost savings per year (Exhibit 5P).

 35% for the 9 petition NAICS codes = $8,245/year.

o 0% discount rate: $32,677 cost savings per year (Exhibit 5Q).
141

 35% for the 9 petition NAICS 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 nonwaste 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 ICR. 

This RIA assumes future legitimacy petitions are a relatively 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 $10,173/facility (2011$). 

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 analytical costs. The sampling is estimated to require a labor burden of 2 hours of 

field technician labor at $69.32/hour which equals $138.64/sample. The analytical costs were estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating 

software at a cost of $284 per sample (2007$).58 The 2011 DSW ICR 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 $445 (2011$). The total cost is 

estimated to be $10,617/facility (2011$). Assume a petition is submitted every 5 years on average because a facility will either modify its 

product, chemical use, production process or recycling operations. Average annual cost is $10,617/facility divided by 5 years equals

$2,123/facility/year (2011$). 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 analysis)]59).

Element 6D.3: Intermediate Facility 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 Document 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_documentation.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 weighted 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 the re-manufacturing exclusion (Option 6).

2. Even if the transfer-based exclusion of the 2008 DSW final rule is 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 those 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). Frequently the incentive for 

operating under Option 6 is that there are such annual volumes of spent chemical involved 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, upwards of 50% of facilities involved in recycling hazardous wastes, currently 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 baseline. 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 intermediate facilities consolidating 

hazardous secondary materials among different generators. One assumption 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. Partial truck loads are assumed. A sample of generators 

who ship directly to off-site metals recyclers was obtained from Exhibit D12 of EPA’s 2008 DSW RIA and used in Exhibit 5N. The weightedaverage partial truck load size is 10.5 tons. The unit cost calculation involved the following three steps:

 Step 1: Assume that 50% of all shipments destined for recycling go through an intermediate facility. From Exhibit 3A 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 least 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 streams 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 (wastes stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or disposal 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: Given 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 loads 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 software61 and inflated RACER 2005 unit costs to 2011$ using a GDP implicit price deflator to develop these cost estimates.

 Waste Testing (2011$) = $445/load

 Transport for Recovery (2011$)

Acid Recovery: $2,243/load

Solvent Recovery: $2,279/load

Metal Recovery: $3,412/load

Average = $2,644/load

Increases in prices charged by commercial metal, solvent and acid recovery facilities for excepting smaller loads and the increase 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 (0.1680% 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-year future period of 

analysis)]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 cost 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 year to $196,000 per year (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 year to $298,800 per year (Exhibit 5P).

 0% discount rate: Incremental costs for sub-options 6B + 6C+6D estimated at $21,800 per year, which reduces the baseline cost savings 

from $436,200 per year to $414,400 per year (Exhibit 5Q).
145

Option 7: Revise 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 assumed to be similar to LQG 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 uses documentation of procedure and compliance costs for containment building requirements 

264.34(a)(1)(iv) and labeling requirements for 264.34(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 $71.79/facility (2011$). Preparation of these procedures is assumed to occur every

three years and the annual cost is estimated to be $23.93/facility ($71.79/facility/3 years).

 The cost to document that storage procedures are satisfied includes 0.25 hours technical labor at $69.32/hour and equals $17.33/facility

(2011$).

 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 $106.45/facility (2011$).

 Documentation of these storage procedures is assumed to occur every three years and the annual cost is estimated to be $34.48/facility

($106.45/facility/3years).

 The cost to document that the unit is emptied at least once a year includes 1 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and 0.4 hours clerical 

labor at $24.67/hour and equals $79.19/facility (2011$).

 The cost to label containers in storage area includes 1 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and equals $69.32/facility (2011$).

 The cost to label containers in satellite storage areas includes 0.5 hour technical labor at $69.32/hour and equals $34.66/facility (2011$).

The total cost is $259/facility (2011$). 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 ($259 per facility per 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 7B: Notification

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 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, 2008.64 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. 2050-0202, EPA ICR 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. 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 $24.67/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 ICR 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 0.76290 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 7C: 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 ICR 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 Lead Acid Batteries, the Requirements on Submitting Exception Reports for Export Shipments of 

Hazardous Wastes, and the Requirements for Imports of Hazardous Wastes,” December 2009.65 First year (one-time) cost for reading the 

regulations is assumed equivalent to the estimate for the SLAB Rule at $260/facility (2007$). Cost includes 1.0 hours of managerial labor at 

$101.68/hour and 2.5 hours of technical labor at $69.32/hour. It is assumed 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 cost of $274.99/facility

divided by 3 years equals $91.66/facility/year (2011$). 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 (0.76290 cost adjustment factor to discount costs from the first year the rule is in 

effect in 2015 to 2011$ 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 4A, produces an estimate of $4.5 million (2011$) ($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 these facilities under the pre-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 million 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 million per year with baseline cost savings reduced from $103.9 million to $101.5

million 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 (pre2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions)

Legitimacy 

Petition 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 

pre-2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Legitimacy 

Documentation 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental to 

pre-2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Recordkeeping for 

Speculative 

Accumulation 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 

pre-2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Biennial 

Notification 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 

pre-2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Codified 

Standard 

Compliance 

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 (pre2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions)

Legitimacy 

Petition 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 

pre-2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Legitimacy 

Documentation 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental to 

pre-2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Recordkeeping for 

Speculative 

Accumulation 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 

pre-2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Biennial 

Notification 

Compliance 

Costs 

(incremental 

to 

pre-2008 

Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Codified 

Standard 

Compliance 

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)

(2011$; 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 

Savings (from Column 

D of Exhibit 4M)

(pre-2008 Industrial 

Recycling Exclusions)

Options 4A & 7

Compliance Costs 

(incremental to 

pre-2008 Industrial 

Recycling 

Exclusions 

Baseline)

Option 4A & 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 $79,287,526 ($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 Options 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 analyses are retained in this section.

Option 8A: 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 is assumed 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 8B: Prohibit Intermediate Facilities to Obtain the 2008 DSW Offsite Transfer Recycling Exclusion

Prohibit intermediate facilities 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 assumption for the 

cost estimate is that no consolidation of wastes for reclamation is conducted by an intermediate facility to achieve full truck loads. Partial truck 

loads are assumed. A sample of generators who ship directly to off-site metals recyclers 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 3A 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 least 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 streams go through an intermediate facility.

 Step 2: The number of shipments (or loads) for material shipped via full truck loads is calculated by dividing 50% of the tons shipped to 

offsite recycling (via intermediate facilities) by 18 tons per truck load (typical truck size). This provides an estimate of the number of 

shipments shipped to intermediate facilities for consolidation and ultimate shipment for reclamation.

 Step 3: Given 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(wastes stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or disposal 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 loads minus 18-ton truck 

loads) for the 50% of shipments originally 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 software67 and inflated 

RACER 2005 unit costs to 2011$ using a GDP implicit price deflator to develop these cost estimates.

 Waste Testing (2011$) = $445/load

 Transport for Recovery (2011$)

Acid Recovery: $2,243/load

Solvent Recovery: $2,279/load

Metal Recovery: $3,412/load

Average = $2,644/load

Increases in prices charged by commercial metal, solvent and acid recovery facilities for accepting 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). It is applied to offsite transfer recycling 

exclusion facilities only. From Exhibit 4E and Exhibit 4F, respectively, 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 intermediate facilities is $1.7

million per year calculated as follows:

[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 analysis68).

Option 8C: 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 likely will incur higher shipping costs to reclaim hazardous secondary

materials out-of-state. In Exhibit 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 analysis 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 assumes 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 distance 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 increases approximately 25%. Average transport to recovery costs will change from $2,517/load to $3,146/load

(2007$).

