ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
OF
INCLUDING
MERCURY
CONTAINING
DEVICES
IN
THE
UNIVERSAL
WASTE
SYSTEM,
NOTICE
OF
PROPOSED
RULEMAKING
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Solid
Waste
February
15,
2002
1.
Introduction
..............................................................
1
2.
General
Overview
of
Devices
and
Regulated
Entities
.................................
1
2.1
Mercury­
Containing
Devices
............................................
2
2.2
Regulated
Entities
Under
Current
RCRA
Regulations
..........................
2
2.3
Regulated
Entities
Under
Universal
Waste
Regulations
.........................
5
3.
Preliminary
Research
and
Analysis
.............................................
6
3.1
Number
of
Potentially
Affected
Generators
of
MCDs
...........................
6
3.1.1
MCD­
Only
Generators
..........................................
6
3.1.2
MCD­
Plus
Generators
..........................................
7
3.2
Number
of
Potentially
Affected
Handlers
of
MCDs
............................
10
3.3
Number
of
Potentially
Affected
Treaters
of
MCDs
............................
10
3.3
Number
of
Potentially
Affected
Transporters
of
Discarded
MCDs
(Baseline
and
Universal
Waste
Requirements)
........................................
11
3.4
Disposal
Price
Research
.............................................
12
3.5
Transportation
Costs
for
Regulated
Generators
and
Handlers
....................
13
3.6
Administrative
Compliance
Costs
for
Regulated
Generators
and
Handlers
...........
14
4.
MCD
Management
Practices
................................................
16
4.1
Baseline
Practices
.................................................
16
4.2
Post
Rule
Practices
.................................................
18
5.
Cost
Results
............................................................
19
5.1
Methodology
......................................................
20
5.2
Cost
Results
......................................................
21
6.
Economic
Impact
Results
..................................................
22
7.
Qualitative
Benefits
.......................................................
27
8.
Discussion
of
Findings
.....................................................
29
9.
Assumptions,
Limitations,
and
Sensitivity
Analyses
................................
29
Appendix
A:
MCD­
Only
Generators
..................................................
32
Appendix
B:
Phone
Logs
.........................................................
35
Appendix
C:
Subtitle
D
Baseline
Analysis
.............................................
51
Appendix
D:
References
.........................................................
53
1
Specifically,
most
MCDs
have
a
mercury
concentration
of
0.2
mg/
L
(ppm)
or
greater
when
tested
using
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Profile
(TCLP).
1.
Introduction
Mercury­
containing
devices
(MCDs)
might
be
found
in
almost
any
household,
business,
industry,
and
institution
in
the
United
States.
Mercury
is
commonly
used
in
thermometers,
electrical
components
(such
as
switches
and
relays),
gauges,
meters,
and
other
devices.
The
amount
of
mercury
in
a
single
device
generally
ranges
from
less
than
one
gram
to
more
than
400
grams,
although
some
devices
may
contain
more
than
200
pounds
of
mercury.

The
mercury
contained
in
most
MCDs
is
sufficient
to
classify
them,
once
discarded,
as
D009
characteristic
mercury
wastes
under
RCRA.
1
As
a
result,
commercial,
industrial,
and
institutional
entities
that
discard
(i.
e.,
generate)
post­
consumer
MCDs
must
comply
with
RCRA
generator
requirements,
which
include
storage
limits,
manifesting,
recordkeeping,
safety
training,
and
biennial
reporting
by
large
generators.
Under
current
RCRA
regulations
at
40
CFR
268.40,
discarded
MCDs
must
be
sent
to
a
recycler
for
roasting
or
retorting
or
to
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
(only
if
the
mercury
content
in
the
device
is
less
than
260
parts
per
million
and
the
mercury
has
been
treated
to
below
certain
standards).
Households
and
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
(those
that
produce
less
than
100
kilograms
of
hazardous
waste
per
month)
are
not
subject
to
these
requirements.

Due
in
part
to
the
ubiquitous
nature
of
MCDs,
the
sporadic
frequency
with
which
they
are
discarded,
and
the
fact
that
many
consumers
of
these
devices
are
not
aware
of
the
hazards
associated
with
them,
many
post­
consumer
MCDs
are
often
disposed
of
(both
accidentally
and
non­
accidentally)
in
municipal
solid
waste
(MSW)
landfills
or
incinerators,
rather
than
being
recycled.
The
additional
administrative,
storage,
transportation,
treatment,
and
disposal
costs
associated
with
recycling
RCRA
hazardous
waste
also
serve
to
discourage
recycling
of
postconsumer
MCDs.

In
order
to
encourage
more
recycling
of
post­
consumer
MCDs,
EPA
is
considering
adding
these
devices
to
the
list
of
Universal
Wastes
under
40
CFR
Part
273.
The
inclusion
of
these
devices
under
the
Universal
Waste
regulations
is
expected
to
decrease
the
costs
of
complying
with
RCRA
requirements
(e.
g.,
by
exempting
MCDs
from
manifesting
and
interim
storage
permit
requirements)
and,
as
a
result,
will
make
recycling
a
relatively
more
economical
disposal
option.

The
purpose
of
this
analysis
is
to
analyze
the
incremental
costs
and
costs
savings
associated
with
including
post­
consumer
MCDs
(excluding
thermostats)
in
the
Universal
Waste
system.
The
remainder
of
this
analysis
is
organized
in
nine
sections
and
three
appendices.

2.
General
Overview
of
Devices
and
Regulated
Entities
This
section
provides
information
on
the
types
of
MCDs
that
are
of
concern
to
EPA,
and
generally
describes
the
entities
involved
in
generating,
handling,
transporting,
and
recycling
them.
2
2
EPA
has
previously
classified
discarded
mercury­
containing
thermostats
and
lamps
as
universal
wastes
(60
FR
25491,
64
FR
36465).
In
addition,
Title
II
of
the
Mercury­
Containing
and
Rechargeable
Battery
Management
Act
(1996)
mandated
a
phase
out
of
mercury­
containing
batteries
in
the
U.
S.

3
Households
that
generate
post­
consumer
MCDs
are
excluded
from
RCRA
regulations
and
are
not
modeled
in
the
analysis.
2.1
Mercury­
Containing
Devices
For
purposes
of
this
report,
MCDs
are
defined
as
any
device
that
contains
metallic
mercury
as
a
component
necessary
for
its
operation,
with
the
exception
of
thermostats,
lamps,
and
batteries.
2
MCDs
can
be
divided
into
four
general
categories:

C
Thermometers;
C
Switches
and
relays;
C
Gauges
and
meters;
and
C
"Other
devices."

For
each
of
these
categories,
Exhibit
2­
1
lists
a
number
of
specific
MCDs
along
with
quantities
of
mercury
commonly
found
in
them.

2.2
Regulated
Entities
Under
Current
RCRA
Regulations
Under
current
RCRA
regulations,
entities
involved
in
the
MCD
lifecycle
are
regulated
if
they
fall
into
one
of
the
following
categories:
generators;
transporters;
or
treatment
(including
recycling),
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(TSDFs).

Generators
Because
MCDs
contain
mercury
and
are
hazardous
wastes
when
discarded,
any
entity
that
uses
these
devices
may
be
a
regulated
generator.
3
Moreover,
the
ubiquitous
nature
of
MCDs
suggests
that
the
number
of
regulated
generators
may
be
large.
Generators
can
be
grouped
into
three
categories:
3
***
DRFAT
­
September
5,
2001
***
Exhibit
2­
1
Overview
of
Mercury­
Containing
Devices
Potentially
Generated
by
Commercial,
Industrial,
and
Institutional
Entities
Device
Category
Example
Devices
Reported
Mercury
Content
(grams
per
device)

Thermometers
Clinical
thermometers
(oral/
rectal/
baby
and
basal
temperature),
laboratory
thermometers,
industrial
thermometers,
air/
water
temperature
thermometers,
veterinary
thermometers,
Mason's
Hygrometers,
sling
psychrometers
2
("
typical")
0.5
­
0.61
(fever)
2.25
(basal
temperature)
3
­
10
(laboratory)
5
(veterinary)
5.56
­
19.78
(industrial)

Switches
and
Relays
Tilt
switches,
float
switches,
silent
light
switches,
mercury
reed
switches,
metal
switches,
telephone
switches,
glass
switches,
alarm
switches,
limit
switches,
mercury­
wetted
relays,
displacement/
plunger
relays,
reed
relays,
flame
sensors,
pilot
light
sensors,
gas
safety
valves,
rectifiers,
ignitron
tubes,
G­
sensors,
oscillators,
phanatrons,
proximity
sensors,
capacitors
3.5
("
typical")
2.6
(silent
light
switch)
3.5
­
3,600
(industrial
switch)
1
(float
switch)
0.5
­
1
(automotive
light
switch)
2
(chest
freezer
light
switch)
2
(washing
machine
light
switch)
3
(anti­
lock
brake
switch)
1
­
2
(ride
control
system
switch)
0.14
­
3
(mercury
reed
relay)
160
(displacement
relay)
2.5
(flame
sensor)

