Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032-0106
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-03-04T05:00Z

1
ECONOMICS
BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
USEPA'S
FINAL
RULE
REVISIONS
TO
THE
RCRA
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANIFEST
FORM
Prepared
by:

Mark
Eads,
Economist
(
703­
308­
8615)

US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Solid
Waste
Economics,
Methods
&
Risk
Analysis
Division
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
(
Mailstop
5307W)

Washington,
DC
20460
USA
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
osw
24
Nov
2004
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
I.
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
II.
PURPOSE,
SCOPE,
LIMITATIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
II.
A
Purpose
of
This
Document
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
II.
B
Statement
of
Regulatory
Need
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
II.
C
Regulatory
Alternatives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
II.
D
Affected
Facility
Type
Definitions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
II.
E
Major
Sources
of
Impact
Estimation
Uncertainty
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
II.
F
Summary
of
Final
Rule
Revisions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
II.
G
Incremental
Estimation
Method
&
Paperwork
Burden
Data
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
III.
BACKGROUND
DATA
ON
RCRA
MANIFESTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
III.
A
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Handler
Universe
&
Annual
RCRA
Manifests
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
III.
B
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipment
Modes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
III.
C
List
of
Industries
Potentially
Affected
by
Final
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
III.
D
Average
Size
of
LQG
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
III.
E
Historical
Trend
in
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
III.
F
RCRA
Manifest
National
Paperwork
Burden
Baseline
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
III.
G
State­
by­
State
Counts
of
RCRA
Manifests
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
III.
H
RCRA
Manifest
Paperwork
Labor
Wage
Assumptions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
IV.
IMPACT
ESTIMATES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
IV.
A
Estimate
of
Impacts
for
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Contents
&
Format
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
IV.
A1
Impact
A1:
Initial
Manifest
Preparation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
IV.
A2
Impact
A2:
Manifest
Continuation
Sheets
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
IV.
A3
Impact
A3:
Estimate
of
Potential
Impact
on
Employee
Manifest
Training
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
IV.
A4
Impact
A4:
Submit
Copy
of
Hazardous
Waste
Import
Manifest
to
EPA­
OECA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
IV.
B.
Revisions
to
Procedures
for
Manifest
Form
Printing
&
Acquisition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
IV.
B1
Impact
B1:
Estimate
of
Impact
for
Changes
to
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Printing
&
Acquisition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
IV.
B2
Impact
B2:
Estimate
of
Potential
Impact
on
State
Government
RCRA
Manifest
Fee
Revenues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
IV.
B3
Impact
B3:
Estimate
of
State
Government
Costs
for
Printing
Blank
RCRA
Manifests
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
IV.
C
Estimate
of
Annual
Burden
for
the
RCRA
Manifest
Special
Procedures
for
Rejected
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
&
Non­
Empty
Waste
Containers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
IV.
C1
Impact
C1:
Rejection
of
Full
Loads
(
when
transporter
has
not
departed
the
TSDF)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
IV.
C2
Impact
C2:
Rejection
of
Shipment
Loads
(
when
transporter
has
departed
the
TSDF)
&
Non­
Empty
Containers
.
.
64
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
3
IV.
C3
Impact
C3:
Cost
to
States
for
Processing
2nd
Manifests
for
Rejected
Partial
Loads
&
Non­
Empty
Containers
.
.
.
.
65
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
4
I.
SUMMARY
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
5
I.
C
Document
Pedigree
Mark
Eads,
Economist,
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
OSW),
prepared
this
document
based
in
part
on
the
19
Dec
2000
"
Economics
Background
Document"

(
EBD)
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf)
prepared
in
support
of
OSW's
22
May
2001
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest
revision
proposed
rule
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
mods.
htm).
The
Dec
2000
EBD
was
authored
by
ICF
Consulting
Inc.
under
project
direction
of
Earl
Harris
(
ICF
Consulting
Inc.)
and
Work
Assignment
Manager
Frank
Smith
(
Economist,
OSW),
using
USEPA
Contract
68­
W­
98­
221.

Relative
to
the
scope
of
both
the
Dec
2000
EBD
and
the
22
May
2001
proposed
rule,
this
document
excludes
the
electronic
automation
of
the
RCRA
manifest
system
(
i.
e.
"
e­
manifest")
of
the
proposed
rule,
and
addresses
the
final
rule
revisions
to
the
manifest
form.
For
purpose
of
presentation,
this
document
organizes
the
RCRA
manifest
form
revisions
into
three
categories:

!
Impacts
A:
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest
form
contents/
appearance;

!
Impacts
B:
Changes
in
manifest
form
printing/
acquisition
procedures;
and
!
Impacts
C:
Adoption
of
existing
state
"
interim
policy"
procedures
for
rejected
shipments
&
non­
empty
haz
waste
shipment
containers.

The
Dec
2000
EBD
estimated
$
7.9
million/
year
(
i.
e.
about
190,000
hours/
year)
in
national
regulatory
paperwork
burden
cost
savings
for
the
manifest
form
revisions
(
excluding
the
estimated
annual
impacts
of
the
proposed
e­
manifest).
In
comparison,
this
EBD
estimates
$
12.7
to
$
20.6
million/
year
(
i.
e.
249,000
to
397,000
hours/
year)
in
national
regulatory
burden
cost
savings,
which
differs
from
the
Dec
2000
EBD
because
of:
(
1)
reference
data
updates,
(
2)
new
ranges
applied
to
key
numerical
assumptions
(
e.
g.
count
of
annual
manifests,
count
of
affected
entities,
average
hourly
wages
of
affected
labor),
and
(
3)
modifications
to
estimation
computations.
This
final
rule
burden
reduction
represents
about
4%
to
5%
reduction
relative
to
a
RCRA
manifest
national
baseline
burden
of
4.6
to
9.7
million
hours/
year
(
i.
e.
$
193
to
$
770
million/
year).

I.
B
Background
Information
About
RCRA
Manifests
A
component
of
the
USEPA's
"
cradle­
to­
grave"
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulatory
program,
is
the
"
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest"
(
i.
e.
USEPA
Form
8700­
22
&
22A).
A
completed
manifest
form
 
including
description
and
quantity
of
the
waste,
and
identity
of
all
parties
involved
in
shipment
 
must
accompany
the
shipment
of
hazardous
waste,
from
the
point
of
generation,
to
the
point
of
treatment,
storage,
recycling,
or
disposal.
As
of
2001,
an
estimated
139,000
establishments
(
facilities)
in
at
least
45
industries
in
the
US
are
subject
to
the
RCRA
manifest
system:

!
Hazardous
waste
generators
(
over
95%
ship
waste
offsite):

LQGs:
Large
quantity
hazardous
waste
generators
(
n
=
18,135
establishments)

SQGs:
Small
quantity
hazardous
waste
generators
(
n
=
117,600
establishments)

!
Hazardous
waste
transporters
(
n
=
414
establishments)

!
Hazardous
waste
treaters/
storers/
recyclers/
disposers
(
n
=
2,479
establishments)

!
23
state
governments
print
blank
RCRA
manifests
and
34
states
collect
completed
manifests
(
USEPA
does
not
print,
distribute
or
collect
manifests).

!
Estimation
uncertainty
range
of
2.4
to
5.1
million
annual
RCRA
manifests
used
for
shipping
12
million
tons/
year
RCRA
haz
waste.

I.
C
RCRA
Manifest
Revisions
&
Estimated
Impacts
In
response
to
public
requests
in
the
1990s
to
the
USEPA
for
a
streamlined
and
up­
to­
date
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest
system,
USEPA
is
promulgating
revisions
to
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest
form,
to
provide
national
uniformity
and
other
benefits
to
waste
handlers
and
to
the
States
(
USEPA
issued
the
original
manifest
form
on
20
March
1984).
The
purpose
of
this
"
Economics
Background
Document"
is
to
estimate
the
potential
impacts
(
benefits
&
costs)
to
waste
handlers,
to
State
governments,
and
to
the
USEPA,
associated
with
these
revisions.

!
Impact
Baseline:
For
impact
Category
C
of
this
EBD
(
i.
e.
manifest
procedures
for
rejecting
irregular
shipments
&
handling
non­
empty
shipment
containers),
OSW
estimates
impacts
relative
to
the
current
"
interim
policy"
regulatory
practices
of
state
governments,
rather
than
to
the
Federal
RCRA
regulatory
baseline
prior
to
the
final
rule
(
which
is
the
baseline
for
all
other
impact
elements
estimated
in
this
EBD).

!
Impact
Elements:
Provides
summaries
and
monetized
values
for
10
impact
elements
of
the
20
final
rule
revisions
to
the
manifest
form
 
organized
in
this
document
into
three
impact
categories
(
A,
B,
C);
the
other
revisions
not
monetized
because
of
expected
minimal
or
no
net
effect
incremental
to
baseline.

The
following
five
tables
summarize
the
monetized
and
burden
hour
impact
estimates
of
this
study.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
6
SUMMARY
TABLE
#
1
OF
5
Present
Value
($
millions)

of
Future
National
Economic
Impacts
Estimated
in
this
Background
Document
for
USEPA­
OSW's
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
(
EPA
Form
8700­
22
&
22A)

(
Parentheses
Indicate
Net
Cost
Savings)

Alternative
Discount
Periods
Alternative
Discount
Rates
0%
(
non­
discounted)
3%
5%
7%
10%

1
year
($
12.7)*
to
($
20.6)*
($
12.5)
to
($
20.3)
($
12.3)
to
($
19.9)
($
11.9)
to
($
19.4)
($
11.7)
to
($
19.0)

5
years
($
65)
to
($
105)
($
59)
to
($
96)
($
56)
to
($
90)
($
52)
to
($
83)
($
49)
to
($
79)

15
years
($
194)
to
($
314)
($
154)
to
($
250)
($
134)
to
($
217)
($
110)
to
($
179)
($
98)
to
($
159)

30
years
($
387)
to
($
627)
($
253)
to
($
410)
($
198)
to
($
321)
($
145)
to
($
235)
($
122)
to
($
197)

50
years
($
645)
to
($
1,045)
($
332)
to
($
538)
($
236)
to
($
382)
($
158)
to
($
256)
($
128)
to
($
207)

100
years
($
1,290)
to
($
2,099)
($
408)
to
($
660)
($
256)
to
($
415)
($
161)
to
($
261)
($
129)
to
($
209)

Explanatory
Notes:

(
d)
*
The
1­
year
0%
(
non­
discounted)
value
represents
the
"
average
annualized"
burden
value,
without
present
value
discounting
applied,

as
shown
in
the
following
Summary
Tables.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
7
SUMMARY
TABLE
#
2
OF
5
AGGREGATE
MONETIZED
IMPACT
SUMMARY
TABLE
For
OSW's
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
($
million/
year;
parentheses
indicate
expected
average
annual
cost
savings)

Impact
Category
Final
Rule
Revision
Categories
Impacts
to
RCRA
Haz
Waste
Handlers
Impacts
to
State
Governments
or
USEPA
Row
Totals
A
Revisions
to
manifest
form
contents
&
format
($
12.35)
to
($
20.32)
($
0.40)
to
($
0.37)
($
12.75)
to
($
20.70)

B
Revisions
to
manifest
form
printing
&
acquisition
($
1.154)
to
($
2.348)
$
1.161
to
$
2.447
$
0.007
to
$
0.100
Column
Sub­
totals
(
incremental
to
state
"
interim
policy"
baseline)
=
($
13.50)
to
($
22.67)
$
0.76
to
$
2.077
($
12.7)
to
($
20.6)

C*
Revisions
to
procedures
for
manifesting
rejected
waste
shipments
&
container
residues
(
not
incremental
to
baseline)*
$
0.26
to
$
2.70
$
0.20
to
$
2.11
$
0.46
to
$
4.80
*
Category
C
impact
represents
an
estimate
of
the
impact
associated
with
existing
state
government
"
interim
policy"
procedures
for
problem
waste
shipments
which
are
adopted
in
the
final
rule,
and
thus
are
not
incremental
to
the
baseline
nor
added
to
Categories
A
&
B.

SUMMARY
TABLE
#
3
OF
5
AGGREGATE
BURDEN
HOUR
IMPACT
SUMMARY
TABLE
For
OSW's
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
(
hours/
year;
parentheses
indicate
expected
reduction
in
average
annual
paperwork
burden)

Impact
Category
Final
Rule
Revision
Categories
Impacts
to
RCRA
Haz
Waste
Handlers
Impacts
to
State
Governments
or
USEPA
Row
Totals
A
Revisions
to
manifest
form
contents
&
format
(
238,500)
to
(
389,400)
(
12,500)
(
249,300)
to
(
399,200)

B
Revisions
to
manifest
form
printing
&

acquisition
3,550
to
4,960
(
3,440)
to
(
3,220)
110
to
1,790
Column
Sub­
totals
(
incremental
to
state
"
interim
policy"
baseline)
=
(
234,900)
to
(
384,400)
(
14,300)
to
(
13,100)
(
249,200)
to
(
397,400)

C*
Revisions
to
procedures
for
manifesting
rejected
waste
shipments
&
container
residues
(
not
incremental
to
baseline)*
4,900
to
50,900
5,600
to
58,500
10,500
to
109,400
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
8
*
Category
C
impact
represents
an
estimate
of
the
impact
associated
with
existing
state
government
"
interim
policy"
procedures
for
problem
waste
shipments
which
are
adopted
in
the
final
rule,
and
thus
are
not
incremental
to
the
baseline
nor
added
to
Categories
A
&
B.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
9
SUMMARY
TABLE
#
4
OF
5
ITEMIZED
MONETIZED
IMPACT
SUMMARY
TABLE
For
OSW"
s
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
($
in
parentheses
indicate
expected
average
annual
cost
savings)

Impact
Element
Revisions
to
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Estimated
Average
Annualized
Impact
($
millions/
year)

Hazardous
Waste
Handlers
State
Gov'ts
or
USEPA
Row
Totals
A1
A.
Revisions
to
manifest
form
contents
&

format
Elimination/
consolidation
of
manifest
form
elements
Main
form
burden
savings
>
($
7.16)
to
($
14.98)
$
0
($
7.16)
to
($
14.98)

A2
Continuation
sheet
savings
>
($
0.22)
to
($
0.46)
$
0
($
0.22)
to
($
0.46)

A3
Manifest
training
savings
>
($
5.128)
($
0.450)
($
5.579)

A4
Submit
copy
of
waste
import
manifest
to
EPA­
OECA
$
0.161
to
$
0.244
$
0.050
to
$
0.079
$
0.21
to
$
0.32
B1
B.
Revisions
to
procedures
for
manifest
form
printing
&
acquisition
Implement
a
new
USEPA
national
registry
of
approved
manifest
form
printers
$
0.006
to
$
0.092
<$
0.001
to
$
0.007
$
0.007
to
$
0.100
B2
Potential
change
in
state
fees
for
states
printing
blank
manifests
Blank
manifest
state
fees*
>

(
transfer
payments)
($
1.16)
to
($
2.44)

state
fees
avoided
$
1.16
to
$
2.44
fee
revenue
loss
$
0
B3
Printing
blank
manifests
>
To
avoid
double­
counting,
presumed
included
in
state
fees
for
blank
manifests
Impact
Categories
A
+
B
Sub­
totals
(
incremental
to
state
"
interim
policy"
baseline)
=
($
13.50)
to
($
22.67)
$
0.76
to
$
2.077
($
12.7)
to
($
20.6)

C1**
C.
Revisions
for
manifesting
rejected
wastes
&
container
residues
Full
load
rejections
>

(
if
transporter
has
not
departed
from
TSDF)
$
0.026
to
$
0.270
$
0
$
0.026
to
$
0.270
C2**
Rejection
of
partial
loads
&
non­
empty
containers
>

(
or
full
load
rejections
if
transporter
departed
TSDF)
$
0.232
to
$
2.428
$
0.201
to
$
2.107
$
0.433
to
$
4.535
Impact
Category
C
sub­
totals
(
not
incremental
to
baseline)**
=
$
0.258
to
$
2.698
$
0.201
to
$
2.107
$
0.459
to
$
4.805
Explanatory
Notes:

(
e)
*
If
not
based
on
actual
resource
costs
to
23
states
for
printing
blank
RCRA
manifest
forms,
state
manifest
acquisition
fees
may
represent
 
in
part
or
in
whole
 
transfer
payments
between
waste
handlers
and
state
governments,
which
are
not
real
resource
economic
costs
and
are
not
included
in
the
Impact
totals
in
this
table.

States
may
restore
(
maintain)
existing
manifest
revenues
by
changing
fee
billing
mechanisms
to
alternate
bases
(
e.
g.
per­
pound
waste
shipped,
annual
fee
per
shipping
facility,
etc.).

(
f)
**
Category
C
impact
represents
an
estimate
of
the
impact
associated
with
existing
state
government
"
interim
policy"
procedures
for
problem
waste
shipments
which
are
adopted
in
the
final
rule,
and
thus
are
not
incremental
to
the
baseline
nor
added
to
Categories
A
&
B.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
10
SUMMARY
TABLE
#
5
OF
5
ITEMIZED
BURDEN
HOUR
SUMMARY
TABLE
For
OSW's
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
(
parentheses
indicate
expected
reduction
in
average
annual
paperwork
burden)

Impact
Element
Revisions
to
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Estimated
Average
Annualized
Change
in
Paperwork
Burden
(
labor
hours/
year)

Hazardous
Waste
Handlers
State
Gov'ts
or
USEPA
Row
Totals
A1
A.
Revisions
to
manifest
form
contents
&

format
Elimination/
consolidation
of
manifest
form
elements
Main
form
burden
savings
>
(
135,000)
to
(
282,700)
0
(
135,000)
to
(
282,700)

A2
Continuation
sheet
savings
>
(
4,200)
to
(
8,800)
0
(
4,200)
to
(
8,800)

A3
Manifest
training
savings
>
(
101,800)
(
12,500)
(
114,300)

A4
Submit
copy
of
waste
import
manifest
to
EPA­
OECA
2,505
to
3,945
1,670
to
2,630
4,175
to
6,575
B1
B.
Revisions
to
procedures
for
manifest
form
printing
&
acquisition
Implement
a
new
USEPA
national
registry
of
approved
manifest
form
printers
97
to
1,506
14
to
230
110
to
1,790
B2
Potential
change
in
state
fees
for
states
printing
blank
manifests
Blank
manifest
state
fees*
>
State
gov't
manifest
printing
overhead
burden
assumed
minimal
(
not
estimated)

B3
Printing
blank
manifests
>
3,450
(
3,450)
0
Impact
Categories
A
+
B
Sub­
totals
(
incremental
to
state
"
interim
policy"
baseline)
=
(
234,900)
to
(
384,400)
(
14,300)
to
(
13,100)
(
249,200)
to
(
397,400)

C1*
C.
Revisions
for
manifesting
rejected
wastes
&
container
residues
Full
load
rejections
>

(
if
transporter
has
not
departed
from
TSDF)
500
to
5,100
0
500
to
5,100
C2*
Rejection
of
partial
loads
&
non­
empty
containers
>

(
or
full
load
rejections
if
transporter
departed
TSDF)
4,400
to
45,800
5,600
to
58,500
10,000
to
104,300
Impact
Category
C
sub­
totals
(
not
incremental
to
baseline)*
=
4,900
to
50,900
5,600
to
58,500
10,500
to
109,400
*
Category
C
impact
represents
an
estimate
of
the
impact
associated
with
existing
state
government
"
interim
policy"
procedures
for
problem
waste
shipments
which
are
adopted
in
the
final
rule,
and
thus
are
not
incremental
to
the
baseline
nor
added
to
Categories
A
&
B.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
11
II.
PURPOSE,
SCOPE,
LIMITATIONS
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
12
II.
A
Purpose
of
This
Document
This
report
estimates
the
expected
national,
average
annual
impacts
to
both
(
a)
waste
handlers
and
(
b)
state
governments,
under
OSW's
final
rule
revisions
to
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest
form
(
EPA
Form
8700­
22
&
22A).
The
rule
finalizes
revisions
to
the
RCRA
manifest
form
and
related
manifesting
procedures,
proposed
on
22
May
2001
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
mods.
htm).

By
OSW's
intentional
design
to
revise
the
RCRA
manifest
form
into
a
nationally
uniform
manifest
form
(
i.
e.
by
eliminating
state­
by­
state
variations
in
the
RCRA
manifest
form),
OSW's
a
priori
expected
incremental
change
in
annual
burden
resulting
from
the
final
rule,
is
a
net
reduction
in
national
burden,
to
entities
involved
in
the
RCRA
manifest
system,
because
of
the
expected
resultant
simplification
to
entities
using
this
form
(
e.
g.
particularly
for
interstate
transport
of
hazardous
wastes,
and
for
companies
which
operate
facilities
in
multiple
states).

Because
of
the
relatively
wide
variety
of
entities
and
types
of
wastes
involved
in
the
RCRA
manifest
system,
and
the
fact
that
OSW
did
not
conduct
a
new
statistical
information/
data
collection
survey
in
support
of
this
study,
OSW
has
made
several
quantitative
assumptions
in
this
analysis,
which
provide
sources
of
uncertainty
in
the
economic
impact
estimates
in
this
report.
In
addition,
this
document
applies
a
nonprobability
sampling
design
in
the
selection
of
a
sample
of
waste
handlers
and
state
governments
from
which
to
ask
for
manifest
system
burden
data
and
information,
which
adds
another
source
of
uncertainty
because
the
survey
findings
of
this
study
do
not
necessarily
have
a
highlevel
of
statistical
validity
or
confidence.
Consequently,
the
numerical
values
assigned
to
data
elements,
and
numerical
estimations,
should
be
interpreted
only
as
rough
approximations,
and
may
not
be
generalizeable
to
all
potentially
affected
entities,
industries,
or
states.

The
contents
of
this
document
consists
mostly
of
tables
rather
than
text,
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
reader
burden
by
eliminating
duplication
with
the
text
of
the
final
rule
Federal
Register
notice;
descriptive
text
and
explanations
are
mostly
confined
(
formatted)
as
"
Explanatory
Notes"
which
appear
at
the
bottom
of
the
tables
in
this
document.