Under the base case adoption scenario, 13% of facilities are anticipated to adopt the 2011 DSW proposed revisions. Assuming that 23% of 

these facilities will be located in “non-adopting” states and 23% of the affected tonnage will come from “non-adopting” states, and further 

assuming that the affected 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/load - $2,517/load = $629/load in 2007$) may be used as a unit cost to estimate the potential cost 

impact of this sub-option.

The average annual cost for non-adopting state participation inflated to 2011$ is $661 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, respectively, there are 4,656 affected transfer-based 

exclusion facilities and 887,457 affected tons from transfer-based facilities. The aggregate annual cost to restrict the use of intermediate 

facilities is $109,500 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-year future period of analysis69).

 

69 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 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, 5O, and 5P below at 7%, 3%, and 0% discount rates, respectively):

o The potential cost to industry to meet the seven primary sets of options to the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions and the pre2008 exclusions are estimated to be between:

 $7.2 million per year (only Options 3 to 7)

 $13.1 million per year (all Options 1 to 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 $79.5 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 transportation 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 Only 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 Options 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 5Q, 5R, and 5S below at 7%, 3%, and 0% discount rates, respectively):

o The potential cost to industry to meet the seven primary sets of options to the three 2008 DSW final rule exclusions and the pre2008 exclusions 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 year 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 year 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 both 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 corollary 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 final 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 million 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% 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 Pre2008 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 Reclamation

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 Compliance Costs ($28,338)

2F.1

Requirement 2F.1 Recordkeeping of Offsite Shipments 

Compliance Costs ($192,648)

2F.2

Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility 

Compliance 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) 

Compliance 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% 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 Pre2008 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 

Compliance 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 NonWaste Determination Petition Process

5A

Option 5A Partial Variance and Non-waste determination reapplications ($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-waste 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% 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 Pre2008 Exclusions

6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0 not incur additional 

costs to switch from 

operating under the 

2008 DSW exclusions 

6C to Option 6.

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 

Compliance 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 Pre2008 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 Reclamation

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 

Compliance Costs ($293,661)

2F.2

Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility 

Compliance 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) 

Compliance 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 Pre2008 Exclusions

3F

Option 3F Re-structure the location of the non-land based and 

land-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 

Compliance 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 NonWaste Determination Petition Process

5A

Option 5A Partial Variance and Non-waste determination reapplications ($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-waste 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 Pre2008 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 

Compliance 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 Pre2008 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 Reclamation

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 

Compliance Costs ($407,322)

2F.2

Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility 

Compliance 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) 

Compliance 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 Pre2008 Exclusions

3F

Option 3F Re-structure the location of the non-land based and 

land-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 

Compliance 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 NonWaste Determination Petition Process

5A

Option 5A Partial Variance and Non-waste determination reapplications ($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-waste 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 

6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0 costs to switch from 
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 Pre2008 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 

Compliance 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 Pre2008 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 Reclamation

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 

Compliance Costs ($1,609,226)

2F.2

Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility 

Compliance 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) 

Compliance 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 Pre2008 Exclusions

3F

Option 3F Re-structure the location of the non-land based and 

land-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 

Compliance 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 NonWaste Determination Petition Process

5A

Option 5A Partial Variance and Non-waste determination reapplications ($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-waste 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 

6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0 2008 DSW exclusions 
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 Pre2008 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 

Compliance 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 Pre2008 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 Reclamation

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 

Compliance Costs ($1,957,777)

2F.2

Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility 

Compliance 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) 

Compliance 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 Pre2008 Exclusions

3F

Option 3F Re-structure the location of the non-land based and 

land-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 

Compliance 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 NonWaste Determination Petition Process

5A

Option 5A Partial Variance and Non-waste determination reapplications ($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 ($2,769,855)

5D

Option 5D Non-waste 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 

6B Element 6B Intermediate Facility Restriction $0 costs to switch from 
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 Pre2008 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 

Compliance 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 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 Pre2008 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 Reclamation

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 Compliance 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 

Compliance Costs ($2,260,651)

2F.2

Requirement 2F.2 Transport to RCRA Permit Facility 

Compliance 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) 

Compliance 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 ($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 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 Pre2008 Exclusions

3F

Option 3F Re-structure the location of the non-land based and 

land-based unit operational requirements in 40 CFR 261 

Compliance 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 NonWaste Determination Petition Process

5A

Option 5A Partial Variance and Non-waste determination reapplications ($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-waste 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 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 Pre2008 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 

Compliance 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

CHAPTER 6

Sensitivity Analyses

(6 Cost Estimation Uncertainty Factors)

This chapter derives six sensitivity analysis 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 

year. These cost estimation uncertainty factors are not necessarily additive; for example, sensitivity analysis factor #3 is a sub-component of 

sensitivity analysis 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 relatively small fraction 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 affected. To illustrate 

this uncertainty, Exhibit 6A below displays this RIA’s “base case” adoption scenario for the 50-year period of analysis (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 conditions (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 could 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-year period beginning in 2015, 

at a rate of 25% of the 3,655 facilities located in these 44 states per year. This factor 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 

each of these six sensitivity factors potentially affects the total industry cost 

estimate for the 2011 proposed revisions to the DSW recycling exclusions.
176

Exhibit 6A

Sensitivity Analysis #1

Alternative Implementation Scenarios “Base Case” & “Upper-Bound” for Future Adoption of 2008 DSW Exclusions

Period 

of 

Analysis Year

13% “Base Case” Adoption Scenario

Count of Industrial 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 6A

Sensitivity Analysis #1

Alternative Implementation Scenarios “Base Case” & “Upper-Bound” for Future Adoption of 2008 DSW Exclusions

Period 

of 

Analysis Year

13% “Base Case” Adoption Scenario

Count of Industrial 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=umber 

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

4,000

2010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040204220442046204820502052205420562058206020622064

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 2007 RCRA Biennial Report data, it is important to recognize the year-to-year variability (fluctuations) in 

hazardous waste generation and management tonnage as reported to the Biennial Report in prior data years (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-year fluctuations in the tonnages of hazardous waste recycling 

and hazardous waste disposal affected by the DSW final rule exclusions – which would otherwise be RCRA-regulated in absence of this final 

rule – implies that the actual impacts of the DSW final rule will fluctuate in future years, compared to the estimates presented in this RIA based 

on the 2007 single-year data snapshot.

For purpose of illustrating the potential magnitude of future annual fluctuations in recycling and disposal tonnages, Exhibits 6C and 6D present 

1997-2007 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 years include both wastewater and non-wastewater data (i.e., sludge, solids, 

gases), and are inconsistent with later years. The data in the Exhibits below are from the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report “National

Analysis” report.

71

 Exhibits 6C and 6D provide annual percentage deviations for two time-trend metrics (i.e., annual facility counts and annual 

tonnages), relative to the annual average values for the 1997-2007 historical time period. The 1997-2007 hazardous waste data trends show 

that:

 Baseline hazardous waste recycling has varied (from Exhibit 6C):

o -58% to +42% by annual recycler facility count

o -40% to +40% by annual tonnage recycled

 Baseline hazardous waste disposal has varied (from Exhibit 6D):

o -22% to +32% by annual disposal facility count

o -19% to +20% by 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 year, compared to the average annualized impact estimates presented in this RIA. This range is not a 

statistical confidence interval; it represents the overall minimum and maximum range in percentage variation between 1997-2007 annual counts 

of industrial facilities which reported recycling RCRA hazardous wastes to the RCRA Biennial Report, compared to the average count over 

that 11-year time period. The purpose of this time-trend deviation computation is to provide an aggregate indicator of how national waste 

quantities fluctuate year-to-year.

