


Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Rule To Add Aerosol Cans to the Universal Waste Rule 








February 2018


Table of contents


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction
Background  1
Need for Regulation  2
Summary of the Proposed Rule and Regulatory Alternatives  2
Report Organization  3

Universe
Identification of Potentially Impacted Facilities in EPA's BR Database  4
Estimation of Number of SQGS Affected by the Rule  8
New Facilities  9
Universe Summary  9

Methodology and Results
Baseline Costs  11
Post-Rule Costs  16
Net Cost Impacts  24

Equity Considerations and Other Impacts
Regulatory Planning and Review  27
Regulatory Flexibility  28
Employment Impacts  29
Unfunded Mandates  29
Federalism  30
Tribal Governments  31
Energy Impacts  31
Environmental Justice  32
Children's Health Protection  32
Joint Impacts of Rules  32
Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs  32

Appendices
Appendix A: Unit Cost Information  33
Appendix B: Puncturing Options  43
Appendix C: Alternative Baseline Generator Status  47
Appendix D: Compliance Sensitivity Analysis  50

Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
This document presents EPA's analysis of the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed rule to add hazardous waste aerosol cans to the Universal Waste (UW) Rule. Under the proposed rule, generators of hazardous waste aerosol cans may voluntarily manage these wastes in accordance with the streamlined hazardous waste requirements of the universal waste system. Consistent with EPA's mandate under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to protect human health and the environment, the proposed rule promotes the environmentally sound management and disposal of aerosol cans that might otherwise be managed outside of the RCRA hazardous waste management system. Thus, the need for this regulation is to increase compliance and reduce burden.
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
The key provisions of the proposed rule include the following:
        Aerosol cans managed under the proposed rule are not counted toward a facility's RCRA generator status.
 The existing universal waste requirements currently applicable to small quantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs) and large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUWs) will also be applicable to handlers of aerosol can waste. For both SQHUWs and LQHUWs, these requirements include waste management standards, labeling and marking, accumulation time limits, employee training, response to releases, requirements related to off-site shipments, and export requirements. LQHUWs are also subject to additional notification and tracking requirements.
 All handlers must manage their aerosol cans in a manner designed to prevent fire, explosion, and unauthorized releases to the environment.
 The containers in which aerosol cans are stored should be labeled to easily identify what is in them. EPA is proposing that one of the following phrases be used for labeling the containers; "Universal Waste-Aerosol Cans", "Waste Aerosol Cans" or "Used Aerosol Cans". 
 Generators of aerosol cans will be allowed to ship aerosol cans to other handlers without using a hazardous waste manifest or a hazardous waste transporter.
 Generators of aerosol cans will be allowed to puncture and drain the cans prior to shipping, storing, or recycling them.

UNIVERSE
The Aerosol Can Universal Waste proposed rule may potentially affect both large quantity generators (LQGs) and small quantity generators (SQGs) that currently generate, transport, treat, recycle, or dispose of hazardous waste aerosol cans. The proposed rule is unlikely to affect very small quantity generators (VSQGs) of aerosol cans because the UW Program streamlines specific requirements that apply only to LQGs and SQGs. VSQGs are therefore likely to continue operating as VSQGs in the post-rule environment. Similarly, the proposed rule is not expected to impact Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs), as the methods of disposal for aerosol cans (e.g. recycling vs. incineration) are not expected to change under the rule and TSDFs will continue to be subject to the full RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
Based on the national BR data, EPA identified 6,520 LQGs and 710 SQGs that generate hazardous waste aerosol cans. Due to a lack of national reporting requirements for SQGs, the BR data is likely to significantly underestimate the number of SQGs in the potentially impacted universe. As a result, EPA estimated the total number of SQGs in the universe based on a ratio of observed LQGs to SQGs in states that require all generators to report data (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington). Extrapolating based on this ratio, EPA estimates that 13,019 SQGs are likely to exist in the potentially impacted universe. EPA also estimated that 385 new LQGs and 768 new SQGs will enter the universe each year, replacing 5.9 percent of the universe. Table ES-1 summarizes the number of LQGs and SQGs in the potentially impacted universe, annual generation of total hazardous waste and aerosol can hazardous waste by generator status, and the estimated number of new facilities entering the universe each year.
Table ES-1: potentially impacted universe Summary
                               Generator STatus
                   Number of Facilities in Current Universe
             Annual Total HW Generation in Current Universe (Tons)
           Annual Aerosol Can Generation in Current uNiverse (Tons)
                        Annual Number of New Facilities
LQGs
                                                                          6,520
                                                                     12,369,427
                                                                         11,511
                                                                            385
SQGs 
                                                                         13,019
                                                                         81,238
                                                                          6,088
                                                                            768
Total
                                                                         19,539
                                                                     12,450,664
                                                                         17,600
                                                                          1,153
Note: The new facilities entering the universe each year are expected to replace existing facilities. This RIA assumes that the size of the universe does not change over the time period analyzed. 

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
This RIA estimates the costs savings of the proposed rule as the difference between affected facilities' baseline and policy-case (i.e., with the proposed rule) waste management costs. This is consistent with guidance included in EPA's Guidelines for Performing Economic Analyses and OMB Circular A-4. This approach was designed specifically to estimate the cost impacts associated with changes in generator status that may occur as a result of the rule. As noted above, aerosol cans managed as universal waste do not count toward a facility's generator status. A number of facilities may therefore drop in generator status (e.g., from LQG to SQG) under the proposed rule. This change in status may lead to cost savings for affected facilities. 
For both the baseline and the policy case, this RIA estimates three broad categories of RCRA Subtitle C costs: 
 One-time costs: For facilities becoming hazardous waste generators, these costs include: (1) notifying EPA of their hazardous waste activity (LQGs and SQGs only), (2) developing a closure plan (LQGs only), (3) creating a contingency plan (LQGs only), and (4) rule familiarization. Under the proposed rule, new facilities that enter the universe may avoid or reduce these costs if their generator status changes relative to baseline, but universal waste handlers must still notify EPA of their waste generation activity (large quantity handlers only) and familiarize themselves with the rule. 
 Fixed annual costs: Fixed annual costs are incurred for activities that remain relatively constant from year to year for an LQG or SQG regardless of the quantity of waste generated. These include reviewing the relevant regulations, RCRA Subtitle C compliance recordkeeping, personnel safety training, manifest training, hazardous waste labelling, and inspections of hazardous waste storage areas. This category also includes costs that are incurred every other year (e.g. biennial reporting costs) or every third year (manifest training) that have been annualized to reflect a consistent value. 
For universal waste handlers (that are not LQGs or SQGs under RCRA), fixed annual costs are more limited and include only annual review of the regulations and personnel safety training.
 Variable Costs: Variable costs change with the quantity of hazardous waste generated, quantity of hazardous waste shipped, and the number of hazardous waste shipments made by each facility. Under RCRA Subtitle C, the three categories of variable costs are (1) the cost of properly filling out a manifest and land disposal restriction notification for each shipment, (2) the cost of shipping hazardous waste using a certified hazardous waste transporter, and (3) the cost of disposal for hazardous waste. For aerosol cans managed as universal waste, however, variable costs include basic recordkeeping for waste shipments (LQHs only) and universal waste transportation costs, both of which are less costly than the corresponding costs for hazardous waste. Additionally, disposal costs are the same for hazardous wastes and universal wastes. However, in many states, facilities that become VSQGs as a result of the proposed rule will be able to dispose of non-aerosol can wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, at a reduced cost.
Based on these cost items and hazardous waste generation estimates for affected facilities, this RIA estimates the number of facilities expected to realize a cost savings if they manage their aerosol cans as universal waste. This RIA assumes that all facilities expected to realize such a savings opt into the universal waste system. As noted above, many of these facilities may drop in generator status. Table ES-2 presents the baseline and post-rule distribution of facilities by generator and handler status.
Table ES-2:	Baseline and Post-Rule Universe Distribution
                           Baseline Generator Status
                    Post Rule Generator and Handler Status

                                      LQG
                                      SQG
                                     VSQG

                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
LQG
                                                                          6,520
                                                                            122
                                                                          6,348
                                                                             28
                                                                             16
                                                                              6
                                                                              0
SQG
                                                                         13,019
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                            165
                                                                         12,377
                                                                             92
                                                                            385
Total
                                                                         19,539
                                     6,470
                                    12,586
                                      483

Based on the changes in generator status shown in Table ES-2 and the categories of costs discussed above, this RIA estimates cost savings ranging from $3.0 million to $3.5 million per year (see Table ES-3). The majority of these cost savings result from a reduction in the fixed annual costs to facilities. These cost savings are largely attributable to facilities changing generator status as a result of no longer having to count aerosol cans towards their HW generator status. Dropping in status from LQG to SQG is expected to save a facility approximately $3,400 each year in "fixed annual costs" while dropping from LQG to VSQG is associated with "fixed annual cost" savings of approximately $6,300 to $7,220 each year. A baseline SQG that becomes a VSQG can expect to see its "fixed annual costs" reduced by approximately $2,900 to $3,820. Appendix C presents the results of the cost analysis using an alternative methodology for determining the baseline generator status of affected facilities. This alternative methodology produces much larger estimates of cost savings, ranging from $56.7 to $63.3 million annually. 


Table ES-3:	Cost Savings
                                 Cost Category
                                 Cost Savings
                                 ($ thousands)
                         Percent Savings From baseline
One-Time Cost Savings
                                 $28.1 - $72.4
                                  0.7% - 1.3%

                                       
                                       
Fixed Annual Cost Savings
                                $1,830 - $1,920
                                  1.7% - 1.8%

                                       
                                       
Variable Cost Savings
                                $1,100 - $1,580
                                  0.6% - 0.9%

                                       
                                       
Total Yearly Cost Savings
                                $3,010 - $3,520
                                  1.1% - 1.2%

                                       
                                       

EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER IMPACTS
As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this RIA examines equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. Specifically, this RIA considers the following: 
 Regulatory planning and review: This action is not a "significant regulatory action" because it does not have a significant economic impact nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived review.  
 Regulatory flexibility: EPA estimates that the final rule will not have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
 Employment impacts: EPA expects that the proposed rule may result in competing employment effects. The rule is likely to reduce expenditures on labor for hazardous waste management activities, which may decrease employment, all else equal. However, the reduction in expenditures on hazardous waste management may result in a marginal reduction in the prices charged by these firms for the goods and services that they produce. To the extent that prices charged by these firms decline, demand for their products may increase and they may therefore demand additional labor. It is unclear which of these two effects is more significant, but EPA expects the net employment impact of this rule to be negligible.
 Unfunded mandates: Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any final rulemaking may result in "any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year." Based on the magnitude of the final rule's estimated cost impacts, the rule is not estimated to result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million for either the private sector or state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate. 
 Federalism: EPA estimates that the final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
 Tribal governments: EPA estimates that the final rule will not impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.
 Energy Impacts: The final rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, no measurable adverse impacts are expected on energy prices or foreign supplies.
 Environmental justice: EPA does not expect that the final rule will result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low-income populations. 
 Children's health protection: The rule is not expected to result in a disproportionate adverse health impact on children. 
 Joint impacts of rules: If a facility that opts into the UW program generates other hazardous wastes, it would still be required to comply with the full Subtitle C requirements for these wastes. 
 Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs: The proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the above analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the rule.
 