Gauges
and
Meters
Manometers,
barometers,
sphygmomanometers,
vacuum
meters,
flow
meters,
temperature
gauges,
pressure
relief
gauges,
water
treatment
pressure
gauges,
regulators,
airway
controllers,
permeters,
hagenmeters,
ring
balances
330
(sphygmomanometer)
395
(barometer)
85
­
355
(typical
manometer)
91,000
(large
manometer)

Other
Devices
Tubes/
dilators
(gastrointestinal
tubes,
esophageal
tubes,
cantor
tubes,
Miller
Abbot
tubes,
feeding
tubes),
recoil
suppressors,
variable­
force
counterweight
wheels,
printed
circuit
boards
170
(recoil
suppressor)
1,000
(dilator)

Sources:
Lake
Michigan
Forum
(1999),
Michigan
Mercury
Pollution
Prevention
Task
Force
(1996),
The
Pollution
Prevention
Partnership
and
the
Milwaukee
Metropolitan
Sewerage
District
(1997),
SAIC
and
RTI
(1999),
U.
S.
EPA
(1992),
U.
S.
EPA
(1997a),
USWAG
(1996),
and
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(1997).
4
4
In
order
to
not
be
classified
as
a
high
mercury
waste,
a
device
would
need
to
have
less
than
one
gram
of
mercury
for
every
8.5
pounds
of
total
device
weight.
This
is
not
likely
for
most
MCDs
given
that
MCDs
with
small
amounts
of
mercury
(e.
g.,
thermometers,
temperature
probes,
switches)
also
tend
to
be
relatively
lighter
in
weight.
Any
post­
consumer
MCDs
with
a
total
mercury
concentration
less
than
260
mg/
kg
(or
ppm)
would
be
classified
as
"low
mercury
wastes."
These
wastes
are
not
required
to
be
recycled,
but
must
be
treated
(stabilized)
in
order
to
meet
a
standard
of
0.025
mg/
L
TCLP
mercury
prior
to
be
land
disposed.

5
In
contrast
to
post­
consumer
MCDs,
high
mercury
wastes
that
contain
organics
may
be
either
incinerated
("
IMERC")
or
recycled.
C
Entities
that
produce
less
than
100
kilograms
(kg)
per
month
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
and/
or
other
hazardous
wastes
are
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
(CESQGs).
CESQGs
are
subject
to
limited
waste
management
requirements
(40
CFR
261.5),
and
are
not
modeled
in
this
analysis.

C
Entities
that
produce
between
100
and
1,000
kg
per
month
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
and/
or
other
hazardous
wastes
are
small
quantity
generators
(SQGs)
and
must
comply
with
manifesting,
recordkeeping,
and
safety
training
requirements
(40
CFR
Part
262
generally).
SQGs
may
store
hazardous
wastes
on
site
for
up
to
180
days
without
a
permit.

C
Entities
that
generate
more
than
1,000
kg
per
month
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
and/
or
other
hazardous
wastes
are
large
quantity
generators
(LQGs).
LQGs
must
comply
with
the
same
requirements
as
SQGs,
except
that
they
may
store
hazardous
wastes
on
site
for
no
more
than
90
days,
rather
than
180,
without
a
permit.
LQGs
must
also
comply
with
biennial
reporting
requirements.

Transporters
Under
current
RCRA
regulatory
requirements,
transporters
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
are
required
to
be
certified
as
hazardous
waste
handlers
(40
CFR
Part
263),
and
must
follow
DOT's
hazardous
materials
regulations
in
49
CFR
171
through
180.
Transporters
must
obtain
an
EPA
identification
number,
comply
with
the
manifest
system,
and
properly
handle
discharges
of
hazardous
waste.
In
addition,
transporters
may
store
post­
consumer
MCDs
at
transfer
facilities
(e.
g.,
loading
docks,
parking
areas)
for
up
to
10
days.

Treatment,
Storage,
and
Disposal
Facilities
(including
Recyclers)

Based
on
the
quantities
of
mercury
in
MCDs
along
with
the
overall
weight
of
these
devices
(which
can
vary
from
less
than
one
pound
to
over
1,500
pounds),
discarded
MCDs
are
likely
to
fall
into
the
category
of
inorganic
"high
mercury
wastes,"
which
are
defined
as
inorganic
wastes
with
a
total
mercury
concentration
of
greater
than
or
equal
to
260
mg/
kg
(or
ppm).
4
As
a
result,
post­
consumer
MCDs
are
required,
under
40
CFR
268.40,
to
be
recycled
through
roasting
or
retorting,
which
entails
placing
the
waste
in
a
thermal
processing
unit
that
allows
for
volatilization
of
the
mercury
and
subsequent
condensing
of
the
mercury
for
recovery.
This
process
is
referred
to
as
"RMERC"
in
40
CFR
268.40.
5
5
6
Households
that
are
handlers
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
would
be
excluded
from
the
Universal
Waste
regulations.

7
An
example
of
such
a
handler
would
be
the
Honeywell
Corporation,
which
established
a
"reverse
distribution
network"
in
1994
whereby
it
collects
discarded
mercury­
containing
thermostats
from
other
users
and
recycles
them.
(U.
S.
EPA,
1997c)
Entities
that
recycle
MCDs
are
subject
to
full
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations,
and
must
obtain
a
permit
and
meet
administrative
and
technical
standards
(40
CFR
Parts
264,
265,
and
270).

2.3
Regulated
Entities
Under
Universal
Waste
Regulations
Under
the
Universal
Waste
regulations
(40
CFR
Part
273),
entities
involved
in
the
MCD
lifecycle
would
be
regulated
if
they
fall
into
one
of
the
following
categories:
handlers,
transporters,
or
destination
facilities.

Handlers
MCD
handlers
would
include
all
entities
that
discard
post­
consumer
MCDs
and
that
are
not
explicitly
excluded
from
the
Universal
Waste
requirements.
6
These
include
LQGs,
SQGs,
and
CESQGs.
Regulated
handlers
would
also
include
entities
that
receive
discarded
MCDs
from
other
handlers,
accumulate
the
devices
over
a
period
of
time,
and
then
send
the
devices
on
to
other
handlers,
recyclers,
or
TSDFs.
7
These
handlers
are
generally
referred
to
as
"consolidation
facilities."

Handlers
can
be
grouped
into
two
categories
based
on
the
amount
of
waste
they
accumulate:

C
Entities
that
accumulate
less
than
5,000
kg
of
universal
waste
at
any
time
are
small
quantity
handlers
of
universal
waste
(SQHUWs),
and
are
subject
to
requirements
for
accumulation
time
(up
to
one
year),
proper
management
of
waste,
response
to
releases,
and
employee
training.

C
Entities
that
accumulate
5,000
kg
or
more
of
universal
waste
at
any
time
are
large
quantity
handlers
of
universal
waste
(LQHUWs).
LQHUWs
are
subject
to
the
same
requirements
as
SQHUWs,
but
also
must
maintain
basic
shipment
records,
obtain
an
EPA
identification
number,
and
comply
with
stricter
employee
training
requirements.
Also,
designation
as
a
LQHUW
is
retained
through
the
end
of
the
calendar
year
in
which
LQHUW
status
is
attained
(i.
e.,
5,000
kg
or
more
of
universal
waste
is
accumulated).

Transporters
Under
the
Universal
Waste
regulations,
transporters
of
discarded
MCDs
would
be
defined
as
any
entity
that
transports
these
devices
from
handlers
to
other
handlers,
TSDFs/
recyclers,
or
foreign
destinations
(40
CFR
273.10).
Transporters
of
discarded
MCDs
6
8
For
example,
under
49
CFR
173.64(
c)(
1),
exceptions
are
provided
for
thermometers,
switches,
and
relays
that
(1)
each
contain
no
more
than
15
grams
of
mercury,
(2)
are
installed
as
an
"integral
part"
of
a
machine
or
apparatus,
and
(3)
are
fitted
such
that
shocks
from
impacts
are
unlikely
to
cause
leakages
of
mercury.
would
not
be
required
to
be
certified
as
hazardous
waste
handlers
under
40
CFR
Part
263
and
would
not
be
required
to
prepare
shipping
manifests.
In
addition,
transporters
would
be
able
to
store
discarded
MCDs
at
transfer
facilities
(e.
g.,
loading
docks,
parking
areas)
for
up
to
10
days.

Although
not
required
to
meet
RCRA
hazardous
waste
regulations,
transporters
shipping
post­
consumer
MCDs
generally
would
be
required
to
meet
DOT's
hazardous
materials
requirements
(49
CFR
Parts
171
through
180)
unless
the
total
quantity
of
mercury
in
each
package
(i.
e.,
the
"reportable
quantity,"
or
"RQ")
is
less
than
one
pound
(49
CFR
172.101,
Appendix
A).
Additional
conditions
for
the
exemption
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
from
the
DOT
hazardous
materials
requirements
are
found
in
49
CFR
173.164.
8
Destination
Facilities
(including
Recyclers)

Under
the
Universal
Waste
regulations,
destination
facilities
for
discarded
MCDs
would
include
any
facility
that
treats,
disposes
of,
or
recycles
these
devices.
Like
the
TSDFs
described
in
Section
2.2,
these
facilities
are
subject
to
full
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations,
including
permit
requirements
and
both
general
and
unit­
specific
facility
standards.
Destination
facilities
must
also
maintain
records
of
shipments
of
discarded
MCDs
that
are
received,
but
they
are
not
required
to
complete,
transmit,
and
file
manifests
(i.
e.,
because
manifests
are
not
required
for
universal
waste
shipments).