 

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.Within-year discrepancies between generation tonnage and management tonnage (addressed as Sensitivity Analysis #3 in this RIA).

2.The economic level of industrial activity in any given year (addressed by Sensitivity Analysis #4 of this RIA).

3. Data over-reporting to the Biennial Report by LQGs and TSDRFs involving reporting of non-required data for state-regulated hazardous 

wastes.

4. Although not in itself quantified as a separate factor in this chapter, EPA may add or subtract industrial secondary materials to the RCRA 

hazardous waste regulatory program, such that in any given year, the number and types of wastes covered by the RCRA program may

vary:

a. Adding 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 year. EPA’s Fall 2010 Regulatory Agenda 

published on December 20, 2010, lists 32 planned 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 types.72

 

72 Source: EPA Fall 2010 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory Agenda: Part Two - Regulatory Agenda; the 30 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 consist 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 Electric 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 Mines 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 Geological 

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 (-48%) 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 = 577 2.079

Deviation range = -58% to +42% -40% to +40%

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 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

Sensitivity 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 Impoundment 

Disposal (M132 & M133, or H132)*

Incineration Disposal

(M041 to M049, or H040)

Other Disposal**

(M131, or H131, H134, H135)

Row Total Disposal

(%s represent deviations from avg)

Facilities Million tons Facilities Million tons Facilities*** Million tons Facilities*** Million tons

1 1997 72 2.539 166 1.656 104 26.452 342 (-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 24.225 415 (+7%) 27.827 (+9%)

7 2007 66 1.939 140 1.031 135 22.694 341 (-12%) 25.664 (+0%)

11-year average = 388 25.603

Deviation range = -22% 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.
182

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 LQGs does not match the total tons of hazardous wastes reported as 

“managed” by TSDRFs. This discrepancy may to a large degree result from the fact that typically 15% to 24% of hazardous wastes generated 

in recent years (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 materials, this within-year discrepancy suggests that the estimated net 

cost savings in this RIA based on 2007 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-year period 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

Small 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 Report which 

contains data reported by LQGs and TSDFs but not by SQGs, the complete SQG facility universe count is not included in this RIA, only the 

small fraction of TSDFs which are also SQGs. The cost estimated in this RIA is likely 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 Generators of 

HWIR-Exited Waste,” prepared 01 Feb 1999 by 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 by 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 $1.32 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 Items 5 through 11 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 $19.4 million per year 

in additional industry compliance costs.

Step 4: Compare these estimates to the net impact estimate for the 2011 DSW proposed rule (Exhibit 5N, Item 49) to establish 

percentage range for this sensitivity analysis factor [($6.7 million to $19.4 million per year) / ($13.1 million/year)] results in 

+51% to +148% 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 overly 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 6F

Sensitivity Analysis #5

Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes

Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed Haz

Wastes Unlikely Suitable 

for Recycling

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C 2007 

Generation

Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes (tons)

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 6F

Sensitivity Analysis #5

Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes

Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed Haz

Wastes Unlikely Suitable 

for Recycling

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C 2007 

Generation

Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes (tons)

wastes)  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

 K001 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 

waste 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 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 3H or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

 K044, K045, K046, K047 explosives mfg 

wastewaters, 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 

waste codes listed in Exhibit 3H or item 8 below include 

RCRA waste codes:

63,172
185

Exhibit 6F

Sensitivity Analysis #5

Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes

Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed Haz

Wastes Unlikely Suitable 

for Recycling

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C 2007 

Generation

Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes (tons)

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 

waste 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 

muds

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:

 F028 residues from incineration of contaminated soil

 K060 ammonia still lime sludge

 K102 residue from use of activated carbon for decolorization

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 

(lamps, 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 

waste 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 

waste 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 6F

Sensitivity Analysis #5

Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes

Unlikely Suitable for Potential Future Switchover to Recovery/Recycling Under the 2008 DSW Final Rule

Types of Disposed Haz

Wastes Unlikely Suitable 

for Recycling

Criterion A Criterion B Criterion C 2007 

Generation

Physical/ Chemical Form Codes Industrial Source Codes RCRA Hazardous Waste Codes (tons)

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 comparison with the physical/chemical types or constituents 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 waste streams nearly all the waste is not suitable for switchover to off-site other recovery. 

Much of the waste are dilute acid wastes that are disposed in on-site wastewater treatment systems followed by POTW/sewer or NPDES discharge or disposed by Class I 

UIC permitted deep-well injection. These disposal methods are less expensive compared to offsite recovery, therefore it should be more costly to ship these wastes offsite 

for other recovery. 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 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 exact engineering cost and benefit 

estimates for each of the 622 different industries consisting of about 9,100 of facilities which are generating and managing 10,000s of 

individual waste streams 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 ANSI standards Z94.0 and Z94.2.74 In the context of this RIA, the purpose of estimation accuracy classification is to indicate the relative 

degree to which the “ex-post” (i.e., post-rule) actual economic 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 point estimate. The five accuracy classes are formulated to reflect 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),

 Type 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” type estimates, to -10% to +15% Class 1 

“definitive estimates”. Basically, as the level-of-detail and level-of-effort given to a cost (or cost savings) estimate increases, the expected 

accuracy of the estimate tends to improve, as indicated by a 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 type 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 highly detailed unit costs and other 

details that typify 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 standard 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, information, 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 obtained 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

CHAPTER 7

Supplemental Analyses

This chapter addresses the special analytic topics, evaluative criteria, supporting data, and analytic results, associated with the Federal 

regulatory agency evaluations required under four White House Executive Orders and two Congressional laws, spanning 1980 to 2011:

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

7B. Impact Analysis (1980 RFA/1996 SBREFA)

7C. Unfunded Mandates Analysis (1995 UMRA)

7D. Federalism Implications (1999 Executive Order 13132)

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

7F. Improving Regulation & Regulatory Review (2011 Executive Order 13563)

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

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 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;

Note: This chapter does not address or present supporting data or analytic results for three other Federal regulatory 

agency evaluations required by the following White House Executive Orders (EOs):

(1) 1994 EO-12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations.

(2) 1997 EO-13045: 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. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, President's priorities, or principles set forth in the Executive Order.

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 costs estimated in this RIA show that the future average annualized costs are expected to total between (2011$ @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 Analysis (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 SISNOSE, the RFA/SBREFA requires a formal analysis of the 

potential adverse economic impacts on small entities, completion of a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), 

preparation of a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage), and Agency review of the rule within 10 years of promulgation. The small 

business impact analysis of this RIA follows the four analytic steps described in EPA’s November 2006 RFA/SBREFA compliance final 

guidance:75

Step 1: Determine which small entities are subject to the rule’s requirements.

Step 2: Select appropriate measures for determining economic impacts on these small entities and estimate those impacts.

Step 3: Determine whether the rule may be certified as not having a significant impact on small entities (SISNOSE).

Step 4: Document the screening analysis and include the appropriate RFA statements in the preamble.