Introduction
This document presents EPA's analysis of the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed rule to add aerosol cans to the Universal Waste (UW) Rule. Under the proposed rule, generators of aerosol cans may voluntarily manage these wastes in accordance with the streamlined hazardous waste requirements of the universal waste system. Consistent with EPA's mandate under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to protect human health and the environment, the proposed rule promotes the environmentally sound management and disposal of aerosol cans that might otherwise be managed outside of the RCRA hazardous waste management system. 
background
The UW Program, created with passage of the Universal Waste Rule (40 CFR Part 273) in 1995, is a set of simplified hazardous waste management standards for a small group of hazardous wastes, which currently include batteries, pesticides, lamps, and mercury-containing equipment. UWs are typically low-risk during accumulation and transport and are generated in a variety of non-industrial settings (e.g., retail stores, office buildings, and households). The more streamlined requirements of the UW program relative to RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations include:
 Allowing generators to ship universal wastes without a RCRA Subtitle C manifest and without using RCRA-regulated hazardous waste transporters. 
 Removing requirements for generators to prepare biennial reports, contingency plans, and Land Disposal Restriction notifications. 
 Allowing for simpler training of employees. 
 Increasing the time over which generators may accumulate (universal) wastes without obtaining an EPA storage permit.
The Universal Waste rule also allows for individual states to designate additional wastes as UW, even if EPA has not promulgated a rule declaring them as such. Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and California currently designate aerosol cans as UW, and Ohio is currently taking comment on a proposed rule to handle aerosol cans as UW. 
Based on input received by EPA in response to its 2014 Notice of Data Availability (NODA), entitled "Hazardous Waste Management and the Retail Sector: Providing and Seeking Information on Practices to Enhance Effectiveness to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Program", EPA examined the appropriateness of designating aerosol cans as UW. Based on the UW criteria laid out in the original 1995 rule (e.g. a wide variety of generators, relatively low risk, improved compliance when regulated as UW), EPA has decided to propose this rule to establish aerosol cans as a universal waste.
need for regulation
Under current RCRA regulations, aerosol cans are categorized as hazardous waste and must be managed by a permitted RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF). Because the contents and/or propellant within aerosol cans may be flammable, these cans may adversely impact human health and the environment if not properly disposed. In the absence of government intervention, facilities that generate aerosol cans ("generators") would likely send them to municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), which generally are less protective of human health and the environment than disposal at TSDFs.
While the RCRA Subtitle C requirements, when followed, reduce the risks associated with aerosol cans, facilities that generate aerosol cans do not always manage these wastes in compliance with RCRA regulations. Many generators may not realize that aerosol cans are hazardous or may be unaware of the proper method of disposing of these wastes. The proposed designation of aerosol cans as Universal Waste (UW) will address this issue by simplifying the process of managing aerosol cans as hazardous waste. The UW designation will reduce the regulatory burden and cost of properly disposing of aerosol cans, creating an incentive for generators to dispose of them appropriately. 
THE CUrrent regulation of aerosol cans is also inconsistent across the U.S. As noted above, some states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and California) have already taken steps to treat aerosol cans as universal waste while most other states have not. This has created a situation in which requirements for managing aerosol cans vary from state to state. Because aerosol cans often cross state boundaries during the process of disposal, establishing uniform requirements across all states will reduce the complexity of managing aerosol cans. This will likely decrease the costs of managing aerosol cans at TSDFs and increase regulatory compliance.
Summary of the Proposed Rule and Regulatory Alternatives
The key provisions of the proposed rule include the following:
Aerosol cans managed under the proposed rule are not counted toward a facility's RCRA generator status.
The existing universal waste requirements currently applicable to small quantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs) and large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUWs) will also be applicable to handlers of aerosol cans. For both SQHUWs and LQHUWs, these requirements include waste management standards, labeling and marking, accumulation time limits, employee training, response to releases, requirements related to off-site shipments, and export requirements. LQHUWs are also subject to additional notification and tracking requirements.
All handlers must manage their aerosol cans in a manner designed to prevent fire, explosion, and unauthorized releases to the environment.
The containers in which aerosol cans are stored should be labeled to easily identify what is in them. EPA is proposing that one of the following phrases be used for labeling the containers; "Universal Waste-Aerosol Cans", "Waste Aerosol Cans" or "Used Aerosol Cans". 
Generators of aerosol cans will be allowed to ship waste aerosol cans to other handlers without using a hazardous waste manifest or a hazardous waste transporter.
Generators of aerosol cans will be allowed to puncture and drain the cans prior to shipping, storing, or recycling them.
Report Organization
EPA has prepared this RIA consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563, and OMB Circular A-4. The assessment of the rule's costs, benefits, and other economic impacts is presented in subsequent sections as follows:
Characterization of the Universe of Potentially Affected Facilities: To provide context for the assessment of costs and benefits, this section characterizes the universe of facilities likely to be affected by the rule and presents estimates of their annual generation of aerosol cans and their total hazardous waste generation (aerosol cans and non-aerosol cans combined).
Methodology and Results: This section explains the methods employed by EPA for assessment of the proposed rule's anticipated costs and benefits and presents EPA's estimates of these impacts.
Equity Considerations and Other Impacts: The RIA concludes by assessing distributional and other impacts of the proposed rule, including small entity impacts, environmental justice implications, children's health, impacts to Tribal Governments, assessment of the potential for unfunded mandates, federalism implications, employment impacts, and energy impacts resulting from the rule.
Appendix: The appendix to this RIA contains information on the development of unit costs as well as a number of sensitivity analyses.
Universe
The Aerosol Can Universal Waste proposed rule may potentially affect both large quantity generators (LQGs) and small quantity generators (SQGs) that currently generate, transport, treat, recycle, or dispose of hazardous waste aerosol cans. The proposed rule is unlikely to affect very small quantity generators (VSQGs) of aerosol cans because the UW Program streamlines specific requirements that apply only to LQGs and SQGs. VSQGs are therefore likely to continue operating as VSQGs in the post-rule environment. Similarly, the proposed rule is not expected to impact Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs), as the methods of disposal for aerosol cans (e.g. recycling vs. incineration) are not expected to change under the rule and TSDFs will continue to be subject to the full RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
The sections below describe EPA's characterization of the affected universe. The universe includes (1) facilities identified in the 2015 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (BR) database, (2) small quantity generators not reflected in the BR, and (3) new facilities not yet in operation.
Identification of Potentially Impacted Facilities in EPA's BR Database
This RIA relies on data from EPA's 2015 BR database to identify many of the facilities potentially impacted by the proposed rule. The BR database is the Agency's primary repository for information that LQGs are required to submit every two years regarding "the nature, quantities and disposition of hazardous waste generated at their facility". Although EPA requires that only LQGs provide these data, many SQGs and VSQGs also submit reports, often to comply with state reporting regulations.
This RIA relies on the BR data for three specific purposes. First, the BR data are used to identify LQGs potentially impacted by the proposed rule. Because all LQGs are required to submit data for the BR, LQGs potentially affected by the rule are included in the database. Second, this RIA relies on the BR data to characterize the waste generation of LQGs affected by the rule, using the data submitted by these facilities regarding the amount and type of hazardous waste that they generate. Third, based on the limited SQG data in the BR, this RIA uses the BR data to characterize the hazardous waste generation of SQGs potentially affected by the rule. 
The 2015 BR data were accessed using EPA's RCRAInfo system.  To identify hazardous waste aerosol cans in the database, EPA conducted a RCRAInfo search for any observation that included the word "aerosol" in the waste description field. While BR waste form codes may provide a more straightforward means of identifying hazardous waste aerosol cans, it is not possible to identify generators of hazardous waste aerosol cans based solely on form codes. For example, hazardous waste aerosol cans are generally categorized under Form Code W801 (Mixed Media/Debris/Devices - Compressed gases) in the BR, but this form code also covers wastes that are not the focus of the proposed rule, such as lighters, medical compressed gases, and oxidizing liquids. Additionally, aerosol cans can be categorized under several other form codes, including W204 (Organic Liquids - Concentrated halogenated/non-halogenated solvent mixture), W209 (Organic Liquids - Paint, ink, lacquer, or varnish), and W001 (Mixed Media/Debris/Devices - Lab packs with no acute hazardous waste), each of which includes myriad other waste streams.  
The initial RCRAinfo search returned 21,049 observations associated with 12,756 unique generators. EPA made several adjustments to the universe of facilities identified through this initial RCRAinfo search. First, several observations from the initial data query were not associated with aerosol cans, even though the waste description included the word "aerosol." For example, the data query returned a number of observations where the description read "liquid waste from punctured aerosol cans." To address this issue, EPA reviewed all waste descriptions that contained the words "crush", "liquid", or "puncture" and deleted all observations with a description that indicated that the waste was not actually aerosol cans. In addition, observations from facilities in California, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado were dropped from the dataset. Because these states already allow facilities to handle aerosol cans as a universal waste, the proposed rule would not impact facilities in these states. Finally, EPA deleted a number of observations that appeared to be erroneous. For example, in some instances the data for certain fields appeared in the wrong column (e.g. a numerical value appearing in a field that asked a Yes/No question) and EPA was unable to identify the correct values for each column. The result of the data preparation process was a dataset containing 16,097 observations attributed to 10,348 unique generators. 
Identification of Generator Status
The dataset from RCRAInfo was supplemented with overall hazardous waste generation, management, and shipment tonnages from the 2015 BR. Based on the total hazardous waste generation information from the BR, EPA calculated average monthly generation at each facility. EPA then estimated each facility's generator status by comparing average monthly generation at each facility to statutory monthly generation limits, as presented in Table 1 EPA dropped facilities identified as VSQGs from the dataset because the rule is not expected to impact these facilities. Table 2 shows the resulting distributions of facilities, observations, and generation tonnage.
Table 1:	Monthly Generation Limits by Generator Status
                         Very Small Quantity Generator
                           Small Quantity Generator
                           Large Quantity Generator
                     <= 0.11 tons HW

<= 0.001 acute HW
                               > .11 tons HW
                                       
                               < 1.1 tons HW
                     >= 1.1 tons HW

> 0.001 acute HW
Note that this approach may underestimate the number of LQGs and SQGs in the potentially impacted universe. While the generation data in the BR are reported annually, generator status is determined based on monthly limits. Since this RIA estimates generator status based on average monthly generation, facilities that generate disproportionate amounts of their annual hazardous waste in a small number of months may not be categorized correctly. Appendix C presents the estimated impacts of the proposed rule results using an alternative method for determining generator status. 
Table 2:	2015 BR Data Summary Statistics
                               Generator Status
                             Number of Facilities
                            Number of Observations
                         Aerosol Can Generation (tons)
                          Total HW Generation (tons)
LQG
                                                                          6,520
                                                                         11,121
                                                                         11,511
                                                                     12,369,426
SQG
                                                                            710
                                                                          1,027
                                                                            332
                                                                          4,430
Total
                                                                          7,230
                                                                         12,148
                                                                         11,843
                                                                     12,373,856
The 7,230 LQGs and SQGs identified in the national BR data are distributed across 18 different primary NAICS codes. The Retail Trade industry contains the greatest number of facilities (4,284), while manufacturers (NAICS 31-33) account for the greatest aerosol can generation by tonnage. Table 3 summarizes aerosol can generation by NAICS code.


            Table 3:	2015 BR Data by NAICS Code
                              2 Digit NAICS Code
                           Primary NAICS Description
                                 Observed LQGs
                                 Observed SQGs


                             Number of Facilities
                                Generated Tons
                              Tons Managed onsite
                                 Shipped Tons
                             Number of Facilities
                                Generated Tons
                              tons Managed onsite
                                 Shipped Tons
44-45
Retail Trade
                                                                         4,225 
                                                                         395.8 
                                                                            -  
                                                                         397.0 
                                                                             59
                                                                           30.7
                                                                            0.0
                                                                           30.7
31-33
Manufacturing
                                                                         1,327 
                                                                       6,767.2 
                                                                         867.6 
                                                                       5,944.2 
                                                                            292
                                                                           92.4
                                                                            1.4
                                                                           90.4
48-49
Transportation and Warehousing
                                                                           138 
                                                                       1,214.9 
                                                                            -  
                                                                       1,216.3 
                                                                            138
                                                                           87.5
                                                                            0.0
                                                                           89.2
62
Health Care and Social Assistance
                                                                           179 
                                                                          29.5 
                                                                            -  
                                                                          29.3 
                                                                             21
                                                                            6.3
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            6.3
92
Public Administration
                                                                           116 
                                                                         186.8 
                                                                           4.1 
                                                                         181.7 
                                                                             56
                                                                           61.3
                                                                            0.0
                                                                           61.5
61
Educational Services
                                                                           126 
                                                                          18.0 
                                                                           1.4 
                                                                          16.7 
                                                                             15
                                                                            0.6
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.5
54
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
                                                                            81 
                                                                          63.6 
                                                                            -  
                                                                          63.6 
                                                                             30
                                                                            9.2
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            9.2
56
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services
                                                                           112 
                                                                       2,655.2 
                                                                          31.0 
                                                                       3,281.5 
                                                                             15
                                                                           12.6
                                                                            0.0
                                                                           21.9
42
Wholesale Trade
                                                                            73 
                                                                         130.0 
                                                                            -  
                                                                         137.3 
                                                                             17
                                                                           16.1
                                                                            0.0
                                                                           16.1
22
Utilities
                                                                            32 
                                                                           6.8 
                                                                            -  
                                                                           6.6 
                                                                             39
                                                                           10.0
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            9.9
81
Other Services (except Public Administration)
                                                                            65 
                                                                           4.2 
                                                                            -  
                                                                           4.2 
                                                                              3
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.2
21
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
                                                                            28 
                                                                          10.3 
                                                                            -  
                                                                          10.3 
                                                                             17
                                                                            4.2
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            4.3
23
Construction
                                                                             4 
                                                                          24.1 
                                                                            -  
                                                                          24.1 
                                                                              4
                                                                            0.7
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.7
71
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
                                                                             3 
                                                                           3.2 
                                                                            -  
                                                                           3.2 
                                                                              3
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.2
55
Management of Companies and Enterprises
                                                                             6 
                                                                           0.6 
                                                                            -  
                                                                           0.6 
                                                                              1
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.0
53
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
                                                                             3 
                                                                           0.6 
                                                                            -  
                                                                           0.6 
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.0
51
Information
                                                                             1 
                                                                           0.5 
                                                                            -  
                                                                           0.5 
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.0
11
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
                                                                             1 
                                                                           0.0 
                                                                            -  
                                                                           0.0 
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.0
                                                                            0.0
Total
                                                                         6,520 
                                                                      11,511.3 
                                                                         904.1 
                                                                      11,317.7 
                                                                            710
                                                                          332.0
                                                                            1.4
                                                                          341.2
Note: This table reflects the LQGs and SQGs identified in the national BR data. LQGs identified in the BR are used in this RIA to specify the number of LQGs affected by the rule and to assess their hazardous waste generation. The SQGs identified in the BR are used to assess average waste generation for SQGs. Because the BR does not include all SQGs, the SQGs presented in this table do not represent the full universe of SQGs potentially affected by the rule.