II.
B
Statement
of
Regulatory
Need
The
1976
RCRA
statute
(
Section
3002(
a)(
5);
http://
www4.
law.
cornell.
edu/
uscode/
42/
ch82.
html)
directs
EPA
to
establish
regulatory
standards
for
hazardous
waste
handlers,
including
the
specific
charge
to
establish
a
manifest
system
or
other
reasonable
means
to
ensure
that
hazardous
waste
shipments
are
designated
for,
and
in
fact
arrive
at,
permitted
waste
management
facilities.

"[
U]
se
of
a
manifest
system
and
any
other
reasonable
means
necessary
to
assure
that
all
such
hazardous
waste
generated
is
designated
for
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
in
and
arrives
at,
treatment,
storage
or
disposal
facilities
(
other
than
facilities
on
the
premises
where
the
waste
is
generated)
for
which
a
permit
has
been
issued
as
provided
in
this
subtitle,
or
pursuant
to
title
I
of
the
Marine
Protection,
Research,
and
Sanctuaries
Act
(
86
Stat.
1052)..."

Because
the
manifest
is
also
a
shipping
paper
under
the
US
Department
of
Transportation's
(
USDOT)
preemptive
hazardous
materials
regulations,
it
is
a
uniquely
Federal
role
to
establish
the
required
content
and
procedures
for
use
of
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest.

Milestones
in
the
evolution
of
OSW's
RCRA
manifest
system
are
as
follows:

!
1980:
In
the
first
years
of
the
hazardous
waste
program
after
1976,
EPA
established
narrative
informational
requirements
and
regulatory
procedures
(
40
CFR
262
Subpart
B)
for
RCRA
manifests.
The
States
then
developed
their
distinct
RCRA
manifest
forms
based
on
these
informational
requirements,
and
hazardous
waste
handlers
were
required
to
carry
as
many
manifests
for
a
single
shipment
as
there
were
states
affected
(
traversed)
by
a
shipment.
The
regulated
community
complained
of
the
paperwork
burden,
confusion,
and
duplication
of
effort
that
resulted
from
having
no
specific
single
Federal
format
for
the
contents
of
the
RCRA
manifest
form.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
13
!
1984:
Therefore,
in
1984,
EPA
and
DOT
jointly
promulgated
the
RCRA
"
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest"
two­
page
form
(
EPA
Form
8700­
22
&
22A
continuation
sheet)
containing
35
information
elements
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
general/
orientat/
romapa.
pdf),
which
is
still
in
use
20
years
later
as
of
year
2004.
The
1984
RCRA
Uniform
Manifest
improved
the
situation
greatly
by
designating
one
set
of
Federally
required
data
elements,
and
by
clarifying
that
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste
shipment
need
only
be
accompanied
by
one
RCRA
manifest
form,
not
several.
However,
because
the
Uniform
Manifest
also
established
a
set
of
11
optional
information
fields
on
the
form
that
States
could
select
from
in
establishing
their
state­
specific
versions
of
the
Uniform
Manifest,
there
still
remained
a
significant
amount
of
state
variability
and
resulting
burden
to
the
regulated
community.
As
of
2003,
23
states
have
developed
state­
specific
variations
of
the
RCRA
Uniform
Manifest,
and
these
formats
vary
insofar
as
the
optional
data
elements
that
must
be
completed
in
each
state,
as
well
as
the
instructions
and
procedures
to
be
followed
in
supplying
the
optional
data.
To
read
additional
information
about
the
RCRA
manifest
see:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
index.
htm.

!
1990:
By
1990,
both
the
regulated
community
and
the
RCRA­
authorized
state
hazardous
waste
management
programs
demanded
a
more
rational
system
for
tracking
hazardous
waste
shipments
and
collecting
waste
management
data
using
the
RCRA
manifest.

Beginning
in
1990,
EPA,
DOT,
state
governments,
and
stakeholders
from
industry
and
environmental
groups
identified
and
defined
manifest
reform
proposals
as
part
of
a
negotiated
rulemaking
effort
(
National
Forum
on
Hazardous
Waste
Shipping
Information).

!
1995:
The
effort
came
to
closure
in
1995,
when
EPA
management
concluded
that
the
changes
recommended
during
the
negotiated
rulemaking
would
accomplish
standardization
only
by
adding
more
burden
to
the
form.

!
1997:
A
new
work
group
was
chartered
in
1997
to
try
again
to
make
real
efforts
aimed
at
streamlining
manifest
data
elements
and
varying
state
procedures,
and
to
incorporate
new
information
technologies
(
i.
e.
electronic
manifest
form
and
computerized
transmissions)
into
the
mix
of
possible
new
approaches
to
the
RCRA
manifest.
The
more
recent
manifest
reform
effort
led
by
OSW
made
significant
progress
in
both
manifest
form
streamlining
and
in
the
effort
to
develop
a
more
efficient
waste
tracking
system
using
electronic
technologies,
and
perhaps
to
enhance
protection
of
the
environment
and
human
health
by
electronic
tracking
of
hazardous
waste
shipments.

!
2001:
OSW
proposed
RCRA
manifest
revisions
on
22
May
2001
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
mods.
htm).

Additional
information
about
these
earlier
attempts
at
reform
is
provided
in
the
Federal
Register
announcement
and
in
supporting
background
materials
for
the
May
2001
proposed
rule.
After
assessing
the
64
sets
of
public
comments
EPA
received
in
response
to
the
May
2001
proposed
rule
(
available
in
EPA
Docket
number
RCRA­
2001­
0032
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket),
OSW
decided
to
separate
the
2001
proposed
manifest
form
changes
from
the
electronic
manifest
(
e­
manifest)
system
which
was
coproposed
in
that
same
2001
announcement,
because
there
were
relatively
fewer
controversial
issues
addressed
at
the
proposed
manifest
form
revisions,
as
well
as
significant
stakeholder
interest
expressed
in
finalizing
the
manifest
form
changes
as
soon
as
possible.

Displayed
in
the
table
below,
as
of
FY2004,
the
RCRA
manifest
system
which
is
inventoried
by
OMB
at
3.6
million
burden
hours
annually,
is
ranked
as
the
second
most
burdensome
in
annual
hours,
and
ninth
most
costly,
information
collection
requirement
imposed
on
EPA's
solid
and
hazardous
waste
regulated
community,
of
the
47
information
collection
programs
within
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
&
Emergency
Response
(
OSWER;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oswer).
OSW's
two­
prong
effort
aimed
at
reducing
the
RCRA
manifest
burden
 
via
the
manifest
form
changes
and
the
e­
manifest
system
 
is
expected
to
reduce
this
burden
while
enabling
waste
shipments
to
be
tracked
more
efficiently
and
effectively.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
14
The
true
standardization
of
the
RCRA
manifest
form
data
elements
and
the
elimination
of
optional
data
elements,
are
essential
steps
in
the
manifest
reform
process,
and
are
a
precursor
to
the
establishment
of
the
e­
manifest
in
a
subsequent
regulatory
action
under
continued
formulation
and
refinement
as
of
2004
(
see
following
website
for
mid­
2004
update
on
the
e­
manifest
rule:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
e­
man.
htm).
The
continuing
need
for
these
revisions
to
the
RCRA
manifest
regulations
is
amply
demonstrated
by
the
high
level
of
support
expressed
by
both
members
of
the
regulated
community
that
must
comply
with
the
RCRA
manifest
requirements,
and
the
RCRA­
authorized
state
governments
that
oversee
the
daily
operation
of
the
RCRA
manifest
program
and
collect
completed
manifests.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
15
OMB's
FY2004
Inventory
of
USEPA­
OSWER
Annual
Paperwork
Burden
(
Sept
2004)

Descending
Sort
by
Annual
Hours
Rank
ICR
Approval
Expiration
Date
(
normally
3­
years)
Name
of
OSWER
Regulation
or
Program
ICR
Nr.
Annual
Respondents
Annual
Hours
Annual
Cost
($
000)

1
10/
31/
2004
Underground
Storage
Tanks
(
USTs):
Technical
&
Financial
Requirements
&

State
Program
Approval
Procedures
(
40
CFR
Parts
280
&
281)
1360.06
500,000
6,025,543
$
363
2
05/
31/
2005
Requirements
for
Generators,
Transporters,
and
Disposers
under
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System
(
EPA
Form
8700­
22
&
22A)
0801.14
147,018
3,612,539
(
19%)
$
2,416
3
10/
31/
2004
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Reporting
Requirements
under
Sections
311
&

312
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA)

­
Minimal
Hazard
Proposed
Rule
1352.09
504,000
2,028,701
$
6,391
4
08/
31/
2005
Spill
Prevention,
Control
&
Countermeasures
(
SPCC)
Plans
0328.10
419,033
1,589,252
$
22,541
5
08/
31/
2007
Hazardous
Waste
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
(
LDRs)
1442.18
142,008
822,708
$
59,884
6
02/
28/
2006
General
Hazardous
Waste
Facility
Standards
(
40
CFR
264
&
265)
1571.07
1,675
719,059
$
760
7
09/
30/
2004
Oil
Pollution
Act
Facility
Response
Plans
(
40
CFR
112.20)
1630.07
10,310
583,130
$
22
8
10/
31/
2004
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards
(
40
CFR
262)
0820.08
140,877
485,136
$
55
9
12/
31/
2005
Used
Oil
Management
Standards
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Requirements
(
40
CFR
279)
1286.06
1,640
460,286
$
10,011
10
12/
31/
2005
Boilers
and
Industrial
Furnaces:
General
Haz
Waste
Facility
Standards,

Specific
Unit
Requirements,
&
RCRA
Part
B
Permit
Application
&

Modification
Requirements
1361.09
1,969
307,949
$
26,353
11
09/
30/
2004
Hazardous
Waste
Specific
Unit
Requirements,
and
Special
Waste
Processes
and
Types
(
40
CFR
266)
1572.05
6,341
287,069
$
875
12
12/
31/
2005
Worker
Protection
Standards
for
Haz
Waste
Operations
&
Emergency
Response
1426.06
24,000
255,427
$
0
13
11/
30/
2004
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Regulations
(
CRRR)
under
1980
CERCLA
1445.05
23,280
249,451
$
76
14
11/
30/
2004
Superfund
Site
Evaluation
and
Hazard
Ranking
System
1488.05
60
230,533
$
0
15
11/
30/
2004
Reporting
and
Recording
Requirements
for
the
Universal
Waste
Handlers
and
Destination
Facilities
1597.04
133,181
218,168
$
3
16
02/
28/
2006
Emergency
Planning
&
Release
Notification
Requirements
Under
Emergency
Planning
&
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
Sections
302,
303,
304
1395.05
82,260
212,460
$
15
17
10/
31/
2005
2003
Hazardous
Waste
Report
(
Biennial
Report;
EPA
Form
8700­
13A/
B)
0976.11
505,251
196,976
$
25
18
11/
30/
2006
Recordkeeping
&
Reporting
Requirements
for
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Facilities/
Practices
(
40
CFR
258)
1381.07
1,900
191,028
$
2,211
19
10/
31/
2004
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP);

(
40
CFR
Part
300)
1463.05
7,560
185,910
$
0
20
05/
31/
2006
NESHAP
for
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
EEE)
1773.06
2,557
151,339
$
3,925
21
10/
31/
2005
Registration
&
Documentation
of
Risk
Management
Plans
under
Section
112(
r)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
1656.11
4,976
130,803
$
6
22
09/
30/
2004
Notification
of
Episodic
Releases
of
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
(
Renewal)
1049.09
23,726
97,277
$
0
23
01/
31/
2005
Facility
Ground­
water
Monitoring
Requirements
0959.11
824
96,913
$
16,757
24
01/
31/
2006
Notification
of
Regulated
Waste
Activity
0261.14
31,125
96,250
$
131
25
09/
30/
2004
Reporting
&
Recordkeeping
Requirements
Under
WasteWise
Program
1698.04
1,740
64,260
$
0
26
11/
30/
2004
Identification,
Listing
&
Rulemaking
Petitions
(
Proposed
rule
for
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemptions)
1189.12
1,840
20,810
$
889
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
16
27
07/
31/
2005
Final
Authorization
for
State
Gov't
Haz
Waste
Management
Programs
0969.06
50
19,968
$
0
28
12/
31/
2006
Distribution
of
Off­
site
Consequence
Analysis
Info
under
Sect.
112(
r)(
7)(
H)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
1981.02
4,417
15,840
$
1
29
07/
31/
2006
RCRA
Part
B
Permit
Application,
Permit
Mods
&
Special
Permits
1573.10
74
12,209
$
2,468
30
11/
30/
2005
Criteria
for
Classification
of
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Facilities
&
Practices
(
40
CFR
257
Subpart
B)
1745.04
145
9,675
$
938
31
08/
31/
2006
Brownfields
Program
­
Revitalization
Grantee
Reporting
2104.01
5,070
7,320
$
0
32
11/
30/
2004
Cooperative
Agreements
and
Superfund
State
Contracts
for
Superfund
Response
Actions
1487.07
581
5,115
$
0
33
09/
30/
2005
Hazardous
Remediation
Waste
Management
Requirements
(
HWIR­
Media)
1775.03
176
4,959
$
35
34
10/
31/
2006
Trade
Secret
Claims
for
Emergency
Planning
&
Community
Right­
to­
Know
(
EPCRA
Section
322)
1428.06
357
3,483
$
0
35
04/
30/
2006
National
Waste
Minimization
Partnership
Program
2076.01
238
3,235
$
0
36
06/
30/
2005
State
Program
Adequacy
Determination:
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
(
MSWLFs)
and
Non­
municipal,
Non­
hazardous
Waste
Disposal
Units
that
Receive
Waste
from
Conditionally
Exempt
Small
Quantity
Generators
1608.03
6
3,189
$
0
37
12/
31/
2006
Land
Disposal
Restrictions:
No­
Migration
Variances
1353.07
1
3,168
$
0
38
11/
30/
2004
Storage,
Treatment,
Transportation
&
Disposal
of
Mixed
Waste
1922.02
7,010
3,079
$
4
39
08/
31/
2005
RCRA
Expanded
Public
Participation
1688.04
33
3,005
$
4
40
05/
31/
2005
Institutional
Controls
Tracking
Systems
and
Costs
Survey
2043.01
262
2,620
$
0
41
05/
31/
2005
Soil
Ingestion
Research
1965.01
200
2,000
$
0
42
11/
30/
2004
Application
for
Reimbursement
to
Local
Governments
for
Emergency
Response
to
Hazardous
Substance
Releases
Under
CERCLA
Section
123
1425.05
200
1,800
$
0
43
03/
31/
2006
Tribal
Lands
Hazardous
Waste
Sites
Census
2059.01
550
1,375
$
0
44
11/
30/
2005
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Permit
Application
and
Modification,
Part
A
0262.10
36
576
$
1
45
06/
30/
2007
National
Oil
&
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan,
Subpart
J
1664.05
14
390
$
83
46
02/
28/
2005
Response
technologies
for
biological,
chemical,
and
radiological
threats
Vendor
Letter:
Request
for
supporting
information
to
produce
technical
performance
reports.
2154.01
150
375
$
0
47
12/
31/
2004
Standardized
Permit
for
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Management
1935.01
175
1
$
2
Column
totals
=
2,738,896
19,422,359
$
157,245
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Source:
White
House
Office
of
Management
&
Budget
(
OMB),
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
(
OIRA)
"
Inventory
of
Approved
Information
Collections"
(
as
of
02
Sept
2004),
http://
www.
whitehouse.
gov/
omb/
library/
OMBINV.
VA.
EPA.
html#
EPA
(
b)
ICR
annual
burden
estimates
are
the
numerical
averages
over
three­
years
total
burden
estimated
in
each
ICR
Supporting
Statement.

(
c)
ICR
paperwork
burden
estimates
(
hours
&
costs)
in
this
table
do
not
include:

!
Paperwork
collection
&
processing
burden
to
EPA
and
to
state
government
authorized
programs.

!
Information
collection
burden
to
Federally­
owned
individuals
and
facilities.

!
Burden
associated
with
state­
only
regulated
solid
and
hazardous
wastes.

Consequently,
ICR
burden
estimates
(
hours
&
costs)
are
typically
less
than
estimates
of
national
economic
costs
of
regulations.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
17
II.
C
Regulatory
Alternatives
The
table
below
summarizes
the
main
regulatory
options
for
revising
the
RCRA
manifest
form
OSW
presented
for
public
comment
in
the
22
May
2001
proposed
rule,
as
well
as
the
main
options
supplied
in
public
comments
to
the
proposed
rule,
which
OSW
considered
prior
to
formulating
the
final
rule.
The
May
2001
proposed
rule
also
contained
a
few
other
relatively
minor
options
in
scope
 
such
as
alternative
options
for
hazardous
waste
management
codes,
and
for
toxicity
hierarchy
of
wastecodes
reported
on
the
manifest
form
 
but
the
table
below
does
not
summarized
these
minor
options.
Summary
of
Main
Regulatory
Alternatives
(
Options)
Identified
in
the
May
2001
Proposed
Rule
&
in
Public
Comments
Main
Regulatory
Issue
May
2001
Proposed
Option
Alternative
Options
Identified
in
May
2001
Proposed
Rule
and/
or
in
Public
Response
Comments
Options
Selected
for
Final
Rule
1.
MANIFEST
FORM
CONTENTS
(
DATA
FIELDS)
!
Option
A:
Standardize
the
form
by
eliminating
state
optional
datafields,
and
by
limiting
use
of
"
Special
Handling"
&

"
Additional
Description"
fields
to
narrowly
defined
purposes.
!
Option
B:
1990'
s
"
Renegotiated
Rulemaking"

recommendation
to
achieve
nation­
wide
uniformity
by
retaining
all
11
optional
fields
and
making
them
mandatory.

!
Option
C:
States
retain
some
discretion
(
e.
g.
1
or
2
optional
fields)
to
enter
additional
state­
specific
information
on
the
manifest,
beyond
state­
only
waste
codes
!
Modified
Options
A:

Eliminated
9
of
the
11
optional
fields,
and
made
the
remaining
two
datafields
(
wastecodes
&
handling
codes)
mandatory.

2.
MANIFEST
FORM
PRINTING
!
Option
A:
Adopt
a
new
approach
whereby
EPA
controls
manifest
printing
&

distribution
by:
(
1)
creating
an
EPA
registry
of
approved
manifest
form
printers,
(
2)
establishing
precise
EPA
printing
specs
for
the
manifest
form,
and
(
3)
assigning
unique
pre­
printed
tracking
numbers
on
manifests.
!
Option
B:
Retain
current
approach
with
states
printing
manifests
and
controlling
distribution
to
users.
State
governments
would
print
forms
adhering
to
EPA
specification,
but
would
continue
to
be
exclusive
source
for
forms.
State
forms
could
contain
state­
specific
instructions
for
copy
submission
and
for
state­
only
haz
wastes.
!
Option
A
3.
MANIFESTING
PROBLEM
WASTES
!
Option
A:
Require
completion
of
2nd
manifest
in
all
cases
involving
rejected
wastes
or
regulated
container
residues.
!
Option
B:
Allow
full
load
rejections
involving
same
transporter
that
attempted
delivery
to
be
tracked
on
original
manifest.
All
other
rejected
load
cases
would
require
a
2nd
manifest.
!
Option
B
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
18
4.
MANIFESTING
WASTE
IMPORTS
&

EXPORTS
!
Option
A1:
Provide
a
new
"
International
Shipments"
datafield
on
the
manifest
form
with
check
boxes
for
both
import
and
export
of
haz
wastes,
with
signature/
date
block
for
exports,
and
port
of
entry
ID
block
for
imports.

!
Option
A2:
Waste
import
transporters
submit
import
manifest
copy
to
US
Customs
at
border
point­
of­
entry.
!
Option
B1:
Do
not
place
the
new
"
International
Shipments'
datafield
on
the
existing
manifest
form,

but
develop
a
distinct
new
manifest
form
just
to
address
international
movements
of
waste.

!
Option
B2:
No
other
options
identified.
!
Modified
Option
A1:
As
proposed,
but
reduction
in
size
of
new
datafield
space
on
form.

!
Modified
Option
A2:

Importing
TSDFs
mail
import
manifest
copies
to
EPAOECA

5.
NEW
MANIFEST
FORM
(
FINAL
RULE)
IMPLEMENTATION
!
Option
A:
In
addition
to
the
normal
effective
date
of
RCRA
final
rules
(
i.
e.
six
months
post­
publication
in
the
Federal
Register),
the
proposed
rule
included
a
2­
year
"
delayed
compliance
date"
for
phase­
in
of
the
new
manifest
form,
during
which
both
the
"
old"
and
the
"
new"
forms
could
be
used.
!
Option
B:
Same
2­
year
delayed
compliance
date
as
Option
A,
but
with
a
"
drop­
dead
date"
in
which
implementation
of
the
new
manifest
form
would
be
completely
delayed
until
two
years
after
the
final
rule's
effective
date.
!
Modified
Option
B:
18­

month
delayed
compliance
date
(
i.
e.
6­
month
normal
effective
date
+
12­
month
delayed
compliance),
during
which
only
"
old"
forms
may
be
used,
and
after
which
only
"
new"
forms
may
be
used.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
19
II.
D
Affected
Facility
Type
Definitions
!
LQGs:
Most
RCRA
hazardous
waste
"
TSDFs"
may
also
be
classified
as
"
LQGs"
because
they
may
generate
waste
treatment
"
residuals"

(
i.
e.
"
derived­
from"
hazardous
wastes),
in
volumes
which
meet
or
exceed
the
"
LQG"
threshold.
RCRA
regulations
do
not
formally
define
"
LQGs".
However
RCRA
program
supporting
materials
and
other
RCRA
background
documents
define
"
LQG"
as
a
site
which
generates
1,000
kilograms
(
2,205
pounds)
or
more
of
hazardous
waste
in
a
calendar
month
(
i.
e.
>
12
tons/
year).