 

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 analyses presented in EPA’s RIA for the 2008 DSW final rule, the 2011 proposed rule revisions 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 wide range of industries up to 622 industries (as listed in 

Appendix A). For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA analysis 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 based on the 2005 Biennial Report data from the 2008 DSW RIA. This data analysis was a 

further refinement of the facility counts presented in Exhibit 3E by six-digit NAICS. This list of industries was then expanded to capture the 

largest industries in the list of affected pre-2008 DSW exclusion facilities (from Exhibit 3J) identified in the 2007 TRI database. This data 

analysis was a further refinement of the facility counts presented by six-digit NAICS. Exhibit 7A presents small business size standards for 

the 27 major industries expected to be affected by 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 small business size standards 

in number of employees

or annual revenues**

1 323110 Commercial Lithographic Printing 12,614 13,239 500

2 324110 Petroleum Refineries 98 195 1,500

3 325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Mfg 396 632 1,000

4 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Mfg 540 696 1,000

5 325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 803 1,062 750

6 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 763 991 750

7 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 1,132 1,370 500

8 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Mfg 1,087 1,261 500

9 326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing 6,272 7,311 500

10 331111 Iron and Steel Mills 235 352 1,000

11 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining & Alloying of Nonferrous Metal 

(except Copper, Aluminum) 205 233 750

12 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing <3,698 3,698 500

13 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and 

Allied Services to Manufacturers 2,370 2,579 500

14 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing and Coloring 2,622 2,731 500

15 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Mfg 3,567 3,636 500

16 333415 Air Conditioning, Warm Air Heating Equipment, and 

Commercial & Industrial Refrigerator Equipment Manufacturing <902 902 750

17 334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 681 716 500

18 334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 871 972 500

19 334418 Printed Circuit Assembly Manufacturing <1,021 1,021 500

20 336399 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 1,315 1,555 750

21 336412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 333 440 500

22 336413 Other Aircraft Part and Auxiliary Equipment Mfg 770 890 1,000

23 541710 Research & Development in Physical, Engineering, Life Sciences 11,382 14,457 750

24 562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal <751 751 $12.5 million

25 611310 Colleges, Universities and Professional Schools 2,419 NA $7 million

26 622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals <5,159 5,159 $34.5 million

27 928110 National Security No data No data No data

Notes:

* The number of companies and establishments are the totals reported in the 2007 Census of Manufacturers. Only a subset of these companies 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 November 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. Accordingly, the business would 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 voluntarily choose to be subject to the 2011 DSW revisions, 

providing a “base case” 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 year, for a total 

number of businesses of 1,176 adopting the DSW recycling exclusion revisions through year 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. By 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. Of the 37 industrial facilities 

which had notified under the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions final rule during the notification data period analyzed, a total of five of the 31 

facilities are owned by small businesses, which is 14% of all notifiers (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 small entities and estimate those impacts

According to Exhibit 5G of EPA’s 2006 RFA/SBREFA small business impact guidance, there are three numerical tests that EPA may use to 

determine if small entities may be significantly impacted by a proposed rule:

 Sales 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 test 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., SISNOSE) 

which may choose to be subject to the requirements of the proposed rule. This determination involved comparing the average estimated 
193

regulatory compliance costs 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/SBREFA 

guidance as reproduced in Exhibit 7B below, regarding the appropriate SISNOSE determination category.

Exhibit 7B

Reproduction of Table 2 “Example SISNOSE Certification Decision Process” from

EPA’s November 2006 RFA/SBREFA Guidance

Impact Threshold

Number of Small Entities Subject to 

the Rule and Experiencing Given 

Economic Impact

Percent of All Small Entities Subject 

to the Rule That are Experiencing 

Given Economic Impact SISNOSE Determination Category

Less than 1% for all affected small 

entities 

Any number Any percent Presumed No SISNOSE 

1% or greater for one or more 

affected small entities

Fewer than 100 Less than 20% Presumed No SISNOSE 

Fewer than 100 20% or more Uncertain -No Presumption 

100-999 Less than 20% Presumed No SISNOSE 

100-999 20% or more Uncertain -No Presumption 

1,000 or more Any percent Uncertain -No Presumption 

3% or greater for one or more 

affected small entities 

Fewer than 100 Less than 20% Presumed No SISNOSE 

Fewer than 100 20% or more Uncertain -No Presumption 

100-999 Less than 20% Uncertain -No Presumption 

100-999 20% or more Presumed Ineligible for 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 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%, respectively, 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. 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 Determination

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 proxy for annual 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 promulgated) 

out of a total 6,497 affected small plus 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 currently operating under the pre-2008 DSW recycling exclusions (32 exclusions), plus additional current 

RCRA hazardous waste recyclers which in the future could potentially operate under the 2008 DSW recycling exclusions (3 exclusions). 

However, these facility count estimates are based on analyses presented in EPA's RIA involving EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database 

for the pre-2008 exclusions, and EPA's RCRA Hazardous Waste 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 (CESQGs) which will not be affected by today's 

proposal (and thus may contribute to over-estimating in the RIA both small and total small plus non-small entities affected under the pre-2008 

exclusions), and the BR 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 only estimated for 27 of the industries that will have the largest number of impacted facilities out of 621 6-digit 

NAICS code industries (as listed in Appendix A) that may be affected by the pre-2008 and/or 2008 DSW exclusions. This RIA assumes that 

these 27 largest impacted industries represent the largest potential impact to small entities for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA impact 

evaluation. There may be significant impacts to small businesses in some of the industries that were not evaluated.
195

Exhibit 7C

Estimated Average Annual Impact of the 2011 DSW Proposed Revisions on Small Businesses

(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 

Impact Per 

Facility 

(2011$/yr)

Annual 

Cost 

Impact as 

Percent of 

Annual 

Revenue 

(%) 3/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted in 

Year 2015 

4/

Count of 

Small 

Businesses 

Impacted in 

Year 2015 

5/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted in 

Year 2064 

6/

Count of 

Small 

Businesses 

Impacted 

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 Businesses

(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 

Impact Per 

Facility 

(2011$/yr)

Annual 

Cost 

Impact as 

Percent of 

Annual 

Revenue 

(%) 3/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted in 

Year 2015 

4/

Count of 

Small 

Businesses 

Impacted in 

Year 2015 

5/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted in 

Year 2064 

6/

Count of 

Small 

Businesses 

Impacted 

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 facilities 

will have notified 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 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 conservative 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 2015. At this rate, by 2015, 147 facilities will notify under one of the DSW recycling exclusions. See footnote 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 the assumption 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 Cost 

Impact as

Percent of 

Annual 

Revenue (%) 3/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Year 

2015 4/

Count of 

Small

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Year 

2015 5/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Years 

2018 

through 

2064 6/

Count of 

Small

Businesses 

Impacted 

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 Cost 

Impact as

Percent of 

Annual 

Revenue (%) 3/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Year 

2015 4/

Count of 

Small

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Year 

2015 5/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Years 

2018 

through 

2064 6/

Count of 

Small

Businesses 

Impacted 

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 Cost 

Impact as

Percent of 

Annual 

Revenue (%) 3/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Year 

2015 4/

Count of 

Small

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Year 

2015 5/

Total 

Count of 

Businesses 

Impacted 

in Years 

2018 

through 

2064 6/

Count of 

Small

Businesses 

Impacted 

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. By 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 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 conservative 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 the DSW recycling exclusions plus those facilities 

notifying per footnote 1.