Estimation of Number of SQGs Affected by the Rule
Although more than 700 SQGs generating aerosol cans submitted BR data, this is a significant underrepresentation of the actual number of aerosol can generating SQGs. As indicated above, only LQGs are required to make BR submissions, though some states (e.g., Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington) require all generators to submit data regardless of generator status. 
To develop a full accounting of the number of aerosol can generating SQGs, EPA estimated the ratio of aerosol can generating LQGs to aerosol can generating SQGs in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington and applied this ratio to the number of aerosol can generating LQGs identified in the national BR data. For Minnesota and Washington, EPA identified aerosol can generators by selecting only facilities from the two most common NAICS codes in the BR data (Retail Trade and Manufacturing). The Massachusetts dataset, however, does not include generator NAICS codes or descriptions of the hazardous waste generated at each facility. In order to estimate the number of facilities that generated hazardous waste aerosol cans in Massachusetts, EPA searched the facility name field in the Massachusetts data for 16 key words. The 16 search terms were selected based on the frequency of their appearance in the national BR data and the most common NAICS codes in the national BR data. Table 4 displays the estimated number of aerosol can generating LQGs and SQGs in each of the three states.
Table 4:	Generator Status of Facilities Generating Aerosol Cans
                                    Status
                                   Minnesota
                                  Washington
                                 Massachusetts
                                     Total

                                     Count
                                  Percentage
                                     Count
                                  Percentage
                                     Count
                                  Percentage
                                     Count
                                  Percentage
LQG
                                                                            530
                                                                          15.3%
                                                                            323
                                                                          19.9%
                                                                            371
                                                                          23.6%
                                                                          1,224
                                                                          18.4%
SQG
                                                                            691
                                                                          20.0%
                                                                          1,039
                                                                          64.1%
                                                                            714
                                                                          45.5%
                                                                          2,444
                                                                          36.8%
VSQG
                                                                          2,240
                                                                          64.7%
                                                                            258
                                                                          15.9%
                                                                            484
                                                                          30.8%
                                                                          2,982
                                                                          44.8%
As Table 4 shows, there is significant variation in the ratio of LQGs to SQGs among the three states. In Minnesota there are only 1.3 times as many SQGs as LQGs that generate aerosol cans, whereas in Washington there are more than 3 times as many SQGs as LQGs. To account for this variation, the number of generators in all three states was totaled, resulting in an SQG to LQG ratio of 2.0. Applying this ratio to the number of LQGs at the national level indicated that there should be an estimated 13,019 aerosol can generating SQGs, which is roughly 18 times the number of SQGs identified in the national BR data. 
New Facilities
There are several one-time costs under the proposed rule that facilities incur only when they first become established as hazardous waste generators. To account for these costs, EPA estimated the number of new facilities that are likely to enter into the potentially impacted universe each year. Based on the average establishment entry rate from the 2014 Business Dynamic Statistics for the two most common NAICS codes (Retail Trade and Manufacturing), EPA estimated that new facilities will open at a rate equal to 5.9 percent of the size of the universe each year. This RIA does not assume that the total number of facilities in the potentially impacted universe increases every year. Rather, the analysis assumes that the new facilities replace existing facilities that leave the universe each year. Additionally, this RIA assumes that the distribution of facilities by generator status remains constant over time. Applying the 5.9 percent entry rate to the estimated number of LQGs and SQGs, EPA estimates that approximately 385 LQGs and 768 SQGs are likely to enter the potentially impacted universe each year. Table 5 summarizes the total number of new facilities that are likely to enter the potentially impacted universe each year.
Table 5:	Annual Number of New Facilities entering the potentially impacted universe
                               Generator Status
                        Annual Number of New Facilities
LQG
                                      385
SQG
                                      768
Total
                                     1,153
Universe Summary
Based on the national BR data, EPA identified 6,520 LQGs and 710 SQGs that generate hazardous waste aerosol cans. Due to a lack of national reporting requirements for SQGs, the BR data is likely to significantly underestimate the number of SQGs in the potentially impacted universe. As a result, EPA estimated the total number of SQGs in the universe based on a ratio of observed LQGs to SQGs in states that require all generators to report data. Extrapolating based on this ratio, EPA estimates that 13,019 SQGs are likely to exist in the potentially impacted universe. EPA also estimated that 385 new LQGs and 768 new SQGs will enter the universe each year, replacing 5.9 percent of the universe. Table 6 summarizes the number of LQGs and SQGs in the potentially impacted universe, annual generation of total hazardous waste and hazardous waste aerosol cans by generator status, and the estimated number of new facilities entering the universe each year.
Table 6:	potentially impacted universe Summary
                               Generator STatus
                   Number of Facilities in Current Universe
             Annual Total HW Generation in Current Universe (tons)
           Annual Aerosol Can Generation in Current uNiverse (tons)
                        Annual Number of New Facilities
LQGs
                                                                          6,520
                                                                     12,369,427
                                                                         11,511
                                                                            385
SQGs 
                                                                         13,019
                                                                         81,238
                                                                          6,088
                                                                            768
Total
                                                                         19,539
                                                                     12,450,664
                                                                         17,600
                                                                          1,153
Note: The new facilities entering the universe each year are expected to replace existing facilities. This RIA assumes that the size of the universe does not change over the time period analyzed. 


Methodology and Results
This section describes EPA's methodology for assessing the costs and cost savings of the proposed rule and presents EPA's estimates of these impacts. EPA's methodology involved a three-step process. First, EPA estimated the costs of handling hazardous waste for facilities in the potentially regulated universe in the baseline (no rule) scenario. Next, EPA estimated the costs to facilities in the potentially regulated universe after taking into account the regulatory changes of the proposed rule. Finally, EPA estimated the costs and cost savings of the proposed rule by comparing the estimated costs of handling hazardous waste under the baseline and proposed rule scenarios. 
Baseline Costs
To estimate baseline costs, EPA collected information on the unit costs of compliance with existing hazardous waste management requirements. These unit costs were applied to facilities in the potentially impacted universe based on their generator status. 
Baseline Unit Costs
EPA developed baseline unit cost estimates from information provided in previous RIAs and Information Collection Requests (ICRs) published by the Agency. Three of the RIAs from which these unit costs were obtained were for proposed or finalized additions to the Universal Waste Program: the 1999 Hazardous Waste Lamps Rule RIA, the 2005 Mercury Containing Equipment Rule RIA, and the 2008 Pharmaceuticals Rule RIA. The data from those UW RIAs were supplemented with more recent cost information from two additional RIAs: the 2015 Proposed Management Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals RIA, and the 2016 Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule RIA. Appendix A includes additional information on the RIAs and ICRs that this RIA relies upon for unit cost information. 
The costs associated with handling hazardous waste in the baseline scenario can be split into three broad categories: one-time costs, fixed annual costs, and variable costs. Table 7 presents the unit costs associated with each of these broad categories.
One-Time Costs
One-time costs include notifying the EPA of hazardous waste activity (and obtaining an EPA ID number), becoming familiar with hazardous waste regulations, creating a closure plan (LQGs only), and creating a contingency plan. These one-time costs have already been incurred by existing facilities in the universe. However, as discussed in the Universe section above, this RIA assumes that new hazardous waste generators will open at a rate equal to 5.9 percent of the size of the universe each year. As a result, this RIA estimates that there will be 385 new LQGs and 768 new SQGs each year that incur the one-time costs specified above. Despite these new additions to the universe, this RIA assumes that the number of facilities in the universe remains constant over time. New facilities are assumed to replace existing facilities that exit the universe.
Fixed Annual Costs
Fixed annual costs consist of costs that are generally experienced once each year and are fairly consistent over time, including reviewing the relevant regulations, RCRA Subtitle C compliance recordkeeping, personnel safety training, manifest training, hazardous waste labelling, and inspections of hazardous waste storage areas. This category also includes costs that are incurred every other year (e.g. biennial reporting costs) that have been annualized to reflect a consistent value. Fixed annual costs vary by generator status (SQG vs. LQG), but do not vary within a given generator category based on the quantity of hazardous waste generated.
TABLE 7:	Baseline Unit Costs (2017$)
                                 Cost Feature
                                  Unit Costs

                                      LQG
                                      SQG

                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
One-Time Costs (New Facilities Only)
  Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity
                                                                            $62
                                                                            $62
                                                                            $62
                                                                            $62
  Rule Familiarization 
                                                                         $1,739
                                                                           $424
                                                                         $1,739
                                                                           $155
  Closure (create closure plan)
                                                                         $8,509
                                                                         $8,509
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
  Contingency Planning
                                                                           $731
                                                                           $731
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
Fixed Annual Costs
  Annual Review of Regulations
                                                                            $93
                                                                            $93
                                                                            $61
                                                                            $61
  Subtitle C Recordkeeping
                                                                            $41
                                                                            $41
                                                                            $41
                                                                            $41
  Biennial Reporting (annualized cost)*
                                                                           $463
                                                                           $463
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
  Personnel Safety Training (annualized cost)
                                                                         $4,192
                                                                         $4,192
                                                                         $1,341
                                                                         $1,341
  Manifest Training
                                                                           $296
                                                                           $296
                                                                           $296
                                                                           $296
  Labeling
                                                                            $74
                                                                            $74
                                                                            $25
                                                                            $25
  Inspections
                                                                         $2,560
                                                                         $2,560
                                                                         $2,560
                                                                         $2,560
Variable Costs
  Manifesting and Land Disposal Restriction Notification (per shipment)
                                                                            $58
                                                                            $58
                                                                            $56
                                                                            $56
  Hazardous Waste Transportation (per shipment)
                            $215 + $0.216/ton-mile
  Hazardous Waste Disposal (Incineration)
                                  $4,573/ton
Note: The methodology and source documents used to estimate baseline unit costs are presented in Appendix A.
*The Biennial Reporting cost assumes that each facility has 20 waste streams, based on the average number of waste streams observed in the BR for baseline LQGs.
Variable Costs
Variable costs include those costs that are experienced throughout the year and vary by the quantity of hazardous waste generated, the quantity of hazardous waste shipped, and the number of hazardous waste shipments made by each facility. The three categories of variable costs are (1) the cost of properly filling out a manifest and land disposal restriction notification for each shipment, (2) the cost of shipping hazardous waste using a certified hazardous waste transporter, and (3) the cost of hazardous waste disposal. This RIA assumes that each hazardous waste shipment has a fixed cost of $215 and an additional cost of $0.22 per ton-mile. The capacity of a truck varies with the characteristics of the wastes being shipped, but an estimate of 15 tons per truck was used for this analysis. Additionally, this RIA assumes that hazardous waste shipments require trucks to travel 200 miles on average. This RIA also assumes that facilities dispose of all hazardous waste through incineration, at a cost of $4,573 per ton. 
Baseline Cost estimate Methodology
In order to calculate the one-time costs for new facilities, EPA multiplied the annual number of expected new LQGs (385) by the sum of all of the one-time unit costs for LQGs. EPA completed the same calculation for the estimated 768 new SQGs. Although each new facility only incurs these costs once, the total amount represents a recurring annual cost because this RIA assumes that new facilities enter the universe each year. The total one-time baseline costs are displayed in Table 8. As noted above, these one-time costs are incurred by new facilities only; for existing facilities these represent sunk costs that have already been incurred.
Table 8:	One-Time Baseline Costs
                               Type of Facility
                   Number of Facilities in Current Universe
                           Number of New Facilities
                  One-Time Costs (High Estimate. $ thousands)
                  One-Time Costs (Low Estimate. $ Thousands)
LQG
                                                                          6,520
                                                                            385
                                                                         $4,250
                                                                         $3,740
SQG
                                                                         13,019
                                                                            768
                                                                         $1,380
                                                                           $167
New Facility Totals
                                                                         19,539
                                                                          1,153
                                                                         $5,630
                                                                         $3,910
EPA completed similar calculations to estimate fixed annual costs in the baseline. For both LQGs and SQGs, EPA multiplied the total number of facilities in the baseline universe by the sum of all fixed annual costs anticipated for the relevant generator category. For LQGs, this RIA estimates total fixed annual costs of $7,719 per facility. These costs were applied to the 6,520 baseline LQGs. For SQGs, this RIA estimates total fixed annual costs of $4,323 per facility. These costs were applied to the 13,019 baseline SQGs. The total fixed annual costs are displayed in Table 9.
Variable costs are dependent on the quantity of hazardous waste generated and hazardous waste shipped by each facility. This RIA relied on hazardous waste shipment data from the 2015 BR to estimate the annual number of shipments for each facility. Based on an average truck capacity of 15 tons, EPA estimated the number of shipments made by each facility by dividing the total tonnage of HW shipped by 15 and rounding up to the nearest whole number. Additionally, EPA assumed a minimum of four shipments per year for LQGs that ship HW and two shipments per year for SQGs that ship HW to ensure compliance with RCRA storage time limits. EPA estimated annual shipping costs for each facility based on a fixed cost of $215 per shipment, a variable cost of $0.22 per ton-mile, and a manifesting and Land Disposal Restriction Notification cost of $56 to $58 per shipment.
Additionally, EPA estimated that hazardous waste disposal -- assumed to be incineration for the purposes of this RIA -- costs $4,573 per ton. EPA applied this cost to total hazardous waste generation for all facilities projected to become VSQGs as a result of the proposed rule. EPA limited its estimation of disposal costs to these facilities because these are the only facilities that are expected to experience changes in disposal costs as a result of the proposed rule. Because VSQGs in many states may dispose of their hazardous waste in municipal solid waste landfills, facilities that drop in generator status to VSQG may experience a significant disposal cost savings. Disposal costs for other facilities will remain unchanged. For clarity of presentation, this RIA therefore limits the presentation of disposal costs to those facilities projected to experience a change in disposal costs.  
Baseline Cost Results
Table 9 summarizes total estimated baseline hazardous waste management costs by generator status and cost category. The estimated costs associated with hazardous waste management for facilities generating aerosol cans are approximately $285 million under both the high and low assumptions. Variable costs account for the majority of hazardous waste management costs. The cost of shipping accounts for roughly 78 percent of variable costs, manifesting accounts for roughly 15 percent of variable costs, and disposal (for those facilities projected to realize a change in disposal costs) accounts for the remaining 7 percent of these costs. Additionally, more than 70 percent of the total costs are incurred by LQGs (for both the high and low estimates).
Table 9:	Baseline Cost Results
                                 Cost Category
                              LQGs ($ thousands)
                              SQGs ($ Thousands)
                              Total ($ thousands)