3.
Preliminary
Research
and
Analysis
This
section
describes
the
results
of
preliminary
research
conducted
in
order
to
identify
the
number
of
entities
potentially
affected
by
the
rule
and
to
characterize
MCD
disposal
prices,
transportation
costs,
and
administrative
costs.

3.1
Number
of
Potentially
Affected
Generators
of
MCDs
For
the
purpose
of
this
analysis,
an
"MCD­
only"
generator
is
defined
as
one
that
is
regulated
as
a
hazardous
waste
generator
for
MCDs
only,
and
not
any
other
type
of
hazardous
waste.
An
"MCD­
plus"
generator
is
defined
as
a
generator
that
is
regulated
for
other
types
of
hazardous
waste
but
also
generates
MCDs.
As
described
in
Section
3.1.1,
MCD­
only
generators
are
not
expected
to
be
affected
by
this
rulemaking
because
they
are
all
estimated
to
be
CESQGs.

3.1.1
MCD­
Only
Generators
Preliminary
research
conducted
for
this
analysis
yielded
insufficient
data
to
identify,
characterize,
and
quantify
users
(generators)
of
MCDs.
Consequently,
in
order
to
assess
the
likelihood
that
MCD­
only
generators
would
be
affected
by
the
rule,
the
analysis
estimated
the
number
of
MCDs
a
generator
would
have
to
dispose
of
to
be
classified
as
a
SQG
or
LQG.
7
9
A
discussion
with
one
mercury
retorter
confirmed
that
there
are
no
MCD­
only
generators.
See
Appendix
B.

10
BRS
data
are
divided
into
generator
data
and
treater
data.
Generator
data
are
reported
by
LQGs
only.
Treater
data
include
data
on
all
shipments
received
by
a
treater,
including
shipments
by
CESQGs,
SQGs
and
LQGs.
Because
both
SQG
and
LQG
shipments
are
of
interest,
the
analysis
used
the
treater
data,
rather
than
the
generator
data.
This
process
may
inadvertantly
might
inadvertently
capture
CESQG
data.

11
The
results
of
this
analysis
are
not
particularly
sensitive
to
this
25
percent
estimate.
See
Section
9.

12
As
discussed
in
Section
9,
the
number
of
MCD­
plus
generators
may
be
understated
and
the
tons
of
MCDs
may
be
overstated.
Further,
based
on
the
estimated
lifetime
of
each
MCD,
the
analysis
estimates
the
number
of
devices
that
would
need
be
in
use
at
a
facility.
As
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Appendix
A,
MCDonly
generators
would
have
to
use
and
discard
very
large
numbers
of
MCDs
to
be
classified
as
either
SQGs
or
LQGs.
As
a
result,
this
analysis
assumes
that
all
MCD­
only
generators
are
CESQGs.
9
Because
CESQGs
are
exempt
from
the
both
Subtitle
C
baseline
requirements
and
Universal
Waste
system
requirements,
these
generators
would
not
be
affected
by
the
inclusion
of
MCDs
in
the
Universal
Waste
system
and
are
thus
excluded
from
this
analysis.

3.1.2
MCD­
Plus
Generators
To
identify
the
number
of
MCD­
Plus
generators
(those
that
generated
MCDs
but
qualify
as
SQGs
or
LQGs
on
the
basis
of
other
hazardous
wastes),
this
analysis
examined
1997
BRS
treater
data.
10
Specifically,
data
were
extracted
for
all
generators
that
send
potential
MCD
waste
to
retorters
known
to
accept
MCDs.
Waste
was
assumed
likely
to
contain
MCDs
if
(1)
the
waste
code
was
mercury
(D009)
(only),
(2)
the
form
code
was
other
waste
inorganic
solids
(B319)
or
blank,
and
(3)
the
treatment
code
was
retorting
(M012),
high
temperature
metal
recovery
(M011),
other
metal
recovery
for
reuse
(M014),
or
metal
recovery­
type
unknown
(M019).
Based
on
information
from
a
retorting
facility
(Mercury
Waste
Solutions)
that
25
percent
of
the
waste
it
handles
is
MCD
waste,
this
analysis
assumed
25
percent
of
potential
MCD
waste
actually
was
MCD
waste.
11
When
available
from
BRS
or
the
RCRAinfo
database
in
Envirofacts
(accessed
in
August
2001),
SIC
codes
were
obtained
for
each
generating
facility.
Exhibit
3­
1
summarizes
of
the
number
of
generating
facilities
and
average
MCD
quantities
by
two
digit
SIC
code.
Based
on
this
analysis,
1,877
facilities
generated
over
550
tons
of
MCDs
in
1997.
The
average
annual
quantity
of
MCDs
generated
at
a
single
facility
is
approximately
590
pounds
(0.295
tons).
12
8
Exhibit
3­
1.
MCD­
Plus
Generators,
Based
on
BRS
Data
2
Digit
SIC
Number
of
Generators
Average
MCDs
(tons)
Total
MCDs
(tons)

10
1
2.000
2.00
13
4
0.013
0.05
14
1
0.023
0.02
15
1
0.049
0.05
16
1
0.009
0.01
17
1
0.023
0.02
20
62
0.056
3.49
22
17
0.181
3.08
24
7
0.167
1.17
25
16
0.044
0.70
26
43
0.082
3.52
27
34
0.037
1.27
28
148
0.283
41.86
29
9
0.314
2.83
30
45
0.116
5.22
31
2
0.035
0.07
32
31
0.042
1.31
33
57
0.143
8.16
34
66
0.038
2.50
35
66
0.096
6.33
36
92
0.313
28.77
37
44
0.301
13.24
38
23
0.124
2.86
39
11
0.063
0.69
40
3
0.085
0.26
41
1
0.090
0.09
42
10
2.304
23.04
43
3
0.039
0.12
44
1
0.025
0.02
45
2
0.150
0.30
46
3
0.005
0.01
47
2
0.456
0.91
48
22
0.051
1.13
49
81
1.111
89.97
50
20
0.565
11.31
51
15
0.067
1.00
52
2
0.035
0.07
53
1
0.830
0.83
9
2
Digit
SIC
Number
of
Generators
Average
MCDs
(tons)
Total
MCDs
(tons)

55
3
0.009
0.03
63
1
1.756
1.76
65
1
0.019
0.02
72
1
0.006
0.01
73
38
0.171
6.48
75
2
0.081
0.16
76
7
0.036
0.25
77
1
0.009
0.01
80
10
0.124
1.24
82
11
0.581
6.39
83
1
0.027
0.03
87
14
0.069
0.97
89
4
5.933
23.73
91
1
0.075
0.08
95
5
1.540
7.70
96
3
0.080
0.24
97
22
0.335
7.37
99
7
0.260
1.82
unknown
797
0.298
237.74
Total
1877
0.295
554.29
10
13
A
representative
of
Bethlehem
Apparatus
(a
retorter)
estimated
that
MCDs
make
up
no
more
than
one
to
five
percent
of
a
generators
total
waste.

14
The
actual
LQG
threshold
quantity
is
1000
kg/
month
(1.1
tons/
month).
Using
10
tons
per
year
as
the
threshold
assumes
an
LQG
exceeds
the
threshold
approximately
nine
months
out
of
the
year.

15
CESQGs
under
RCRA
also
qualify
as
SQHUWs
under
the
Universal
Waste
regulations.
However,
as
specified
in
40
CFR
273.5,
CESQGs
may
choose
to
manage
their
universal
wastes
according
to
either
the
full
RCRA
requirements
or
the
Universal
Waste
requirements.
Given
that
CESQGs
are
subject
to
minimal
waste
management
requirements
under
RCRA,
this
analysis
assumes
that
all
CESQGs
continue
to
manage
post­
consumer
MCDs
under
these
requirements.
To
determine
whether
each
facility
in
the
analysis
is
an
LQG
or
SQG,
this
analysis
assumes
that
MCDs
make
up
between
one
and
five
percent
of
the
generator's
total
waste.
13
Estimates
of
MCD
quantities
were
divided
by
five
percent
to
estimate
total
waste
quantity
for
each
facility.
The
analysis
compared
this
estimate
with
10
tons
per
year.
14
If
a
facility
generated
more
than
10
tons
of
total
waste
per
year,
this
analysis
assumed
it
was
an
LQG.
Otherwise,
the
facility
was
assumed
to
be
an
SQG.
Using
this
methodology
this
analysis
estimates
that
131
of
the
1877
generators
were
LQGs.

3.2
Number
of
Potentially
Affected
Handlers
of
MCDs
As
discussed
in
Section
2.3
above,
the
Universal
Waste
regulations
define
two
types
of
"handlers"
of
Universal
Waste,
SQHUWs
and
LQHUWs,
which
can
be
either
generators
or
consolidation
facilities.
All
generators
in
the
baseline
are
considered
handlers
under
Universal
waste
requirements.
Consolidation
facilities
would
include
facilities
that
collect
MCD
waste
and
ship
it
to
a
retorter,
and
could
operate
within
a
company,
serve
as
collection
points
for
community
collection
efforts,
or
act
as
a
waste
broker.
Due
to
uncertainty
concerning
the
number
of
potential
consolidation
facilities
that
may
be
established,
this
analysis
does
not
assume
any
new
consolidation
facilities
will
be
established.
However,
any
firm
serving
as
a
broker
in
the
baseline
would
be
considered
a
handler
under
the
Universal
Waste
regulations.