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 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, local, 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, or by the private 

sector, of $100 million or more (annually adjusted for inflation) in any one year” (Section 202(a)). Potential future annual added direct costs to 

state, local, and tribal governments could include the following 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 (Options 2, 4, 6, & 7)

2. Receive, review and file reclamation plan (Option 2)

3. Receive, Review and approve emergency plans (Option 2)

4. Receive, review 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 (Options 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 under existing 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 processes and types, 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 governments. Because the impacts of all the regulatory

options are expected to result in state government expenditures well below the $100 million UMRA threshold, this RIA concludes that the 2011 

DSW rule is not an unfunded mandate based on this UMRA cost criterion.
201

Exhibit 7E

Estimated Maximum Annual State Cost Burden Associated with 2011 DSW Rules (2011$) 1/

Item Type 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, Review 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, Review and File Reclamation Plan (Option 2, 

Requirement 2B) 1,176 $38 $44,735 3,781 $38 $143,829 3

3

Review and Approve Emergency Plans (Option 2, 

Requirement 2D) 118 $90 $10,589 378 $90 $34,044 4

4

Receive, Review and File Notification of Compliance 

Regarding Affected Release Area (Option 2, 

Requirement 2D) 118 $225 $26,488 378 $225 $85,163 5

5

Review 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, Review 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 nonwaste 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 year 2064; for the upper bound 

adoption rate the maximum impacts occur in years 2018-2064. The maximum number of adoptions under Option 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 number 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 estimates, 

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 estimate obtained from the "Supporting 

Statement for Revisions to the RCRA Definition 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 7E

Estimated Maximum Annual State Cost Burden Associated with 2011 DSW Rules (2011$) 1/

7/ 5% of facilities submit 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 Federalism Executive Order 13132 (Federal Register, Vol.64, No. 153, 10 Aug 1999) furthers the policies of the 1995 Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state/local government 

consultation process for the development of Federal regulations that have federalism implications. Federalism implications refers to 

regulations and other Federal policies and actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the Federal 

government and the states, or on 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 guidance76 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 more77

 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 could 

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 (Options 2, 4, 6, & 7)

2. Receive, review and file reclamation plan (Option 2)

3. Receive, Review and approve emergency plans (Option 2)

4. Receive, review 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 (Options 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 under existing 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 processes and types, 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 one of the stated purposes of EO 13132 in its first paragraph is “to further the policies of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), EPA’s $25 

million annual direct cost trigger is 75% lower than the $100 million annual direct cost trigger prescribed in Section 202 of UMRA.
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 Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May

22, 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 notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking that:

1. Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order and is likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or

2. Is designated by OMB as a significant energy action.

This rule does not involve the supply, distribution, 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 analysis” which is the type 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

communities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or

4. Raise 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 “economically 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, employment, 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 effects, 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 exclusions 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 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, 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 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.

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 rulemaking, 12 state governments commented to EPA on the 2007 re-proposal of the DSW exclusions that they

were not likely to adopt 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 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 eight states representing 

5.3% of nationwide total RCRA industrial hazardous waste generation have not yet adopted 12 of the 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 nonadopting 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, thereby making more facilities eligible for regulatory cost savings in additional industries 

(Appendix A indicates only a 49% overlap in the types of industries that currently operate under the pre-2008 exclusions, compared to the 

types 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 improve 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 NonAdoptin

g States

Identity of States 

Not Adopting 

Exclusion

2009 

Hazardous 

Waste 

Generation 

Tons of 

NonAdopting 

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) Comparable 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 NonAdoptin

g States

Identity of States 

Not Adopting 

Exclusion

2009 

Hazardous 

Waste 

Generation 

Tons of 

NonAdopting 

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 NonAdoptin

g States

Identity of States 

Not Adopting 

Exclusion

2009 

Hazardous 

Waste 

Generation 

Tons of 

NonAdopting 

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/lawsregs/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 March 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/national09.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

CHAPTER 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 one 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. Clearer and more specific regulatory standards improve environmental compliance (Options 3, 4, 7, 8).

B2. More stringent recordkeeping provisions improve environmental compliance (Options 3, 4, 7).

B3. Self-reporting requirements (e.g., notification requirements) improve environmental compliance (Options 2, 3, 5, 7).

B4. Increased likelihood of detection and potential penalty for non-compliance improves environmental compliance

(Options 2, 3, 4, 5, 7).

8C. More 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 exclusion with 

alternative RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations for offsite transfer recycling. After analyzing the potential for adverse impact to 

human health and the environment from discarded material under the 2008 offsite recycling exclusion, including the potential for 

disproportionate impact to minority and low-income populations, the most appropriate regulatory approach may be to keep most types of thirdparty 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 Oversight 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 order to avoid the costs of 

disposing of the material. Because of low commercial value and high potential liability associated with most types 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 materials 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 from industrial hazardous secondary materials recycling spanning between 1983 and 2005. The study

selected year 1983 as the historical cut-off year because EPA published the bulk (i.e., base program) of the RCRA Subtitle C regulations 

between 1980 and 1982. A sub-total 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 types and prevalence of environmental damages associated with the 208 sites included (source: p.7 of 2007 study):

 Soil & groundwater contamination 41%

 Abandoned hazardous materials 33%

 Soil contamination 30%

 Air pollution 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, based on an average 

of $6.9 million cleanup cost per industrial recycling environmental damage case. However, the summary of cleanup costs displayed in Exhibit 

8A is based on a mix of price levels during the 1983 to 2005 data collection period in the 2007 EPA study. Based on updating the historical 

cleanup costs to year 2011 (i.e., 2011$) as displayed in Exhibit 8B below, the 2011-updated average annual cleanup cost is $86 million per year 

based on the historical average annual nine damage cases per year extrapolated to year 2011.

 

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-2002-0031-0355
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 Damage Case Based on Data for a Sample of 89 of the 208 Industrial 

Recycling Environmental Damage Cases Between 1983 and 2005*

A B C D ((B+C)/2) E F (D x E)

Cleanup cost 

range

Low-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 

damage case

B. Estimation of Average Annual Cleanup Cost Based on Extrapolation of Per-Damage 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-HQRCRA-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 somewhat lower than these data suggest.”

 Costs in this table are at mixed price levels spanning the 23-year damage cast period (1983 to 2005).
212

Exhibit 8B

2011$ 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

2011$ 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 used 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 recyclers (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 respond differently 

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) during protracted 

storage periods if not sufficiently contained.

The 2008 DSW final rule attempted to address this pattern of adverse impacts to human health and the environment from discarded material

transferred to offsite third-party recyclers, by setting conditions for the 2008 DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion. The intent of those 

conditions was to define when transfers to offsite third-party recyclers 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), EPA 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 analysis of the 2008 DSW final rule 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, thereby potentially improving industry compliance:

 Recycling operating permits: Most important of which is the Subtitle C recycling permit requirement which ensures that an EPA 

regional office or state government agency has reviewed a facility’s planned recycling operations before recycling begins, and allows 

public participation in the permit review and approval/rejection process.

 Recycling inspections: Subtitle C recycling requirements also include a statutory provision that such facilities be inspected every two 

years by an EPA regional office or state government agency.

When Congress enacted these Subtitle C recycling provisions, it was based on their finding that the placement of inadequate controls on 

hazardous waste management will result in substantial risks to human health and the environment. Furthermore, the 1976 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 forces 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 secondary 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 wastes, 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 materials 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 manufacturing 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 evidence 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. This second potential environmental benefits 

category consists of four components:

8B.1. Clearer and More Specific Regulatory Standards Improve Environmental Compliance

There is evidence that clearer and less complicated regulations would improve environmental compliance by making it easier for industry to 

comply with and for regulators to enforce the provisions. David B. Spence, using evidence from behavioral psychology, the 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. Stafford82 found the following: “In support of 

the complexity critique, the results show that larger facilities and facilities of multi-plant companies are less likely to violate, while facilities 

that are subject to more complex 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 specific case example 

provided in the Stafford article indicated: “... an analysis by the Colorado Department on Public Health and the Environment found that a 

number of facilities were frequently violating hazardous waste storage requirements because they were unaware of their regulatory status.”83

A number of the DSW revision options, including Options 3A, 3E, 4A, 4B, 7A, and 8D, 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 by the generator and 

the enforcement staff to interpret the provision. The codification makes the provision more enforceable than the undefined term, while 

 

81

 Spence, David B. 2001. “The Shadow of the Rational Polluter: Rethinking the Role of Rational Actor Models in Environmental Law,” California Law Review, Vol.89, 

pp. 917-998.