                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
One-Time Costs
                                                                         $4,250
                                                                         $3,740
                                                                         $1,380
                                                                           $167
                                                                         $5,630
                                                                         $3,910
Annual Costs
                                                                        $50,300
                                                                        $50,300
                                                                        $56,300
                                                                        $56,300
                                                                       $107,000
                                                                       $107,000
Variable Costs
                                                                       $152,000
                                                                       $152,000
                                                                        $21,000
                                                                        $21,000
                                                                       $173,000
                                                                       $173,000
Total Costs
                                                                       $207,000
                                                                       $206,000
                                                                        $78,700
                                                                        $77,400
                                                                       $285,000
                                                                       $284,000
Post-Rule Costs
To estimate post-rule costs for facilities in the potentially impacted universe, EPA gathered information on unit costs relevant to the handling of universal waste. Additionally, EPA re-estimated the generator status of each facility in the universe after taking into account the provisions in the proposed rule. After identifying new unit costs and new universe characteristics, EPA estimated costs using the same methodology used to estimate baseline costs.
Post-Rule Unit Costs
Universal waste handlers incur waste management costs similar to those incurred by hazardous waste generators, including one-time costs, fixed annual costs, and variable costs. However, the particular cost features and dollar amounts vary between universal waste handlers and hazardous waste generators. Table 10 presents all unit costs for Universal Waste Handlers.
One-Time Costs
The requirements for new facilities that are universal waste handlers are less stringent than the requirements for new facilities classified as HW generators. UW handlers do not need to create a closure plan or invest in contingency planning. However, UW handlers still need to spend time becoming familiar with the rule and Large Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste (LQHUWs) still need to notify EPA of their hazardous waste activities (though Small Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste (SQHUWs) do not need to notify EPA).
Fixed Annual Costs
Generators of hazardous waste face up to seven separate fixed annual costs. However, facilities that are only handlers of UW face only two fixed annual costs. These costs are associated with an annual review of the relevant regulations and personnel safety training. Both of these unit costs are lower than they are for HW generators, since EPA expects that UW handlers do not train as many individuals or review the regulations as thoroughly as HW generators.
Variable Costs
VARIABLE COSTS ARE ALSO LOWER FOR UW handlers than for HW generators. LQHUWs need to complete basic recordkeeping, at an estimated cost of approximately $4 per shipment, compared to $56 to $58 per shipment for Subtitle C recordkeeping. There is no recordkeeping requirement for SQHUWs. Additionally, facilities that ship only UW do not need to use a certified hazardous waste transporter, reducing shipping costs compared to HW generators. This RIA assumes that UW shipments cost $143 per shipment plus an additional $0.16 per ton-mile. This analysis also assumes the same average truck capacity (15 tons) and average travel distance (200 miles) for UW shipments as used for HW shipments. Additionally, in some states, facilities that become VSQGs as a result of the rule will be able to ship non-aerosol can wastes as MSW instead of UW. This RIA estimates that shipments of MSW cost approximately $10.68 per ton. Similarly, disposal of waste at a MSW landfill (for facilities that become VSQGs under the rule) is less costly than incineration. This RIA estimates that incineration of hazardous and universal wastes costs approximately $4,573.11 per ton, whereas disposal of waste at a MSW landfill costs $53.90 per ton. This reduction in disposal costs is limited to VSQGs located in states that do not prohibit the disposal of hazardous waste in MSW landfills. VSQGs located in states that prohibit the disposal of hazardous waste at MSW facilities are not expected to realize a reduction in disposal costs.
Table 10:	Post-Rule Unit Costs
                                Required Costs
                                  Unit Costs

                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW

                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
One-Time Costs
  Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity
                                                                            $62
                                                                            $62
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
  Rule Familiarization
                                                                           $268
                                                                           $268
                                                                           $188
                                                                           $188
Annual Costs
  Annual Review of Regulations
                                                                            $93
                                                                            $93
                                                                            $61
                                                                            $61
  Personnel Safety Training (annualized cost)
                                                                         $1,326
                                                                         $1,326
                                                                           $652
                                                                           $440
Variable Costs
  Shipping Recordkeeping (per shipment)
                                                                             $4
                                                                             $4
                                                                             $0
                                                                             $0
  Universal Waste Transportation (per shipment)
                            $143 + $0.162/ton-mile
  Municipal Solid Waste Transportation
                                  $10.68/ton
  Hazardous Waste Disposal (Incineration)
                                 $4,573.11/ton
  Universal Waste Disposal (Incineration)
                                 $4,573.11/ton
  Municipal Solid Waste Disposal (Landfill)
                                  $53.90/ton
Note: The methodology and source documents used to estimate post-rule unit costs are presented in Appendix A.
Post-Rule Cost Methodology
Under the proposed rule, aerosol cans will no longer count towards a facility's generator status. As a result, some facilities may change generator status under the proposed rule. Thus, the first step in estimating costs in the post-rule scenario was to identify all changes in generator status from the baseline. An LQG could remain an LQG or become an SQG or VSQG, depending on the amount of aerosol cans and non-aerosol can hazardous waste it generates. Similarly, an SQG could remain an SQG or become a VSQG. If the only hazardous waste a facility produced in the baseline scenario was aerosol cans, then the facility would not be a generator at all in the post-rule scenario. However, these facilities would face the same costs as VSQGs, so they are grouped with VSQGs in this analysis.
In order to determine each facility's post-rule generator status, EPA calculated the amount of non-aerosol can HW generated at each facility by subtracting the amount of aerosol cans generated from the total amount of HW generated. EPA then calculated average monthly non-aerosol can HW generation at each facility and compared these quantities to RCRA monthly generation limits, as displayed in Table 11. 
In addition to categorizing facilities by generator status, EPA identified whether each facility would be classified as a Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste or a Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste. Identifying handler status was necessary because SQHUWs and LQHUWs face different UW requirements with different costs (see Table 10 above). Facilities that produce less than 5,000 kilograms (5.5 tons) of UW annually are classified as SQHUWs and facilities that produce 5,000 kilograms of UW or more annually are classified as LQHUWs. This analysis assumes that the UW produced at facilities is entirely comprised of aerosol cans (i.e. facilities do not produce mercury containing equipment, hazardous waste lamps, etc.). Each facility's handler status was determined by comparing the tonnage of aerosol cans produced to the aforementioned limits. Table 11 summarizes the waste limits for UW handlers and HW generators.
Table 11:	Generator and Handler Quantity Limits
                                   Category
                                Quantity Limits
HW Generator Status
LQG
>= 1.1 tons HW or > 0.001 tons acute HW per month

SQG
> 0.11 tons HW and < 1.1 tons HW per month
<= .001 acute HW per month

VSQG
<= .11 tons HW and <= .001 acute HW per month
UW Handler Status
LQHUW
>= 5.5 tons UW per year

SQHUW
< 5.5 tons UW per year
In the post-rule scenario, EPA estimates that the universe will consist of 6,470 LQGs, 12,586 SQGs, and 483 VSQGs. Within each of these categories, the majority of facilities are categorized as SQHUWs. Table 12 presents the post-rule distribution of facilities by generator and handler status.
Table 12:	Post-Rule Universe Distribution
                           Baseline Generator Status
                    Post Rule Generator and Handler Status

                                      LQG
                                      SQG
                                     VSQG

                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
LQG
                                                                          6,520
                                                                            122
                                                                          6,348
                                                                             28
                                                                             16
                                                                              6
                                                                              0
SQG
                                                                         13,019
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                            165
                                                                         12,377
                                                                             92
                                                                            385
Total
                                                                         19,539
                                     6,470
                                    12,586
                                      483
As with the baseline scenario, EPA determined the annual number of new LQGs and SQGs in the post-rule scenario by multiplying the number of LQGs and SQGs in the post-rule universe by the estimated entry rate of 5.9 percent. This calculation produced an estimate of 382 new LQGs and 743 new SQGs entering the post-rule universe each year. The number of new VSQGs was determined by calculating the difference between the total number of new facilities in the baseline scenario and the sum of new LQGs and SQGs in the post-rule scenario. Since this RIA estimates 1,153 total new facilities in the baseline scenario (see Table 8 above), and only 1,124 new LQGs and SQGs in the post-rule scenario, the difference of approximately 30 facilities represents the estimated number of new VSQGs. Table 13 displays the estimated number of new facilities in each generator class. After EPA estimated the generator and handler status for each facility in the post-rule scenario, EPA estimated one-time, annual, and variable costs for each facility based on the relevant unit costs. 