These
regulations
allow
a
handler
to
accumulate
waste
for
up
to
one
year.
The
threshold
accumulation
amount
that
determines
whether
an
entity
is
an
SQHUW
or
an
LQHUW
is
5,000
kg
at
any
one
time.
Assuming
least­
cost
behavior,
each
SQHUW
and
LQHUW
that
generates
post­
consumer
MCDs
is
assumed
to
make
only
one
shipment
to
a
TSDF
(i.
e.,
recycler)
per
year.
Based
on
this
assumption,
only
13
of
the
1,877
handlers
will
be
LQHUWs.
The
remainder
will
be
SQHUWs.
15
3.3
Number
of
Potentially
Affected
Treaters
of
MCDs
To
identify
the
number
of
treaters
of
MCD­
plus
waste,
this
analysis
used
1997
BRS
treater
data.
Data
for
all
D009
(the
hazardous
waste
code
for
mercury)
waste
using
the
retorting
treatment
code
(M012)
were
extracted,
and
the
names
of
the
treaters
were
compiled.
This
generated
a
list
of
18
facilities.
Through
a
review
of
Internet
sites
for
these
18
facilities,
and
limited
contact
with
a
few
facilities,
this
analysis
determined
six
firms
with
a
total
of
ten
facilities
accepted
MCDs
in
1997
and
still
exist
today.
This
research
also
indicated
that
there
has
been
consolidation
within
the
retorting
industry
(mergers,
buyouts,
etc)
since
1997.
It
appears
that
at
11
16
This
figure
is
derived
from
1997
estimates
for
SIC
codes
4210
(Trucking
and
courier
services,
except
air)
and
4730
(Freight
transportation
arrangement).
least
two
of
these
facilities
(the
National
Environmental
Services
facilities)
act
as
brokers
rather
than
retorters.
These
two
broker
facilities
would
be
considered
TSDFs
in
the
Subtitle
C
baseline
and
handlers
in
the
Universal
Waste
system.
The
other
retorters
would
be
considered
TSDFs
in
the
baseline
and
destination
facilities
in
the
Universal
Waste
system.
Exhibit
3­
2
presents
a
list
of
these
facilities
from
BRS.

Exhibit
3­
2.
MCD
Retorters
and
Brokers
Manager
ID
1997
Manager
Name
Current
Manager
Name
(if
Different)

AZR000005454
Earth
Protection
Svc.

FL0000207449
Recyclights,
Inc.
National
Environmental
Services
FLD984262782
AERC/
Mercury
Technologies
International
MN0000903468
Recyclights,
Inc.
National
Environmental
Services
NYD048148175
Mercury
Refining
Company,
Inc.
Mercury
Waste
Solutions
Inc
PA0000453084
Bethlehem
Apparatus
Co,
Inc.

PAD002390961
Bethlehem
Apparatus
Co,
Inc.

PAD987367216
AERC
WID071164032
Superior
Special
Services,
Inc.

WIR000000356
Mercury
Waste
Solutions,
Inc.

3.3
Number
of
Potentially
Affected
Transporters
of
Discarded
MCDs
(Baseline
and
Universal
Waste
Requirements)

Data
on
the
number
of
transporters
shipping
mercury
wastes
are
not
readily
available.
However,
EPA
has
previously
estimated
that
there
are
approximately
500
hazardous
waste
transporter
companies
in
total
(U.
S.
EPA,
1999).
For
lack
of
better
data,
this
analysis
assumes
that
20
percent
of
these
companies
(i.
e.,
100
companies)
currently
ship
post­
consumer
MCDs.

Under
the
Universal
Waste
regulations,
transporters
do
not
need
to
be
certified
hazardous
waste
transporters.
Thus,
any
type
of
trucking
company
could
potentially
be
a
transporter
of
post­
consumer
MCDs.
Based
on
data
from
the
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
the
number
of
transporters
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements
could
be
as
high
as
140,000.
16
This
analysis
assumes
that
0.5
percent
of
these
companies
(i.
e.,
700
companies)
will
ship
post­
consumer
MCDs
under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements.
Of
these
700
transporters,
600
are
assumed
to
be
new
entrants
in
the
market
for
shipping
post­
consumer
MCDs.
12
17
Because
these
devices
are
ultimately
destined
for
retorting,
the
term
disposal
may
seem
inappropriate.
However,
while
the
mercury
is
recovered
at
the
retorter,
the
rest
of
the
device
is
discarded.

18
See
also
Appendix
B.

19
A
mercury
retorter
representative
stated
that
the
firm
does
not
publish
price
lists
in
order
to
protect
the
information
from
competitors.
3.4
Disposal
Price
Research
MCD
generators
are
known
to
dispose
of
their
MCDs
by
sending
them
to
retorters,
to
non­
retorting
TSDFs
(along
with
their
other
hazardous
waste),
and
to
waste
brokers.
17
This
study
contacted
a
small
sample
of
such
facilities
in
order
to
obtain
information
on
prices
charged
for
MCD
disposal.
The
results
of
this
research,
summarized
in
Exhibit
3­
5,
18
show
relatively
large
variability
in
prices
across
retorters,
non­
retorting
TSDFs,
and
waste
brokers.
Several
possible
factors
might
account
for
this
variability:

C
Pricing
schemes
may
anticipate
certain
shipment
sizes
and
therefore
may
not
be
directly
comparable.
For
example,
some
firms
may
set
prices
on
a
per
drum
basis,
while
other
firms
might
cater
to
smaller
generators
by
charging
on
a
per
pound
basis.
Similarly,
some
brokers
and
non­
retorting
TSDFs
may
be
able
to
receive
volume
discounts
from
retorters
that
are
not
obtainable
by
original
MCD
users.

C
The
prices
may
reflect
a
non­
homogenous
national
marketplace
that
is
heavily
influenced
by
location
and,
therefore,
by
transportation
costs.
(There
were
only
an
estimated
eight
retorters
operating
in
the
U.
S.
in
1997.)

C
The
market
may
reflect
imperfect
information.
That
is,
the
price
of
alternative
disposal
destinations
may
not
be
widely
known,
either
by
generators
or
by
waste
brokers,
retorters,
and
non­
retorting
TSDFs.
19
This
possibility
is
also
consistent
with
the
fact
that
MCDs,
despite
their
ubiquitous
nature,
are
not
recognized
as
MCDs
by
most
people.

(These
factors
also
might
help
explain
the
counterintuitive
finding
that
prices
charged
by
retorters
are
not
consistently
lower
than
those
charged
by
brokers
or
by
non­
retorting
TSDFs,
both
of
which
would
be
expected
to
pass
along
to
their
customers,
with
a
mark­
up,
the
prices
charged
by
retorters.
Another
potential
explanation
could
be
that
non­
retorting
TSDFs,
in
order
to
maintain
a
reputation
for
providing
full­
service
hazardous
waste
management,
may
be
willing
to
charge
lower
prices
for
MCDs
given
that
relatively
few
MCDs
are
received
from
generators.)

The
two
key
findings
for
this
analysis
are
as
follows:
(1)
the
amount
of
MCDs
to
be
disposed
of
is
a
key
factor
in
evaluating
relative
disposal
prices;
and
(2)
given
the
significant
variation
in
disposal
prices,
other
factors
frequently
predominate
over
disposal
costs
in
driving
the
decision
of
where
to
ship
MCDs.
In
particular,
it
is
worth
noting
that,
because
generators
are
likely
to
be
sending
other
hazardous
wastes
to
a
non­
retorting
TSDF,
least­
cost
behavior
may
be
relatively
complex
and
non­
uniform.
Other
factors
influencing
the
decision
may
include
13
20
See
Section
2.3
for
a
discussion
of
transportation
requirements.
geographic
location
and
transportation
costs,
corporate
contracts
to
handle
other
hazardous
waste,
convenience,
and
imperfect
information.

Exhibit
3­
3.
Disposal
Prices
for
MCDs
Facility
Code
Facility
Type
Unit
Price(
s)
Unit
Price
(volume
Discount)
Volume
Needed
for
Discount
A
TSDF
(non­
retorting)
$925/
drum
NA
NA
B
TSDF
(non­
retorting)
$245
­
up
to
5
gallons
$653
­
up
to
25
gallons
$783
­
up
to
31
gallons
$1002
­
up
to
55
gallons
$1,002/
drum
1
drum
C
TSDF
(non­
retorting)
$800/
5­
gallon
pail
>$
2,000/
drum
D
Broker
$4.50
­
$5.50/
lb
$2,500/
drum
drum
price
assumes
800
pounds
E
Retorter
$1,700/
drum
$1,000/
drum
NA
F
Retorter
$1,300/
drum
or
$250
fee
+
$2
­
$2.75/
lb
$900/
drum
50­
60
drums/
yr
3.5
Transportation
Costs
for
Regulated
Generators
and
Handlers
Under
the
baseline,
transportation
costs
are
those
associated
with
certified
hazardous
waste
transporters.
Under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements,
the
analysis
assumes
that
postconsumer
MCDs
will
be
packaged
in
manner
that
precludes
them
from
being
defined
as
hazardous
substances
under
DOT
regulations
(i.
e.,
with
less
than
one
pound
of
mercury
per
package).
20
As
a
result,
transportation
costs
for
non­
hazardous
materials
were
used
for
shipments
under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements.