!
SQGs:
In
comparison,
RCRA
regulation
(
40
CFR
260.10)
classifies
sites
which
generate
less
than
2,205
pounds
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
in
a
calendar
month
as
SQGs,
"
small
quantity
generators"
(
i.
e.
<
12
tons/
year).

!
TSDFs:
Facilities
which
treat,
store,
dispose
or
recycle
hazardous
waste
are
TSDFs
(
or
sometimes
TSDRFs):

!
Commercial
TSDFs:
Waste
management
capacity
is
available
to
generators
for
offsite
hazardous
waste
management
under
contractual
agreement;
may
receive
a
hazardous
waste
shipment
(
and
accompanying
RCRA
manifest)

from
another
company,
or
generate
a
new
manifest
for
shipment
of
waste
management
residuals
(
e.
g.

shipment
of
stabilized
waste
incineration
ash
to
an
offsite
landfill).

!
Captive
TSDFs:
Waste
management
facility
that
receives
hazardous
wastes
from
onsite
sources
only,
or
from
onsite
sources
and
offsite
sources
that
are
part
of
the
same
company
only.

II.
E
Major
Sources
of
Impact
Estimation
Uncertainty
!
Annual
manifests:
Most
economic
impact
estimates
of
this
document
are
relative
to
the
annual
count
of
RCRA
manifest
transactions.

!
Baseline
manifests:
An
uncertainty
range
of
baseline
annual
RCRA
manifests
is
presented
in
this
document
based
on
the
two
alternative
information
sources:

!
Lower­
bound:
2.433
million
manifests/
year
(
source:
Table
III­
1
of
OSW
"
Economics
Background
Document:
Economic
Analysis
of
the
USEPA's
Proposed
Modifications
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System",
19
Dec
2000,

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf)

!
Upper­
bound:
5.090
million
manifests/
year
(
source:
Environmental
Technology
Council
survey
memorandum
submitted
06
Nov
2002
to
EPA
RCRA
Docket
F­
2000­

UWMP­
FFFF,
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Proposal";
note
that
EPA
changed
this
docket
number
to
RCRA­
2001­
0032,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket).

!
Future
manifests:
No
future
projection
presented
in
this
document
as
an
alternative
to
the
baseline
quantity.

!
2nd
party
assistance:
OSW's
19
Dec
2000
"
Economics
Background
Document"
in
support
of
OSW's
May
2001
RCRA
revised
manifest
proposed
rule
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf),
assumed
that
LQGs
and
SQGs
rely
on
various
means
for
preparing
their
manifests
(
i.
e.,
by
waste
brokers,
by
designated
commercial
TSDFs,
or
by
the
waste
generator
itself),
and
that
all
captive
TSDFs
and
commercial
TSDFs
prepare
their
own
RCRA
manifests
without
any
second
party
assistance.
However,
for
purpose
of
analytic
simplification,
this
document
applies
manifest
preparation
paperwork
burden
data
for
both
the:

!
Baseline
(
non­
revised)
RCRA
manifest
form
case,
and
!
Revised
manifest
form
case,
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
20
based
on
"
without
second
party
assistance".
This
simplifying
assumption
is
a
possible
source
of
inaccuracy
in
this
study,

but
is
expected
to
fall
within
the
"
lower"
and
"
upper"
bound
paperwork
burden
range
estimates
in
this
document.

!
State
governments:
OSW
initially
designed
the
RCRA
manifest
system
in
1984
to
impose
responsibility
(
and
associated
administrative
paperwork
burden)
on
each
individual
waste
handler
within
the
waste
transportation
chain
(
i.
e.
to
cover
hazardous
waste
lifespan
from
"
cradle­
to­
grave"),
originating
with
the
hazardous
waste
generator,
and
ending
with
the
TSDF
receiving
the
waste.
However,
based
on
OSW's
recent
consultations
with
State
government
hazardous
waste
management
personnel:

!
12
states:
Assess
a
printing
fee
to
waste
handlers
for
blank
RCRA
manifests
(
41%
of
annual
manifests).

!
23
states:
Have
instituted
their
own
versions
of
the
RCRA
manifest
form
which
meet
Federal
minimum
requirements,
and
print
blank
manifest
forms
(
69%
of
annual
manifests).

!
27
states:
Assess
fees
related
to
hazardous
waste
transport
(
including
12
states
which
assess
printing
fees).

!
34
states:
Collect
completed
manifests,
including
23
states
which
print
forms
(
76%
of
annual
manifests).

The
USEPA
does
not
print,
distribute,
or
collect
RCRA
manifest
forms.
As
of
2003
there
are
a
total
of
56
RCRArecognized
US
states/
territories
which
could
at
some
time
in
the
future
change
their
respective
levels
of
involvement
in
the
RCRA
manifest
system,
thereby
affecting
both
the
manifest
burden
baseline
to
state
governments
(
e.
g.
an
increase
beyond
34
states
collecting
completed
RCRA
manifests
would
increase
the
future
national
annual
manifest
baseline
burden),
and
affect
the
future
annual
impacts
of
the
manifest
revisions
final
rule
estimated
in
this
document
(
e.
g.

additional
state
governments
may
apply
to
OSW's
registry
of
RCRA
manifest
printers,
thereby
increasing
the
future
paperwork
burden
to
the
states
and
to
OSW
associated
with
the
registry
component
of
the
revised
manifest
final
rule;

however,
this
document
provides
an
"
upper­
bound"
56­
state
scenario
for
purpose
of
simulating
such
impact).
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
21
II.
F
Summary
of
Final
Rule
Revisions
Summary
of
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
and
Identification
of
Revisions
Monetized
in
this
Document
(
presented
below
in
approximate
sequence
according
to
final
rule
preamble
in
Federal
Register)

Final
Rule
Item
Revision
Description
&
Sub­
Components
of
Revision
Impact
Element
Monetized
in
this
Document?

A.
Revise
Manifest
Form
Contents
1
Eliminate/
consolidate
data
fields
Revise
the
content/
design
of
the
current
manifest
form
(
EPA
Form
1800­
22):

!
Eliminate
7
of
11"
State
Optional"
datafields
(
formerly
data
blocks
A
to
K)

!
Retain
the:

 
state
generator
ID
number
datafield
(
formerly
block
B)

 
designated
facility's
phone
number
datafield
(
formerly
block
H)

!
Consolidate
"
Additional
Descriptions"
(
formerly
block
J)
with
the
"
Special
Handling"
data
element
(
formerly
block
15)

!
Replace
the
state
manifest
document
number
(
formerly
block
A)
with
a
mandatory
Federally­
issued
manifest
tracking
number
!
Restrict
information
content
which
may
be
entered
into
the
"
Special
Handling"
datafield
(
formerly
block
15)
A1,
A3
2
Continuation
sheet
Revise
the
design
of
the
manifest
form
continuation
sheet
(
EPA
Form
1800­

22A)
to
incorporate
changes
made
to
the
manifest
form.
A2
3
New
data
fields
Add
three
new
datafields
to
the
manifest
form:

!
Generator
site
address
!
Explicit
datafield
on
form
for
recording
emergency
response
phone
nr.

!
Explicit
datafield
for
international
waste
shipments
(
exports/
imports)
A1,
A3
4
Importers
submit
manifests
Waste
importers
(
TSDFs)
must
mail
a
copy
of
waste
import
manifests
to
EPAOECA
(
exporters
already
must
drop­
off
manifest
copies
at
US
Customs
border).
A4
5
Mandatory
wastecodes
&

handling
codes
data
Designate
all
remaining
datafields
on
the
revised
manifest
form
as
mandatory.
Expected
increase
in
average
burden
included
in
net
effect
of
impacts
A1
&
A3
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
Summary
of
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
and
Identification
of
Revisions
Monetized
in
this
Document
(
presented
below
in
approximate
sequence
according
to
final
rule
preamble
in
Federal
Register)

Final
Rule
Item
Revision
Description
&
Sub­
Components
of
Revision
Impact
Element
Monetized
in
this
Document?

22
6
New
handling
codes
Standardize
the
handling
codes
(
formerly
block
K)
with
the
use
of
OSW
Biennial
Report
management
codes.
Expected
decrease
in
average
burden
included
in
net
effect
of
impacts
A1
&
A3
7
TSDF
certification
Require
TSDFs
to
complete
the
new
block
21
(
signature
certification
of
receipt
of
hazardous
materials
covered
by
the
manifest
form)
Not
monetized;
presume
no
net
effect
in
transferring
signature
responsibility
from
generators
to
TSDFs
8
Wastecodes
Re­
designate
"
Waste
Number"
block
I
as
Block
13
for
entering
Federal
and
state
RCRA
wastecodes
(
up
to
six
wastecodes
for
each
waste
with
manifest
users
allowed
discretion
to
enter
a
mix
of
Federal
and
state
codes).
Not
monetized;
presume
standardized
wastecodes
offset
any
additional
burden
of
mandatory
wastecode
reporting;
limitation
to
six
may
reduce
burden
of
complex
wastes
carying
>
6
waste
codes
9
Bulk
shipments
Standardize
the
RCRA
definition
of
"
bulk
container"
from
>
110
gallons,
to
US
Dept
of
Transportation's
standard
of
>
119
gallons.
USDOT
first
established
a
110
gallon
standard
on
18
Aug
1982
which
was
the
basis
for
the
RCRA
standard,
but
DOT
revised
its
standard
to
119
gallons
on
21
Dec
1990.
Presume
zero
net
impact
10
Fractions/
decimals
Eliminate
use
of
waste
quantity
fractions
and
decimals
by
requiring
whole
numbers
and
appropriate
unit­
of­
measure
(
e.
g.
pounds,
kilograms,
liters,

gallons).
Presume
net
offsetting
effects
from
any
additional
time
needed,
and
benefit
of
numerical
accuracy
11
Generator
certification
Revise
the
generator
certification
block
on
the
manifest
form
by
renaming
it
the
"
Generator/
Offeror's"
certification
block.
Presume
no
change
in
signature
burden
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
Summary
of
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
and
Identification
of
Revisions
Monetized
in
this
Document
(
presented
below
in
approximate
sequence
according
to
final
rule
preamble
in
Federal
Register)

Final
Rule
Item
Revision
Description
&
Sub­
Components
of
Revision
Impact
Element
Monetized
in
this
Document?

23
B.
Manifest
Form
Printing
&
Acquisition
12
State
manifests
State
agencies
no
longer
have
authority
to
require
generators
to
use
their
state
manifests.
B2
13
Form
acquisition
Allow
waste
handlers
(
generators,
transporters,
TSDFs)
and
commercial
business
form
printers
to
print
manifest
forms
after
registration
with
the
USEPA.
B3
14
Printing
registry
USEPA
will
create
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest
form
printing
registry:

!
USEPA
will
review/
approve
registration
applications
for
printing
manifest
forms.

!
USEPA
will
design
a
manifest
registry
websit
to:

 
assist
registrants
to
prepare
registry
applications
 
provide
a
means
for
manifest
form
printers
and
the
public
to
communicate
with
the
USEPA
printing
registry
 
assist
waste
handlers
in
completing
their
manifests
!
USEPA
will
post
guidance
documents
on
the
registry
website
containing:

 
registration
instructions
 
manifest
form
printing
specifications
(
e.
g.
black
ink,
8.5
x
11­
inch
paper,
6­
copy
form)

 
up­
to­
date
list
of
approved
(
registered)
manifest
form
printers
 
manifest
numbering
scheme
(
alpha­
numeric
manifest
tracking
numbers)

 
information
links
to
assist
waste
handlers
and
printers
B1
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
Summary
of
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
and
Identification
of
Revisions
Monetized
in
this
Document
(
presented
below
in
approximate
sequence
according
to
final
rule
preamble
in
Federal
Register)

Final
Rule
Item
Revision
Description
&
Sub­
Components
of
Revision
Impact
Element
Monetized
in
this
Document?

24
C.
Rejected
Waste
Shipments
&
Non­
empty
Waste
Containers
15
Rejection
tracking
Revise
the
manifest
to
include
a
check
box
for
TSDFs
to
indicate
if
they
are:

!
Rejected
waste
shipments:
Rejecting
an
entire
or
partial
waste
shipment
(
rejected
load)
or
!
Residue
shipments:
Handling
a
non­
empty
waste
shipment
container
(
container
residue),

so
to
ensure
manifest
tracking
by
the
original
waste
generator.
C1
16
Rejection
destination
Require
the
rejecting
TSDF
to
contact
the
waste
generator
for
decision
about
next
destination
and
transport
mode
for
rejected
load
or
residue
(
or
specify
in
a
contract
w/
generator).
C1
17
Second
manifest
!
Require
completion
of
a
second
manifest
if:

 
a
TSDF
rejects
a
partial
load
or
non­
empty
container
residue
shipment,
or
 
a
TSDF
rejects
a
full­
load
or
container
but
the
transporter
has
departed
from
the
TSDF's
premises
before
rejection
!
Clarify
that
the
rejecting
TSDF
which
prepares
the
second
manifest:

 
will
be
subject
only
to
RCRA
hazardous
waste
pre­
transportation
regulations,
not
to
RCRA
generator
regulations
 
has
liability
for
the
rejected
shipment
limited
to
the
offeror
responsibilities
C2,
C3
18
Manifest
close­
out
Add
a
new
datafield
on
the
manifest
form
so
the
alternate
TSDF
or
generator
who
receives
a
rejected
waste
shipment,
or
a
waste
shipment
container
residue,
can
sign
and
close­
out
the
original
manifest
once
they
receive
it.
Additional
signature
time
not
quantified;
presumed
minimal
relative
to
overall
impact
of
final
rule
19
Alternate
TSDF
destination
Provide
generator
receiving
rejected
shipment
90/
180
days
to
send
the
waste
shipment
to
an
alternative
TSDF.
Did
not
attempt
to
quantify
and
monetize
these
potential
impacts,
because
of
measurement
difficulty
in
relation
to
level
of
effort
for
this
document
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
Summary
of
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
and
Identification
of
Revisions
Monetized
in
this
Document
(
presented
below
in
approximate
sequence
according
to
final
rule
preamble
in
Federal
Register)

Final
Rule
Item
Revision
Description
&
Sub­
Components
of
Revision
Impact
Element
Monetized
in
this
Document?

25
20
Rejected
waste
staging
Provide
rejecting
TSDF
30
days
to
reconcile
the
rejected
shipment
or
container
residue
with
the
generator,
locate
an
alternate
TSDF,
and
forward
the
shipment
to
the
alternate
TSDF.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
26
II.
G
Incremental
Estimation
Method
&
Paperwork
Burden
Data
References
OSW
estimated
the
annual
burden
impacts
to
hazardous
waste
handlers
under
the
revisions
to
the
RCRA
manifest
form,
by
first
estimating
the
annual
burden
under
the
baseline
(
current)
paper­
based
RCRA
manifest
system
(
inclusive
of
Federal
and
State
requirements).
OSW
then
estimated
the
annual
burden
and
associated
costs
under
the
revised
manifest
form.
Third,
OSW
compared
the
burden
and
costs
under
the
baseline
case
and
the
revised
manifest
form,
to
derive
an
estimate
of
the
incremental
changes
in
annual
national
burden
hours
and
costs.

The
economic
analysis
presented
in
this
document
largely
builds
upon
the
administrative
and
paperwork
burden
data
and
information
contained
within
the
following
OSW
"
Information
Collection
Request"
(
ICR)
supporting
documents,
which
provide
alternative
estimates
the
national
annual
paperwork
burden
hours
and
associated
labor
costs
to
RCRA
hazardous
waste
handlers
and
to
state
government
regulators,
in
carrying
out
USEPA­
required
RCRA
manifesting
activities
as
required
under
40
CFR
Parts
262,
263,
264,
and
265.

Although
displayed
in
the
table
below,
this
economic
analysis
does
not
use
the
ICR­
estimated
count
of
annual
manifests
because
this
analysis
includes
Federal
and
state­
regulated
hazardous
waste
manifests,
as
both
types
of
regulated
wastes
reportedly
use
the
same
EPA
manifest
form
for
shipment,
and
thus
both
waste
categories
are
expected
to
be
affected
by
the
manifest
form
revision
final
rule.

Summary
of
OSW's
Paperwork
Burden
Estimation
Reference
Documents
for
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Item
ICR
Nr.
Date
Description
&
Weblink
A
B
C
D
(
B+
C)
E
(
D/
A)

Average
Annualized
(
Over
3­
Year
Period)
Average
Burden
per
Manifest
Count
of
RCRA
Manifests
(
excluding
state
haz
wastes)
Responden
t
Burden
Agency
Burden
Total
Burden
A.
Baseline
Manifest
Burden
1
801
23
March
1999
This
is
a
pre
OMB
approval
draft
of
ICR
801
OSW
announced
in
the
Federal
Register
for
public
comment;

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
manicr4.
pdf
1.796
million
$
117.194
million
$
0.259
million
$
117.453
$
65.40
2
22
Oct
1999
"
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Nr
801:

Requirements
for
Generators,
Transporters
&
Waste
Management
Facilities
Under
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System";

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
icrpages/
0801ss12.
htm;

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
801.14ss.
pdf
2.900
million
hours
8,211
hours
2.908
million
hours
1.62
hours
3
801.14
31
Jan
2002
This
ICR
updated
801;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
icrpages/
0801ss14.
PDF
2.205
million
$
153.885
million
$
0.337
million
$
154.222
million
$
69.94
3.613
million
10,067
hours
3.623
million
hours
1.64
hours
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
27
B.
Revised
Manifest
Form
Burden
4
801.#
19
July
2000
"
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Nr
801.#:

Modifications
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System
­
Proposed
Rule";

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
icr.
pdf
1.755
million
$
106.178
million
$
0.268
million
$
106.446
million
$
60.65
2.327
million
8,255
hours
2.335
million
1.33
hours
5
801.15
09
April
2004
This
is
a
draft
of
the
final
version
of
801.#
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr)
1.762
million
$
151.192
million
$
0.289
million
$
151.481
million
$
85.97
3.240
million
hours
7,971
hours
3.248
million
hours
1.84
hours
Explanatory
Note:

ICRs
have
a
legislative
history
dating
back
to
the
1942
Federal
Reports
Act,
which
required
that
the
Federal
government
collect
information
from
the
public,
with
a
minimum
burden
and
at
a
minimum
cost.
The
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1980
established
Office
of
Management
&
Budget
(
OMB)
responsibility
for
reviewing
every
Federal
agency's
information
management
activities
(
including
surveys,
forms,
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
involving
more
than
nine
persons),
to
meet
annual
paperwork
reduction
goals.
As
defined
by
Congress,
ICRs
which
involve
gathering
data
independent
of
a
rule
are
"
Information
Collection
Requests",
whereas
ICRs
associated
with
a
specific
regulation
(
proposed
or
final
rule)
are
"
Information
Collection
Requirements".
The
1980
PRA
was
amended
by
Congress
by
the
1995
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
For
additional
information
and
inventory
of
Federal
government­
wide
ICR's,
see
OMB's
website:
http://
www.
whitehouse.
gov/
OMB/
inforeg/
index.
html#
IC
;
for
additional
information
and
inventory
of
USEPA
ICR's,
see
the
website:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.

From
a
methodological
perspective,
it
is
important
to
note
that
OSW
developed
many
of
the
assumptions
and
data
for
the
impact
estimates
under
the
revised
manifest
form,
from
revised
manifest
form
burden
data
contained
in
ICR
Nrs.
801.#
and
801.15,
and
from
informal
consultations
with
a
small
sample
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
handlers
and
States
with
RCRA
authorized
programs.
In
particular,
OSW
asked
them
to
estimate
the
burden
and
cost
savings
from
preparing
the
revised
RCRA
manifest
form,
as
well
as
the
other
final
rule
revisions
to
the
manifest
form.
OSW
conducted
consultations
with
nine
State
government
agencies
and
with
seven
RCRA
hazardous
waste
handlers
to
identify
tasks
and
burden
associated
with
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifest
activities.

The
selection
of
subjects
in
the
survey
samples
involved
the
non­
probability
sampling
techniques.
Both
sample
groups
were
constrained
by
the
maximum
number
of
nine
entities
as
allowed
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995,
for
purpose
of
collecting
information
concerning
the
same
set
of
questions
by
Federal
agencies
in
support
of
research
and
rulemakings,
without
prior
review
and
approval
of
information
collection
studies
by
the
Office
of
Management
&
Budget.
The
16
total
number
of
entities
contacted
exceeds
nine,
because
USEPA
asked
each
sample
group
different
questions.

!
7
handlers:
Ultimately
received
responses
from
seven
of
nine
attempted
contacts
to
the
largest
hazardous
waste
generators
and
waste
handlers
in
the
US.
The
sample
of
generators
stratified
according
to
three
sub­
groups:
"
large",
"
medium"
and
"
small"
generators,
in
relation
to
the
RCRA
regulatory
benchmark
definition
of
"
small",
being
generation
of
less
than
1,000
kilograms
(
2,205
pounds)
of
hazardous
waste
in
any
calendar
month
(
40
CFR
260.10).