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 3E, 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 4A applies the same codified standards of legitimate recycling to all recycled hazardous secondary materials. This should 

provide greater clarity to recyclers and should make enforcement more straightforward and easier, thereby increasing environmental 

compliance. Furthermore, Option 4A which codifies the legitimacy provision, should provide greater enforceability and clarity on 

legitimacy by providing the same legitimacy definition standard throughout the program.

 Option 4B 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 7A creates a “contained” standard that should be more enforceable than the undefined term, resulting in improved 

environmental compliance.

 Option 8D 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 improves 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 observed declines corresponded with two major OSHA rule changes requiring 

recordkeeping. The precipitous declines could not be explained by changes in employment, productivity, OSHA enforcement activity, 

reporting bias, and other factors which were adjusted for in the study. 

Recordkeeping requirements in the 2011 DSW proposed revisions should increase awareness of overall regulatory requirements and also

increase the likelihood of detecting noncompliance, both of which serve to promote compliance. Options 3C, 4C, and 7C 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 would 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 4C would require documentation of legitimacy to the generator-controlled and transfer-based exclusions and the nondetermination 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 7C would also require recordkeeping for speculative accumulation, thereby making the provision more enforceable.

8B.3. Self-Reporting Requirements (e.g., Notification Requirements) Improve Environmental Compliance

A 1998 study by Ruhnka and Boerstler85 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 type of government-private program outlined in the 

report is the EPA’s national Environmental Performance Track Program. Performance Track was a voluntary approach to recognize and drive 

environmental excellence among private and public facilities by encouraging facilities with strong environmental records to go above and 

beyond their legal requirements. In partnership with EPA, members voluntarily set measurable goals to improve the quality of our nation’s air, 

water, and land. The Performance Track program ended in March 2009. Based on results from 2000-2007 (the most recent year for which data 

are available), “Performance Track members reported that they collectively reduced their water use by 2.87 billion gallons, conserved more 

than 24,860 acres of land, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 367,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.”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 success and the study 

concluded that they “believe that the significant environmental challenges that the United States faces require that EPA continue to seek out 

new approaches that can complement and enhance traditional regulatory approaches.”87 The problem with the program was the lack of clarity 

in its purpose and the RAND report indicated “[t]he lack of specificity in the program concept, the deferment and non-implementation of the 

second component of the originally proposed program, and ambiguous announcements about the program’s membership contributed to 

stakeholders developing different understandings and expectations for the program.” RAND Corporation recommended that future programs 

should strive for program concepts and expectations that are clear for all stakeholder groups, tightly focused on specific environmental 

programs, and protect the EPA’s brand. In defense of the Performance Track program, RAND found that “ Performance Track members 

reported that the program’s requirements to have and use EMSs, set continuous improvement goals, and increase community outreach led to 

beneficial changes in corporate culture, including improved employee engagement, morale, recruiting, and retention. EPA should continue to 

experiment with providing positive recognition and other strategies that encourage changes in corporate culture.”

Options 2B, 3B, 5B and 7B would require biennial notification and would enable RCRA-authorized state government agencies and EPA 

regional offices to monitor environmental compliance 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, only 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] analyzed both qualitative and quantitative evidence of specific deterrence for water discharges in the chemical industry. The statistical 

database analysis 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 effects. Nearly 75% of survey respondents reported that fines were an effective 

deterrent and approximately 87% reported that inspections definitely or probably effectively induced water pollution compliance. Similarly, 

the statistical results indicated that both inspections and enforcement actions resulted in decreased aggregate conventional water pollution 

emissions.”89

Stafford90 studied the response of 8,411 hazardous waste-generating facilities to a rule change that significantly increased financial penalties 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 fines. Nearly all of this was attributable to spillover effects, as the average deterrence impact on each of the other plants in a state 

was almost as strong as the impact on the sanctioned facility. The authors also showed that general deterrence increased consistently with the 

amount of the penalty. In other words, larger fines induced fewer subsequent violations by other plants in the state. 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 absence 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 Administrator, EPA Office of Enforcement &

Compliance, October 13, 2010.

89 Shimshack, Jay. 2007. Monitoring, Enforcement, & Environmental Compliance: Understanding Specific & General Deterrence. State-of-Science White Paper prepared 

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 also expected to 

reduce facilities’ liability, resulting in lower legal and other costs. For example, one of the most frequently identified root causes of 

noncompliance was where the facility was unaware of the applicability of a regulation.92 In another study of pulp and paper mills in Canada, 

Laplante, et al., found that the presence of clear and strong standards accompanied with a significant and credible penalty system 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 analysts have examined the reaction of capital markets to the 

release of information pertaining to environmental performance. Several studies have shown that capital markets react significantly to the 

release of information: upward when the information reveals a superior performance, and downward when a poor performance is revealed.94

Moreover, in recent years, the importance of investor interest has increased and suppliers of financing, industrial equipment, and engineering 

services are increasingly reluctant to do business with firms experiencing problems with environmental regulations.95

Options 3A, 3E, 4A, 4B, 7C, 8A and 8D would all reduce uncertainty for regulated entities.

 Option 3A, codifying the word “contained” would create a specific standard with which entities must comply, therefore reducing 

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 4A 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 publishing the legitimacy determinations online should increase 

transparency and ensure consistency across state programs. Furthermore, Option 4A, which codifies the legitimacy definition, should 

provide greater clarity and less uncertainty by having the same definition throughout the program.

 Option 4B 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.

 

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 review of these studies see Cohen, M. 1999. Monitoring and Enforcement of Environmental Policy. International Yearbook of Environmental and 

Resource Economics 1999/2000. Tom Tietenberg and Henk Folmer, ed.; Edward Elgar Publishers.
220

 Option 7A creates a “contained” standard that should provide greater clarity than the undefined term.

 Option 8A adds regulatory definition of “contained” that specifies performance-based storage 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 8D reduces regulatory uncertainty by clearly defining terms.
221

APPENDICES
222

APPENDIX A

2007 Count of 6-Digit NAICS Code Industries Potentially Affected

2007 Count of Affected Industries

2007 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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 nonduplicative 

count

2007 BR 

NAICS

code

2007 TRI 

NAICS

code

Code 

overlap 

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

APPENDIX B

Calculation of Cost Adjustment Factors

The five Exhibits below (i.e., Appendix Exhibits B1 to B7) 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 facilities/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 adjustment 

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) 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).

o Exhibit B4: 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 B6: The upper bound estimate of facilities that file a DSW exclusion notification per year under Exclusions 1 and 2 of 

the 2008 DSW rule for the baseline savings adjustment factor. 21 facilities are assumed to adopt per year beginning in 2009 

through 2014. Between 2015 and 2018, 25% of the 3,655 facilities in 44 states assumed to adopt the rule notify each of these 

years.

o Exhibit B7: 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). Between 2015 and 2018, 25% of the 3,655 facilities in 44 states 

assumed to adopt the rule notify each of these years times of which 90% are Exclusion 2 affected facilities.

 The 4th column in each exhibit is either the aggregate savings or costs for each year which is calculated by multiplying the number of 

notifying facilities by the average savings/facility or average costs/facility.

 The 5th, 6th and 7th columns in each exhibit estimate the aggregate or total present worth savings or costs over the 2011 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 analysis (labeled as “Annualized Savings” or “Annualized Costs”).

o “Average Number of Facilities” affected per year over the 50-year period of analysis (2015-2064) is calculated.

o “Percent of Facilities Notify” factor is derived by dividing the “Average Number of Facilities” by the total number of 

“Exclusion 1 and/or 2 Affected Facilities” multiplied by 100%.