The
transportation
costs
used
in
the
model
consist
of
two
parts:
(1)
a
fixed
fee,
and
(2)
a
variable
fee
based
on
tons
shipped
and
miles
driven.
The
analysis
assumes
that
generators
are
200
miles
from
all
types
of
recyclers
(retorters,
brokers,
and
non­
retorting
TSDFs).
Exhibit
3­
6
presents
the
fixed
and
variable
costs
to
ship
under
Subtitle
C
requirements
and
under
Universal
Waste
requirements.
For
both
type
of
shipments,
this
analysis
assumes
the
minimum
quantity
for
which
these
equations
is
valid
is
one
ton.
Quantities
lower
than
one
ton
have
been
rounded
up
to
one
ton.
14
21
Appendix
C
presents
an
alternative
scenario
where
some
facilities
are
not
in
full
compliance
with
Subtitle
C
requirements.
Exhibit
3­
6
Transportation
Costs
for
Post­
Consumer
MCDs
Under
the
Baseline
(2001
dollars)

Type
of
Shipment
Transportation
Costs*

Fixed
Variable**
($/
ton­
mile)

Hazardous
Waste
$159
0.16
Universal
Waste
$106
0.12
*
Source:
ICF
(1998)
**
The
variable
cost
per
ton­
mile
is
valid
for
shipping
distances
between
50
and
400
miles.
The
analysis
assumes
an
average
shipping
distance
of
200
miles
in
the
baseline.

3.6
Administrative
Compliance
Costs
for
Regulated
Generators
and
Handlers
This
section
presents
the
administrative
requirements
and
costs
applicable
to
generators
under
the
baseline
and
to
handlers
under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements.
It
is
important
to
note
the
because
all
SQGs
and
LQGs
that
generate
MCDs
also
generate
other
types
of
hazardous
waste,
not
all
of
these
costs
will
be
affected
for
all
entities.

Baseline
Unit
Costs:
RCRA
Subtitle
C
The
analysis
models
the
current
management
of
discarded
post­
consumer
MCDs
assuming
100
percent
compliance
with
Subtitle
C
requirements.
21
Administrative
activities
required
under
Subtitle
C
and
the
associated
unit
costs
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
3­
7.
These
unit
costs
were
taken
from
prior
EPA
analyses
on
mercury­
containing
lamps
and
cathode
ray
tubes
(ICF,
1999a;
ICF,
1999b).
In
calculating
total
costs
for
generators
in
the
baseline,
the
analysis
assumes
that
SQGs
and
LQGs
incur
the
low
costs.

Universal
Waste
Requirements
Administrative
activities
required
under
the
Universal
Waste
regulations
and
the
associated
unit
costs
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
3­
8.
These
unit
costs
also
were
taken
from
prior
EPA
analyses
on
mercury­
containing
lamps
and
cathode
ray
tubes
(ICF,
1999a;
ICF,
1999b).
In
calculating
total
costs
for
handlers
under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements,
the
analysis
assumes
that
the
SQHUWs
and
LQHUWs
incur
the
low
costs.
15
Exhibit
3­
7
Administrative
Unit
Costs
for
Generators
Under
the
Baseline
(Full
RCRA
Subtitle
C)
(2001
dollars)

Required
Activity
Unit
Costs
LQG
SQG
High
Estimate
Low
Estimate
High
Estimate
Low
Estimate
One­
Time
Costs*

Notification
of
Hazardous
Waste
Activity
$161
$89
$161
$89
Rule
Familiarization
$1,186
$356
$1,186
$139
Emergency
Planning
$629
$230
$423
$124
Waste
Characterization
$334
$0
$334
$0
Annual
Costs
Annual
Review
of
Regulations
$67
$67
$67
$67
Subtitle
C
Recordkeeping
$35
$15
$35
$15
Biennial
Reporting
(annualized
cost)
$387
$138
$0
$0
Personnel
Safety
Training
(annualized
cost)
$508
$223
$79
$31
Manifest
Training
$175
$4
$37
$2
Variable
Costs**

Manifesting
and
Land
Disposal
Restriction
Notification
(per
shipment)
$45
$33
$35
$32
Exception
Reporting
(per
report)***
$69
$34
$32
$18
*
One
percent
of
the
generators
are
assumed
to
be
new
facilities
and
thus
they
incur
additional
costs
as
startup
facilities.
This
percentage
was
used
to
determine
the
number
of
establishments
expected
to
incur
initial
costs
in
any
year
(one
percent
of
the
generator
universe).
**
Variable
costs
depend
on
the
number
of
shipments
made
by
a
generator.
The
number
of
shipments
per
year
was
calculated
and
used
to
estimate
the
administrative
costs.
***
The
analysis
assumes
that
no
MCD
manifests
require
an
exception
report.
16
22
In
addition,
it
appears
that
some
generators
may
be
sending
MCDs
to
MSW
incinerators
or
landfills.
Appendix
C
evaluates
the
impact
of
the
rule
on
these
generators.
Exhibit
3­
8
Administrative
Unit
Costs
for
Handlers
Under
the
Universal
Waste
Requirements
(2001
dollars)

Required
Activity
Unit
Costs
LQHUW
SQHUW
High
Estimate
Low
Estimate
High
Estimate
Low
Estimate
One­
Time
Costs*

Notification
of
Hazardous
Waste
Activity
$161
$89
$0
$0
Rule
Familiarization
$1,186
$177
$1,186
$89
Waste
Characterization
$334
$0
$334
$0
Annual
Costs
Annual
Review
of
Regulations
$33
$33
$33
$33
Personnel
Safety
Training
(annualized
cost)
$92
$28
$35
$10
Variable
Costs**

Shipping
Recordkeeping
(per
shipment)
$9
$9
$0
$0
*
One
percent
of
the
handlers
are
assumed
to
be
new
facilities
and
thus
they
incur
additional
costs
as
startup
facilities.
This
percentage
was
used
to
determine
the
number
of
establishments
expected
to
incur
initial
costs
in
any
year
(one
percent
of
the
handler
universe).
**
Variable
costs
depend
on
the
number
of
shipments
made
by
a
large
quantity
handler.
The
number
of
shipments
per
year
was
calculated
and
used
to
estimate
the
administrative
costs.

4.
MCD
Management
Practices
This
section
discusses
the
baseline
and
post­
rule
options
available
to
MCD
generators,
as
well
as
a
discussion
of
the
factors
influencing
a
generators
selection
of
each
option.

4.1
Baseline
Practices
As
shown
in
Exhibit
4­
1,
in
the
baseline
MCD
generators
can
send
MCDs
to
a
nonretorting
TSDF
(along
with
the
other
types
of
hazardous
waste
they
generate),
to
the
retorter
directly,
or
to
a
broker.
22
The
non­
retorting
TSDF
and
the
broker
would
then
have
to
send
the
MCDs
on
to
a
retorter.
The
retorter
may
then
directly
sell
the
mercury
or
send
it
on
to
a
retorter
that
produces
a
higher
purity
mercury.

Based
on
the
research
conducted
for
this
analysis,
including
conversations
with
industry
representatives
(see
Appendix
B)
and
analysis
of
BRS
data,
all
of
the
pathways
shown
in
the
exhibit
are
used.
The
factors
driving
generators
to
select
between
a
retorter,
broker,
or
nonretorting
TSDF
include
disposal
prices
and
geography
(i.
e.,
actual
distance
from
the
generator
to
a
particular
disposal
option),
but
the
decision
also
is
likely
to
be
influenced
by
other
factors.
In
fact,
least­
cost
behavior
may
be
relatively
complex
and
non­
uniform
given
that
generators
are
17
likely
to
be
sending
other
hazardous
wastes
to
a
non­
retorting
TSDF.
For
instance,
by
sending
MCDs
to
the
same
non­
retorting
TSDF
to
which
other
waste
from
the
facility
is
sent,
a
18
***
DRAFT
­
September
5,
2001
***
Exhibit
4­
1.
Baseline
Management
Practices
Subtitle
D
Landfill
Retorter
High
Purity
Retorter
Mercury
Buyers
TSDF
Non­
Retorting
Broker
Generators:
19
23
These
generators
include
facilities
such
as
waste
brokers
and
non­
retorting
TSDFs
to
the
extent
that
they
originated
shipments/
manifests
in
the
baseline.
generator
might
reduce
manifest
and
shipping
costs,
and
simplify
facility
operations.
Alternatively,
a
generator
might
choose
to
send
waste
to
a
broker
if
the
broker
offers
a
substantially
lower
price
on
a
small
quantity
of
MCDs.
Or,
a
generator
might
choose
to
send
waste
to
a
retorter
directly
if
the
retorter
is
located
nearby
or
if
the
generator
is
already
sending
other
waste
to
that
retorter.