!
9
States:
Targeted
selection
of
states
according
to
the
top­
nine
ranking
of
states
according
to
annual
volume
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
generated
in
1995.
Skipped
down
the
ranked
list
of
states
for
by
skipping
over
states
unable
to
contact
proper
department
and/
or
personnel
upon
initial
contact
attempt,
until
contact
with
a
total
of
nine
states
achieved.
The
resultant
nine
states
represented
about
63
million
tons
(
29%)
of
the
US
national
total
RCRA
hazardous
wastes
generated
in
1995.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
28
III.
BACKGROUND
DATA
ON
RCRA
MANIFESTS
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
29
III.
A
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Handler
Universe
&
Annual
RCRA
Manifests
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Handler
Universe
&
Estimated
Count
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifests
Item
Waste
Handler
Type
(
see
Explanatory
Notes
for
facility
definitions)
A*
B
(
D/
A)
C
(
E/
A)
D**
E**
F***

Estimated
Facility
Universe
(
2001)
Average
Annual
Haz
Waste
Manifests
Prepared
per
Facility
Estimated
Annual
Count
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipment
Manifests
Lower
Upper
Lower­
bound
Upper­
bound
%

1
Large
Quantity
Generators
(
LQGs)
18,135
67
140
1,207,140
2,545,000
50%

2
Small
Quantity
Generators
(
SQGs)
117,544
8
16
929,968
1,934,200
38%

3
Captive
TSDFs
(
onsite)
1,723
45
87
77,418
152,700
3%

4
Commercial
TSDFs
(
offsite)
756
289
606
218,592
458,100
9%

5
Waste
Transporters
414
Included
with
manifest
count
for
other
waste
handler
categories
Totals
=
138,572****
18
37
2,433,118
5,090,000
100%

6
State
Governments
(
environmental
or
waste
depts)
23
Print
blank
manifests
1,679,000
3,512,000
69%

34
Collect
completed
manifests
1,856,000
3,882,000
76%
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
30
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Column
A
sources
for
facility
universe
counts:

!
LQGs,
TSDFs:
USEPA
OSW
2001
USEPA
Hazardous
Waste
Biennial
Report
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs01/
national.
pdf),
which
includes
(
1)
private
sector
and
(
2)
Federal
facility
waste
handlers.
In
comparison,
Table
2
of
"
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
801.15:
Requirements
for
Generators,
Transporters,
&
Waste
Management
Facilities
Under
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System",
09
April
2004
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr)
uses
a
slightly
smaller
universe
of
facilities
(
totalling
132,798)
which
excludes
two
types
of
federal
facilities:
GOGOs
=
government­
owned
government­
operated
facilities,
and
POGOs
=
privately­
owned
government­
operated
facilities.

!
SQGs:
OSW
estimated
by
multiplying
the
SQG
count
from
the
ICR
801.15
(
113,132
SQGs)
by
the
ratio
of
the
2001
BR
LQG
count
relative
(
includes
Fed
facilities)
to
the
ICR
801.15
LQG
count
(
excludes
Fed
facilities):
18,135/
17,462
=
1.039
!
Transporters:
US
Dept
of
Commerce
­
Bureau
of
Census
"
1997
Economic
Census"
NAICS
code
562112
"
hazardous
waste
collection":

http://
www.
census.
gov/
prod/
ec97/
97s56­
sz.
pdf.

!
State
govts:
Pages
1­
3
of
A
State
Guide
to
The
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest,
National
Governors'
Association:
Information
Management
Program,

Center
for
Policy
Research
(
http://
www.
nga.
org).
OSW
derived
an
estimate
of
annual
manifest
counts
associated
with
the
34
states,
using
the
annual
quantities
(
tons)
of
hazardous
waste
shipped
in
each
state
from
Exhibit
3.1
of
the
EPA
2001
RCRA
Biennial
Report
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs01/
national.
pdf),
presented
in
a
spreadsheet
elsewhere
in
this
"
Economics
Background
Document".

(
b)
**
Columns
D
&
E
estimates
of
annual
RCRA
manifests
(
manifest
counts
include
both
Federal
RCRA
and
state­
regulated
hazardous
wastes):

!
Lower­
bound:
Column
D
source:
1999
survey
of
9
state
government
environmental
agencies,
as
reported
in
Table
III­
1
of
USEPA
OSW's
"
Economics
Background
Document:
Economic
Analysis
of
the
USEPA's
Proposed
Modifications
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System",
19
Dec
2000,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf;
OSW
presumes
this
estimate
represents
1998
data
year.

!
Upper­
bound:
Column
E
source:
2002
survey
of
13
haz
waste
TSDF
companies
by
the
Environmental
Technology
Council
(
ETC),
as
reported
in
ETC's
memorandum
(
EPA
Docket
document
nr.
RCRA­
2001­
0032­
0095)
submitted
06
Nov
2002
to
EPA
Docket
number
RCRA­
2001­
0032
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket);
OSW
presumes
this
estimate
represents
2001
data
year.
OSW
assigned
waste
handler
type
subtotals
in
Column
E
based
on
Column
F
percentages.

(
c)
***
Column
F
percentages
based
on
Column
D.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
31
III.
B
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipment
Modes
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipment
Modes
Hazardous
Waste
Transportation
Mode*
Estimate
of
Annual
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipping
Manifests
Lower­
Bound
(
based
on
1999
survey
of
9
states**)
Upper­
Bound
(
based
on
2002
survey
of
13
TSDF
companies**)

Truck
91%
2,214,000
4,632,000
Railroad***
6%
146,000
304,000
Water
(
barges)***
3%
73,000
153,000
Column
totals
=
100%
2,433,000
5,090,000
Range
midpoint
=
3,762,000
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Percentages
source:
USEPA
OSW,
"
Supporting
Statement
for
ICR
Nr.
801.14",
31
Jan
2002,
Section
6(
d)(
2)(
b),
page
35;
PDF
page
37
of
68;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrs/
icrpages/
0801ss14.
PDF.

(
b)
**
Source
of
manifest
estimates:

!
Lower­
bound:
1999
survey
of
9
state
government
environmental
agencies,
as
reported
in
Table
III­
1
of
USEPA
OSW's
"
Economics
Background
Document:
Economic
Analysis
of
the
USEPA's
Proposed
Modifications
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System",
19
Dec
2000,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf;
OSW
presumes
this
estimate
represents
1998
data
year.

!
Upper­
bound:
2002
survey
of
13
haz
waste
TSDF
companies
by
the
Environmental
Technology
Council
(
ETC),
as
reported
in
ETC's
memorandum
(
EPA
Docket
document
nr.
RCRA­
2001­
0032­
0095)
submitted
06
Nov
2002
to
EPA
Docket
number
RCRA­
2001­
0032
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket);
OSW
presumes
this
estimate
represents
2001
data
year.

(
c)
***
Of
rail
and
water
shipments,
about
33%
originate
at
the
generator's
site.
The
remaining
66%
of
rail
and
water
shipments
are
sent
by
intermodal
shipment,
whereby
the
delivering
transporter
must
forward
three
copies
of
the
manifest
to
the
next
non­
rail
or
non­
water
transporter,
or
to
the
designated
TSDF
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
32
III.
C
List
of
Industries
Potentially
Affected
by
Final
Rule
List
of
Industries
Potentially
Affected
by
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Manifest
Form
(
wastewaters
&
non­
wastewaters)

Item
SIC
NAICS
Industry
or
Sub­
Sector
Identity
Item
SIC
NAICS
Industry
or
Sub­
sector
Identity
1
1794
23593
Construction
excavation
work
24
4512
48111
Air
transportation
2
20
311
Food
and
kindred
products
manufacturing
25
4613
48691
Refined
petroleum
pipelines
3
2295
31332
Coated
fabrics
manufacturing
26
4789
488999
Transportation
services
n.
e.
c.

4
24
321
Lumber
and
wood
products
manufacturing
27
4813
5133
Telephone
communications
5
25
337
Furniture
and
fixtures
manufacturing
28
49
2211
Electric,
gas
&
sanitary
services
6
26
322
Pulp
and
allied
products
manufacturing
29
4953
562211
Hazardous
waste
treatment
&
disposal
7
27
511
Printing
and
publishing
30
4959
562910
Hazardous
waste
remediation
services
8
28
325
Chemicals
and
allied
products
mfg
31
50
421
Wholesale
trade
(
durable
goods)

9
29
324
Petroleum
and
coal
products
mfg
32
51
422
Wholesale
trade
(
nondurable
goods)

10
30
326
Rubber
&
misc
plastic
products
mfg
33
5912
44
to
45
Drugstores
&
proprietary
retail
stores
11
32
327
Stone,
clay
and
glass
products
mfg
34
6552
23311
Real
estate
sub­
dividers
&
developers
12
33
331
Primary
metal
manufacturing
industries
35
7216
81232
Dry
cleaning
plants
13
34
332
Fabricated
metal
products
manufacturing
36
73
541
Business
services
14
35
333
Industrial
machinery
&
equipment
mfg
37
7532
811121
Top,
body
&
upholstery
repair
&
paint
shops
15
36
335
Electronic
&
other
electric
equipment
mfg
38
7699
561
Repair
shops
&
related
services
n.
e.
c.

16
37
336
Transportation
equipment
manufacturing
39
8062
62211
General
medical
&
surgical
hospitals
17
38
334
Instruments
&
related
products
mfg
40
8221
61131
Colleges
&
universities
18
39
339
Miscellaneous
manufacturing
industries
41
87
541
Engineering
&
management
services
19
4111
485
Local
and
suburban
passenger
transit
42
8999
541
Services
n.
e.
c.

20
4173
48849
Terminal
service
facilities
for
vehicle
transport
43
95
924
to
925
Environmental
quality
&
housing
administration
21
42
484
Trucking
and
warehousing
44
9661
92711
Space
research
&
technology
22
4212
562112
Hazardous
waste
collection
services
45
9711
92811
National
security
(
e.
g.
military
bases)

23
4491
4883
Marine
cargo
handling
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
33
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Industrial
classification
code
systems:

!
SIC:
Standard
Industrial
Classification
code
system
(
replaced
by
the
NAICS
code
system
in
1997):

1­
digit
SIC
codes
=
economic
sector
2­
digit
SIC
codes
=
economic
sub­
sector
(
major
industry
group)

3­
digit
SIC
codes
=
industry
group
4­
digit
SIC
codes
=
industry
!
NAICS:
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
maintained
by
US
Dept
of
Commerce
Bureau
of
Census,
the
NAICS
replaced
the
SIC
code
system
in
1997):

2­
digit
NAICS
codes
=
economic
sector
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
www/
naicsect.
htm
3­
digit
NAICS
codes
=
economic
sub­
sector
(
major
industry
group)

4­
digit
NAICS
codes
=
industry
group
5­
digit
NAICS
codes
=
industry
6­
digit
NAICS
codes
=
subdivision
of
an
industry
specific
to
the
USA
(
may
differ
from
Canada
&
Mexico
codes).

7­,
8­
&
10­
digit
NAICS
codes
=
kind
of
business,
product
lines,
products,
and
material
codes.

For
information
about
NAICS
see
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
www/
naics.
html
and
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
www/
naicscod.
htm.

(
b)
Industry
identity
sources:

!
1993:
Wastewaters
&
Non­
wastewaters:
USEPA
OSW
"
National
Hazardous
Waste
Constituent
Survey"
(
NHWCS);
a
one­
time,
data
collection
activity
administered
in
1996
as
a
mail
questionnaire
survey,
sent
to
221
of
the
largest
hazardous
waste
treatment,

storage,
recycling
and
disposal
facilities
in
the
US
(
TSDRFs).
As
a
class
of
waste
handler
facilities,
this
survey
sample
represented
92%
of
the
total
volume
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
generated
in
1993,
as
benchmarked
to
the
USEPA
OSW1993
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
"
Biennial
Report"
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
index.
htm#
brs
).
A
total
of
156
TSDFs
responded
to
the
voluntary,
non­
confidential
business
information
(
non­
CBI)
survey,
which
was
primarily
designed
to
collect
information
about
the
identity
and
concentration
of
chemical
constituents
in
RCRA
hazardous
wastes,
among
other
descriptive
information
about
this
category
of
wastes,
and
the
facilities
which
generate
and
manage
the
wastes
(
including
generator
site
facility
SIC
codes).
The
NHWCS
findings
are
available
at:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
id/
hwirwste/
economic.
htm;
(
see
item
(
4)
on
the
website
to
download
the
database
and
additional
descriptive
information
about
the
NHWCS).

!
2001:
Non­
wastewaters
only:
USEPA
OSW
"
National
Biennial
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Report:
2001",
Exhibit
1.9:
Fifty
Largest
Quantities
of
Hazardous
Waste
Generated,
by
Primary
NAICS
Code
in
the
US,
2001,

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs01/
national.
pdf.
This
source
presents
a
list
of
50
4­
digit
level
NAICS
code
industries,
representing
98.0%
(
i.
e.
40.014
million
tons)
of
the
national
total
40.821
million
tons
RCRA
hazardous
nonwastewaters
generated
in
2001.

(
c)
The
45
industries
listed
in
this
table
do
not
necessarily
represent
all
industries
which
are
involved
in
the
RCRA
manifest
system,

because
this
list
is
based
on
incomplete
data
presented
in
the
reference
sources.
Because
of
the
numerous
relevant
industries
at
the
four­
digit
SIC
level
(
i.
e.
six­
digit
equivalent
NAICS
level),
this
table
presents
the
respective
two­
digit
SIC
code
and
three­
digit
NAICS
code
economic
sub­
sectors
to
represent
many
relevant
clustered
industries.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
34
III.
D
Average
Size
of
LQG
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
Cumulative
Profile
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shippers
Representing
LQGs
and
TSDFs
(
SQGs
Not
Represented
in
This
Table)

Total
Annual
Quantity
Shipped
in
2001*

Cumulative
Profile
Category
Cumulative
%
of
Total
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipper
Establishments
Average
LQG
Quantity
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipped
Per
Establishment
2001
Annual
LQG
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipped
(
non­
wastewaters;

million
tons/
year)
Cumulative
%

of
Total
Annual
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
2001
LQG
Average
Per
Year
(
tons)
2001
LQG
Average
Per
Month**

(
tons)
2001
LQG
Average
Per
Week**

Tons
Full
Truckload
equivalents***

Top­
5
LQG
shippers
0.03%
127,400
10,600
2,650
133
trucks
0.637
9%

Top­
10
LQG
shippers
0.06%
218,500
19,900
4,600
230
trucks
0.936
14%

Top­
50
LQG
shippers
0.3%
71,800
6,500
1,500
75
trucks
2.184
32%

All
17,914*
LQG
shippers
100%
455
41
9
0.5
trucks
6.832
100%

If
include
non­
wastewaters
+
wastewaters
652
54
14
0.7
trucks
11.681****

If
include
LQGs
+
SQGs
(
NWW
+
WW)
=
12.324*

Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Source:
USEPA
OSW
"
National
Analysis:
The
National
Biennial
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Report
(
Based
on
1999
Data)",
EPA­
530­
R­
01­
009,
PB2001­
106313,
June
2001,
Exhibit
3.7,

p.
3­
7;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs99/
99_
n_
a.
pdf.
The
1999
Biennial
Report
(
BR)
includes
non­
wastewater
(
NWW)
RCRA
hazardous
wastes
only;
the
BR
discontinued
presenting
RCRA
hazardous
wastewater
shipments
after
1995.
The
1999
BR
data
actually
contains
a
small
fraction
of
wastewater
in
the
tons
generated,
mostly
which
is
underground/
deepwell
injected
on
site
where
generated,
but
it
is
possible
that
a
small
relative
amount
of
the
wastewater
may
be
included
in
the
8.150
million
tons
shipped;
however,
there
is
no
breakdown
of
tons
shipped
according
to
non­
wastewaters
and
wastewaters,
so
the
entire
1999
BR
amount
shipped
is
assumed
"
non­
wastewaters"
for
purpose
of
estimation
in
this
Economics
Background
Document.

(
b)
**
"
Per
month"
averages
based
on
dividing
1999
annual
quantities
of
hazardous
waste
reported
in
the
OSW
Biennial
Report,
by
11
operating
months/
year;
"
per
week"
averages
based
on
48
operating
weeks/
year.

(
c)
***
Truckload
equivalents
estimated
by
dividing
weekly
average
tons
shipped,
by
20
tons
per
full
truckload.

(
d)
****
Source:
Estimate
of
2001
LQG
non­
wastewater
plus
wastewater
tons
shipped
based
on
ratio
calculation
from
the
1995
RCRA
Biennial
Report,
as
follows:

!
1995
RCRA
LQG
haz
WW+
NWW
shipments
=
10,675,806
(
1995
BR,
Exhibit
3.1,
page
3­
2)

!
1995
RCRA
LQG
haz
NWW
shipments
=
6,243,980
(
1997
BR,
Exhibit
B.
3,
page
B­
4)

!
1995
RCRA
LQG
haz
WW
shipments
=
4,431,826
(
by
subtraction
10,765,806
­
6,243,980)

!
Implied
LQG
WW:
to:
NWW
ratio
multiplier
=
(
4,431,826
WW)
/
(
6,243,980
NWW)
=
0.7098
!
Estimate
2001
LQG
RCRA
haz
WW
shipped
=
(
6,831,799
tons
NWW
shipped
2001
BR)
x
(
0.7098)
=
4,849,211
tons
WW
!
Estimate
of
2001
LQG
WW
+
NWW
=
(
6,831,799
tons
NWW)
+
(
4,849,211
tons
WW)
=
11,681,010
tons
NWW
+
WW
(
e)
*
NWW
+
WW
quantity
for
SQGs
estimated
in
another
spreadsheet
elsewhere
in
this
"
Economics
Background
Document".
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
35
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
10
15
20
25
Thousands
Count
of
Shippers
(

LQGs
+

TSDFs)*
0
5
10
15
20
Million
Tons
Shipped
Shippers
Tons
shipped
Data
years
1997
and
beyond
exclude
wastewater
shipments,
so
are
not
comparable
with
prior
data
years.

Source:
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
"
Biennial
Report":
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
index.
htm#
br
*
As
of
data
year
2001,
the
proportion
of
LQG:
to:
TSDF
shippers
reporting
to
the
Biennial
Report
was:
95%
LQGs:
to:
5%
TSDFs.

Historical
Trends
in
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shippers
and
Tons
Shipped
(
LQGs
+
TSDFs)

III.
E
Historical
Trend
in
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
36
Historical
Data
(
1981­
2001)

on
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Shipping
Graphed
on
Prior
Page
Item
Data
Year
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
Universe
of
Possible
Shippers
(
Facility
Counts)
Shippers
as
%
of
Universe
Count
of
Facilities
Shipping
RCRA
Haz
Wastes
Million
Tons
RCRA
Haz
Wastes
Shipped
TSDFs
LQGs
Total*

(
TSDFs
+
LQGs)

1
1981
11,778
5.3
2
1983
3
1985
20,656
10.1
4
1987
16,796
7.7
5
1989
19,225
8
6
1991
23,560
12.7
3,862
23,426
27,288
86.3%

7
1993
23,964
17.3
2,584
24,362
26,946
88.9%

8
1995
20,497
10.7
1,983
20,873
22,856
89.7%

9
1997**
18,029**
7.3**
2,025
20,316
22,341
80.7%

10
1999**
17,914**
8.1**
1,575
20,083
21,658
82.7%

11
2001**
18,860**
6.8**
Average
=
85.7%

Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Source:
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
"
Biennial
Report";

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
biennialreport/
index.
htm
(
b)
*
Total
facility
counts
displayed
in
this
table
do
not
include
one
other
category
of
facilities
which
also
ship
hazardous
wastes:
small
quantity
generators
(
SQGs),
because
SQGs
are
not
required
to
report
data
to
the
RCRA
Biennial
Report.

(
c)
**
Post­
1995
quantities
mostly
exclude
hazardous
wastewaters,
so
are
not
directly
comparable
to
prior
years.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
37
III.
F
RCRA
Manifest
National
Paperwork
Burden
Baseline
Six
Alternative
Estimates
of
Annual
National
Paperwork
Baseline
Burden
(
Hours
&
Costs)

for
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Item
Type
of
Entity
Involved
in
RCRA
Manifest
Transactions
Annual
Labor
Hours
(
year
2000)
Annual
Labor
Cost
(
year
2000$)

Lower­
bound
If
2.433
million*

manifests/
year
Upper­
bound
If
5.090
million**

manifests/
year
Lower­
bound
If
2.433
million*

manifests/
year
Upper­
bound
If
5.090
million*

manifests/
year
0%:
If
baseline
(
legacy)
IT
system
costs
are
not
apportioned
to
RCRA
manifest
transactions
1
Haz
waste
handlers
4,416,000
(
Table
III­
6
Dec
2000
EBD)
9,239,000
(
OSW
multiplier)
$
187,042,000
(
Table
III­
6
Dec
2000
EBD)
$
391,304,000
(
OSW
multiplier)

2
State
governments
199,000
(
Table
III­
6
Dec
2000
EBD)
416,300
(
OSW
multiplier)
$
6,270,000
(
Table
III­
6
Dec
2000
EBD)
$
13,117,000
(
OSW
multiplier)

Totals
=
4,615,000
9,655,000
$
193,312,000
$
404,422,000
5%
to
50%
MIX:
If
5%
to
50%
mix
of
legacy
IT
system
annual
O&
M
costs
apportioned
to
RCRA
manifest
transactions***

1
Haz
waste
handlers
No
aggregation
or
summary
provided
in
reference
$
224,422,000
$
381,625,000
2
State
governments
$
22,154,000
$
32,419,000
Totals
=
$
246,576,000
$
414,044,000
75%:
If
75%
of
legacy
IT
system
annual
O&
M
costs
apportioned
to
RCRA
manifest
transactions****

1
Haz
waste
handlers
No
aggregation
or
summary
provided
in
reference
$
404,231,000
to
$
554,159,000*
$
560,551,000
to
$
732,798,000*

2
State
governments
$
23,389,000
to
$
26,326,000*
$
34,537,000
to
$
36,776,000*

Totals
=
$
427,620,000
to
$
580,485,000*
$
595,088,000
to
$
769,574,000*
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
38
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Source
of
manifest
counts:

*
Lower­
bound:
2.433
million/
year:
Table
III­
3
of
OSW's
19
Dec
2000
"
Economics
Background
Document"
(
EBD)
for
the
May
2001
manifest
proposed
rule;

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf.

**
Upper­
bound:
5.090
million/
year:
Environmental
Technology
Council
(
ETC)
survey
findings
memorandum
submitted
06
Nov
2002
to
USEPA
Docket
Nr.
F­
2000­
UWMP­
FFFFF
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Proposal;
note
that
EPA
changed
the
number
of
this
docket
to
RCRA­
2001­
0032
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket).

(
b)
OSW
multiplier:
OSW
estimated
upper­
bounds
by
multiplying
lower­
bounds
by
a
2.092
multiplier
[(
5.090
million
manifests/
year)
/
(
2.433
million
manifests/
year)]
=
2.092.