Table 13:	Annual Number of New Facilities entering the Post-Rule universe
                               Type of Facility
                           Number of New Facilities
LQG
                                                                            382
SQG
                                                                            743
VSQG
                                                                             28
Total
                                                                          1,153
One-Time Costs
EPA assigned new LQGs and SQGs in the post-rule scenario the same one-time unit costs as assigned in the baseline cost analysis. However, new VSQGs in the post-rule universe were assigned the less expensive one-time costs associated with LQHUWs and SQHUWs. In order to assign costs, EPA assumed that the new VSQGs contained the same proportion of LQHUWs and SQHUWs as observed among the VSQGs in the existing post-rule universe. The estimated number of new facilities in each generator class and the associated one-time costs are displayed in Table 14.
Table 14:	Post-Rule One-Time Costs
                               Type of Facility
                           Number of New Facilities
                       High Cost Estimate ($ thousands)
                        Low Cost Estimate ($ thousands)
LQG
                                                                            382
                                                                         $4,210
                                                                         $3,710
SQG
                                                                            743
                                                                         $1,340
                                                                           $161
VSQG
                                                                             29
                                                                          $6.16
                                                                          $6.16
New Facility Totals
                                                                          1,153
                                                                         $5,560
                                                                         $3,880
Fixed Annual Costs
EPA estimated fixed annual costs using the same methodology used to estimate one-time costs. The 6,470 post-rule LQGs were all assigned the same fixed annual costs as baseline LQGs and the 12,586 post-rule SQGs were assigned the same annual costs as baseline SQGs. Since the tasks associated with the annual costs for LQGs and SQGs go beyond the requirements for UW annual tasks, the handler status of these facilities did not influence the estimate of annual costs. However, the handler status did matter for VSQGs, which also include non-generators in the post-rule analysis. EPA assigned annual UW unit costs to the 483 VSQGs in the post-rule universe based on handler status. Additionally, EPA applied an annualized rule familiarization cost to all facilities that decide to manage aerosol cans as UW in the post-rule scenario. This cost represents the labor time required for facilities to familiarize themselves with the requirements for universal waste handlers. The estimated total annual costs in the post-rule scenario are approximately $105 million. The fixed annual cost results are displayed in Table 15.
Variable Costs
In the post-rule scenario, LQGs and SQGs are still required to ship hazardous waste in accordance with all proper RCRA regulations. These facilities have the choice to ship aerosol cans separately as universal waste or to continue shipping aerosol cans along with the rest of their hazardous waste as in the baseline scenario. For each facility, EPA calculated the cost of shipping HW and UW separately using the relevant transportation and recordkeeping unit costs. EPA then compared these costs with the cost incurred by the facility to continue shipping all of the waste together as HW. This RIA assumes that facilities will ship UW separately from HW only if the decision results in cost savings. 
For many facilities, EPA's analysis found that shipping UW separately would be more expensive than continuing to ship UW as if it were HW. This was often the case for facilities with low quantities of UW generation (that would not drop in generator status as a result of the rule) and facilities making the minimum number of annual shipments required by RCRA storage limits. For example, a facility that generates 19 tons of non-aerosol can hazardous waste and 1 ton of aerosol cans would likely not realize a cost savings by shipping UW separately from HW. In the baseline scenario, this facility would make 4 HW shipments a year at an estimated high-end cost of $1,953 ([$58 manifesting/shipment + $215/shipment + $0.216/ton-mile x 5 tons * 200 miles] x 4 shipments). If the facility chose to ship HW and UW separately in the post-rule scenario, the facility would still have to ship and manifest 19 tons of HW, which would cost $1,910 ([$58 manifesting/shipment + $215/shipment + $0.216/ton-mile x 4.75 tons * 200 miles] x 4 shipments), but the facility would also need to ship 1 ton of UW, which would cost $176 ($143/shipment + $0.162/ton-mile x 1 ton x 200 miles). In this scenario, shipping HW and UW separately would cost the facility $2,085 ($1,910 + $176) compared to $1,953 if the facility continued to ship all waste as HW. As a result, this RIA assumes that this facility and similar facilities would continue to ship aerosol cans in a manner consistent with the baseline. 
In the post-rule scenario, facilities that become VSQGs are not required to manifest their hazardous waste shipments or transport their waste as hazardous waste. Additionally, in 33 states and territories, VSQGs are allowed to dispose of their hazardous waste in MSW landfills. EPA determined that all of the LQGs expected to become VSQGs as a result of the proposed rule are located in states that allow MSW disposal. However, EPA could not identify whether each specific SQG in the universe was located in a state that allows MSW disposal, because the number of SQGs in the universe was estimated based on the extrapolation procedure discussed in the Universe section. As a result, EPA estimated that 39 to 66 percent of SQGs in the universe are located in states that allow MSW disposal. The low-end of this range represents the proportion of all SQGs (generators of aerosol can waste and generators that generate other hazardous wastes) located in states that allow MSW disposal. The high-end of this range represents the proportion of LQGs in the universe located within states that allow MSW disposal. 
EPA's approach for estimating the number of shipments for each facility depended on its generator status and whether the facility is located in a state that allows MSW disposal of VSQG hazardous waste.  At VSQGs in states that allow MSW disposal, EPA calculated the annual number of UW shipments at each facility by summing the total quantity of aerosol cans and dividing it by the average truck capacity of 15 tons. EPA calculated the annual number of UW shipments at VSQG facilities in states that do not allow MSW disposal by summing the total quantity of all waste (UW and HW) and dividing by the average truck capacity. EPA then estimated the universal waste transportation cost for each facility by applying the UW unit costs of $143 per shipment and $0.16 per ton-mile. EPA also included an additional recordkeeping cost for LQHUWs of $4 per shipment. At facilities in states that allow MSW disposal, EPA also estimated the cost of MSW transportation at each facility by summing the total quantity of non-aerosol can waste generation and multiplying it by the MSW transportation cost of $10.68 per ton. The majority of VSQGs make only 1 shipment of universal waste. 
Additionally, EPA estimated disposal costs for non-aerosol can waste at facilities expected to become VSQGs as a result of the proposed rule. In states that allow MSW disposal, EPA estimated post-rule disposal costs by multiplying total non-aerosol can waste generation by the MSW disposal cost of $53.90 per ton. EPA did not estimate baseline or post-rule disposal costs for other facilities, because only facilities that become VSQGs as a result of the rule are expected to experience a change in disposal costs. All variable cost results are displayed in Table 15.
Post-Rule Cost Results 
EPA summed the one-time costs, fixed annual costs, and variable costs to estimate the total annual cost associated with managing hazardous waste and universal waste for the potentially regulated universe in the post-rule scenario. Table 15 displays total estimated costs by cost category and generator status. Total post-rule costs are estimated to range from approximately $280 million to $282 million. Similar to the baseline scenario, variable costs account for the majority of total annual costs. 
                                       
            Table 15:	Post-Rule Cost Results
                                 Cost Category
                              LQGs ($ Thousands)
                              SQGs ($ Thousands)
                              VSQGs ($ Thousands)
                              Total ($ Thousands)

                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
One-Time Costs
                                                                         $4,210
                                                                         $3,710
                                                                         $1,340
                                                                           $161
                                                                          $6.16
                                                                          $6.16
                                                                         $5,560
                                                                         $3,880
Annual Costs
                                                                        $49,900
                                                                        $49,900
                                                                        $54,400
                                                                        $54,400
                                                                           $420
                                                                           $338
                                                                       $105,000
                                                                       $105,000
Variable Costs
                                                                       $146,000
                                                                       $146,000
                                                                        $13,800
                                                                        $13,800
                                                                        $12,200
                                                                        $11,700
                                                                       $172,000
                                                                       $172,000
Total Costs
                                                                       $200,000
                                                                       $200,000
                                                                        $69,500
                                                                        $68,300
                                                                        $12,600
                                                                        $12,000
                                                                       $282,000
                                                                       $280,000

Net Cost Impacts
The proposed rule does not establish any new costs, aside from a minor rule familiarization cost for facilities that decide to manage aerosol cans as universal waste. The rule removes certain cost features for facilities (e.g. the cost of BR reporting for a baseline LQG that becomes a VSQG) and replaces other cost features with less expensive alternatives (e.g. the cost of recordkeeping for UW compared to the cost of manifesting for HW). As a result, EPA expects the proposed rule to result in a net cost savings. EPA estimated annual cost savings by calculating the difference between the baseline total costs and the post-rule total costs. The cost savings, broken down by type of cost, are presented in Table 16.
Table 16:	Cost Savings
                                 Cost Category
                                 Cost Savings
                               (thousands of $)
                         Percent Savings From baseline
One-Time Cost Savings
                                 $28.1 - $72.4
                                  0.7% - 1.3%

                                       
                                       
Fixed Annual Cost Savings
                                $1,830 - $1,920
                                  1.7% - 1.8%

                                       
                                       
Variable Cost Savings
                                $1,100 - $1,580
                                  0.6% - 0.9%

                                       
                                       
Total Yearly Cost Savings
                                $3,010 - $3,520
                                  1.1% - 1.2%

                                       
                                       

This RIA estimates cost savings ranging from $3.0 million to $3.5 million per year. The majority of cost savings result from a reduction in the fixed annual costs to facilities. These cost savings are largely attributable to facilities changing generator status as a result of no longer having to count aerosol cans towards their HW generator status. Dropping in status from LQG to SQG is expected to save a facility approximately $3,400 each year in "fixed annual costs" while dropping from LQG to VSQG is associated with "fixed annual cost" savings of approximately $6,300 to $7,220 each year. A baseline SQG that becomes a VSQG can expect to see its "fixed annual costs" reduced by approximately $2,900 to $3,820. Table 17 summarizes the annual cost savings per facility associated with changes in generator status.
TABLE 17:	Fixed Annual Cost Savings associated with changes to generator status
                                Baseline Status
                               Post-Rule Status
                    Cost Savings per Facility ($ thousands)
                                      LQG
                                       
SQG
                                                                           $3.4
                                       
VSQG (LQHUW)
                                                                           $6.3
                                       
VSQG (SQHUW)
                                                                    $7.0 - $7.2
                                      SQG
VSQG (LQHUW)
                                                                           $2.9

VSQG (SQHUW)
                                                                    $3.6 - $3.8
Most of the remaining cost savings are attributable to reductions in variable costs at facilities. Variable costs are expected to be reduced by 0.6 to 0.9 percent in comparison with the baseline scenario. Although the percent reduction is modest, this category still results in savings of $1.1 to $1.6 million each year, due to the relatively large magnitude of variable costs in the overall cost structure of affected facilities. These cost savings reflect approximately $400,000 in reduced transportation and manifesting costs, and approximately $700,000 to $1,160,000 in reduced disposal costs. 
The one-time costs associated with new facilities entering the universe are also expected to decrease relative to the baseline scenario. These cost savings account for roughly 1 to 3 percent of the total cost savings. Overall, costs for those waste management activities examined are expected to be reduced by approximately one percent in the post-rule scenario relative to the baseline for the impacted universe.
EPA also estimated the net present value (NPV) of the cost savings over two timeframes. The first timeframe was 13 years, which EPA selected based on an analysis of the 2014 Business Dynamic Statistics for the two most relevant NAICS codes (retail and manufacturing). In 2014, there were 1,718,309 establishments in these two NAICs codes and 136,528 establishments exited the market. If facilities continued to exit at that rate, it would take approximately 13 years for the universe to be completely replaced by new establishments. Using 13 years therefore provides an estimate of total cost savings over an average facility's estimated lifespan. The NPV was also calculated over a 30-year time period, which is a timeframe used in many EPA economic analyses.  Additionally, EPA calculated the NPV using two different discount rates (3 and 7 percent) in order to produce a range of estimates. Table 18 presents the full range of NPV calculations. The NPV of the cost savings varies between approximately $25 million and $69 million depending on the timeframe and discount rate. 
TABLE 18:	Net Present Value of Cost Savings ($thousands)
                                   Timeframe
                                 Discount Rate

                                   3 Percent
                                   7 Percent
13 Years
                                                              $32,000 - $37,500
                                                              $25,200 - $29,400
30 Years
                                                              $59,000 - $69,100
                                                              $37,400 - $43,700
                                       

Equity Considerations and Other Impacts
As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this chapter summarizes EPA's analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. This chapter assesses potential impacts, with respect to the following issues: 
Regulatory planning and review: requires examination and quantification of costs and benefits of regulating with and without the proposed rule;
Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the proposed rule on small entities; 
Employment impacts: assesses the potential impact of the proposed rule on employment; 
Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the proposed rule with respect to unfunded mandates; 
Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty; 
Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to include impacts on Native American tribal governments and their communities; 
Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the proposed rule on energy use, supply, and distribution; 
Environmental justice: considers potential issues for minority and low-income populations; 
Children's health protection: examines the potential impact of the proposed rule on the health of children; and
Joint impacts of rules: considers the combined effect of the proposed rule with other regulations affecting generators of aerosol cans.
Regulatory Planning and Review 
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], as amended by Executive Order 13563, the Agency, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: 
   (1)	Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; 
   (2)	Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 
   (3)	Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 
   (4)	Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, as affirmed in Executive Order 13563, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived review under EO 12866..
Findings for the economic assessment indicate that the rule, as proposed, is projected to result in net annual cost savings of approximately $3.0 to $3.5 million (based on a discount rate of 7 percent). Because the proposed rule will not result in any increase in net costs, it is not considered to be an economically significant action. 
In addition to calling for assessment of regulatory costs, the Executive Order also requires Federal agencies to assess benefits and, "recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs." The benefits of the proposed rule are reflected in the cost savings referenced above. Because the proposed rule is projected to result in net cost savings, its benefits are expected to exceed its costs. Additionally, it is possible that this rule will encourage an increase in recycling of aerosol cans.
Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Based on EPA's RFA/SBREFA analytic guidance, a rule is not expected to result in a significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities if the costs of the regulation for a facility are less than 1 percent of annual revenues. 
EPA does not expect the rule to result in an adverse impact to a significant number of small entities, since the rule is expected to result in net cost savings. Furthermore, because generators of aerosol cans will be able to opt into participating in the UW program for aerosol cans, it is reasonable to assume that no generators will join the program if they expect that action to increase their RCRA compliance costs. EPA therefore expects that the proposed rule will not result in adverse cost impacts for any small entities.
Employment Impact Analysis 
Executive Order 13777 directs federal agencies to consider a range of issues regarding the characteristics and impacts of regulations, including the effect of regulations on jobs (Executive Order 13777, 2017). Employment impacts of environmental regulations include a mix of potential declines and gains in different sectors of the economy over time. Impacts on employment can vary according to labor market conditions and may differ across occupations, industries, and regions. Isolating employment impacts of regulation is difficult as they are a challenge to disentangle from employment impacts caused by a plethora of ongoing concurrent economic changes.  
Ideally, EPA would conduct a quantitative assessment of these impacts, but insufficient data are available to quantify changes in employment associated with the rule. This RIA therefore presents a qualitative assessment of the rule's potential employment impacts.
EPA expects that the proposed rule may result in competing employment effects. Due to the cost savings expected under the rule, generators of aerosol cans will incur lower costs to manage their hazardous waste, which may result in a marginal reduction in the prices charged by these firms for the goods and services that they produce. To the extent that prices charged by these firms decline, demand for their products may increase and they may therefore demand additional labor. All else equal, this would represent an increase in employment. As described above, however, the rule is also likely to result in reduced expenditures on labor for hazardous waste management activities. This reduction would at least partially offset the positive employment impact associated with reduced prices. It is unclear which of these two effects is more significant, but EPA expects the net employment impact of this rule to be negligible.
Unfunded Mandates 
Among its other purposes and federal agency rulemaking requirements, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in "any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year."
Section 202 of UMRA requires federal agencies that propose rules that are likely to exceed this expenditure threshold to prepare a "Written Statement" containing the following five components, supply the statement to OMB, and summarize it in the Federal Register notice for the CCR rule: 
 Identification of the applicable authorizing federal law;
 Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the rule including the costs and benefits to state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector, and an analysis of whether federal resources may be available to pay these costs;
 Estimates of future compliance costs and any disproportionate budgetary effects;
 Estimates of effects on the national economy such as productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation, international competitiveness; and
 Description and summary of agency's prior consultation with elected representatives of the affected state, local and tribal governments.
As indicated above, the proposed rule is expected to lead to net annual cost savings of $3.0 to $3.5million (based on a discount rate of 7 percent). As a result, EPA expects that the rule would not result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million annually and therefore would not be subject to requirements of Section 202 of UMRA as listed above. 
Federalism 
The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 furthers the policies of UMRA by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state and local government consultation process for the development of federal regulations with implications for federalism. These include regulations and other federal policies and actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Pursuant to the consultation process of Executive Order 13132, this section evaluates whether the proposed rule may "impose substantial direct compliance costs" on state and local governments. EPA's 2008 guidance for compliance with Executive Order 13132 describes two numerical methods for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications with respect to "substantial direct compliance costs": 