4.2
Post
Rule
Practices
In
the
post
rule
scenario,
compliance
costs
will
decrease
for
MCDs
that
are
managed
as
a
Universal
Waste
rather
than
as
other
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste.
At
a
minimum,
all
MCDs
shipped
directly
from
generators
23
to
waste
brokers
or
retorters
(i.
e.,
to
post­
rule
Universal
Waste
Handlers)
will
result
in
such
savings,
because
management
practices
corresponding
to
current
practices
will
cost
less.
For
example,
if
a
generator
continues
to
ship
MCDs
to
a
retorter
post­
rule,
then
savings
will
accrue
due
to
the
reduced
Universal
Waste
requirements.
This
is
true
regardless
of
the
fact
that
the
generator's
other
hazardous
waste
continues
to
be
sent
to
a
TSDF
under
full
Subtitle
C
regulation.

Exhibit
4­
2
summarizes
the
changes
in
a
generator's
transportation
and
administrative
unit
costs
to
send
MCD
waste
to
a
broker
or
retorter
post­
rule
while
continuing
to
send
other
hazardous
waste
to
a
non­
retorting
TSDF.
These
costs
assume
that
no
new
cost
will
be
incurred
for
activities
required
under
both
regulatory
schemes
(e.
g.,
notification
of
hazardous
waste
activity,
safety
training).
For
a
generator
sending
less
than
one
ton
per
year
in
a
single
baseline
shipment,
the
savings
would
be
$34.
If
the
generator
sent
the
same
amount
in
two
baseline
shipments,
but
only
one
post­
rule
shipment,
the
savings
would
be
$225.

MCDs
that
continue
to
be
shipped
from
generators
to
non­
retorting
TSDFs
post­
rule,
however,
probably
will
not
result
in
any
savings.
Recall
that,
in
the
baseline,
some
generators
ship
MCDs
to
non­
retorting
TSDFs
along
with
their
other
hazardous
wastes.
Post­
rule,
such
generators
must
continue
to
ship
hazardous
waste
to
the
TSDF
under
full
Subtitle
C
regulation,
thereby
eliminating
most
of
the
opportunity
for
regulatory
savings.
Even
though
the
generator's
MCDs
could
be
sent
to
the
TSDF
as
a
Universal
Waste,
doing
so
would
require
the
generator
and
the
TSDF
to
operate
under
both
the
Universal
Waste
requirements
and
under
full
Subtitle
C
regulation.
This
is
likely
to
be
more
expensive
than
simply
sending
the
small
amount
of
MCDs
as
if
it
were
regular
hazardous
waste.
20
24
This
$189
is
the
sum
of
$26
(the
annualized
cost
to
become
familiar
with
the
Universal
Waste
regulations),
$33
(the
annual
cost
to
review
regulations),
and
$130
(cost
to
transport
one
ton
200
miles).
Exhibit
4­
2.
Unit
Cost
Changes
for
Generators
Sending
MCDs
to
a
Broker
or
Retorter
in
the
Post
Rule
Scenario
New
Universal
Waste
Costs
Eliminated
Subtitle
C
Costs
Universal
Waste
Rule
Familiarization:
$89
(one
time)*

Annual
Review
of
Regulations:
$33
Shipping
Recordkeeping:
$
9
per
shipment
(LQHUW
only)
Manifest
Cost:
$32
per
shipment
Transportation
Costs:
$106
+
$0.12/
ton­
mile**
Transportation
Costs:
$159
+
$0.16/
ton­
mile**

*
Rule
familiarization
=
$26
when
annualized
over
4
years
at
a
7
percent
discount
rate.
**
A
200
mile
shipping
distance
is
assumed
regardless
of
destination.
Shipment
sizes
are
rounded
up
to
next
full
ton.

Theoretically,
greater
savings
might
result
from
the
rule
if
MCDs
that
had
been
shipped
from
generators
to
non­
retorting
TSDFs
in
the
baseline
were,
post­
rule,
shipped
to
waste
brokers
or
retorters.
However,
in
reality,
any
savings
would
be
minimal.
For
example,
consider
a
generator
that
in
the
baseline
is
sending
one
drum
of
MCDs
along
with
four
tons
of
hazardous
waste
to
a
non­
retorting
TSDF
twice
a
year;
there
is
essentially
no
baseline
manifest
cost
(the
manifest
must
be
completed
regardless
of
the
MCDs)
and
only
a
negligible
baseline
transportation
cost
(the
truck
is
needed
regardless
of
the
MCDs).
Post­
rule,
there
is
an
additional
$189
in
new
costs,
24
that
must
be
more
than
offset
by
any
savings
in
disposal
costs
(i.
e.,
the
generator
would
have
to
save
more
than
$189
in
disposal
costs
for
such
a
switch
to
be
economical).

5.
Cost
Results
This
section
describes
how
the
incremental
compliance
costs
of
the
proposed
rule
are
calculated,
assuming
100
percent
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements.
The
incremental
annual
cost
savings
attributable
to
the
proposed
rule
(i.
e.,
under
the
Universal
Waste
system)
are
calculated
by
subtracting
the
new
costs
under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements
from
the
eliminated
costs
under
the
baseline.
21
25
These
generators
include
original
generators
and
brokers
and
non­
retorting
TSDFs
that
ship
MCDs
to
retorting
facilities.

26
Brokers
both
send
and
receive
waste.
The
costs
of
sending
wastes
are
captured
in
the
costs
for
generators
as
discussed
above.
The
costs
of
receiving
waste
are
described
in
this
subsection.
5.1
Methodology
The
analysis
estimates
savings
as
applicable
for
entities
that
will
incur
reduced
costs
as
a
result
of
the
rule.
The
methodology
does
not
assume
any
shifts
in
the
flow
of
MCDs
(i.
e.,
in
the
percentage
distribution
of
MCDs
from
original
users
to
retorters,
waste
brokers,
and
nonretorting
TSDFs)
as
a
result
of
the
rule
because
such
shifts
seem
unlikely
(as
discussed
in
Section
4).

Costs
to
Generators
To
calculate
the
savings
to
MCD
generators
(SQHUW
and
LQHUW
under
the
Universal
Waste
System)
25
sending
waste
to
a
broker
or
retorter,
this
analysis
used
the
following
data
from
the
BRS
analysis
as
discussed
in
Sections
3.1.2
and
3.2:
two­
and
four­
digit
SIC
codes,
assumed
annual
MCD
generation
rate,
status
as
an
LQG
or
SQG
in
the
baseline,
and
status
as
an
LQHUW
or
SQHUW
in
the
post
rule
scenario.
This
analysis
first
calculated
the
number
of
shipments
in
the
baseline
based
on
LQG
or
SQG
status:
For
LQGs,
the
baseline
number
of
shipments
was
the
greater
of
four
or
the
annual
waste
quantity
divided
by
20
tons
per
truckload.
For
SQGs,
the
number
of
shipments
was
the
smaller
of
two
or
the
number
of
waste
streams
reported
in
BRS.
The
post
rule
number
of
shipments
was
calculated
as
the
greater
of
one
per
year
or
the
annual
waste
quantity
divided
by
20
tons
per
truckload.

This
analysis
then
calculated
the
average
shipment
size
by
dividing
the
annual
MCD
generation
rate
by
the
number
of
shipments
in
the
baseline
and
post­
rule
scenarios.
The
incremental
unit
costs
from
Exhibit
4­
2
were
then
applied
to
each
facility
to
calculate
the
new
and
eliminated
costs
for
each
facility.
The
eliminated
costs
were
then
subtracted
from
the
new
costs
to
calculate
the
savings
for
each
facility.

Costs
to
Retorters
and
Brokers
For
the
most
part,
retorter
and
brokers
26
of
universal
wastes
must
comply
with
the
same
requirements
that
apply
to
recyclers
of
hazardous
wastes.
However,
universal
waste
retorters
and
brokers
are
not
required
to
comply
with
the
manifest
requirements
under
full
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
and
instead
are
required
only
to
keep
basic
records
of
shipments
received.
As
a
result,
MCD
retorters
and
brokers
will
realize
cost
savings
under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements.

In
the
baseline,
retorter
and
brokers
are
assumed
to
incur
a
cost
of
$36
per
shipment
for
manifest
recordkeeping.
This
unit
cost
estimate
is
calculated
by
taking
the
average
across
the
unit
costs
for
manifest
recordkeeping
that
apply
to
SQGs
and
LQGs.
Under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements,
retorters
and
brokers
are
assumed
to
incur
a
cost
of
$9
per
shipment
for
22
basic
recordkeeping.
This
unit
cost
estimate
is
calculated
by
taking
the
average
across
the
unit
costs
for
recordkeeping
that
apply
to
LQHUWs.

Thus
the
cost
saving
for
recyclers
was
calculated
by
multiplying
$36
by
the
number
of
shipments
in
the
baseline
(2,497),
and
subtracting
the
product
of
$9
multiplied
by
the
number
of
shipments
in
the
post
rule
scenario
(1,885).