(
c)
***
Source:
5%
to
50%
estimates:
Based
on
OSW
re­
running
the
Oct
2000
LMI
spreadsheet
model
for
the
75%
case,
assigning
the
following
mix
of
IT
system
annual
O&
M
costs
apportionments:
LQGs=
10%;
SQGs=
5%;

TSDFs(
large)=
50%;
TSDFs(
medium)=
10%;
TSDFs(
small)=
5%;
Transporters=
0%;
states=
5%

(
note:
percent
of
entities
with
IT
systems
assumed
same
as
75%
scenario).

(
d)
****
Source
of
75%
estimates:

!
Lower­
bound:
!
Low­
end:
Table
3­
8
of
Logistics
Management
Institute
(
LMI)
"
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Cost
Benefit
Analysis",
Oct
2000
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
cba­
rprt.
pdf),

with
IT
system
annual
O&
M
costs
(@
10%
of
IT
system
initial
purchase
cost)
apportioned
to
following
assumptions
of
waste
handlers
with
baseline
IT
systems:

LQGs=
100%@$
100,000/
system;
SQGs=
25%@$
50,000/
system;

TSDFs(
large)=
100%@$
1million/
system;
TSDFs(
medium)=
75%@$
200,000/
system;

TSDFs(
small)=
50%@$
100,000/
system;
transporters=
0%@$
0/
system;

states=
100%@$
1.1million/
system.

!
High­
end:
Oct
2000
LMI
spreadsheet
model
(
with
IT
annual
O&
M
=
17%
of
initial
IT
purchase
cost).

!
Upper­
bound:
Estimated
by
OSW
re­
running
the
Oct
2000
LMI
spreadsheet
model
with
the
alternative
upper­
bound
manifest
count
assumption,
using
10%
and
17%
IT
O&
M
rates.

(
e)
*
Indicates
estimates
based
on
higher
assumption
of
17%
IT
annual
O&
M
rate
(
in
relation
to
IT
capital
investment
cost),
rather
than
the
10%
rate
used
in
the
other
estimates.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
39
III.
G
State­
By­
State
Count
of
RCRA
Manifests
Estimate
of
State­
by­
State
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Annual
Manifest
Counts
(
2001)

Item
State
All
56
States
&
Territories
23
States
Which
Print
Blank
Manifests*
34
States
Which
Collect
Manifests**

Lower­
bound
Upper­
bound
Lower­
bound
Upper­
bound
Lower­
bound
Upper­
bound
1
Alabama
94,397
197,476
94,397
197,476
2
Alaska
1,357
2,839
1,357
2,839
3
Arizona
20,339
42,549
20,339
42,549
4
Arkansas
98,354
205,753
98,354
205,753
98,354
205,753
5
California
241,931
506,112
241,931
506,112
241,931
506,112
6
Colorado
10,103
21,136
7
Connecticut
25,843
54,063
25,843
54,063
25,843
54,063
8
Delaware
6,194
12,958
6,194
12,958
6,194
12,958
9
Dist
of
Columbia
713
1,491
10
Florida
19,670
41,149
11
Georgia
37,354
78,143
12
Guam
148
309
13
Hawaii
267
559
14
Idaho
2,837
5,934
15
Illinois
125,827
263,226
125,827
263,226
125,827
263,226
16
Indiana
144,001
301,245
144,001
301,245
144,001
301,245
17
Iowa
18,641
38,997
18
Kansas
16,790
35,123
19
Kentucky
69,261
144,892
20
Louisiana
50,693
106,049
50,693
106,049
50,693
106,049
21
Maine
5,154
10,783
5,154
10,783
5,154
10,783
22
Maryland
4,336
9,071
4,336
9,071
4,336
9,071
23
Massachusetts
51,477
107,689
51,477
107,689
51,477
107,689
24
Michigan
145,092
303,528
145,092
303,528
145,092
303,528
25
Minnesota
22,555
47,184
22,555
47,184
22,555
47,184
26
Mississippi
12,312
25,755
12,312
25,755
27
Missouri
24,062
50,338
24,062
50,338
24,062
50,338
28
Montana
2,182
4,565
29
Navajo
Nation
63
131
30
Nebraska
8,873
18,563
8,873
18,563
31
Nevada
1,892
3,958
1,892
3,958
32
New
Hampshire
4,149
8,679
4,149
8,679
4,149
8,679
33
New
Jersey
138,486
289,709
138,486
289,709
138,486
289,709
34
New
Mexico
2,500
5,231
2,500
5,231
35
New
York
81,731
170,978
81,731
170,978
81,731
170,978
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
40
36
North
Carolina
38,885
81,347
37
North
Dakota
1,257
2,630
1,257
2,630
38
Ohio
244,618
511,734
39
Oklahoma
12,968
27,128
12,968
27,128
40
Oregon
16,359
34,222
16,359
34,222
41
Pennsylvania
131,826
275,775
131,826
275,775
131,826
275,775
42
Puerto
Rico
33,131
69,310
43
Rhode
Island
7,211
15,085
7,211
15,085
7,211
15,085
44
South
Carolina
52,519
109,867
52,519
109,867
52,519
109,867
45
South
Dakota
424
887
46
Tennessee
20,530
42,948
47
Texas
223,981
468,560
223,981
468,560
223,981
468,560
48
Trust
Territories
141
295
49
Utah
29,923
62,597
50
Vermont
1,844
3,857
1,844
3,857
1,844
3,857
51
Virgin
Islands
672
1,405
52
Virginia
30,275
63,333
53
Washington
26,145
54,694
26,145
54,694
26,145
54,694
54
West
Virginia
14,540
30,417
14,540
30,417
55
Wisconsin
55,664
116,448
55,664
116,448
55,664
116,448
56
Wyoming
620
1,297
Column
totals
=
2,433,000
5,090,000
1,669,000
3,492,000
1,856,000
3,882,000
Column
percentages
=
100%
69%
76%

Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Source:
23
state
count
from
Table
6
on
page
28
of
1991
NGA
report:
A
State
Guide
to
The
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest,

National
Governors'
Association
(
http://
www.
nga.
org):
Information
Management
Program,
Center
for
Policy
Research,
ISBN
1­
55877­

127­
1,
1991.

(
b)
**
Source:
34
state
count
from
page
1,
Figure
1
on
page
2,
and
Table
1
on
page
3
of
1991
NGA
report.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
41
III.
H
RCRA
Manifest
Paperwork
Labor
Wage
Assumptions
2004
National
Average
Labor
Wages
Applied
in
this
Document
for
Purpose
of
Estimating
Paperwork
Labor
Burden
Associated
WIth
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form
Type
of
Facility
Involved
in
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System
Manifest
Preparation
or
Review
Time
Per
Manifest
(
relative
percentage
of
row
hour
subtotals
in
parentheses)
2004
Labor
Category
Weighted­
Average
Hourly
Loaded
Wage
($/
hour)***

Legal
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Waste
handler
loaded
wage*>
$
114/
hour
$
89/
hour
$
59/
hour
$
31/
hour
1.
LQGs*
0
0
0.32
(
80%)
0.08
(
20%)
$
53
2.
SQGs*
0
0
0.31
(
82%)
0.07
(
18%)
$
53
3.
TSDFs
(
onsite
captive)*
0
0
0.35
(
81%)
0.08
(
19%)
$
53
4.
TSDFs
(
commercial
offsite)*
0
0
0.35
(
81%)
0.08
(
19%)
$
53
5.
State
governments
Loaded
wage>
$
66/
hour
$
48/
hour
$
33/
hour
$
20/
hour
$
36
Hours
per
manifest>
0
0.10
(
20%)
0.40
(
80%)
0
6
EPA
headquarters
staff**
Loaded
wage>
$
66/
hour
$
48/
hour
$
33/
hour
$
20/
hour
$
30
Hours
per
import
manifest>
0
0
0.08****
0.02****

Data
sources:

(
a)
*
Section
6(
b)(
1)
of
USEPA
OSW
"
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
Nr.
801.15:
Requirements
for
Generators,
Transporters,
and
Waste
Management
Facilities
Under
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System",
09
April
2004;

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr/
icrlist.
html.

(
b)
**
Government
staff
loaded
wages
from
Section
6(
b)(
3)
of
ICR
801.15
Supporting
Statement.

(
c)
***
Labor­
weighted
average
wages
computed
by
multiplying
each
labor
category
wage
by
respective
relative
percentages
and
summing
across
each
row.

(
d)
****
EPA
relative
staff
time
estimated
by
OSW­
EMRAD.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
42
IV.
IMPACT
ESTIMATES
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
43
IV.
A
Estimate
of
Impacts
for
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Contents
&
Format
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
44
IV.
A1
Initial
Manifest
Preparation
(
69%
of
annual
manifests
involve
state
boxes;
excludes
continuation
sheets)

Estimate
of
Paperwork
Burden
Reduction
Cost
Savings
Associated
with
the
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
(
parentheses
indicate
burden
&
cost
savings)

Waste
Handler
Type
A
B
C
(
A
x
B)/
60
D
E
(
C
x
D)

Average
Minutes
to
Prepare
a
RCRA
Manifest*
69%
of
Annual
RCRA
Manifest
Forms
Prepared
Annual
Hours
for
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Preparation
2004
Average
Labor
Wage
($/
hour)
Nat'l
Annual
Manifest
Preparation
Burden
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
A.
"
Old"
Baseline
Manifest
Preparation
Burden
(
Non­
Revised
Manifest
Form):

LQGs
31
832,927
1,756,050
430,346
907,293
$
53
$
22,808,318
$
48,086,503
SQGs
29
641,678
1,334,598
310,144
645,056
$
16,437,651
$
34,187,952
TSDFs
(
captive)
34
53,418
105,363
30,270
59,706
$
1,604,321
$
3,164,402
TSDFs
(
commercial)
29
150,828
316,089
72,900
152,776
$
3,464,027
$
8,097,147
Column
sub­
total
(
non­
revised
manifest)
=
1,678,851
3,512,100
843,660
1,764,830
$
44,713,991
$
93,536,003
B.
"
New"
Revised
Manifest
Form
Preparation
Burden:

LQGs
26
832,927
1,756,050
360,935
760,955
$
53
$
19,129,557
$
40,330,615
SQGs
25
641,678
1,334,598
267,366
556,083
$
14,170,389
$
29,472,373
TSDFs
(
captive)
28
53,418
105,363
24,928
49,169
$
1,321,205
$
2,605,978
TSDFs
(
commercial)
22
150,828
316,089
55,304
115,899
$
2,931,091
$
6,142,663
Column
sub­
total
(
revised
manifest)
=
1,678,851
3,512,100
708,533
1,482,106
$
37,552,249
$
78,551,629
C.
(
B­
A):
Incremental
Burden
Reduction
(
parentheses
indicate
burden
&
cost
savings):

LQGs
(
5)
(
16%)
(
69,411)
(
146,338)
$
53
($
3,678,783)
($
7,755,888)

SQGs
(
4)
(
14%)
(
42,778)
(
88,973)
($
2,267,234)
($
4,715,580)

TSDFs
(
captive)
(
6)
(
18%)
(
5,342)
(
10,536)
($
283,126)
($
558,424)

TSDFs
(
commercial)
(
7)
(
24%)
(
17,596)
(
36,877)
($
932,588)
($
1,954,484)

Column
sub­
total
(
incremental
change)
=
(
135,127)
(
282,724)
($
7,161,731)
($
14,984,375)
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
45
Explanatory
Notes:

(
e)
Burden
reduction
estimates
in
this
table
assigned
to
69%
of
the
annual
manifests,
which
are
assumed
to
involve
burden
of
supplying
information
for
state
datafields
(
baseline),
which
are
mostly
eliminated
by
the
revised
manifest
form
final
rule.
Other
revisions
to
the
manifest
form
assumed
to
provide
zero
net
change
in
burden
(
continuation
sheet
burden
reduction
estimated
in
next
table).

(
f)
The
burden
estimates
(
minutes)
in
this
table
represent
initial
manifest
preparation
time
only,
and
do
not
include
time
for
correction
of
manifests,
transmitting
manifests,
and
manifest
recordkeeping,
which
for
purpose
of
analytic
simplicity,
are
assumed
in
this
table
to
remain
unchanged
by
the
manifest
form
revision
final
rule.

(
g)
*
Data
source:
Exhibit
B­
3
(
baseline
minutes)
and
Exhibit
D­
3
(
revised
form
minutes)
from
USEPA
OSW
"
Economics
Background
Document:
Economic
Analysis
of
the
USEPA's
Proposed
Modifications
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System",
19
Dec
2000,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf.
Time
estimates
associated
with
completing
"
repeat"
manifests
(
i.
e.
no
learning
curve),
not
"
initial"
manifests
(
i.
e.
with
learning
curve)

used
in
this
table
as
representative
of
all
manifests,
although
5%
are
"
initial"
manifests
reportedly
involving
new
wastestreams
or
new
destination
states,
whereas
95%
of
annual
manifests
reportedly
involve
existing
(
recurrent)

wastestreams
and
destination
states.

The
burden
estimates
supplied
in
the
various
ICR
Supporting
Statements
for
the
"
old"
and
"
new"
RCRA
manifest
forms
are
not
applied
in
this
table
because
they
do
not
include
burden
associated
with
state­
optional
information
boxes
under
the
"
old"
form
baseline
(
nor
do
they
include
burden
to
Federally­
owned
facilities).
The
Dec
2000
EBD
is
the
only
source
which
includes
both
an
estimate
that
includes
burden
for
state­
only
boxes
under
the
baseline,
as
well
as
an
estimate
for
the
"
new"
manifest
form.

(
h)
***
Indicates
OSW
derived
these
lower­
bound
time
estimates
for
revised
from
preparation,
by
applying
the
incremental
percentage
changes
from
the
upper­
bound
data
source,
to
the
lower­
bound
baseline
time
estimates.

(
i)
Hazardous
waste
transporter
companies
not
itemized
in
this
table
because
their
manifest
counts
included
with
other
facility
categories.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
46
IV.
A2
Manifest
Continuation
Sheets
(
5%
of
69%
initial
manifests
=
3.4%
of
manifests)

Estimate
of
Paperwork
Burden
Reduction
Cost
Savings
Associated
with
the
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
(
parentheses
indicate
burden
&
cost
savings)

Waste
Handler
Type
A
B
C
(
A
x
B)/
60
D
E
(
C
x
D)

Average
Minutes
to
Prepare
a
RCRA
Manifest
5%
of
69%
Annual
RCRA
Manifest
Forms
Prepared
Annual
Hours
for
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Preparation
2004
Average
Labor
Wage
($/
hour)
Nat'l
Annual
Manifest
Preparation
Burden
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
A.
"
Old"
Baseline
Manifest
Preparation
Burden
(
Non­
Revised
Manifest
Form):

LQGs
15
41,646
87,803
10,412
21,951
$
53
$
551,810
$
1,163,390
SQGs
14
32,084
66,730
7,486
15,570
$
396,772
$
825,228
TSDFs
(
onsite
captive)
16
2,671
5,268
712
1,405
$
37,750
$
74,454
TSDFs
(
commercial
offsite)
15
7,541
15,804
1,885
3,951
$
99,918
$
20,940
Column
sub­
total
(
non­
revised
manifest)
=
83,943
175,605
20,495
42,877
$
1,086,235
$
2,272,481
B.
"
New"
Revised
Manifest
Form
Preparation
Burden:

LQGs
12
41,646
87,803
8,329
17,561
$
53
$
441,448
$
930,712
SQGs
11
32,084
66,730
5,882
12,234
$
311,750
$
648,393
TSDFs
(
onsite
captive)
13
2,671
5,268
579
1,141
$
30,672
$
60,494
TSDFs
(
commercial
offsite)
12
7,541
15,804
1,508
3,161
$
79,935
$
167,522
Column
sub­
total
(
revised
manifest)
=
83,943
175,605
16,298
34,097
$
863,794
$
1,807,141
C.
(
B­
A):
Incremental
Burden
Reduction
(
parentheses
indicate
burden
&
cost
savings):

LQGs
(
3)
(
20%)
(
2,083)
(
4,384)
$
53
($
232,352)
($
232,678)

SQGs
(
3)
(
21%)
(
1,604)
(
3,336)
($
85,012)
($
176,808)

TSDFs
(
onsite
captive)
(
3)
(
19%)
(
133)
(
264)
($
7,049)
($
13,992)

TSDFs
(
commercial
offsite)
(
3)
(
20%)
(
377)
(
790)
($
19,981)
($
41,870)

Column
sub­
total
(
incremental
change)
=
(
4,197)
(
8,780)
($
222,441)
($
465,340)
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
47
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Data
source:
Exhibit
B­
4
(
baseline
minutes)
and
Exhibit
D­
4
(
revised
form
minutes)
from
USEPA
OSW
"
Economics
Background
Document:
Economic
Analysis
of
the
USEPA's
Proposed
Modifications
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System",
19
Dec
2000,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf.
Average
minutes­

permanifest
from
this
data
source,
under
both
the
baseline
and
the
revised
form
cases,
represent
annual
manifestweighted
averages
between
Federally­
regulated
RCRA
hazardous
waste
shipments,
and
state­
only
regulated
hazardous
waste
shipments,
using
the
annual
manifest
counts
from
the
same
two
source
Exhibits.

The
burden
estimates
supplied
in
the
various
ICR
Supporting
Statements
for
the
"
old"
and
"
new"
RCRA
manifest
forms
are
not
applied
in
this
table
because
they
do
not
include
burden
associated
with
state­
optional
information
boxes
under
the
"
old"
form
baseline
(
nor
do
they
include
burden
to
Federally­
owned
facilities).
The
Dec
2000
EBD
is
the
only
source
which
includes
both
an
estimate
that
includes
burden
for
state­
only
boxes
under
the
baseline,
as
well
as
an
estimate
for
the
"
new"
manifest
form.

(
b)
Hazardous
waste
transporter
companies
not
itemized
in
this
table
because
their
manifest
counts
included
with
other
facility
categories.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
48
IV.
A3
Estimate
of
Potential
Impact
on
Employee
Manifest
Training
In
1984,
OSW
developed
the
RCRA
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
shipments
in
coordination
with
US
Department
of
Transportation
(
USDOT)

requirements,
and
RCRA
hazardous
waste
haulers
(
transporters)
are
subject
to
both
RCRA
and
USDOT
shipping
requirements,
as
applicable.

Consequently,
USDOT­
required
personnel
training
is
considered
part
of
the
RCRA
manifest
system
for
purposes
of
this
economic
analysis,
since
persons
preparing
RCRA
manifests
must
receive
introductory
and
biennial
recurring
training
on
how
to
complete
them
(
49
CFR
172.704).
Each
waste
handler
involved
in
manifest
preparation
provides
training
to
its
employees
in
manifest
preparation,
as
required
by
US
Department
of
Transportation
regulations
(
i.
e.
49
CFR
172.704
requires
that
each
hazmat
employee
must
receive
an
initial
training,
and
a
recurrent
training
at
least
once
every
two
years).
For
purposes
of
this
analysis,
§
172.704
requires
each
employee
involved
with
manifesting
at
waste
generator
sites,

waste
transporter
companies,
and
waste
TSDFs
to
receive
training
on
manifesting
procedures,
among
other
things.
The
following
two
tables
provide
key
data,
assumptions,
computations
and
estimates
of
waste
handler
average
annual
burden/
cost
for
such
training.

Estimate
of
Average
Number
of
Employees
Per
Hazardous
Waste
Handling
Facility
Which
Receives
RCRA
Manifest
Training
Waste
Handler
Category
NAICS
Code
Used
for
Employee
Size
Data
Proxy
A
B
C
(
B/
A)
D
E1
CxDx20%
E2
CxDx40%
E3
E1+
E2
1997
Census*
Count
of
Average
Number
of
Employees
Per
Facility
%
of
Employees
Assumed
Relevant
for
RCRA
Manifest
Training
Estimated
Number
of
Employees
Per
Facility
Receiving
Manifest
Training**

Total
Establishments
(
Facilities)
Total
Employees
Initial
Biennial
Total
1.
State
Gov't
Solid
Waste
Mgt
Depts
No
proxy
applied****
50***
1,881****
38
100%
7.6
15.2
23
2.
LQGs
562211:
Haz
Waste
Treatment
&

Disposal
Industry
(
only
establishments
with
>
500
company
employees)
77
6,249
81
5%
0.8
1.6
2
3.
SQGs
562211:
Haz
waste
Treatment
&

Disposal
Industry
(
only
establishments
with
<
500
company
employees)
435
12,050
28
3%
0.2
0.3
0.5
4.
Captive
TSDFs
Assume
same
as
LQGs
77
6,249
81
5%
0.8
1.6
2
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
49
5.
Commercial
TSDFs
(
offsite)
562211:
Haz
Waste
Treatment
&

Disposal
Industry:
Establishments
primarily
engaged
in
(
1)
treatment
or
disposal
of
haz
waste
or
(
2)
combined
activity
of
collecting/
hauling
haz
wastes
within
a
local
area
&
operating
treatment
or
disposal
facilities.
512
17,816
35
20%
1.4
2.8
4
6.
Waste
Transporters
562112:
Haz
Waste
Collection
Industry:

Establishments
primarily
engaged
in
collecting
or
hauling
haz
waste
within
a
local
area
or
operating
haz
waste
transfer
stations.
414
8,468
20
75%
3
6
9
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
50
Explanatory
Notes:

(
c)
*
Source:
US
Dept
of
Commerce,
Bureau
of
Census,
"
1999
Economic
Census":
http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
ec97/
us/
US000.
HTM
(
d)
Proxy
data
sources:

!
LQG:
As
a
proxy
representation
for
LQGs,
it
was
OSW's
intention
to
use
firm­
to­
establishment
counts
for
NAICS
codes
324
(
petroleum
&
coal
products
mfg)
and
325
(
chemical
mfg),
because
these
two
industries
combined
represent
the
majority
(
i.
e.