Appendix Exhibit B1

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)

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 1 147 $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 B1

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)

Aggregate 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 B1

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)

Aggregate 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 B2

Lower Bound – Exclusion 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 59 $0 $0 $0 $0

2012 -3 79 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013 -2 99 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 -1 119 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 1 139 $2,664,712 $1,899,903 $2,298,604 $2,664,712

2016 2 159 $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 6 238 $4,568,078 $2,322,179 $3,399,079 $4,568,078

2021 7 258 $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 11 338 $6,471,444 $2,345,549 $4,153,774 $6,471,444

2026 12 358 $6,852,118 $2,321,049 $4,270,013 $6,852,118

2027 13 378 $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 17 456 $8,755,483 $2,114,564 $4,706,504 $8,755,483

2032 18 476 $9,136,157 $2,062,151 $4,768,092 $9,136,157

2033 19 496 $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 22 555 $10,658,849 $1,835,406 $4,942,452 $10,658,849

2037 23 575 $11,039,523 $1,776,594 $4,969,872 $11,039,523

2038 24 595 $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 B2

Lower Bound – Exclusion 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%

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 B3

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 

Costs (Number of 

Facilities x Avg. 

Savings/facility)

Aggregate 

Present Value 

Costs @ 7%

Aggregate PV 

Costs @ 3%

Aggregate PV 

Costs @ 0%

2011 -4 57 $0 $0 $0 $0

2012 -3 76 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013 -2 95 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 -1 114 $0 $0 $0 $0

2015 1 133 $22,571 $16,093 $19,470 $22,571

2016 2 152 $25,796 $17,189 $21,603 $25,796

2017 3 171 $29,020 $18,072 $23,596 $29,020

2018 4 190 $32,245 $18,767 $25,454 $32,245

2019 5 209 $35,469 $19,293 $27,184 $35,469

2020 6 228 $38,693 $19,670 $28,792 $38,693

2021 7 247 $41,918 $19,915 $30,282 $41,918

2022 8 266 $45,142 $20,044 $31,662 $45,142

2023 9 285 $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 25 588 $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 B3

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 

Costs (Number of 

Facilities 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 Exhibit B4

Lower Bound -- Option 4B Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year 

Analysis 

Year

Number of 

Notifying& RCRA

Facilities (5% 

Submit Legitimacy 

Petition)

Aggregate Annual 

Costs (Number of 

Facilities x Avg. 

Savings/facility)

Aggregate 

Present Value 

Costs @ 7%

Aggregate 

PV Costs @ 

3%

Aggregate PV 

Costs @ 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 Exhibit B4

Lower Bound -- Option 4B Compliance Cost Adjustment Factor Calculation

Year 

Analysis 

Year

Number of 

Notifying& RCRA

Facilities (5% 

Submit Legitimacy 

Petition)

Aggregate Annual 

Costs (Number of 

Facilities x Avg. 

Savings/facility)

Aggregate 

Present Value 

Costs @ 7%

Aggregate 

PV Costs @ 

3%

Aggregate PV 

Costs @ 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 Exhibit B5

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 Exhibit B5

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

Exclusion 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 B6

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 B6

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 

Factor (Annualized 

Cost Savings/Total 

Annual Cost Savings

is 100% Adoption)

52.9783% 64.4532% 74.4243%
242

Appendix Exhibit B7

Upper Bound Option 2, Requirement 2C 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%

Aggregate PV 

Costs @ 3%

Aggregate PV 

Costs @ 0%

2011 -4 57 $0 $0 $0 $0

2012 -3 76 $0 $0 $0 $0

2013 -2 95 $0 $0 $0 $0

2014 -1 114 $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 3,415 $580,555 $337,888 $458,295 $580,555

2019 5 3,415 $580,555 $315,783 $444,947 $580,555

2020 6 3,415 $580,555 $295,125 $431,987 $580,555

2021 7 3,415 $580,555 $275,817 $419,405 $580,555

2022 8 3,415 $580,555 $257,773 $407,190 $580,555

2023 9 3,415 $580,555 $240,910 $395,330 $580,555

2024 10 3,415 $580,555 $225,149 $383,815 $580,555

2025 11 3,415 $580,555 $210,420 $372,636 $580,555

2026 12 3,415 $580,555 $196,654 $361,783 $580,555

2027 13 3,415 $580,555 $183,789 $351,245 $580,555

2028 14 3,415 $580,555 $171,765 $341,015 $580,555

2029 15 3,415 $580,555 $160,528 $331,082 $580,555

2030 16 3,415 $580,555 $150,026 $321,439 $580,555

2031 17 3,415 $580,555 $140,212 $312,077 $580,555

2032 18 3,415 $580,555 $131,039 $302,987 $580,555

2033 19 3,415 $580,555 $122,466 $294,162 $580,555

2034 20 3,415 $580,555 $114,454 $285,595 $580,555

2035 21 3,415 $580,555 $106,967 $277,276 $580,555

2036 22 3,415 $580,555 $99,969 $269,200 $580,555

2037 23 3,415 $580,555 $93,429 $261,359 $580,555

2038 24 3,415 $580,555 $87,317 $253,747 $580,555

2039 25 3,415 $580,555 $81,604 $246,356 $580,555

2040 26 3,415 $580,555 $76,266 $239,181 $580,555

2041 27 3,415 $580,555 $71,276 $232,214 $580,555

2042 28 3,415 $580,555 $66,614 $225,451 $580,555

2043 29 3,415 $580,555 $62,256 $218,884 $580,555
243

Appendix Exhibit B7

Upper Bound Option 2, Requirement 2C 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%

Aggregate PV 

Costs @ 3%

Aggregate PV 

Costs @ 0%

2044 30 3,415 $580,555 $58,183 $212,509 $580,555

2045 31 3,415 $580,555 $54,376 $206,320 $580,555

2046 32 3,415 $580,555 $50,819 $200,310 $580,555

2047 33 3,415 $580,555 $47,495 $194,476 $580,555

2048 34 3,415 $580,555 $44,387 $188,812 $580,555

2049 35 3,415 $580,555 $41,484 $183,312 $580,555

2050 36 3,415 $580,555 $38,770 $177,973 $580,555

2051 37 3,415 $580,555 $36,233 $172,789 $580,555

2052 38 3,415 $580,555 $33,863 $167,757 $580,555

2053 39 3,415 $580,555 $31,648 $162,871 $580,555

2054 40 3,415 $580,555 $29,577 $158,127 $580,555

2055 41 3,415 $580,555 $27,642 $153,521 $580,555

2056 42 3,415 $580,555 $25,834 $149,050 $580,555

2057 43 3,415 $580,555 $24,144 $144,708 $580,555

2058 44 3,415 $580,555 $22,564 $140,494 $580,555

2059 45 3,415 $580,555 $21,088 $136,402 $580,555

2060 46 3,415 $580,555 $19,709 $132,429 $580,555

2061 47 3,415 $580,555 $18,419 $128,572 $580,555

2062 48 3,415 $580,555 $17,214 $124,827 $580,555

2063 49 3,415 $580,555 $16,088 $121,191 $580,555

2064 50 3,415 $580,555 $15,036 $117,661 $580,555

Avg. rn. Facilities 3,315

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

APPENDIX 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 = 9 472
Note: 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 companies 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: Pharmaceutical, Paints &Coating, Plastics &Resin, Basic Organic Chemicals Total Facilities: 1303

Facilities reporting 16 chemicals: 1303 facilities from 650 parent companies Total Parents: 650

2387 2387 Submissions 16 selected solvents - All 4 

Sectors

37,088,955 1,015,429,703

24% % of total 25% 26%

10077 10,077 Total Submissions - Pharmaceutical 145,695,573 3,906,271,887 DSW RIA

Base Case Upper Bound

Total lbs # of Submissions Release (lbs) WASTE (lbs) price /lb 13% 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 Chloromethane 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 Dichloromethane 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-dimethylformamide 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

APPENDIX D

Small Business Count Data to Support the RFA/SBREFA Analysis

Appendix Exhibit D1

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 nonsmall business? Business size facts & source

1 Curries 12th St 

NW facility

IA0000362905

332321 <500 

employees

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 facility

IAD043490150

332321 <500 

employees

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 

employees

Small Source #1: 201 to 500 employees. Privately-owned company operates manufacturing facilities in 

Telford, Pennsylvania; and Red Oak, Iowa. The company was founded in 1978 and is based in 

Telford, Pennsylvania.