5.2
Cost
Results
The
total
savings
associated
with
the
rule
is
$273,000.
Of
this
total,
$200,000
is
estimated
to
accrue
to
MCD
generators,
with
an
average
savings
of
$106
per
generator.
The
remaining
$73,000
in
savings
accrues
to
retorters
and
waste
brokers.
Exhibit
5­
1
presents
the
average
savings
for
a
typical
facility
within
each
two­
digit
SIC
code
known
to
be
affected
based
on
BRS
data.

Exhibit
5­
1.
Average
Cost
Savings
per
Facility
(by
SIC
Code)

2­
digit
SIC
Number
of
Facilities
Average
Savings
Total
Savings
10
1
$678.73
$678.73
13
4
$33.73
$134.91
14
1
$33.73
$33.73
15
1
$33.73
$33.73
16
1
$33.73
$33.73
17
1
$33.73
$33.73
20
62
$69.31
$4,297.09
22
17
$86.20
$1,465.36
24
7
$129.30
$905.09
25
16
$61.60
$985.64
26
43
$106.33
$4,572.27
27
34
$73.08
$2,484.72
28
148
$125.51
$18,575.65
29
9
$152.28
$1,370.54
30
45
$97.62
$4,392.72
31
2
$33.73
$67.45
32
31
$62.50
$1,937.54
33
57
$90.73
$5,171.45
34
66
$54.00
$3,564.00
35
66
$87.29
$5,761.00
36
92
$134.89
$
12,409.92
37
44
$118.18
$5,200.02
38
23
$120.99
$2,782.73
39
11
$74.27
$
817.00
40
3
$108.06
$
324.18
23
2­
digit
SIC
Number
of
Facilities
Average
Savings
Total
Savings
41
1
$33.73
$33.73
42
10
$294.03
$2,940.34
43
3
$182.39
$
547.18
44
1
$33.73
$33.73
45
2
$256.73
$
513.45
46
3
$33.73
$
101.18
47
2
$368.23
$
736.45
48
22
$33.73
$
742.00
49
81
$261.63
$
21,191.99
50
20
$241.18
$4,823.54
51
15
$48.59
$
728.91
52
2
$33.73
$67.45
53
1
$702.73
$
702.73
55
3
$33.73
$
101.18
63
1
$678.73
$
678.73
65
1
$33.73
$33.73
72
1
$33.73
$33.73
73
38
$80.89
$3,073.63
75
2
$145.23
$
290.45
76
7
$65.58
$
459.09
77
1
$33.73
$33.73
80
10
$145.23
$1,452.27
82
11
$156.09
$1,717.00
83
1
$33.73
$33.73
87
14
$65.58
$
918.18
89
4
$381.48
$1,525.93
91
1
$33.73
$33.73
95
5
$544.93
$2,724.64
96
3
$33.73
$
101.18
97
22
$
169.77
$3,735.00
99
7
$
285.16
$1,996.09
unknown
797
$87.36
$
69,627.62
Total
1877
$
106.43
$199,765.25
6.
Economic
Impact
Results
The
analysis
estimates
first­
order
economic
impacts
of
incremental
costs
by
calculating
an
industry
average
cost­
to­
sales
ratio
and
cost­
to­
profit
ratio
for
entities
in
two­
digit
SIC
codes
known
to
be
affected
by
the
rule,
based
on
BRS
data.
Census
data
for
the
year
1997
served
as
the
source
of
average
sales
data
for
establishments
in
each
two­
digit
SIC
code.
Profits
data
24
27
Two­
digit
SIC
codes
containing
fewer
than
five
affected
facilities
were
excluded
from
the
profits
analysis.
Profits
data
were
available
only
at
the
four­
digit
SIC
level
based
on
data
for
selected
publicly
held
companies.
The
analysis
modeled
profit
at
the
two­
digit
SIC
level
based
on
the
associated
four­
digit
SIC
code
containing
the
most
affected
entities.
Alternative
four­
digit
SICs
were
selected
as
necessary
where
the
summary
data
represented
relatively
few
publicly
held
companies.
Several
relevant
two­
digit
SIC
codes
were
not
modeled
due
to
data
limitations.
Source:
DIALOG
Media
General
2001,
accessed
August
2001.
were
obtained
for
those
two­
digit
SIC
codes
containing
the
most
affected
entities.
27
Incremental
compliance
costs
or
savings
for
representative
establishments
were
estimated
as
described
previously.

The
impacts
analysis
based
on
costs/
sales
is
likely
to
overstate
economic
impacts
(whether
costs
or
savings)
because
the
sales
data
used
in
the
analysis
represent
average
values
for
each
SIC
code
as
a
whole,
whereas
the
estimated
compliance
costs
arise
only
for
the
entities
that
are
large
enough
to
be
considered
an
SQG
or
LQG
in
the
baseline.
Such
entities
may
have
an
average
sales
value
that
is
slightly
higher
than
the
average
for
the
industry
as
a
whole.
Conversely,
the
profits
analysis
is
likely
to
understate
economic
impacts
because
profits
data
are
estimated
based
on
data
for
publicly
held
companies,
which
tend
to
be
relatively
larger
than
other
companies
and
to
have
higher
nominal
profits.
Given
that
the
proposed
rule
will
result
in
savings,
rather
than
costs,
neither
of
these
limitations
are
significant.
However,
the
combined
effect
is
to
make
impacts
appear
more
significant
when
measured
as
a
percent
of
sales
than
as
a
percent
of
profit.

Exhibit
6­
1
shows
the
impacts
of
the
cost
savings
(as
a
percentage
of
sales)
for
the
average
affected
entity
in
each
two­
digit
SIC
code.
Cost
as
a
percentage
of
sales
is
very
small
for
all
SICs
(e.
g.,
relative
to
the
average
savings
per
generator
of
$106
per
year).
The
highest
impact
for
a
classifiable
industry
sector
is
on
the
"transportation
services"
sector
(SIC
code
47).
Establishments
in
SIC
code
47
have
average
annual
sales
of
$800,280.
The
incremental
savings
represents
0.05
percent
of
the
average
annual
sales.

Exhibit
6­
2
shows
the
impacts
of
the
cost
savings
(as
a
percentage
of
profits)
for
the
average
affected
entity
in
the
two­
digit
SIC
codes
containing
the
most
affected
entities.
Cost
as
a
percentage
of
profit
is
very
small
for
all
SICs.
The
highest
impact
for
a
classifiable
industry
sector
is
on
the
"electric,
gas,
and
sanitary
services"
sector
(SIC
code
49),
which
contains
TSDFs
and
electric
and
gas
utilities,
which
are
known
to
use
relatively
significant
quantities
of
MCDs.
Establishments
in
SIC
code
49
have
modeled
average
annual
profits
of
$5,247,531.
The
incremental
savings
represents
0.005
percent
of
the
average
annual
sales.
25
Exhibit
6­
1:
Estimated
Impact
(Cost/
Sales)

Industry
SIC
Code
Average
Sales
(per
establishment)
Affected
Facilities
Savings
as
Percent
of
Sales
MINING
Metal
Mining
10
$15,444,022
1
0.004%

Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
13
$7,099,539
4
0.0005%
Nonmetallic
minerals,
except
fuels
14
$3,067,481
1
0.001%
CONSTRUCTION
General
Building
Contractors
15
$1,918,732
1
0.002%

Heavy
construction
other
than
buildings
construction­
contractors
16
$3,651,692
1
0.001%

Construction­
special
trade
contractors
17
$869,084
1
0.004%

MANUFACTURING
Food
and
kindred
products
20
$23,452,928
62
0.0003%

Textile
mill
products
22
$13,459,297
17
0.001%
Lumber
and
wood
products
24
$3,164,898
7
0.004%
Furniture
and
fixtures
25
$5,300,519
16
0.001%
Paper
and
allied
products
26
$25,534,243
43
0.000%

Printing
and
publishing
27
$3,512,951
34
0.002%
Chemicals
and
allied
products
28
$31,829,039
148
0.0004%
Petroleum
and
coal
products
29
$77,749,139
9
0.0002%
Rubber
and
misc
plastics
products
30
$9,900,988
45
0.001%

Leather
and
leather
products
31
$5,645,731
2
0.001%
Stone,
clay,
and
glass
products
32
$5,484,777
31
0.001%
Primary
metal
industries
33
$29,069,529
57
0.0003%
Fabricated
metal
industries
34
$6,304,917
66
0.001%

Industrial
machinery
and
equipment
35
$7,649,689
66
0.001%
Electronic
and
electric
equipment
36
$20,102,162
92
0.001%
Transportation
equipment
37
$42,369,196
44
0.0003%
Instruments
and
related
products
38
$13,732,146
23
0.001%

Miscellaneous
manufacturing
industries
39
$2,988,227
11
0.002%

TRANSPORTATION,
COMMUNICATIONS,
AND
UTILITIES
Railroad
Transportation
40
NA
3
NA
Local
and
interurban
passenger
transportation
41
$1,000,929
1
0.003%

Motor
freight
transportation
and
warehousing
42
$1,554,880
10
0.02%

U.
S.
Postal
Service
43
NA
3
NA
Water
transportation
44
$3,886,447
1
0.001%
Transportation
by
air
45
$13,768,621
2
0.002%