 The $25 million test. Annualized direct compliance cost expenditures to state and local governments in aggregate of $25 million or more.
 The 1 percent test. Annualized direct compliance costs faced by state and local governments are likely to equal or exceed 1 percent of their annual revenues.
This proposed rule is not expected to have federalism implications. EPA does not anticipate that it will have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Order.
While the proposed rule is not expected to have federalism implications, it may result in a combination of costs and cost savings for individual states. Costs incurred by states may include increased costs for administering their Universal Waste programs, as more facilities opt into these programs. In addition, to the extent that the generator status of participating facilities changes from LQG to either SQG or VSQG, states that collect annual fees from LQGs will experience a reduction in revenues. Changes in facility generator status, however, may also lead to cost savings for states, as they will receive fewer Biennial Report submissions to review and process. Because these facilities will no longer be subject to LQG requirements, the enforcement costs for these facilities may also decline.
Tribal Governments 
Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." Because the proposed rule is expected to result in net cost savings, EPA does not expect that it would result in any adverse impacts on tribal entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
Energy Impacts 
Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to more fully consider the potential energy impacts of regulatory action. Under this executive order, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use.
The Proposed Rule does not directly regulate energy production or consumption. In addition, with annual cost savings of approximately $3.0 to $3.5 million (based on a discount rate of 7 percent), the costs of this proposed rule are not considered economically significant under Executive Order 12866. As such, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211.
Environmental Justice 
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Among other actions, the Order directs agencies to improve research and data collection regarding health and environmental effects in minority and low-income communities. Because the proposed rule would not change the disposal requirements for hazardous waste aerosol cans, EPA does not expect it to result in any environmental justice impacts. 
Children's Health protection
Executive Order 13045, entitled "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under E.O. 12866, or (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. 
As discussed above, pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact, and is not subject to EO 13045.  In addition, because the proposed rule would not change the disposal requirements for hazardous waste aerosol cans, the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed action present a disproportionate risk to children
Joint Impacts of Rules
As indicated above, the proposed rule would allow generators of aerosol cans to manage these wastes as universal wastes rather than under the full Subtitle C waste management requirements. If a facility that opts into the UW program generates other hazardous wastes, however, it would still be required to comply with the full Subtitle C requirements for these wastes.
Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs
The proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the above analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the rule.
Appendix A.  Unit Cost Information
This appendix summarizes the unit cost estimates supporting EPA's analysis of the proposed rule to add aerosol cans to the Universal Waste (UW) Rule.  As indicated in the main body of this document, EPA estimated the costs and cost savings of the rule incremental to the costs of complying with existing RCRA Subtitle C requirements.  This RIA's assessment of the proposed rule focuses on those costs that might change for affected facilities.  The first section of this appendix documents the estimates of these unit costs.  The rule, however, could also affect the one-time costs incurred by new generators of hazardous waste aerosol cans (e.g., the cost of establishing a contingency plan).  As a supplement to the unit cost values relevant to existing facilities, the second section of this appendix presents per facility estimates of these one-time costs.  Several of the unit costs presented in this appendix are based on unit cost values for labor.  These are presented in Table A-1.
Table A-1.	Hourly Labor Costs
                                Labor Cateogry
                          Median Hourly 
Wage Rate[1]
                           Labor Loading Multipliers
                   MeDian Loaded Hourly labor coSt[1,2][,3]
                                  BENEFITS[2]
                                  Overhead[3]
                                   MANAGERS
                                                                         $54.76
                                     1.533
                                     1.336
                                                                        $113.78
Technicians
                                                                         $23.69
                                       
                                       
                                                                         $49.22
Software Developers and Programmers
                                                                         $46.07
                                       
                                       
                                                                         $95.72
Office Clerks, General
                                                                         $17.86
                                       
                                       
                                                                         $37.11
Lawyers
                                                                         $77.36
                                       
                                       
                                                                        $160.74
Source:
 Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2016, accessed at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm on August 25, 2017.
 Fringe benefit cost factor calculated from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Worker Compensation, released June 9, 2017.  Table 10:  Employer Costs per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation and Costs as a Percent of Total Compensation: Private Workers, by Industry Group, March 2017.  
 Overhead loading factor calculated from Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements (RACER) cost estimating software 2005 defaults.

One-Time Costs
As described in the main body of this document, EPA estimates one-time costs for facilities that enter the universe of facilities affected by the rule in a given year.  Facilities are assumed to incur these costs only in the year in which they enter the affected universe.
Notification (baseline and with rule)
This RIA estimates notification costs under the baseline for new generators and under the proposed rule for all facilities that become LQHs.  SQHs are not required to notify under the Universal Waste Rule.  The per-facility notification costs for these facilities are the same at approximately $62 per facility.  This cost reflects 0.08 hours of managerial time, 0.93 hours of technician time, and 0.08 hours of administrative time, as well as an O&M cost of approximately $3.85.
Rule Familiarization (baseline and with rule)
Under the baseline, new facilities that enter the regulatory universe in a given year are assumed to incur costs to familiarize themselves with the Universal Waste Rule and other RCRA regulations.  The amount of personnel time that rule familiarization involves in the baseline depends, in part, on whether legal counsel is involved and how thorough facilities are in their review.  This RIA assumes that the high end of the potential range for both LQGs and SQGs is consistent with high end estimates with legal counsel.  At the low end, rule familiarization costs for LQGs are assumed to be consistent with high end estimates without legal counsel, while the low end for SQGs is assumed to be consistent with a low end estimate without legal counsel. The personnel hours for each of these ranges were obtained from EPA's regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the addition of mercury containing equipment to the universal waste system.  Table A-2 summarizes the estimated rule familiarization costs for hazardous waste generators.
TABLE A-2.	 Rule Familiarization Costs For new Generators
                             Baseline or With Rule
                               Generator Status
                                 End of Range
         Corresponding Category from Mercury Containing Equipment RIA
                                  Annual Cost
Baseline
LQG
High
With legal counsel, high
                                                                         $1,739


Low
Without legal counsel, high
                                                                           $424

SQG
High
With legal counsel, high
                                                                         $1,739


Low
Without legal counsel, low
                                                                           $155
With Rule
LQH
NA
NA
                                                                           $268

SQH
NA
NA
                                                                           $188
Source: U.S. EPA, Economic Analysis of Including Mercury Containing Equipment in the Universal Waste System: Final Rule. February 15, 2002 (revised May 9, 2005).
This RIA also estimates rule familiarization costs for existing facilities that decide to manage their aerosol cans as universal waste.  Because these facilities are already familiar with the universal waste system, rule familiarization costs for these facilities are assumed to be lower than the rule familiarization costs for new generators.  Based on the hours estimates for small quantity handlers (SQHs) and large quantity handlers (LQHs) in the RIA for the addition of mercury containing equipment to the universal waste system, EPA estimates rule familiarization costs of $268 for LQHs and $188 for SQHs.
Development of Closure Plan (baseline)
This RIA assumes that facilities that enter the affected LQG universe in the baseline incur costs for the development of a closure plan.  As shown in Table A-3, these costs reflect the development of descriptions of necessary closure activities, estimation of closure costs, and writing of the closure schedule.  In total, these costs are approximately $8,509 per LQG.
TABLE A-3.	Closure Plan Costs
                                   Activity
                             Managerial Time (HRS)
                             Technician Time (HRS)
                               Admin. Time (HRS)
                                 O&M Costs
                                  Total Cost
Write descriptions of necessary closure activity
                                                                              2
                                                                             16
                                                                              2
                                                                          $5000
                                                                         $6,162
Estimate final closure cost
                                                                              1
                                                                              8
                                                                              1
                                                                             $0
                                                                         $2,269
Write the closure schedule
                                                                           0.25
                                                                              1
                                                                              0
                                                                             $0
                                                                            $78
                                                Total Closure Plan Cost per LQG
                                                                         $8,509
Source: U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number ICR 1573.14 "Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special Permits," March 2016.
Contingency Planning (baseline)
Facilities that enter the LQG universe of affected facilities in the baseline are assumed to incur costs to develop a contingency plan.  As shown in Table A-4, development of a contingency plan involves the collection of data, documentation of input from authorities, drafting of the contingency plan, and submission of the contingency plan to relevant emergency centers.  This RIA estimates that the total cost of these activities, per plan, is $731.
Table A-4.	Contingency Plan Costs
                                   Activity
                             Technician Time (HRS)
                               Admin. Time (HRS)
                                 O&M Costs
                                  Total Cost
Collection of data
                                                                           3.35
                                                                           1.65
                                                                             $0
                                                                           $226
Document whether authorities decline arrangement
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.5
                                                                             $0
                                                                            $19
Write contingency plan
                                                                            7.5
                                                                            2.5
                                                                             $0
                                                                           $462
Submit plan to relevant emergency centers
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.5
                                                                          $5.73
                                                                            $24
                                            Total Contingency Plan Cost per LQG
                                                                           $731
Source: U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number ICR 0820.14 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, September 2014.
FIXED Annual Costs
Fixed annual costs include those costs that typically remain unchanged from year to year.
Annual Review of Regulations (baseline and with rule)
To keep up to date on regulatory developments, LQGs and SQGs are assumed to conduct an annual review of the regulations in the baseline.  This review involves a limited amount of legal, managerial, and technician time, as shown in Table A-5.  Facilities that opt to manage their aerosol cans as universal waste under the proposed rule are also assumed to incur costs associated with the annual review of the regulations.
Table A-5.	Annual Cost of Annual Review of Regulations
                             Baseline or With Rule
                           Generator/ Handler Status
                               Legal Time (HRs)
                             Managerial Time (HRS)
                             Technician Time (HRS)
                                  Total Cost
Baseline
                                      LQG
                                     0.25
                                     0.25
                                      0.5
                                    $93.24

                                      SQG
                                     0.15
                                     0.15
                                      0.4
                                    $60.87
With Rule
                                      LQH
                                     0.25
                                     0.25
                                      0.5
                                    $93.24