>
50%)
of
the
annual
quantity
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
generated,
according
to
two
alternative
data
sources:

!
1993:
RCRA
hazardous
wastewaters
+
non­
wastewaters
industry
survey
statistics
provided
in
the
OSW
report:
"
National
Hazardous
Waste
Constituent
Survey
(
NHWCS):
Summary
Report",
prepared
by
Industrial
Economics
Inc.,
Oct
1998,

Exhibit
6­
5,
p.
6­
6,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
id/
hwirwste/
pdf/
summary.
pdf.
The
202.4
million/
year
subtotal
waste
tons
for
SIC
codes
28
&
29
in
1993,
represent
97%
of
the
207.8
million
tons/
year
waste
(
wastewaters
+

non­
wastewaters)
generated
in
1993,
as
covered
by
the
NHWCS
survey.

!
2001:
Non­
wastewaters
only
OSW
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Biennial
Report
2001,
Exhibit
1.9:
Fifty
Largest
Quantities
of
Hazardous
Waste
Generated,
by
Primary
NAICS
Code
in
the
U.
S.,
2001
(
which
shows
that
"
petroleum
&
coal
products
manufacturing"
NAICS
code
3241
and
"
basic
chemical
manufacturing"
NAICS
code
3251
together
constitute
21.727
million
tons
(
53%)
of
the
national
total
40.821
million
tons
hazardous
waste
(
non­
wastewaters)
generated
in
2001
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs01/
national.
pdf).

However,
the
Census
Bureau
does
not
provide
both
establishment
(
facility)
and
associated
firm
(
company)
size
data
for
the
manufacturing
sector.
As
a
"
proxy",
OSW
applies
establishment­
to­
firm
count
data
from
NAICS
code
562211
(
i.
e.
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment
&
Disposal
Industry)
for
firms
with
>
500
employees,
because
>
500
is
often
a
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
cut­
off
threshold
for
defining
a
"
small
business"
http://
www.
sba.
gov/
size;
and
http://
www.
sba.
gov/
size/
sizetable2002.
pdf.

!
SQG:
Although
SQGs
are
not
necessarily
small­
sized
companies
or
small
facilities
(
e.
g.
large
companies
&
large
facilities
may
generate
relatively
small
monthly
quantities
of
haz
wastes),
the
SBA
threshold
of
<
500
employees
for
NAICS
code
562211
is
applied
in
this
table
as
a
proxy
for
SQGs,
for
the
same
reason
described
in
the
footnote
above
for
LQGs.

(
e)
**
Annual
percentages
of
relevant
employees
assumed
receiving
RCRA
manifest
training:

!
20%
initial
training:
Reflects
estimate
of
20%
annual
employee
turn­
over
rate
in
facilities;

!
40%
recurrent:
Thus,
80%
require
biennial
recurrent
(
refresher)
training,
which
represents
40%
average
annual
recurrent
training.

(
f)
***
Although
employment
data
for
50
states
is
applied
as
a
computation
reference,
OSW
estimates
that
23
of
the
56
RCRA­
recognized
states/
territories
print
blank
RCRA
manifest
forms,
and
34
states
collect
completed
RCRA
manifests
(
source:
NGA,
1991).

(
g)
****
Count
of
state
government
employees
is
a
sub­
total
for
the
"
solid
waste
management"
function;
source:
US
Dept
of
Commerce,

Bureau
of
Census,
"
State
Government
Employment
&
Payroll",
March
2001,
http://
www.
census.
gov/
govs/
www/
apesst01.
html
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
51
Estimate
of
National
Annual
Employee
RCRA
Manifest
Training
Cost
Under
Baseline
(
Non­
Revised
Manifest)
&
Under
Revised
Manifest
Final
Rule
(
parentheses
indicate
reduction
in
annual
burden
&
cost)

Waste
Handler
Category
A
B
C
(
AxB)
D
E
F
(
CxDxE)
G
H
(
F
x
G)

Universe
Count
of
Hazardous
Waste
Handling
Facilities
Proportion
of
Facilities
Assumed
Providing
Manifest
Training
No.
of
Waste
Handlers
Providing
Manifest
Training
Average
Number
of
Employees
per
Facility
Receiving
Training
per
Year
Average
Training
Burden
Per
Employee
(
hours)**
Total
Annual
RCRA
Manfiest
Training
Burden
(
hours)
2004
Average
Loaded
Hourly
Labor
Wage
($/
hour)
Average
Annualized
Cost
A.
Baseline
(
Non­
Revised
Manifest
Form):

State
Governments
34
100%
34
23
100.0
78,200
$
36
$
2,815,200
LQGs
18,135
58%*
10,518
2
4.0
84,144
$
53
$
4,459,632
SQGs
117,544
20%*
23,509
0.5
2.4
28,211
$
1,495,172
TSDF
Captive
1,723
100%
1,723
2
5.6
19,298
$
1,022,773
TSDF
Commercial
756
100%
756
4
25.6
77,414
$
4,102,963
Waste
Transporters
414
100%
414
9
150.0
558,900
$
27,945,000
Column
Sub­
totals
=
138,572
27%
36,954
846,167
$
41,840,740
B.
After
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
Manifest
Form:

State
Governments
34
100%
34
23
84***
65,688
$
36
$
2,364,768
LQGs
18,135
58%*
10,518
2
4.0
84,144
$
53
$
4,459,632
SQGs
117,544
20%*
23,509
0.5
2.4
28,211
$
1,495,183
TSDF
Captive
1,723
100%
1,723
2
5.6
19,298
$
1,022,794
TSDF
Commercial
756
100%
756
4
21.5
65,016
$
3,445,848
Waste
Transporters
414
100%
414
9
126.0
469,476
$
23,473,800
Column
Sub­
totals
=
138,572
27%
36,954
731,833
$
36,262,025
C.
Incremental
Change
(
B­
A):
State
Governments
=
(
12,500)
$
36
($
450,400)

Waste
Handlers
=
(
101,800)
$
53
($
5,128,300)

Total
Incremental
Change
=
(
114,300)

(
14%)
($
5,578,700)

Explanatory
Notes:

(
h)
*
Remainder
of
LQGs
and
SQGs
do
not
provide
training
because
TSDFs
and/
or
waste
transporters
assumed
to
prepare
manifests.

(
i)
**
Source:
OSW's
19
Dec
2000
"
Economics
Background
Document"
in
support
of
OSW's
22
May
2001
manifest
revisions
proposed
rule.

(
j)
***
Potential
reduction
in
state
training
burden
hours
per
employee
estimated
in
this
table
in
proportion
to
reduction
in
waste
transporter
burden
estimate.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
52
(
k)
The
USEPA
OSW
Supporting
Statement
for
ICR
Nr.
801.15
(
09
April
2004)
estimates
the
initial
burden
for
reading
the
final
rule;
this
economic
analysis
assumes
that
the
initial
burden
is
included
in
the
first
year
of
the
annualized
training
costs
shown
in
this
table.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
53
IV.
A4
Submit
Copy
of
Hazardous
Waste
Import
Manifest
to
EPA­
OECA
Finalized
Option:
Under
the
baseline
RCRA
manifest
regulations,
hazardous
waste
exporters
(
i.
e.
shippers
transporting
hazardous
wastes
out
of
the
US
to
other
countries)
are
required
to
provide
a
copy
of
the
RCRA
export
manifest
to
US
Customs
at
the
pointof
departure.
However,
no
such
similar
(
symmetrical)
requirement
exists
for
hazardous
waste
imports.
The
revised
manifest
form
final
rule
requires
hazardous
waste
importer
TSDFs
to
mail
a
copy
of
the
RCRA
import
manifest
to
the
EPA's
Office
of
Enforcement
&
Compliance
Assurance
(
i.
e.
OECA's
International
Enforcement
&
Compliance
Division
(
IECD);
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
compliance/
about/
offices/
division/
iecd.
html).
The
following
table
estimates
$
0.21
to
$
0.32
million/
year
in
incremental
paperwork
burden
to
both
waste
importers
and
to
the
EPA
for
this
element
of
the
final
rule.

Proposed
Option:
Although
not
finalized,
the
May
2001
proposed
rule
contained
an
option
for
hazardous
waste
import
transporters
(
e.
g.

trucks
and
cargo
ships),
rather
than
import
receiving
TSDFs,
to
leave
a
copy
of
each
import
manifest
at
the
US
Customs
point­
of­
entry,
as
is
currently
required
for
exports,
and
for
US
Customs
then
to
mail
monthly
batches
of
import
manifests
received
to
EPA­
OECA.
In
comparison
to
the
estimate
in
the
table
below
for
the
finalized
option,
OSW
estimates
the
cost
of
this
alternative
option
involving
US
Customs
at
$
0.26
to
$
0.29
million/
year,
consisting
of
three
burden
cost
elements:

!
Import
transporters:
$
134,200/
year
(
source:
Exhibit
11
of
ICR
801.15
Supporting
Statement,
09
April
2004)

!
US
Customs:
$
75,600/
year
(
source:
([
0.5
hour
to
package/
month]
x
[
12
months/
year]
x
[$
30/
hour
wage
rate]
x
[
317
US
ports­
of­
entry
(
http://
www.
customs.
gov/
xp/
cgov/
toolbox/
ports)])
+
([$
4.88
postage/
package/
port/
month]
x
[
1
package
mailed
12
months/
year]
x
[
317
ports]))

!
EPA­
OECA:
$
50,100
to
$
78,900/
year
(
source:
from
table
below).

Estimate
of
Added
Annual
Cost
for
Submitting
Hazardous
Waste
Import
Manifests
to
EPA­
OECA
Type
of
Entities
Affected
A
B
C
D
(
A
x
C)
E
(
D
x
wage****)
F(
B
x
12
x
$
4.88)
G
(
E
+
F)

Average
Annual
Count
of
Hazardous
Waste
Import
Manifests*
Count
of
Hazardous
Waste
Importers**
Paperwork
Burden
Cost
for
Submitting/
Receiving
Waste
Import
Manifests
Mailing
Cost****
Total
Annual
Cost
Hours
per
manifest
***
Total
annual
hours
Labor
cost
Hazardous
Waste
Importers
16,700
to
26,300
478
to
597
0.15
2,505
to
3,945
$
132,800
to
$
209,100
$
28,000
to
$
35,000
$
160,800
to
$
244,100
EPA­
OECA
0.10
1,670
to
2,630
$
50,100
to
$
78,900
$
0
$
50,100
to
$
78,900
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
54
Column
Totals
=
0.25
4,175
to
6,575
$
182,900
to
$
288,000
$
28,000
to
$
35,000
$
210,900
to
$
323,000
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Imports:
*
In
OSW's
absence
of
multi­
year
import
data
comparable
to
OSW's
recent
export
multi­
year
database,
OSW­
EMRAD
estimated
an
annual
range
of
hazardous
waste
import
manifests,
based
on
dividing
the
18,448
to
29,094
annual
range
of
export
manifest
data
(
see
next
footnote),
by
the
the
export:
to:
import
manifest
ratio
of
19,509/
17,624
=
1.107,
using
data
from
Table
4
of
OSW
"
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
Nr.
801.15",
09
April
2004
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr);
the
Table
4
data
are
not
applied
in
this
economic
analysis
because
the
manifest
data
from
that
table
exclude
(
a)
state­
only
waste
manifests;
(
b)
GOGO
manifests,
and
(
c)
POGO
manifests.

(
b)
Exports:
In
comparison
to
imports,
a
range
of
18,448
to
29,094
RCRA
manifests/
year
accompanied
RCRA
hazardous
waste
exports
outside
of
the
US
from
2001
to
2003
(
source:
OSW­
HWID
Sept
23
2004
query
of
OSW's
"
Hazardous
Waste
Export/
Import
Database").

(
c)
**
Importers:
In
OSW's
absence
of
multi­
year
import
data
comparable
to
OSW's
recent
export
multi­
year
database
(
per
above
footnote),
OSW­
EMRAD
estimated
an
annual
range
of
importers,
based
on
multiplying
the
257
to
321
annual
range
of
exporters
by
the
the
2002
importer:
to:
exporter
ratio
of
478/
257
=
1.860,
using
data
from
Table
1
of
OSW
"
Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
Nr.
1647.04",
10
March
2004
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr).

(
d)
***
Hours­
per­
manifest
from:

!
Importers:
OSW
ICR
Nr.
801.15
Supporting
Statement,
09
April
2004;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr;
(
0.02
hours
per
import
manifest
from
Exhibit
6)
+
(
0.13
hours
per
transporter
from
Exhibit
11)
=
0.15
hours
per
import
manifest
(
i.
e.
9
minutes/
manifest).

!
EPA­
OECA:
OSW­
EMRAD
estimate
carried
forward
from
the
hourly
wage
data
table
in
this
document.

(
e)
****
Cost­
per­
manifest
from:

!
Labor
wage:
Importers:
$
53/
hour
2004
average
loaded
wage
rate
for
technical
labor
(
see
one
of
prior
tables
for
data
source).

EPA­
OECA:
$
30/
hour
2004
average
for
technical
and
clerical
labor
(
see
one
of
prior
tables
for
data
source).

!
Postage
cost:
OSW­
EMRAD
estimated
23
Nov
2004
using
the
US
Postal
Service
postage
calculator
(
http://
postcalc.
usps.
gov),
with
following
hypothetical
average
postal
shipment
specifications:

(
1)
large­
sized
envelope
(
2)
EPA­
OECA's
20460
mail
destination
zipcode
(
3)
hypothetical
Houston
TX
77001
mail
origination
zipcode
(
because
TX
nationally­
ranks
number
2
in
both
tons
recieved
and
annual
receiving
entities
for
haz
waste
shipments
received
in
OSW's
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
2001
Biennial
Report
(
National
Analysis
Exhibits
3.6
and
3.7
at:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs01/
national.
pdf)

(
4)
3­
ounce
average
envelope
weight
(
presuming
an
average
of
2
to
5
import
forms
mailed
per
envelope
on
a
30­
day
(
1
month)
batch
mailing
frequency:
[
16,700/
597/
12mos/
year
=
2.3
envelopes]
to
[
26,300/
478/
12mos/
year
=
4.6
envelopes]

(
5)
first
class
rate
(
6)
$
2.30/
envelope
certified
mail
cost
(
7)
$
1.75/
envelope
return
receipt
cost
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
55
IV.
B
Revisions
to
Procedures
for
Manifest
Form
Printing
&
Acquisition
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
56
IV.
B1
Estimate
of
Impact
for
Changes
to
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Printing
&
Acquisition
1997
Economic
Census
Data
Used
As
Proxy
to
Derive
Relationship
Between
Establishment
(
Facility)
Counts
and
Company
(
Firm)
Counts
for
Purpose
of
Formulating
an
Estimate
of
the
Potential
Number
of
Company
Applicants
to
OSW's
RCRA
Manifest
Printing
Registry
Item
Registry
Applicant
Category
NAICS
Code
or
Other
Source
Used
to
Represent
Registry
Applicant
Category
A
B
C
(
B
/
A)

US
Universe
of
Proxy
Reference
Establishments
(
Facilities)
Estimated
Proxy
Count
of
Owner
Companies
(
Firms)
Ratio
Count
Companies
to
Facilities
1
State
governments
Count
of
RCRA­
defined
states/
territories
56
56
100%

2
Business
form
printers*
323116:
Manifold
Business
Form
Printing
Industry:

Establishments
primarily
engaged
in
printing
special
forms,
including
checkbooks,
for
use
in
the
operation
of
a
business.
The
forms
may
be
in
single
and
multiple
sets,
including
carbonized,
interleaved
with
carbon,
or
otherwise
processed
for
multiple
reproduction.
1,040
719
69%

3
LQGs**
562211:
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment
&
Disposal
Industry
(
only
establishments
in
this
industry
with
>
500
company
employees)
77
5
6%

4
SQGs***
562211:
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment
&
Disposal
Industry
(
only
establishments
in
this
industry
with
<
500
company
employees)
435
357
82%

5
TSDFs
captive
Assume
same
ratio
as
LQGs,
if
most
captive
TSDFs
are
owned/
operated
by
LQGs
>
6%

6
TSDFs
commercial
562211:
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment
&
Disposal
Industry
512
362
71%

7
Haz
waste
transporters
562112:
Hazardous
Waste
Collection
Industry
414
341
82%
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
57
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Data
Source:
US
Dept
of
Commerce,
Bureau
of
Census
"
1997
Economic
Census":
Establishment
&
Firm
Size
reports:

http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
www/
ec97stat.
htm#
SUBJECT
(
b)
*
Printer
proxy:
Compared
to
the
next
table,
OSW
applied
a
relatively
broader
(
less
product­
specific),
6­
digit
NAICS
code
323116
definition
of
Business
Form
Printers
in
this
table,
because
the:

!
Narrower
(
more
product­
specific)
7­
digit
NAICS
Code
(
i.
e.
3231161:
manifold
business
form
printing
industry:
"
unit
set
forms,
loose
or
bound")
applied
in
the
next
table,
provided
only
a
count
of
establishments
without
an
associated
count
of
firms
(
companies),
whereas
the
!
Broader
(
less
product­
specific)
6­
digit
NAICS
Code
323116
provided
both
count
of
establishments
and
count
of
associated
firms
(
companies),
in
the
US
Dept
of
Commerce
Census
Bureau
"
1997
Economic
Census"
reference
data
website
http://
www.
census.
gov/
prod/
ec97/
97m3231g.
pdf.

(
c)
**
LQG
proxy:
As
a
proxy
representation
for
LQGs,
it
was
OSW's
intention
to
use
firm­
to­
establishment
counts
for
NAICS
codes
324
(
petroleum
&
coal
products
mfg)
and
325
(
chemical
mfg),
because
these
two
industries
combined
represent
the
majority
(
i.
e.
>
50%)
of
the
annual
quantity
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
generated,
according
to
two
alternative
data
sources:

!
1993:
RCRA
hazardous
wastewaters
+
non­
wastewaters
industry
survey
statistics
provided
in
the
OSW
report:

"
National
Hazardous
Waste
Constituent
Survey
(
NHWCS):
Summary
Report",
prepared
by
Industrial
Economics
Inc.,
Oct
1998,
Exhibit
6­
5,
p.
6­
6,

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
id/
hwirwste/
pdf/
summary.
pdf.
The
202.4
million/
year
subtotal
waste
tons
for
SIC
codes
28
&
29
in
1993,
represent
97%
of
the
207.8
million
tons/
year
waste
(
wastewaters
+

nonwastewaters
generated
in
1993,
as
covered
by
the
NHWCS
survey.

!
2001:
Non­
wastewaters
only
OSW
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Biennial
Report
2001,
Exhibit
1.9:
Fifty
Largest
Quantities
of
Hazardous
Waste
Generated,
by
Primary
NAICS
Code
in
the
U.
S.,
2001
(
which
shows
that
"
petroleum
&
coal
products
manufacturing"
NAICS
code
3241
and
"
basic
chemical
manufacturing"
NAICS
code
3251
together
constitute
21.727
million
tons
(
53%)
of
the
national
total
40.821
million
tons
hazardous
waste
(
non­
wastewaters)
generated
in
2001
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs01/
national.
pdf).

However,
the
Bureau
of
Census
does
not
provide
both
establishment
(
facility)
and
associated
firm
(
company)
size
data
for
the
manufacturing
sector.
As
a
"
proxy",
OSW
applies
establishment­
to­
firm
count
data
from
NAICS
code
562211
(
i.
e.
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment
&
Disposal
Industry)
for
firms
with
>
500
employees,
because
>
500
is
often
a
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
cut­
off
threshold
for
defining
a
"
small
business"
http://
www.
sba.
gov/
size;
and
http://
www.
sba.
gov/
size/
sizetable2002.
pdf.

(
d)
***
SQG
proxy:
Although
SQGs
are
not
necessarily
small­
sized
companies
or
small
facilities
(
e.
g.
large­
sized
companies
and
large
establishments
may
generate
relatively
small
annual
quantities
of
hazardous
wastes),
the
SBA
threshold
of
<
500
employees
for
NAICS
code
562211
is
applied
as
a
proxy,
for
the
same
reason
described
in
the
footnote
above
for
LQGs.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
58
Estimated
Number
of
Companies
Which
May
Apply
to
OSW's
National
Registry
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Printers
Item
Type
of
Registry
Applicant
A
B
C
(
A
x
B)
D
E
F
(
C
x
D)
G
(
C
x
E)

Estimated
Count
of
Eligible
Companies
Percentage
of
Eligible
Companies
Expected
to
Apply
to
Registry*
Number
of
Expected
Initial
Applicants
US
Universe
of
Establishments
(
facilities)
Ratio
Companies
to
Facilities
(
prior
table)
Estimated
Count
of
Companies
Lower*
Upper*
Lower
Upper
1
State
governments
56
Not
Applicable
23/
56
(
41%)
56/
56
(
100%)
23
56
2
Business
form
printers:

Manifold
business
form
printing
industry:
"
unit
set
forms,
loose
or
bound"
(
NAICS
code
3231161)
119
69%
82
(
23/
82)
28%
90%
23
74
3
LQGs
18,135
6%
1,088
0%
5%
0
54
4
SQGs
117,544
82%
96,386
0%
0%
0
0
5
TSDFs
captive
1,723
6%
103
2%
90%
2
93
6
TSDFs
commercial
756
71%
537
2%
90%
11
483
7
Waste
transporters
414
82%
341
2%
90%
7
307
Column
totals
=
138,572
72%**
98,537**
0.06%
0.92%
66
1,067
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
59
(
a)
*
Sources
for
Percentage
Assumptions
(
Columns
D
&
E):

!
States:
!
Lower%:
Current
number
of
state
governments
known
to
print
RCRA
hazardous
waste
manifests
!
Upper%:
Total
universe
of
RCRA­
defined
state/
territorial
governments.

!
Printers:
Compared
to
the
prior
table,
OSW
applied
a
relatively
narrower
(
more
product­
specific)
7­
digit
3231161
NAICS
code
definition
of
Business
Form
Printers
in
this
table,
because
the
broader
(
less
product­
specific)
6­
digit
NAICS
Code
(
i.
e.