Source: http://www.linkedin.com/companies/fres-co-system-usa-inc

Source #2: Fresco System is a private company categorized under Wholesale Packaging 

Machinery and located in Red Oak, IA. Current estimates show this company has annual revenue of 

$20 to $50 million and employs approximately 50 to 99 staff. Source: 

http://www.manta.com/c/mmcs7kw/fresco-system

4 John Deere 

Davenport 

Works

IAD073489726

333120 <750 

employees

Non-small 51,300 employees. John Deere is one of the world's largest makers of farm equipment, and a 

leading producer of construction, forestry, and commercial and residential lawn care equipment. 

Deere operates three business segments: Agriculture & Turf and 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 D1

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 nonsmall business? Business size facts & source

5 John Deere Des 

Moines Works

IAD069624500

333111 <500 

employees

Non-small 51,300 employees. John Deere is one of the world's largest makers of farm equipment, and a 

leading producer of construction, forestry, and commercial and residential lawn care equipment. 

Deere operates three business segments: Agriculture & Turf and 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

6 John Deere 

Dubuque 

Works

IAD005269527

333120 <750 

employees

Non-small 51,300 employees. John Deere is one of the world's largest makers of farm equipment, and a 

leading producer of construction, forestry, and commercial and residential lawn care equipment. 

Deere operates three business segments: Agriculture & Turf and 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

7 John Deere 

Engine Works

IAD000678094

333618 <1,000 

employees

Non-small 51,300 employees. John Deere is one of the world's largest makers of farm equipment, and a 

leading producer of construction, forestry, and commercial and residential lawn care equipment. 

Deere operates three business segments: Agriculture & Turf and 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

8 John Deere 

Waterloo 

Works

IAD000805168

333111 <500 

employees

Non-small 51,300 employees. John Deere is one of the world's largest makers of farm equipment, and a 

leading producer of construction, forestry, and commercial and residential lawn care equipment. 

Deere operates three business segments: Agriculture & Turf and 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 

employees

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 

employees

Non-small 

(DiamondVogel 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 was founded by Dutch immigrant Andrew Vogel in 1926, is 

owned and managed by the third generation of the Vogel family. Source: 

http://www.hoovers.com/company/Diamond-Vogel_Paint_Company/rfhtyci-1.html

11 Aluminum 331314 <750 Non-small One of the largest privately held aluminum extruders in the US, Aluminum Shapes is an operating 
256

Appendix Exhibit D1

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 nonsmall business? Business size facts & source

Shapes LLC

NJD002338267

employees (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 

employees

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 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

13 Carpenter 

Technology 

Corp

PAD002344315

331111 <1,000 

employees

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 

Company 

Wheatland 

Tube Division

PAD004338091

331210 <1,000 

employees

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 

Russia, Europe and the United States. Source: 

http://www.carlyle.com/media%20room/news%20archive/2008/item10533.html

15 John Maneely 

Company 

Wheatland 

Tube Division

PAR000038067

331210 <1,000 

employees

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 D1

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 nonsmall 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 

Company 

Wheatland 

Tube Division

PAD004322863

331210 <1,000 

employees

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 

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 

employees

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 Platinum, the world's largest platinum 

producer, through its Precious Metal Products division. Johnson Matthey's Environmental 

Technologies Catalysts division produces emission control products, fuel cells, and process 

catalysts. Its Fine Chemicals and 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 

employees & 

<125,000 

barrels-perday 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/rrytxsi1.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 D1

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 nonsmall 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 gasoline 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 D2

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 

employees

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/OSHKOSHCORP_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 

employs approximately 12,600 employees worldwide (source: 

http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_profile.cfm ).

2 Iowa Mold 

Tooling 

Company Inc

IAD005286539

333120 <750 

employees

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/OSHKOSHCORP_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 

employs approximately 12,600 employees worldwide (source: 

http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_profile.cfm ).

3 Aleris Rolled 

Products Inc

NJD051415909

331315 <750 

employees

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 facilities 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 

employees

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 

Systems 

562211 <$10.5 

million 

Non-small $1.03 billion revenues projected for 2010 (source: http://wasteage.com/companies/safety-kleen/ )
260

Appendix Exhibit D2

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

Company

NJD002182897

revenues/year

6 Sancoa 

International

NJD986629491

323111 <500 

employees

Small 335 employees (source: 

http://www.hoovers.com/company/sancoa_international_company_lp/rkhhtkfjx-1.html and 

http://www.manta.com/c/mmd32jk/sancoa-international-company-l-p )

7 Siegfried USA

NJD064344575

325411 <750 

employees

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 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 

Environment 

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 services 

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 

Company

NJD002482545

336612 <500 

employees

Non-small April 10, 2009 -- Viking Yacht Co. concluded its final round of layoffs and furloughs last week, 

bringing the total to 560 fewer employees since the cost-saving measure began in December, company 

officials said Thursday. Viking, a high-end boat builder in New Gretna, long has been one of the 

region's largest private employers, with nearly 1,400 workers at the beginning of 2008. A year later, its 

payroll has shrunk to 800 employees, said Andrew Davala, a vice president. The company said no 

more layoffs or furloughs are planned and that it hopes to bring back as many of those workers as 

possible by the fall. But "it absolutely hinges on the economy recovering," Davala said (source: 

http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Layoffs/latest_layoffs_bring_total_to_560_at_viking_yacht.html

and http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/viking_yacht_one_of_south_jers.html )

10 BAE Systems 

Land & 

Armaments

PAD003025418

336992 <1,000 

employees

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 worldwide. 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 defense 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 D2

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

employees 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

12 Cherokee 

Pharmaceuticals 

LLC

PAD003043353

325411 <750 

employees

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 

employees

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 annual 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 employees 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 

Company Inc

PAD087561015

331491 <750 

employees

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 nickelcadmium 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 

employees

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 employees

worldwide (source: http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/company_profile.cfm ).

16 Jerr-Dan Corp 

Wrecker 

Division

336211 <1,000 

employees

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 employees
262

Appendix Exhibit D2

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 

employees

Non-small Source #1: 1,481 full-time employees (source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=spec )

Source #2: 1,516 employees (source: 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb100/2009/snapshots/71.html )

18 Triangle 

Circuits

PAD981037377

334412 <500 

employees

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/themillennia-group-inc )

19 World 

Resources 

Company

PAD981038227

327999 <500 

employees

Small Source #1: Seventeen Marketing and Sales Support Offices are strategically located in major 

metropolitan areas worldwide and are designed to provide a broad range of customer 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 wastewater 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.worldresourcescompany.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%