                                      SQH
                                     0.15
                                     0.15
                                      0.4
                                    $60.87
Source: U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number ICR 0820.14 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, September 2014.
Recordkeeping (baseline)
Under the RCRA Subtitle C regulations, LQGs and SQGs are required to maintain records of waste characterizations for three years from the date the last waste was sent off site.  In addition, LQGs and SQGs must gather and provide information as requested by EPA or state regulators.  Combined, these activities involve 0.25 hours of managerial time and 0.2 hours of a technician's time.  Combined with O&M costs of $2.50 to $3.00, these costs amount to approximately $41 per facility.
Biennial Reporting (baseline)
Under current regulations, LQGs must submit biennial reports of their hazardous waste generation activity to EPA or state authorities.  The fixed costs of preparing a biennial report include the time to read the instructions, complete the site ID form, gather information and prepare a GM form, submit the report to state authorities or EPA, and maintain a copy of the report for three years.  Table A-6 summarizes the personnel time to complete these activities and the associated costs.  As indicated in the table the total cost per cycle per LQG is approximately $837.  On an annualized basis, this translates to a cost of $463.
 Table A-6.	Costs of Biennial Reporting 
                                   ACTIVITY
                              MANAGER TIME (HRS)
                             TECHNICIAN TIME (HRS)
                               ADMIN. TIME (HRS)
                                  LABOR COST
                                 O&M COST
                                  TOTAL COST
Read instructions
                                                                           1.08
                                                                           1.68
                                                                              0
                                                                        $205.57
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $205.57
Gather information and prepare form GM
                                                                           0.13
                                                                           0.15
                                                                           0.04
                                                                $23.66 per form
                                                                             $0
                                                                     $462.86[1]
Gather and prepare information for Site ID form
                                                                           0.08
                                                                            0.6
                                                                           0.16
                                                                         $44.57
                                                                             $0
                                                                         $44.57
Submit report
                                                                           0.82
                                                                           0.32
                                                                            0.2
                                                                        $116.47
                                                                          $6.57
                                                                        $123.05
Maintain a copy of form for three years
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.01
                                                                           0.02
                                                                          $1.23
                                                                             $0
                                                                          $1.23
                                                 Cost per facility per BR cycle
                                                                        $837.29
                                      Annualized cost per facility per BR cycle
                                                                        $463.10
Source:  U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.18 "2017 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification," December 2016. 
Notes:
 Value assumes approximately 19.5 GM forms per facility on average based on data in the 2015 Biennial Report database.
Annual Employee Training (baseline and with rule)
For the baseline, the unit cost associated with training relevant employees at generator facilities was estimated separately for SQGs and LQGs.  To estimate training costs for SQGs, EPA assumes that such facilities will conduct informal training for two technicians and one manager.  EPA assumes that each of these employees receives four hours of training and that four hours of a manager's time are necessary to compile EPA guidance documents, fact sheets, and information on relevant company standard operating procedures.   Based on this information, we estimate that hazardous waste handler training for an SQG costs $1,341 per year per facility, as shown in Table A-7.
Relative to SQGs, we assume that LQGs will conduct more formalized training using an online training course supplemented with facility-specific information.   More specifically, we assume that four technicians and two managers receive eight hours of training per year.  In addition, the estimate of annual LQG training costs include 0.6 hours of clerical time for administrative requirements associated with the training (e.g., updating records, refresher/new class scheduling, etc.).  The class fee is estimated as $127 per trainee based on pricing from on-line providers, and facilities are assumed to incur an additional record-keeping cost of approximately $3 per year.  Based on the above, we estimate that hazardous waste handler training at LQGs costs $4,192 per year per facility per year.  Table A-7 summarizes these costs.
Table A-7.	UNIVERSAL WASTE TRAINING COSTS
                              Generator Category
                                     Cost
                                  Assumptions
LQG
                                                                         $4,192
4 technicians and 2 managers for 8 hour training, 0.6 hours for clerk, per trainee fee for class.
SQG
                                                                         $1,341
2 technicians and 1 manager for 4 hour training, 4 managerial hours to develop training, 1 hour for clerk
In addition to the general hazardous materials handling training, it is assumed that each SQG and LQG will train one technician and one manager to complete hazardous waste manifests once every three years.  This RIA assumes each facility trains one manager and one technician to complete manifests.  Employees are expected to receive a four-hour manifest training session once every three years.  As part of this training, this RIA assumes facilities will use EPA's free online hazardous waste manifest video.  The cost of manifest training also includes one hour of a manager's time to compile EPA's hazardous waste manifest instructions and other training materials.  Approximately 0.3 hours of administrative time will likely be incurred to schedule the training every three years.  Based on these estimates, the cost of manifest training is approximately $777 per facility once every three years (an annualized cost of $296, using a 7 percent discount rate).  
Under the proposed rule, handlers of universal waste aerosol cans will incur training costs, but these costs are estimated to be lower than the training costs incurred by LQGs and SQGs in the baseline.  LQHs are assumed to train four technicians and two managers through a two-hour training, as shown in Table A-8.  
TABLE A-8.	UNIVERSAL WASTE TRAINING COSTS
                               Handler Category
                                     Cost
                                  Assumptions
LQH
                                                                         $1,326
4 technicians and 2 managers for 2 hour training, 0.6 hrs for clerk, 4 managerial hours to develop training
SQH  -  Large Facility
                                                                           $652
4 technicians and 2 managers for 1 hour training, 2 managerial hours to develop training
SQH  -  Small Facility
                                                                           $440
2 technicians and 1 manager for 1 hour training, 2 managerial hours to develop training
Labeling (baseline)
Under the baseline, all containers at LQGs and SQGs must be marked with the words "Hazardous Waste," an indication of the hazards of the contents of the container, and the accumulation start date once the accumulate start date begins. This RIA assumes that a trained technician would label the containers. The annual costs of labeling are reported in Table A-9.  Additionally, there are no baseline labeling requirements for VSQGs.
Table A-9.	Annual Cost of Labeling
                               Generator Status
                                   Location
                           Estimated Technician Time
                                Estimated Cost
                     annual Cost of Labeling per facility
SQG
Primary Storage Area
0.25 hours[1]
$12.31
Primary & Satellite Storage Areas Combined: $24.62

Satellite Storage Areas
0.25 hours[1]
$12.31

LQG
Primary Storage Area
1.0 hour[2]
$49.22
Primary & Satellite Storage Areas Combined: $73.83

Satellite Storage Areas
0.50 hours[3]
$24.61

Source:
 U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number ICR 0820.14 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, September 2014. 
Inspections (baseline)
LQGs and SQGs are required to conduct weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage areas.  This RIA assumes that a technician takes one hour to inspect all storage areas for an LQG or SQG, which implies a weekly inspection cost of $49.22 per LQG or SQG.  On an annual basis, this translates to a cost of $2,560 per LQG or SQG.
Variable Costs
Variable costs include those costs that are experienced throughout the year and vary by the quantity of hazardous waste generated, quantity of hazardous waste shipped, and the number of hazardous waste shipments made by each facility. 
Manifests (baseline)
SQGs and LQGs of hazardous waste are required to prepare a manifest for each hazardous waste shipment and maintain a copy of the manifest for three years.  All facilities are also required to submit a landban notification for each shipment.  The cost to complete the manifest and landban notification is estimated at $58 per shipment for LQGs and $56 per shipment for SQGs.   Hazardous waste generators are also required to file exception reports if a copy of a completed manifest signed by the designated facility is not received within a specified timeframe (45 days for LQGs, 60 days for SQGs).  This is an infrequent and unpredictable event; therefore, costs associated with this activity were not estimated for this analysis.   
Shipping Recordkeeping (with rule)
Under the universal waste rule requirements, LQHs must record all shipments received or shipped.  Logs, invoices, bills of lading, or other shipping documents constitute acceptable forms of records.  These records must be maintained for at least three years.  The cost to complete and maintain a record of universal waste shipments was estimated as $3.71 per shipment. 
Transportation (baseline and with rule)
Under the baseline and the proposed rule, shipments of hazardous waste must use a certified hazardous waste transporter. This RIA assumes that each hazardous waste shipment has a fixed cost of $215 and an additional cost of $0.22 per ton-mile. Under the proposed rule, shipments of aerosol cans do not need to use a certified hazardous waste transporter, reducing shipping costs compared to hazardous waste shipments.  This RIA assumes that universal waste transportation cost $143 per shipment plus an additional $0.16 per ton-mile. Additionally, under the proposed rule, facilities that change generator status to become VSQGs may be able to ship non-aerosol can waste to landfills as MSW. Shipment of hazardous waste to landfills by VSQGs is allowed in 33 states and territories. EPA estimates that MSW transportation in these states costs $10.68 per ton.
Disposal (baseline and with rule)
Under the baseline and the proposed rule, this RIA assumes that hazardous wastes and universal wastes are disposed of through incineration. This RIA assumes that incineration of hazardous and universal waste costs $4,573.11 per ton. Under the proposed rule, facilities that change generator status to become VSQGs may be able to dispose of non-aerosol can wastes in landfills. Landfill disposal of hazardous wastes by VSQGs is allowed in 33 states and territories. EPA estimates that MSW disposal in these states costs $53.90 per ton.

Appendix B: Puncturing Options
This appendix analyzes the impact of a range of rule options that modify management standards with respect to the puncturing and draining of aerosol cans. Puncturing and draining is a common method of on-site aerosol can management. Puncturing and draining systems are commercially available and consist of an enclosed puncturing device and an attached 55-gallon drum which collects the drained contents.   Facilities can treat the drained can as scrap metal and the consolidated waste in the drum can be disposed of as hazardous waste.  One advantage of puncturing and draining aerosol cans is that it reduced the volume of hazardous waste that needs to be shipped off site for treatment. This analysis assumes that all on-site management of aerosol cans consists of puncturing and draining, as opposed to an alternative management method.
Under current RCRA regulations, generators are allowed to puncture and drain aerosol cans.  However, under this proposed regulation, EPA is considering five options that modify management standards with respect to puncturing and draining aerosol cans by UW handlers.  Since the universal waste designation would allow handlers to receive aerosol cans from other handlers, while simultaneously removing storage time limits, EPA is concerned about the potential for large buildups of aerosol cans at handlers that may not be properly equipped to puncture and drain such a large quantity of aerosol cans.  In California, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico, aerosol cans are currently regulated as universal waste. In these states, puncturing and draining by handlers is allowed, but they must comply with explicit management standards.
The five options currently being considered by the EPA are: 
Option 1: Puncturing and draining allowed at all handlers; no explicit management standards;
Option 2: Puncturing and draining allowed at all handlers; management standards similar to those required by CA,CO, UT, and NM;
Option 3: Puncturing and draining allowed at all handlers except handlers that are offsite commercial processors; management standards similar to those required by CA,CO, UT, and NM;
Option 4: Puncturing and draining at handlers only allowed for aerosol cans that are hazardous due to ignitability, and
Option 5: Puncturing and draining prohibited at handlers.
The primary analysis presented in the cost section of this RIA corresponds with Option 1.  Option 1 places the fewest restrictions on UW handlers and allows them to continue to manage their aerosol cans in the same way they currently do as HW generators.  For the primary analysis, EPA assumed that all aerosol cans managed on-site in the baseline would continue to be managed on-site in the post-rule scenario.  
In order to create a bounded sensitivity analysis, this appendix models the most stringent option (Option 5).  Under Option 5, UW handlers would no longer be able to puncture and drain aerosol cans on site.  Generators that currently puncture and drain aerosol cans on site would be faced with a decision: A) continue to puncture and drain on-site and treat aerosol cans as hazardous waste (as opposed to universal waste), or B) treat the aerosol cans as universal waste and begin to ship them off-site for treatment.  As the most stringent option, EPA expects Option 5 to have the lowest cost-savings of all of the options.  EPA assumes that the cost savings associated with Options 2, 3, and 4 fall within the range bounded by Options 1 and 5.  The rest of this appendix examines the universe, methodology, and results related to Option 5.
Universe
The potential universe for Option 5 is slightly different than the universe for Option 1, because Option 5 has the potential to impact facilities in California, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.  Facilities in these states were excluded from the analysis of Option 1 because aerosol cans are already handled as universal waste in these states.  Under Option 5, facilities in these states that currently puncture and drain cans on site might need to ship them offsite for treatment.
Overall, EPA does not expect management of aerosol cans to differ greatly between Option 1 and Option 5, because the vast majority of facilities that generate aerosol cans ship them offsite in the baseline.  Out of the estimated 19,539 facilities in the universe for the primarily analysis, only 20 facilities managed aerosol cans on site in the 2015 BR data.  These 20 facilities managed 905 tons of aerosol cans, with the two largest generators of aerosol cans accounting for 856 of those tons.  EPA estimates that all but one of these facilities are LQGs based on generation tonnages in the 2015 BR Flat Files.
An additional 11 facilities in California indicated on-site management of 3.5 tons of aerosol cans.  One facility in Utah managed aerosol cans on site and no facilities in Colorado or New Mexico reported on-site management of aerosol cans.  The 11 facilities in California and 1 facility in Utah that currently manage aerosol cans on-site are all LQGs despite the fact that aerosol cans are currently considered UW in their state; therefore, they will remain LQGs after the rule goes into effect.  Since the California and Utah facilities will continue to operate as LQGs (and puncture and drain their aerosol cans as hazardous waste), the proposed rule is not expected to impact them.  As a result, EPA did not include facilities in California, Colorado, New Mexico, or Utah in the cost analysis of Option 5.  However, the BR data are unlikely to capture all aerosol-can management in the states where aerosol cans are already handled as UW, because facilities are not required to report UW waste activity in their BR reports. As a result, this analysis may underestimate the costs of Option 5 at facilities located in states where aerosol cans are already handled as UW.   
Methodology
Under Option 5, the baseline costs for all facilities are the same as in the primary analysis. In the post-rule scenario, generators that currently manage aerosol cans on site would have the choice to either: A) continue to puncture and drain on site and treat aerosol cans as hazardous waste (as opposed to universal waste), or B) treat aerosol cans as universal waste and begin to ship them offsite for treatment. If facilities choose to continue managing aerosol cans as hazardous waste, then they will face the same compliance costs as under the baseline. If facilities choose to treat aerosol cans as universal waste, then they will incur additional costs associated with shipping aerosol cans offsite. In order to estimate the quantity of aerosol cans that would be shipped under Option 5 if a facility stopped managing aerosol cans on site, EPA summed the quantity of aerosol cans managed on site and the quantity of aerosol cans shipped in the baseline scenario.  For example, if a facility managed 15 tons of aerosol cans on site and shipped 10 tons of aerosol cans off-site in the baseline scenario, the facility would be expected to ship 25 tons off-site under Option 5 if they select to manage aerosol cans as UW.  
After estimating the quantity of UW aerosol cans that would be shipped by each facility, EPA estimated the costs for each facility by using the methodology described in the primary analysis.  Facilities that had been managing aerosol cans onsite would face higher shipping costs under Option 5 as compared to Option 1. This analysis does not quantify the cost savings associated with ceasing to manage aerosol cans onsite. Instead, this analysis assumes that any cost savings will be roughly canceled out by additional disposal fees for the transported UW.
Similar to the primary analysis, Option 5 gives facilities the option to either ship hazardous waste and UW separately or ship them together and incur HW transportation costs.  Additionally, under Option 5, facilities are given the option of not treating their aerosol cans as UW and continuing to treat them onsite (without realizing any of the cost savings associated with the UW provisions).  EPA assumes that facilities would choose the least-cost option. EPA estimates that the majority of facilities that manage aerosol cans onsite in the baseline scenario would continue to manage aerosol cans onsite as hazardous waste under the Option 5 post-rule scenario. Additionally, this analysis assumes that facilities must choose to manage all of their aerosol can waste as either HW or UW. Facilities do not have the option to manage some aerosol cans on-site as hazardous waste and also ship other aerosol cans off-site as UW. If facilities do have the option to manage aerosol cans as both hazardous waste and UW, then this analysis could overestimate the costs associated with Option 5.