323116)
applied
in
the
prior
table,
provided
both
count
of
establishments
and
count
of
firms
(
companies),
whereas
the
narrower
7­
digit
NAICS
Code
3231161
provided
only
count
of
establishments
with
no
count
of
associated
firms
(
companies),
in
the
US
Dept
of
Commerce
Census
Bureau
"
1997
Economic
Census"
reference
website
http://
www.
census.
gov/
prod/
ec97/
97m3231g.
pdf.

!
Lower%:
Minimum
of
one
printer
in
each
of
the
23
states
which
currently
print
RCRA
manifest
forms.

!
Upper%:
Represents
the
scenario
that
most
business
form
printer
companies
strategically
position
to
enter
the
manifest
market,
to
provide
competitive
full­
service
business
options.

!
LQGs:
Because
LQGs
with
captive
TSDFs
are
subtracted
from
this
category
and
represented
in
a
separate
row
item
in
this
table,
the
remaining
estimate
of
LQGs
w/
out
captive
TSDFs
assigned
same
assumptions
as
SQGs.

!
SQGs:
Lower
and
upper
assumptions
based
on
facts
that
SQGs
generate
relatively
lower:

!
Quantities
of
hazardous
waste
(
i.
e.
less
than
1,000
kilograms
(
2,205
pounds,
or
one
long
ton)
per
month);

!
Frequencies
of
hazardous
waste
shipments
because
SQGs
may
accumulate
RCRA
hazardous
wastes
on­
site
for
up
to
180
days
without
a
RCRA
storage
permit
(
40
CFR
262.34(
d));
and
!
SQG­
generated
haz
wastes
are
mostly
handled
by
commercial
TSDFs
(
i.
e.
TSDFs
provide
manifest
forms
to
SQGs).

!
TSDFs:
In
its
24
Feb
2003
memorandum
to
OSW
titled
"
Preliminary
Draft
Cost
Estimate
for
the
Manifest
Registry
System;

Work
Assignment
116;
Task
2,
USEPA
Contract
68­
W­
02­
006"
(
available
to
the
public
from
the
USEPA
RCRA
Docket
at:
http://
cascade.
epa.
gov/
RightSite/
dk_
public_
home.
htm),
ICF
Consulting
Inc.
indicated
in
footnote
nr.
1
on
page
2
of
this
memo,
that
it
contacted
the
Environmental
Technology
Council
(
ETC)
 
which
represents
hazardous
waste
commercial
TSDFs
 
"
who
estimated
that
15
to
20
TSDF
companies
might
want
to
register
to
print
manifests."
On
29
Oct
2003,
OSW
(
Mark
Eads)
contacted
Scott
Slesinger
of
ETC
to
confirm/
interpret
this
finding,
at
which
date
ETC
modified
the
estimate
to
six
TSDF
companies
because
of
waste
management
mergers.
ETC's
membership
represents
(
handles)
about
80%
of
annual
hazardous
waste
shipments,
although
the
associated
count
of
ETC
member
companies
is
probably
less
than
25.
Relative
to
the
US
universe
of
362
commercial
hazardous
waste
TSDFs
companies
(
1997
Economic
Census),
six­
to­
20
TSDF
applicants
represents
1.7%
to
5.5%
of
the
potentially
eligible
applicant
universe.

!
Lower%:
The
low­
end
of
the
ETC­
reported
range,
rounded
to
whole
percentage.

!
Upper%:
Represents
scenario
that
most
TSDFs
strategically
position
to
provide
full­
service
business
options
to
LQG/
SQG
customers.

(
b)
**
Column
total
count
of
companies
may
exceed
the
actual
count
because
of
possible
(
probable)
duplicative
counts
of
companies
across
the
six
waste
handler
facility
categories
(
e.
g.
a
single
company
may
own
one
or
more
LQGs
and
SQGs).

(
c)
In
addition
to
revisions
to
the
RCRA
manifest
form,
OSW's
manifest
proposed
rule
(
22
May
2001,
Federal
Register,
Vol.
66,
Nr.
99,

pp.
28239­
28318;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
mods.
htm)
also
proposed
an
electronic
manifest
system.

Although
not
a
feature
in
OSW's
revised
manifest
form
final
rule,
it
is
conceivable
that
the
upper­
end
assumptions
in
this
table
are
too
high,
if
an
electronic
manifest
system
becomes
implemented
in
the
near
future
(
e.
g.
by
year
2005
or
2006),
thereby
eliminating
most
of
the
future
need
to
print
paper
manifest
forms
(
although
the
registry
could
conceivably
operate
under
an
electronic
manifest
system,
for
purpose
of
continued
assignment
of
unique
manifest
numbers).
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
60
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
61
Estimate
of
Initial
and
Average
Annualized
Cost
for
OSW's
National
Registry
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Printers
Item
Type
of
Registry
Applicant
Number
of
Expected
Initial
Applicants
(
from
prior
table)
Registry
Cost
Registry
Cost
to
Applicants
(@

avg
$
720
per
applicant)*
Registry
Cost
to
USEPA
(@

avg
$
58
per
applicant)*

Lower­
bound
Upper­
bound
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
0
Registry
database
development**
>
$
0
$
22,000
1
State
governments
23
56
$
16,560
$
40,320
$
1,334
$
3,248
2
Business
form
printers
23
74
$
16,560
$
53,280
$
1,334
$
4,292
3
LQGs
0
54
$
0
$
38,880
$
0
$
3,132
4
SQGs
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
5
TSDFs
captive
2
93
$
1,440
$
66,960
$
116
$
5,394
6
TSDFs
commercial
11
483
$
7,920
$
347,760
$
638
$
28,014
7
Waste
transporters
7
307
$
5,040
$
221,040
$
406
$
17,806
Cost
Summary:

8
Column
totals
=
66
1,067
$
47,520
$
768,240
$
3,828
$
61,886
9
Average
Annual
Equivalent
(
row
8
divided
over
10­
years)
=
6.6
107
$
4,750
$
76,820
$
383
$
6,189
10
Additional
annual
new
company
applications
&
revisions
(
if
20%
x
row
9)
=
1.3
21
$
950
$
15,365
$
77
$
1,238
11
Total
average
annual
(
row
9
+
row
10)
=
8
128
$
5,700
$
92,185
$
460
$
7,427
Burden
Hours
Summary:

12
Total
burden
hours
(
based
on
row
8)
=
805
13,020
116
1,875
13
Average
Annual
Equivalent
(
row
12
divided
over
10­
years)
=
81
1,300
12
188
14
Additional
annual
new
applications
&
revisions
(
if
20%
x
row
13)
=
16
260
2.3
38
15
Total
average
annual
cost
(
row
13
+
row
14)
=
97
1,560
14
226
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
62
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Registry
costs
based
on
following
average
cost
assumptions
($
per
application):

!
Average
Cost
to
Applicants:
$
720
[
source:
Exhibit
1
of
09
April
2004
ICR
Nr.
801.15
[($
10,075/
14
applications)
=
$
720];

equivalent
to
12.2
burden
hours
@$
59/
hour
waste
handler
technical
labor
wage.

!
Average
Cost
to
USEPA:
$
58
[
source:
Exhibit
19
of
09
April
2004
ICR
Nr.
801.15
[($
816)/(
14
applications)
=
$
58];

equivalent
to
1.8
burden
hours
@$
33/
hour
agency
technical
labor
wage.

(
b)
**
Database
development
cost
estimate
from
Exhibit
6
(
i.
e.
exhibit
data
element
for
year
2003)
of
"
Preliminary
Draft
Cost
Estimate
for
the
Manifest
Registry
System",
ICF
Consulting
Inc.,
Work
Assignment
116,
Task
2,
EPA
Contract
68­
W­
02­
006,
24
Feb
2003.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
63
IV.
B2
Estimate
of
Potential
Impact
on
State
Government
RCRA
Manifest
Fee
Revenues
IV.
B2a
Estimate
of
Fees
Charged
by
27
States
for
Hazardous
Waste
Transportation
The
first
table
below
displays
year
2002
state
government
fees
and
state
annual
revenues
related
to
USDOT
hazardous
materials
and
RCRA
hazardous
waste
transportation.
The
data
are
extracted
from
a
survey
which
reports
that
40
states
used
58
fee
schemes
to
collect
$
20
million
in
hazardous
materials
transportation
fees
in
2002.
A
subtotal
of
27
state
governments
reportedly
assess
fees
related
to
hazardous
waste
transport,
either
as
printing
cost
recovery
fees
for
blank
RCRA
manifests,
or
on
a
hazardous
waste
volume/
weight
transported
basis
(
e.
g.

perpound
or
per­
cubic
yard
waste
shipped),
or
on
an
annual
per­
company
basis
(
e.
g.
waste
generator
or
waste
transporter).

Of
the
estimated
$
14.9
million
in
annual
state
revenues
collected
(
assessed)
in
2002
for
hazardous
or
other
waste
transportation,
OSW
estimates
that
states
collected
$
7.5
million
(
50%)
from
transport
of
RCRA­
designated
hazardous
waste.
Relative
to
OSW's
estimate
of
12.3
million
tons/
year
RCRA
hazardous
waste
shipped
(
which
includes
wastewaters
+
non­
wastewaters
generated
by
LQGs
+
SQGs
+
TSDFs),
the
overall
56­
state/
territory
national
average
fee
assessed
RCRA
hazardous
waste
transportation
is
$
0.61
per
ton,
ranging
from
$
0.04
to
$
7.55/
ton
for
the
27
states
which
reported
such
fees
in
the
2002
reference
survey.

27
States:

Summary
of
Annual
State
Government
Revenues
Associated
With
Shipment
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Wastes
(
2002)

(
LQGs
+
SQGs
+
TSDFs
and
Wastewaters
+
Non­
wastewaters)

Item
State
A
B
C
(
A
x
B)
D
E
F
G
(
Dx0.7098)
H
(
D+(
E+
F)/
2+
G)
I
(
C/
H)

2002
Haz
or
Other
Waste
Transport
State
Govt
Revenues
($
000s)*
OSWEstimate
of
RCRADesignated
Haz
Waste
Portion
of
Revenues**
OSW
Estimate
of
RCRA
Haz
Waste
Revenues
($
000s)
2001
LQG+
TSDF
tons
haz
waste
nonwastewaters
shipped***
SQG
tons
shipped
(
NWW+
WW)****
2001
wastewater
haz
waste
tons
shipped*****
OSW
Estimate
of
Total
Annual
Tons
RCRA
Haz
Waste
Shipped
(
NWW+
WW)
Per­
Ton
Equivalent
State
Fee
on
RCRA
Haz
Waste
Transport
($/
ton)

Lowerbound
Upperbound
1
Alabama
$
58.0
100%
$
58.0
276,723
3,906
6,056
196,411
478,115
$
0.12
2
Alaska
4,020
0
0
2,853
6,873
3
Arizona
$
18.4
100%
$
18.4
59,328
1,239
1,921
42,110
103,018
$
0.18
4
Arkansas
$
25.0
100%
$
25.0
290,102
1,684
2,610
205,907
498,156
$
0.05
5
California
716,681
0
0
508,683
1,225,364
6
Colorado
29,929
0
0
21,243
51,172
7
Connecticut
$
98.5
33%
$
32.5
74,924
2,189
3,394
53,179
130,895
$
0.25
8
Delaware
$
56.1
50%
$
28.1
16,940
1,889
2,929
12,024
31,372
$
0.89
9
Dist
of
Columbia
2,111
0
0
1,498
3,609
10
Florida
58,269
0
0
41,358
99,627
11
Georgia
110,654
0
0
78,540
189,194
12
Guam
437
0
0
310
747
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
64
13
Hawaii
791
0
0
561
1,352
14
Idaho
$
66.2
100%
$
66.2
5,078
4,458
6,912
3,604
14,367
$
4.61
15
Illinois
$
39.0
100%
$
39.0
370,783
2,626
4,072
263,173
637,305
$
0.06
16
Indiana
426,579
0
0
302,775
729,354
17
Iowa
$
206.0
100%
$
206.0
44,875
13,872
21,509
31,851
94,417
$
2.18
18
Kansas
$
55.5
100%
$
55.5
46,949
3,737
5,795
33,323
85,038
$
0.65
19
Kentucky
205,175
0
0
145,628
350,803
20
Louisiana
150,171
0
0
106,588
256,759
21
Maine
$
394.0
50%
$
197.0
5,374
13,266
20,569
3,814
26,106
$
7.55
22
Maryland
$
137.7
33%
$
45.4
10,563
3,060
4,745
7,497
21,963
$
2.07
23
Massachusetts
$
5,468.0
33%
$
1,804.4
61,862
121,514
188,404
43,908
260,729
$
6.92
24
Michigan
$
63.1
100%
$
63.1
426,643
4,249
6,588
302,821
734,883
$
0.09
25
Minnesota
$
280.7
33%
$
92.6
62,162
6,238
9,672
44,121
114,238
$
0.81
26
Mississippi
36,471
0
0
25,886
62,357
27
Missouri
$
346.0
33%
$
114.2
65,546
7,689
11,922
46,523
121,874
$
0.94
28
Montana
6,464
0
0
4,588
11,052
29
Navajo
Nation
186
0
0
132
318
30
Nebraska
26,286
0
0
18,657
44,943
31
Nevada
5,605
0
0
3,978
9,583
32
New
Hampshire
12,290
0
0
8,723
21,013
33
New
Jersey
$
410.7
100%
$
410.7
389,617
27,654
42,877
276,541
701,423
$
0.59
34
New
Mexico
7,407
0
0
5,257
12,664
35
New
York
$
3,643.0
33%
$
1,202.2
181,732
80,957
125,522
128,989
413,961
$
2.90
36
North
Carolina
$
585.0
100%
$
585.0
85,809
39,395
61,081
60,905
196,952
$
2.97
37
North
Dakota
$
12.0
33%
$
4.0
3,526
267
413
2,503
6,369
$
0.62
38
Ohio
$
835.8
50%
$
417.9
703,652
28,142
43,633
499,435
1,238,975
$
0.34
39
Oklahoma
$
59.5
100%
$
59.5
35,426
4,007
6,212
25,145
65,680
$
0.91
40
Oregon
48,460
0
0
34,396
82,856
41
Pennsylvania
$
1,529.8
100%
$
1,529.8
313,677
103,016
159,723
222,640
667,687
$
2.29
42
Puerto
Rico
98,146
0
0
69,662
167,808
43
Rhode
Island
$
239.6
100%
$
239.6
9,327
16,135
25,017
6,620
36,523
$
6.56
44
South
Carolina
155,578
0
0
110,426
266,004
45
South
Dakota
1,256
0
0
891
2,147
46
Tennessee
$
127.0
100%
$
127.0
54,438
8,552
13,260
38,639
103,983
$
1.22
47
Texas
663,506
0
0
470,941
1,134,447
48
Trust
Territories
418
0
0
297
715
49
Utah
88,641
0
0
62,915
151,556
50
Vermont
$
83.0
25%
$
20.8
4,420
1,397
2,167
3,137
9,339
$
2.22
51
Virgin
Islands
1,990
0
0
1,412
3,402
52
Virginia
$
5.6
100%
$
5.6
89,402
377
585
63,455
153,338
$
0.04
53
Washington
77,450
0
0
54,972
132,422
54
West
Virginia
43,072
0
0
30,571
73,643
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
65
55
Wisconsin
$
73.8
50%
$
36.9
163,043
2,485
3,853
115,724
281,936
$
0.13
56
Wyoming
1,836
0
0
1,303
3,139
Column
totals
=
$
14,917
$
7,484
6,831,800
504,000
781,440
4,849,046
12,323,566
$
0.61
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
66
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Source
state
revenues:
Dangerous
Goods
Advisory
Council
(
DGAC),
"
Biennial
Survey
of
State
Hazardous
Materials
Transportation
Fees",
Dec
2002,
'
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs01/
national.
pdf
(
b)
***
Portions
assigned
by
OSW
according
to
count
of
haz
material
categories
associated
with
each
instance
of
"
HW"
(
hazardous
waste)
in
the
DGAC
survey
reference.

(
c)
**
Source
LQG+
TSDF
tons
shipped:
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
OSW)
2001
"
National
Analysis:
Biennial
Report",

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs01/
national.
pdf
(
d)
****
Source
SQG
tons
shipped:
SQG
lower­
and
upper­
bound
tons
estimated
proportionate
to
state­
by­
state
LQG
tons,
relative
to
national
total
range
for
SQGs
of
504,000
to
781,440
tons
(
source:
Dynamac
Corp
memo
to
OSW,
page
4,
01
Feb
1999).

(
e)
*****
Source
Column
G
multiplier
factor:
The
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Biennial
Report
(
BR)
discontinued
presenting
wastewater
data
in
1997
(
i.
e.
1995
was
the
last
data
year
that
the
BR
reported
wastewaters);
consequently,
OSW­
EMRAD
estimated
2001
wastewaters
shipped,
by
ratio
proportionate
to
total
hazardous
waste
shipments
from
the
1995
BR,
as
follows:

!
1995
RCRA
haz
WW+
NWW
shipments
=
10,675,806
(
1995
BR,
Exhibit
3.1,
page
3­
2)

!
1995
RCRA
haz
NWW
shipments
=
6,243,980
(
1997
BR,
Exhibit
B.
3,
page
B­
4)

!
1995
RCRA
haz
WW
shipments
=
4,431,826
(
by
subtraction
10,765,806
­
6,243,980)

!
Implied
WW:
to:
NWW
ratio
multiplier
=
(
4,431,826
WW)
/
(
6,243,980
NWW)
=
0.7098
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
67
IV.
B2b
Estimate
of
Fees
Charged
by
12
States
for
Blank
RCRA
Manifests
The
next
table
presents
an
estimate
of
$
1.16
to
$
2.44
million/
year
in
fees
charged
by
12
states
for
blank
RCRA
manifests
(
constituting
41%
of
annual
manifests),
representing
15%
to
33%
of
the
$
7.5
million/
year
in
hazardous
waste
transportation
fees
assessed
by
27
states
(
estimated
in
the
prior
table).
These
12
states
are
a
subset
of
the
23
states
which
print
blank
RCRA
manifests.
The
blank
manifest
fees
charged
by
the
12
states
range
from
$
0.17
to
$
3.00
per
manifest,
averaging
$
1.17
per
manifest.

In
comparison,
the
second
table
below
presents
OSW's
independent
estimate
of
$
0.48
to
$
1.95
million/
year
for
actual
printing
costs
to
the
23
states
which
print
blank
RCRA
manifests
(
constituting
69%
of
annual
national
manifests).
OSW's
estimate
of
the
annual
printing
cost
to
the
23
states
is
less
than
the
estimated
fees
charged
for
blank
manifests
by
the
12
states,
which
indicates
that
some
states
probably
charge
fees
in
excess
of
manifest
form
printing
costs
(
i.
e.
in
excess
of
cost
recovery).

In
terms
of
potential
regulatory
impact,
the
fees
currently
charged
by
12
states
for
blank
manifests
are
not
necessarily
eliminated
by
the
revised
manifest
final
rule,
because
affected
states
may
change
the
way
they
assess
hazardous
waste
transportation
fees,
to
offset
the
lost
opportunity
of
selling
blank
RCRA
manifest
forms.
12
States:

Estimate
of
State
Government
Annual
Revenues
From
Sale
of
Blank
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifests
Item
State
A
State
manifest
fee
data
source*
B
C
(
B
/
5.1)
D
(
B
/
2.4)
E
(
A
x
C)
F
(
A
x
D)

State
Gov't
Fees
for
Blank
RCRA
Manifests
($/
manifest)*
Annual
Tons
RCRA
Haz
Waste
Shipped
LQGs+
SQGs
+
TSDFs
(
NWW+
WW)**
OSW
Estimate
of
Annual
RCRA
Haz
Waste
Manifests***
OSW
Estimate
of
Annual
State
Revenues
From
Sale
of
Blank
RCRA
Manfiests
Lower­
bound
(
if
5.1
tons/
load)
Upper­
bound
(
if
2.4
tons/
load)
Lower­
bound
Upper­
bound
1
Alabama
1991
478,115
94,397
197,476
$
0
$
0
2
Alaska
1991
6,873
1,357
2,839
$
0
$
0
3
Arizona
1991
103,018
20,339
42,549
$
0
$
0
4
Arkansas
$
2.00
1991
498,156
98,354
205,753
$
196,708
$
411,507
5
California
$
0.29
2004
1,225,364
241,931
506,112
$
70,341
$
147,152
6
Colorado
1991
51,172
10,103
21,136
$
0
$
0
7
Connecticut
$
0.50
2004
130,895
25,843
54,063
$
12,922
$
27,032
8
Delaware
$
0.52
2004
31,372
6,194
12,958
$
3,221
$
6,738
9
Dist
of
Columbia
1991
3,609
713
1,491
$
0
$
0
10
Florida
1991
99,627
19,670
41,149
$
0
$
0
11
Georgia
1991
189,194
37,354
78,143
$
0
$
0
12
Guam
1991
747
148
309
$
0
$
0
13
Hawaii
1991
1,352
267
559
$
0
$
0
14
Idaho
1991
14,367
2,837
5,934
$
0
$
0
15
Illinois
$
3.00
2003
637,305
125,827
263,226
$
377,481
$
789,678
16
Indiana
2004
729,354
144,001
301,245
$
0
$
0
17
Iowa
1991
94,417
18,641
38,997
$
0
$
0
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
68
18
Kansas
1991
85,038
16,790
35,123
$
0
$
0
19
Kentucky
1991
350,803
69,261
144,892
$
0
$
0
20
Louisiana****
$
2.75
2004
256,759
50,693
106,049
$
139,407****
$
291,635****

21
Maine
2004
26,106
5,154
10,783
$
0
$
0
22
Maryland
$
0.25
2004
21,963
4,336
9,071
$
1,084
$
2,268
23
Massachusetts
1991
260,729
51,477
107,689
$
0
$
0
24
Michigan
$
1.08
2003
734,883
145,092
303,528
$
156,700
$
327,811
25
Minnesota
2004
114,238
22,555
47,184
$
0
$
0
26
Mississippi
1991
62,357
12,312
25,755
$
0
$
0
27
Missouri
$
0.60
1991
121,874
24,062
50,338
$
14,437
$
30,203
28
Montana
1991
11,052
2,182
4,565
$
0
$
0
29
Navajo
Nation
1991
318
63
131
$
0
$
0
30
Nebraska
1991
44,943
8,873
18,563
$
0
$
0
31
Nevada
1991
9,583
1,892
3,958
$
0
$
0
32
New
Hampshire
$
0.17
2004
21,013
4,149
8,679
$
705
$
1,475
33
New
Jersey
$
1.00
2004
701,423
138,486
289,709
$
138,486
$
289,709
34
New
Mexico
1991
12,664
2,500
5,231
$
0
$
0
35
New
York
2004
413,961
81,731
170,978
$
0
$
0
36
North
Carolina
1991
196,952
38,885
81,347
$
0
$
0
37
North
Dakota
1991
6,369
1,257
2,630
$
0
$
0
38
Ohio
1991
1,238,975
244,618
511,734
$
0
$
0
39
Oklahoma
1991
65,680
12,968
27,128
$
0
$
0
40
Oregon
1991
82,856
16,359
34,222
$
0
$
0
41
Pennsylvania
$
0.40
2004
667,687
131,826
275,775
$
52,730
$
110,310
42
Puerto
Rico
1991
167,808
33,131
69,310
$
0
$
0
43
Rhode
Island
1991
36,523
7,211
15,085
$
0
$
0
44
South
Carolina
1991
266,004
52,519
109,867
$
0
$
0
45
South
Dakota
1991
2,147
424
887
$
0
$
0
46
Tennessee
1991
103,983
20,530
42,948
$
0
$
0
47
Texas
1991
1,134,447
223,981
468,560
$
0
$
0
48
Trust
Territories
1991
715
141
295
$
0
$
0
49
Utah
1991
151,556
29,923
62,597
$
0
$
0
50
Vermont
1991
9,339
1,844
3,857
$
0
$
0
51
Virgin
Islands
1991
3,402
672
1,405
$
0
$
0
52
Virginia
1991
153,338
30,275
63,333
$
0
$
0
53
Washington
1991
132,422
26,145
54,694
$
0
$
0
54
West
Virginia
1991
73,643
14,540
30,417
$
0
$
0
55
Wisconsin
1991
281,936
55,664
116,448
$
0
$
0
56
Wyoming
1991
3,139
620
1,297
$
0
$
0
Column
totals
=
12,324,000
2,433,000
5,090,000
$
1,164,000
$
2,436,000
Subtotals
for
printing
fee
states
=
5,049,000
(
41%)
997,000
(
41%)
2,085,000
(
41%)
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
69
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Data
sources
for
State
fees
for
blank
RCRA
manifests:

!
1991:
Table
6,
page
28,
A
State
Guide
to
The
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest,
Information
Management
Program,
Center
for
Policy
Research,
National
Governor's
Association
(
http://
www.
nga.
org),
1991.

!
2003/
2004:
In
an
effort
to
update
the
1991
reference,
OSW
(
Rachel
White)
conducted
a
March
2004
telephone
survey
sample
of
nine
states
(
CA,
CT,
DE,
LA,
MD,
ME,
MN,
NJ,
NY)
plus
three
final
rule
workgroup
states
(
IN,
NH,
PA);
and
OSW
(
Mark
Eads)
conducted
a
Nov
2003
internet
search
for
state
manifest
fee
data
(
which
only
produced
four
data
hits
for
CA,
IL,

MI,
NJ).

(
b)
Fees
in
this
table
may
represent
only
printing
costs,
or
may
exceed
the
actual
printing
cost
of
blank
manifest
forms
(
e.
g.
NJ
charges
$
10/
manifest
for
processing
fee).

(
c)
States
with
no
numerical
value
shown
for
manifest
fees,
reportedly
do
not
print
blank
RCRA
manifests.

(
d)
29
states
also
charge
additional
fees
for
supplying
photocopies
of
completed
RCRA
manifests
(
Table
3,
page
9,
1991
NGA
report).

(
e)
**
2001
tons
RCRA
hazardous
waste
shipped
from
prior
table.

(
f)
***
OSW
estimated
lower­
and
upper­
bound
annual
manifest
counts
for
each
state
in
this
table,
by
dividing
the
2001
annual
tons
shipped
in
each
state,
by
two
alternative
estimates
of
national
average
shipment
load
(
i.
e.
national
average
tons
per
waste
shipment):

!
Lower­
bound
manifest
count:
5.1
tons/
load
[(
12.324
million
tons/
year
shipped)
/
(
2.433
million
manifests/
year)]

!
Upper­
bound
manifest
count:
2.4
tons/
load
[(
12.324
million
tons/
year
shipped)
/
(
5.090
million
manifests/
year)]

(
g)
****
Calibration
($
192,000/
year)
based
on
OSW's
March
2004
phone
survey.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
70
IV.
B3
Estimate
of
State
Government
Costs
for
Printing
Blank
RCRA
Manifests
The
table
below
presents
OSW's
independent
estimate
of
$
0.64
to
$
2.77
million/
year
in
printing
costs
for
2.433
to
5.090
million
blank
RCRA
manifests,
as
well
as
an
estimate
of
printing
costs
to
the
23
states
which
print
blank
RCRA
manifests.

23
States:

Estimate
of
Annual
Labor
Burden
&
Printing
Costs
to
State
Governments
and
to
Waste
Handlers
for
Printing
Blank
RCRA
Manifests
A
B
C
D
(
A
x
B
x
C)

States
Printing
Blank
RCRA
Manifests
Annual
Burden
Quantity
Unitized
Average
Labor
Burden
or
Cost
Average
Annual
National
Burden
($
millions/
year)

A.
Burden
to
23
States
Which
Print
Blank
RCRA
Manifests:

1.
RCRA
manifest
printing
Labor
burden
23
states
50
hours/
state
$
36/
hour
$
0.041
Printing
cost
69%*
x
(
2.433
to
5.090
million
annual
national
manifests)
/
(
23
states)
=

72,990
to
152,700
annual
manifests/
state
$
0.21
to
$
0.52
per
manifest**
$
0.353
to
$
1.826
2.
RCRA
manifest
distributing
100
hours/
state
$
36/
hour
$
0.083
Column
total
=
$
0.48
to
$
1.95
Subtotal
state
government
burden
hours
=
150
hours/
state
3,450
hours
B.
Remainder
Manifests
Not
Printed
by
State
Governments:

3.
RCRA
manifest
printing
!
100%
­
69%
manifests
=
31%
manifests
not
printed
by
states
!
31%
x
(
2.433
to
5.090
million
annual
national
manifests)
=
0.754
to
1.578
million
manifests
$
0.21
to
$
0.52
per
manifest**
$
0.16
to
$
0.82
National
manifest
printing
&
distribution
cost
=
$
0.64
to
$
2.77
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
OSW
estimates
that
the
23
states
which
print
blank
RCRA
manifests,
account
for
69%
of
all
annual
national
RCRA
manifests
(
source:

spreadsheet
presented
elsewhere
in
this
"
Economics
Background
Document").

(
b)
**
Source:
http://
carbonless.
net/
pricing.
htm;
unitized
cost
based
on
$
130.20
for
250
box
of
6­
part
8.5"
x11"
pre­
printed
blank
forms
($
0.52/
form),
and
$
2,130.07
for
10,000
box
of
same
style
forms
($
0.21/
form).
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
71
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
72
IV.
C
Estimate
of
Annual
Burden
for
the
RCRA
Manifest
Special
Procedures
for
Rejected
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
&
Non­
Empty
Waste
Containers
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
73
IV.
C
Estimate
of
Annual
Burden
for
the
RCRA
Manifest
Special
Procedures
for
Rejected
Hazardous
Waste
Shipments
&
Non­
Empty
Waste
Containers
The
current
Federal
manifest
system
does
not
include
explicit
procedures
for
manifesting
non­
empty
hazardous
waste
shipment
containers
or
rejected
hazardous
waste
shipment
loads.
Because
existing
Federal
RCRA
regulatory
provisions
allow
for
reporting
of
"
significant
discrepancies"

such
as
differences
in
waste
quantities
and
waste
types,
but
do
not
address
non­
empty
containers
and
rejected
loads,
the
incremental
burden
for
the
revised
regulations
concerning
these
special
cases
is
included
in
this
document
as
an
impact
element,
relative
to
the
current
"
states
interim
policy"
regulatory
practice
baseline,
rather
than
relative
to
the
Federal
RCRA
manifest
regulatory
baseline.

For
this
component
of
the
manifest
form
revisions,
the
revised
manifest
form
includes
a
check
box
for
waste
handlers
to
indicate
whether
they
are
originating
a
non­
empty
container
or
rejected
waste
load.
In
addition,
a
waste
handler
may
be
required
to
prepare
an
entirely
new
(
second)
manifest
for
subsequent
shipment
of
partially
rejected
loads
back
to
the
generator
or
to
an
alternate
designated
TSDF.
If
the
waste
handler
must
prepare
a
new
manifest
to
replace
one
(
or
more)
manifests
that
had
previously
accompanied
that
hazardous
waste
shipment,
the
component
would
require
reference
to
the
previous
manifest's
document
number
on
the
new
manifest.
These
procedures
would
assist
in
creating
a
paper­
trail
for
waste
shipments
that
require
additional
management
by
another
facility,
thereby
strengthening
the
manifest
system's
ability
to
track
shipments
"
cradle­
to­
grave".
The
two
types
of
shipments
affected
by
this
component
are
described
below.

Hazardous
Waste
Irregular
Shipments
Affected
by
the
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Manifest
Form
Shipment
Type
Description
Rejected
Waste
Loads
Rejected
loads
are
shipments
of
hazardous
waste
that
are
either
totally
or
partially
rejected
by
the
designated
TSDF.

Non­
Empty
Waste
Containers
(
residues)
Under
40
CFR
261.7,
USEPA
defines
an
"
empty"
container
when:

!
All
wastes
have
been
removed
that
can
be
removed
using
the
practices
commonly
employed
to
remove
material
from
the
type
of
container,
and
!
The
residue
in
the
container
is
no
more
than
2.5
centimeters
on
the
bottom
of
the
container,
or
is
no
more
than
3%
by
weight
of
the
total
capacity
of
the
containers,
or
is
no
more
than
0.3%
by
weight
of
the
total
capacity
of
the
tank
or
car.
(
This
assumes
a
container
larger
than
110
gallons
in
size.)

RCRA
regulated
hazardous
wastes
are
sometimes
delivered
to
TSDFs
in
a
tank
car
or
tank
truck.
The
waste
is
pumped
out
of
the
tanker,
but
some
unpumpable
residue,
known
as
"
heel,"
remains
in
the
tanker.
This
has
led
to
confusion
among
States
and
the
regulated
community
regarding
how
to
deal
with
container
residues
in
these
"
non­
empty"

containers.*

*
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Draft
Discussion
Paper:
"
Manifest
Regulatory
Issues
That
Require
Clarification,"
March
1991.

OSW
believes
that
many
States
are
currently
following
an
interim
policy
that
requires
TSDFs
to
prepare
a
new
manifest
for
container
residues
or
shipments
that
are
partially
rejected.
In
addition,
State
interim
policies
also
require
TSDFs
to
use
the
original
manifest
with
a
continuation
sheet
to
re­
route
a
shipment
that
is
fully
rejected.
Thus,
under
the
final
rule
special
procedures
for
rejected
waste
shipments
and
non­
empty
containers,

TSDFs
are
not
expected
to
incur
incremental
paperwork
burden
for
rejected
waste
shipments
and
non­
empty
containers,
relative
to
the
state
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
74
interim
policy
baseline.
However,
for
purpose
of
analytic
completeness
in
estimating
economic
impact
relative
to
the
Federal
RCRA
baseline,
the
following
table
provides
an
estimate
of
the
magnitude
of
annual
burden
associated
with
these
special
procedures.

IV.
C1
&
C2
Full
Load
Rejections,
Partial
Load
Rejections
&
Non­
Empty
Containers
Estimate
of
Added
Cost
to
Waste
Handlers
for
Revised
Manifest
Special
Procedure
Involving
Rejected
Waste
Shipments
&
Non­
Empty
Waste
Containers
(
Note:
Impacts
in
this
table
are
relative
to
the
Federal
RCRA
regulatory
baseline,

not
to
current
"
interim
policy"
practices
of
state
governments)

Waste
Handler
Category
A
B1
B2
C1
(
B1x%)
C2
(
B2x%)
D
E1
(
C1xD)
E2
(
C2xD)
F
G1
(
E1xF)
G2
(
E2xF)

Universe
Count
of
Hazardous
Waste
Handler
Facilities
Annual
Count
of
Hazardous
Waste
Manifests
Annual
Count
of
Haz
Waste
Manifests
Involving
Rejected
Wastes
or
Non­
Empty
Containers*
Additional
Burden
per
Manifest
(
Hours)**
Average
Annual
Additional
Burden
(
Hours/
year)
2004
Average
Hourly
Loaded
Wage
($/
hour)
Average
Annual
Cost
Lowerbound
Upperbound
Lower
(
if
0.5%)
Upper
(
if
2.5%)
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Full
Load
Rejections
(
if
transporter
has
not
departed
facility):

1.
LQGs
18,135
1,207,140
2,545,000
6,036
63,625
0.04
241
2,545
$
53
$
12,796
$
134,885
2.
SQGs
117,544
929,968
1,934,200
4,650
48,355
186
1,934
$
9,858
$
102,513
3.
Captive
TSDFs
1,723
77,418
152,700
387
3,818
15
153
$
821
$
8,093
4.
Commercial
TSDFs
756
218,592
458,100
1,093
11,453
44
458
$
2,317
$
24,279
5.
Transporters
414
Manifest
count
included
with
other
waste
handler
categories
Column
sub­
totals
=
138,572
2,433,118
5,090,000
12,166
127,250
487
5,090
$
25,791
$
269,770
Rejection
of
Full
Loads
When
Transport
Has
Departed,
Partial
Loads,
&
Non­
Empty
Containers***

1.
LQGs
18,135
1,207,140
2,545,000
6,036
36,625
0.36
2,173
22,905
$
53
$
115,161
$
1,213,965
2.
SQGs
117,544
929,968
1,934,200
4,650
48,355
1,674
17,408
$
88,719
$
922,613
3.
Captive
TSDFs
1,723
77,418
152,700
387
3,818
139
1,374
$
7,386
$
72,838
4.
Commercial
TSDFs
756
218,592
458,100
1,093
11,453
393
4,123
$
20,854
$
218,514
5.
Transporters
414
Manifest
count
included
with
other
waste
handler
categories
Column
sub­
totals
=
138,572
2,433,118
5,090,000
12,166
127,250
4,380
45,810
$
232,119
$
2,427,930
Column
totals
=
24,331
254,500
4,866
50,900
$
257,911
$
2,697,700
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
75
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Source
for
percentage
waste
load
rejections:
Section
IV.
2.
B
(
page
31)
of
USEPA
OSW
19
Dec
2000
"
Economics
Background
Document"
(
EBD;

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf
)
applied
a
3%
rejection
rate
assumption
for
"
problem
shipments".
However,
this
table
adopts
an
uncertainty
range
of
1%
to
5%
"
problem
shipments",
which
is
split
equally
between:

!
Full
load
rejections:
0.5%
to
2.5%

!
Partial/
non­
empty
rejections:
0.5%
to
2.5%

In
comparison
to
the
3%
assumption
of
the
Dec
2000
EBD,
the
5%
upper­
bound
rejection
rate
applied
in
this
table
represents
the
scenario
where
the
final
rule
provision
of
rejection
procedures
may
induce
additional
rejections,
whereas
the
1%
lower­
bound
in
this
table
represents
a
scenario
of
decreased
annual
rejections,
compared
to
the
3%
rejection
rate.

(
b)
**
Source
for
additional
average
burden
per
manifest:

!
Rejected
full
loads
(
use
original
manifest
if
transporter
has
not
departed
facility):
0.04
hours/
manifest
from
Exhibit
D­
4
of
19
Dec
2001
EBD
!
Rejected
partial
loads
&
non­
empty
containers
(
requires
new
second
manifest):
0.36
hours/
manifest
from
Exhibit
D­
3
of
19
Dec
2001
EBD
(
c)
****
Although
not
explicitly
defined
and
itemized
in
this
table,
the
estimated
annual
number
of
second
manifests
involving
rejected
partial
loads
and
nonempty
containers,
also
implicitly
represents
a
small
portion
of
second
manifests
associated
with
rejection
of
full
loads
after
the
transporter
has
departed
from
the
TSDF's
premises.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
76
IV.
C3
Additional
Cost
to
States
for
Processing
2nd
Manifests
for
Rejected
Partial
Loads
&
Non­
Empty
Containers
Estimate
#
1
of
2:

Additional
Annual
Cost
to
State
Governments
for
Processing
New
(
Second)
RCRA
Manifests
for
Rejected
Partial
Loads
&
Non­
Empty
Containers
(
Note:
The
impacts
estimated
in
this
table
are
relative
to
the
Federal
RCRA
manifest
regulatory
baseline,

not
to
the
current
"
interim
policy"
regulatory
practices
of
state
governments)

State
Government
Burden
Activity
A
B1
B2
C1
(
A
x
B1)
C2
(
A
x
B2)
D
E1
(
C1
x
D)
E2
(
C2
x
D)

Average
Burden
per
Manifest
(
hours)*
Annual
Number
of
New
(
Second)
RCRA
Manifests
(
source:
prior
table)
Annual
Burden
Hours
2004
Average
Hourly
Loaded
Wage
($/
hour)
Annual
Burden
Cost
Lower
(
if
0.5%)
Upper
(
if
2.5%)
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
1.
Processing
0.03
12,166
127,250
365
3,820
$
36
$
13,140
$
137,520
2.
Reviewing
0.40
4,866
50,900
$
175,176
$
1,832,400
3.
Recordkeeping
0.03
365
3,820
$
13,140
$
137,520
Column
totals
=
0.46
5,593
58,535
$
201,350
$
2,107,300
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
77
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Data
sources
for
average
hours
per
manifest
assumptions:

!
Processing:
OSW's
19
Dec
2000
"
Economics
Background
Document"
(
EBD)
in
support
of
OSW's
22
May
2001
RCRA
manifest
revisions
proposed
rule
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf),

assumed
7,000
hours/
year
for
the
34
states
which
collect
76%
(
then
estimated
at
77%)
of
the
2.433
million
RCRA
manifests/
year
(
1.849
million/
year),
which
equates
to
an
average
of
0.227
minutes/
manifest
(
i.
e.
13.6
seconds/
manifest).
This
table
adopts
an
alternative
average
of
two
minutes/
manifest
(
i.
e.
0.03
hours/
manifest).

!
Reviewing:
Exhibit
15
(
TSDF
"
Review
discrepancy
report"
line
item)
of
19
July
2000
OSW
ICR
801.#
Supporting
Statement
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
icr.
pdf).

!
Recordkeeping:
OSW's
19
Dec
2000
EBD
assumed
300
hours/
year
for
the
34
states
which
collect
76%
of
the
2.433
million
RCRA
manifests/
year
(
1.849
million/
year),
which
equates
to
an
average
of
0.0097
minutes/
manifest
(
i.
e.
0.58
seconds/
manifest).
This
table
adopts
an
alternative
average
of
two
minutes/
manifest
(
i.
e.
0.03
hours/
manifest).

This
table
does
not
assign
any
additional
cost
to
states
for
purchase
of
cabinets
and
storage
space,
which
is
a
source
of
cost
under­
estimation
in
this
table,
but
expected
to
fall
within
the
overall
uncertainty
range
of
aggregate
national
economic
impacts
estimated
in
this
document.

(
b)
Although
not
itemized
in
this
table,
OSW
assumes
that
additional
paperwork
burden
to
states
associated
with
new
(
second)
manifests
for
rejected
full
loads
after
the
transporter
has
departed
from
the
TDSF,
fall
within
the
lower:
to:
upper
uncertainty
range
in
this
table.
EPA
Final
Rule:
Revised
RCRA
Manifest
Form
 
Economic
Analysis
24
Nov
2004
78
Estimate
#
2
of
2:

Additional
Annual
Cost
to
State
Governments
for
Processing
New
(
Second)
RCRA
Manifests
for
Rejected
Partial
Loads
&
Non­
Empty
Containers
(
Note:
The
impacts
estimated
in
this
table
are
relative
to
the
Federal
RCRA
manifest
regulatory
baseline,

not
to
the
current
"
interim
policy"
regulatory
practices
of
state
governments)

State
Government
Burden
Activity
A
B
C1
C2
D1
(
AxBxC1)
D2
(
AxBxC2)
E
F1
(
D1xE)
F2
(
D2xE)

Count
of
States
Which
Collect
RCRA
Manifests
(
Baseline)
Annual
Paperwork
Burden
Hours
Per
State*

(
Baseline)
Percentage
of
Annual
RCRA
Manifests
Involving
New
Second
Manifests
(
source:
prior
table)
Incremental
Burden
Hours
for
Second
Manifests
2004
Average
Hourly
Loaded
Wage
($/
hour)

Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
1.
Processing
34
states**
7,000
0.5%
2.5%
1,190
5,950
$
36
$
42,840
$
214,200
2.
Reviewing
45
7.6
38
$
275
$
1,368
3.
Recordkeeping
300
51
255
$
1,836
$
9,180
Column
totals
=
7,345
1,249
6,243
$
45,000
$
224,800
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Burden
hours
source:
OSW's
19
Dec
2000
"
Economics
Background
Document"
(
EBD)
in
support
of
OSW's
22
May
2001
RCRA
manifest
revisions
proposed
rule
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
manifest/
pdf/
ebd.
pdf).

(
b)
**
Source:
Table
3,
page
9
of
A
State
Guide
to
The
Uniform
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest,
Information
Management
Program,
Center
for
Policy
Research,
National
Governor's
Association
(
http://
www.
nga.
org),
1991.