Results
Table B.1 summarizes the costs savings associated with Option 5. As the table demonstrates, annual cost savings are expected to range from $3.0 million (1.05%) to $3.5 million (1.23%).  In each case, cost savings under Option 5 are approximately $22,700 lower than under Option 1. As Table B.2 displays, the net present value of the costs savings for Option 5 range from $25.0 million to $68.6 million, depending on the timeframe of the analysis. These savings are $190,000 to $445,000 lower than under Option 1.
Table B.1:	Option 5 Annual Cost Savings
                                 Cost Category
                          Cost Savings ($ thousands)
                    Percentage Savings Relative to Baseline
One-Time Cost Savings
                                                                  $28.1 - $72.4
                                                                    0.7% - 1.3%

                                                                               
                                                                               
Fixed Annual Cost Savings
                                                                $1,830 - $1,910
                                                                    1.7% - 1.8%

                                                                               
                                                                               
Variable Cost Savings
                                                                $1,090 - $1,560
                                                                    0.6% - 0.9%

                                                                               
                                                                               
Total Yearly Cost Savings
                                                                $2,990 - $3,500
                                                                  1.05% - 1.23%

                                                                               
                                                                               
                                       
Table B.2:	Net Present Value of Option 5 Cost Savings
                                   Timeframe
                          Discount Rate ($ thousands)

                                   3 Percent
                                   7 Percent
13 Years
                               $31,800 - $37,200
                               $25,000 - $29,300
30 Years
                               $58,600 - $68,600
                               $37,100 - $43,400

Appendix C: Alternative Baseline Generator Status
This appendix presents the results of the cost analysis using an alternative methodology for determining the baseline generator status of affected facilities. In the primary cost analysis, EPA determined baseline facility generator status by calculating average monthly hazardous waste generation at each facility and comparing the quantities to RCRA monthly generation limits. In the alternative analysis presented in this appendix, EPA determined baseline generator status based on the "Calculated Generator Status" listed in EPA's RCRAinfo system and the "Federal Generator Status" listed in the 2015 BR Flat Files. If a facility was listed as an LQG in either of these systems, EPA treated the facility as an LQG in the baseline. The "Calculated Generator Status" field in the RCRAinfo system does not distinguish between SQGs and VSQGs. As a result, if a facility was listed as an SQG in the "Federal Generator Status" field from the BR Flat Files, EPA treated the facility as an SQG in the baseline. EPA assumed that all facilities not identified as LQGs or SQGs were VSQGs. 
This methodology identified a greater number of LQGs (7,239 versus 6,520).  Because the total number of SQGs is estimated based on the number of LQGs and the ratio of LQGs to SQGs in three states with detailed generator data, this methodology also results in a higher estimate of affected SQGs (14,454 versus 13,019). After identifying generator status for each facility using the alternative methodology, EPA estimated the associated costs and cost savings of the Aerosol Can Universal Waste proposed rule using the same methodology and unit costs from the primary analysis.
Table C.1 presents baseline costs for the alternative generator status universe. Tables C.2 and C.3 display the post-rule changes in generator status and the post-rule cost estimates for the alternative generator status universe. Tables C.4 through C.6 present the net cost impacts of the proposed rule for the alternative generator status universe. Overall, the alternative methodology for estimating baseline generator status produces much larger estimates of cost savings than the primary analysis. EPA estimates annual cost savings ranging from $56.7 to $63.3 million for the alternative generator status universe, compared to $3.0 to $3.5 million in the primary analysis. 
The majority of these additional cost savings are associated with changes to facility generator status. Using the alternative baseline generator status, EPA estimates that many more facilities change generator status in the post-rule scenario as compared to the primary analysis. This is because the alternative method for calculating generator status only applies to the baseline scenario. In the post-rule scenario, EPA cannot identify generator status based on the generator status fields in RCRAinfo or the BR Flat Files. As a result, EPA estimated post-rule generator status by comparing HW generation quantities to RCRA monthly generation limits, as in the primary analysis. However, many facilities in the alternative baseline generator status universe have lower HW generation than the threshold associated with their assigned generator status even before aerosol cans are excluded from the HW designation. As a result, the analysis presented in this appendix may overestimate the number of facilities that change generator status under the proposed rule and consequently may overestimate cost savings.
Table C.1:	Baseline Cost Results ($Millions) (Alternative Generator Status)
                                 Cost Category
                                     LQGs
                                     SQGs
                                     Total

                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
One-Time Costs
                                                                           $4.7
                                                                           $4.2
                                                                           $1.5
                                                                           $0.2
                                                                           $6.2
                                                                           $4.3
Fixed Annual Costs
                                                                          $55.9
                                                                          $55.9
                                                                          $62.5
                                                                          $62.5
                                                                         $118.4
                                                                         $118.4
Variable Costs
                                                                         $154.0
                                                                         $154.0
                                                                          $31.6
                                                                          $31.6
                                                                         $185.0
                                                                         $185.0
Total Costs
                                                                         $214.0
                                                                         $214.0
                                                                          $95.6
                                                                          $94.3
                                                                         $310.0
                                                                         $308.0
Table C.2:	Post-Rule Universe Distribution (Alternative Generator Status)
                           Baseline Generator Status
                    Post Rule Generator and Handler Status

                                      LQG
                                      SQG
                                     VSQG

                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
                                     LQHUW
                                     SQHUW
LQG
                                                                          7,239
                                                                            122
                                                                          6,348
                                                                             38
                                                                            561
                                                                             11
                                                                            159
SQG
                                                                         14,454
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                          3,007
                                                                             23
                                                                         11,424
Total
                                                                         21,693
                                     6,470
                                     3,606
                                    11,617
Table C.3:	Post-Rule Cost Results ($Millions) (Alternative Generator Status)
                                 Cost Category
                                     LQGs
                                      SQG
                                     VSQGs
                                     Total

                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
One-Time Costs
                                                                           $4.2
                                                                           $3.7
                                                                           $1.4
                                                                           $0.2
                                                                           $0.0
                                                                           $0.0
                                                                           $5.6
                                                                           $3.9
Fixed Annual Costs
                                                                          $49.9
                                                                          $49.9
                                                                          $15.6
                                                                          $15.6
                                                                           $8.5
                                                                           $6.0
                                                                          $74.0
                                                                          $71.5
Variable Costs
                                                                         $146.2
                                                                         $146.2
                                                                           $3.3
                                                                           $3.3
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $20.0
                                                                         $174.0
                                                                         $169.0
Total Costs
                                                                         $200.3
                                                                         $199.8
                                                                          $20.2
                                                                          $19.0
                                                                          $32.8
                                                                          $26.0
                                                                         $253.0
                                                                         $245.0
TABLE C.4:	Cost Savings (Alternative Generator Status)
                                 Cost Category
                          Cost Savings ($ thousands)

                   Percentage Savings 
Relative to Baseline
One-Time Cost Savings
                                                                    $432 - $635
                                                                  10.0% - 10.2%

                                       
                                                                               
Fixed Annual Cost Savings
                                                              $44,400 - $46,800
                                                                  37.5% - 39.6%

                                                                               
                                                                               
Variable Cost Savings
                                                              $11,700 - $16,000
                                                                    6.3% - 8.7%

                                                                               
                                                                               
Total Yearly Cost Savings
                                                              $56,700 - $63,300
                                                                               
Table C.5:	Annual Cost Savings associated with changes to generator status (Alternative Generator Status)
                                Baseline Status
                               Post-Rule Status
                    Cost Savings per Facility ($ thousands)
                                      LQG
                                       
SQG
                                                                          $3.40
                                       
VSQG (LQHUW)
                                                                           $6.3
                                       
VSQG (SQHUW)
                                                                    $7.0 - $7.2
                                      SQG
VSQG (LQHUW)
                                                                          $2.90

VSQG (SQHUW)
                                                                    $3.6 - $3.8
Table C.6:	Net Present Value of Cost Savings (Alternative Generator Status)
                                   Timeframe
                          Discount Rate ($ thousands)

                                   3 Percent
                                   7 Percent
13 Years
                              $603,000 - $673,000
                              $474,000 - $529,000
30 Years
                            $1,110,000 - $1,240,000
                              $704,000 - $785,000


Appendix D: Compliance Sensitivity Analysis
This appendix estimates the costs associated with a potential increase in compliance with RCRA hazardous waste regulations as a result of the proposed rule. One purpose of the universal waste program is to encourage compliance among regulated facilities. A universal waste designation incentivizes compliance with RCRA regulations by decreasing the costs and complexity associated with handling hazardous waste. An increase in compliance helps to ensure that hazardous waste is handled safely and shipped to properly equipped management facilities.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that non-compliance with hazardous waste regulations is currently a problem among generators of aerosol cans.  The extent to which non-compliance is an issue is unknown, as no data exist on the number of facilities that are not currently following RCRA protocols.  However, EPA expects that the designation of aerosol cans as universal waste will encourage a number of facilities that were previously not in compliance to begin complying with RCRA regulations. 
For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that all facilities that come into compliance with RCRA in the post-rule scenario will be SQGs or VSQGs. Related to this assumption, EPA also assumes that LQGs are unlikely to be among those facilities with improved RCRA compliance in the post-rule scenario because the universal waste designation generally does not provide significant cost savings for facilities that remain LQGs. Absent data on the extent of non-compliance among generators of aerosol cans, EPA estimates a range of facilities that will come into compliance with RCRA regulations as a result of the propose rule.  At the low-end, EPA assumes that the number of post-rule SQGs and VSQGs that handle aerosol cans will increase by 10 percent relative to the primary analysis (1,259 additional SQGs and 48 additional VSQGs), and at the high-end EPA assumes that the number of post-rule SQGs and VSQGs that handle aerosol cans will increase by 20 percent relative to the primary analysis (2,517 additional SQGs and 97 new VSQGs). 
Facilities that attain compliance in the post-rule scenario will face new costs associated with RCRA compliance. Upon attaining compliance, these facilities will incur one-time costs associated with rule familiarization and notification of hazardous waste activity. Additionally, these facilities will incur new fixed annual compliance costs, such as inspection costs for new SQGs, and new variable costs, such as shipment recordkeeping for new LQHUWs. Table 7 in the cost section of the primary analysis summarizes all of the annual and variable costs incurred by SQGs and Table 10 summarizes the annual and variable costs associated with VSQGs that are UW handlers.
EPA estimated the one-time costs incurred by facilities attaining compliance by multiplying the estimated number of new SQGs and VSQGs (10 percent to 20 percent of the post-rule universe) by the relevant one-time unit costs. Additionally, EPA estimated the annual costs incurred by these new facilities (inclusive of fixed annual costs and variable costs) by multiplying the post-rule costs for SQGs and VSQGs by 10 percent in the low-end and 20 percent in the high-end. In the 10 percent compliance increase scenario, newly compliant facilities experience one-time costs of $0.3 million to $2.3 million, and annual costs increase by $8.0 to $8.2 million. In the 20 percent compliance increase scenario, one-time costs and additional annual costs are twice as large. Tables D.1 and D.2 summarize the compliance costs associated with the 10 percent and 20 percent compliance increase scenarios, respectively.
Table D.1:	Costs in the 10% Compliance Increase Scenario($ thousands)
                                 Cost Category
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
Annual Costs Incurred by Newly Compliant Facilities
One-Time Costs for New Facilities
                                                                           $134
                                                                          $16.7

Fixed Annual Costs
                                                                         $5,480
                                                                         $5,470

Variable Costs
                                                                         $2,590
                                                                         $2,540

Total Yearly Costs
                                                                         $8,210
                                                                         $8,030
One-time Costs Incurred by Newly Compliance Facilities
Total One-Time Costs for Facilities Attaining Compliance Post-Rule
                                                                         $2,280
                                                                           $284
Table D.2:	Costs in the 20% Compliance Increase Scenario ($ thousands)
                                 Cost Category
                                 High Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
Annual Costs Incurred by Newly Compliant Facilities
One-Time Costs for New Facilities
                                                                           $269
                                                                          $33.5

Fixed Annual Costs
                                                                        $11,000
                                                                        $10,900

Variable Costs
                                                                         $5,180
                                                                         $5,090

Total Yearly Costs
                                                                        $16,400
                                                                        $16,100
One-time Costs Incurred by Newly Compliance Facilities
Total One-Time Costs for Facilities Attaining Compliance Post-Rule
                                                                         $4,550
                                                                           $567