Pipelines,
except
natural
gas
46
$8,642,919
3
0.0004%
Transportation
services
47
$800,280
2
0.05%
Communications
48
$8,007,019
22
0.0004%
Electric,
gas,
and
sanitary
services
49
$21,082,044
81
0.001%
WHOLESALE
TRADE
Wholesale
trade­
durable
goods
50
$7,179,142
20
0.003%
Wholesale
trade­
nondurable
goods
51
$10,953,407
15
0.0004%
26
Industry
SIC
Code
Average
Sales
(per
establishment)
Affected
Facilities
Savings
as
Percent
of
Sales
RETAIL
TRADE
Building
materials,
hardware,
garden
supply,
and
mobile
home
dealers
52
$2,332,525
2
0.001%

General
merchandise
stores
53
$9,835,465
1
0.007%
Automotive
dealers
and
gasoline
service
stations
55
$4,169,625
3
0.001%

FINANCIAL,
INSURANCE,
AND
REAL
ESTATE
INDUSTRIES
Security
and
commodity
brokers,

dealers,
exchanges,
and
services
63
$25,071,924
1
0.003%

Real
Estate
65
$799,821
1
0.004%
SERVICE
INDUSTRIES
Personal
services
72
$277,326
1
0.01%
Business
services
73
$1,407,270
38
0.006%

Automotive
repair,
services,
and
parking
75
$566,325
2
0.03%

Misc
repair
services
76
$611,188
7
0.01%
Health
services
80
$1,747,423
10
0.008%

Educational
services
82
$2,920,852
11
0.005%
Social
services
83
$616,590
1
0.005%
Engineering,
accounting,
research,
management,
and
related
services
87
$1,182,153
14
0.006%

Services,
not
elsewhere
classified
89
$1,234,760
4
0.03%
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
Executive,
legislative,
and
general
government
91
NA
1
NA
Environmental
quality
and
housing
95
NA
5
NA
Administration
of
economic
programs
96
NA
3
NA
National
security
and
international
affairs
97
NA
22
NA
Nonclassifiable
Establishments
99
$85,596
7
0.3%
27
Exhibit
6­
2:
Estimated
Impact
(Cost/
Profit)

Industry
SIC
Code
Affected
Entities
"Model"
4
Digit
SIC
Average
Profit
(pre­
tax)
Savings
as
a
Percent
of
Profit
MANUFACTURING
Food
and
kindred
products
20
62
2086
$537,317,489
0.00001%

Furniture
and
fixtures
25
16
2511
$62,090,151
0.0001%

Paper
and
allied
products
26
43
2621
$465,125,659
0.00002%

Printing
and
publishing
27
34
2752
$37,154,933
0.0002%

Chemicals
and
allied
products
28
148
2821
$291,631,063
0.00004%

Petroleum
and
coal
products
29
9
2911
$3,433,070,006
0.000004%

Rubber
and
misc
plastics
products
30
45
3011
$64,959,888
0.0002%

Stone,
clay,
and
glass
products
32
31
3241
$488,914,002
0.00001%

Primary
metal
industries
33
57
3312
$41,447,275
0.0002%

Industrial
machinery
and
equipment
35
66
3585
$117,416,497
0.00005%

Electronic
and
electric
equipment
36
92
3679
$8,174,795
0.002%

Transportation
equipment
37
44
3714
$174,385,355
0.00007%

Instruments
and
related
products
38
23
3841
$52,688,738
0.0002%

Miscellaneous
manufacturing
industries
39
11
3999
$37,205,970
0.0002%

TRANSPORTATION,
COMMUNICATIONS,
AND
UTILITIES
Motor
freight
transportation
and
warehousing
42
10
4213
$36,927,454
0.0008%

Communications
48
22
4813
$818,495,404
0.000004%

Electric,
gas,
and
sanitary
services
49
81
4953
$5,247,531
0.005%
WHOLESALE
TRADE
Wholesale
trade­
durable
goods
50
20
5013
$103,109,313
0.0002%
SERVICE
INDUSTRIES
Health
services
80
10
8062
$212,556,327
0.00007%

Educational
services
82
11
8221
$16,638,061
0.0009%

Effect
of
Market
Structure
Given
the
extremely
low
magnitude
of
the
savings
per
facility
that
will
result
from
this
rule,
the
effects
of
market
structure
of
affected
industry
sectors
are
insignificant
to
the
incidence
of
the
proposed
rule's
economic
impacts.

Regulatory
Flexibility
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
and
Fairness
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
§§
601­
612,
generally
requires
an
agency
to
conduct
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
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
not­
for­
profit
enterprises,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
because
today's
proposed
rule
28
relieves
regulatory
burden
for
affected
entities
through
reduced
regulatory
requirements.
In
addition,
the
Agency
estimates
that
this
proposed
rule
leads
to
an
overall
cost
savings
of
approximately
$270,000.
Accordingly,
EPA
believes
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

7.
Qualitative
Benefits
Including
post­
consumer
MCDs
in
the
Universal
Waste
system
is
expected
to
result
in
three
major
potential
benefits:
(1)
increase
in
regulatory
efficiency
and
improvement
in
the
implementation
of
the
hazardous
waste
program;
(2)
establishment
of
consolidation
facilities;
(3)
increase
in
recycling
by
regulated
and
non­
regulated
entities;
and
(3)
reduction
in
mercury
emissions.
This
section
discusses
these
three
qualitative
benefits.

Regulatory
Efficiency
and
Improvement
in
the
Implementation
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Program
Post­
consumer
MCDs
are
usually
generated
in
small
quantities
by
large
numbers
of
generators
at
many
commercial,
industrial,
and
institutional
locations.
This
factor
makes
regulation
of
these
devices
difficult
for
both
generators
and
regulatory
agencies.
Including
postconsumer
MCDs
in
the
Universal
Waste
system
will
allow
regulated
entities
greater
flexibility
in
dealing
with
these
wastes
(e.
g.,
due
to
increased
accumulation
time
limits
and
the
potential
for
waste
consolidation),
which
in
turn
will
allow
them
to
manage
these
wastes
more
efficiently
and
with
greater
regulatory
compliance.

Adding
post­
consumer
MCDs
to
the
Universal
Waste
system
will
also
provide
clearer,
more
streamlined
requirements
for
post­
consumer
MCDs,
which
may
reduce
problems
associated
with
a
lack
of
understanding
of
certain
requirements.
Under
current
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations,
generators,
transporters,
and
TSDFs
that
handle
post­
consumer
MCDs
must
spend
a
significant
amount
of
time,
money,
and
other
resources
following
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
requirements.
If
MCDs
were
included
in
the
Universal
Waste
system,
this
administrative
and
logistical
burden
would
be
reduced,
as
discussed
above
in
Section
4.2.

Finally,
regulating
post­
consumer
MCDs
as
universal
wastes
could
potentially
reduce
identification
problems
associated
with
having
some
mercury­
containing
wastes,
such
as
lamps
and
thermostats,
included
in
the
Universal
Waste
system
while
others
are
not.
Under
current
RCRA
requirements,
generators
and
other
waste
handlers
may
have
problems
identifying
which
mercury­
containing
wastes
can
be
managed
according
to
the
Universal
Waste
requirements,
which
may
lead
to
improper
disposal
(e.
g.,
in
a
MSW
landfill).
Including
other
MCDs
in
the
Universal
Waste
system
could
help
to
reduce
this
confusion.

Establishment
of
Consolidation
Facilities
Research
on
the
regulated
community
for
post­
consumer
MCDs
did
not
yield
information
on
the
potential
number
of
entities
that
serve
as
consolidation
facilities
for
these
devices
(other
than
brokers
or
non­
retorting
TSDFs).
EPA's
prior
analyses
of
mercury­
containing
lamps
indicates
that
recyclers
generally
have
lamps
shipped
directly
to
their
facilities
and
do
not
offer
substantial
discounts
on
larger
volumes
of
lamps
(ICF,
1999b).
If
this
is
also
the
case
for
MCDs,
one
would
not
expect
to
find
a
substantial
number
of
consolidation
facilities
under
either
the
current
RCRA
baseline
or
the
Universal
Waste
requirements.
29
28
According
to
1997
data
from
the
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
there
are
approximately
16,000
establishments
that
manufacture
MCDs
or
products
containing
MCDs.
However,
a
petition
filed
by
USWAG
requesting
that
MCDs
be
added
to
the
Universal
Waste
System
suggested
the
rule
would
reduce
the
burden
associated
with
managing
small
quantities
of
waste
generated
at
remote
and
sometimes
unstaffed
locations
such
as
electric
substations
and
along
gas
distribution
lines.
Essentially,
by
including
MCDs
as
a
Universal
Waste,
utilities
could
collect
wastes
from
remote
locations
and
bring
them
back
to
their
main
facilities,
which
would
function
as
consolidation
facilities.
These
consolidation
facilities
would
be
considered
Handlers
of
Universal
Waste
rather
than
TSDFs.
As
a
result,
full
RCRA
permitting
as
a
TSDF
would
not
be
required
for
the
facility.

In
addition,
this
same
ability
to
consolidate
waste
without
becoming
a
permitted
TSDF
may
apply
to
two
other
types
of
facilities.
First,
some
manufacturers
of
MCDs
or
manufacturers
of
products
that
contain
MCDs
(e.
g.,
gas
ranges)
may
serve
as
consolidation
facilities
to
receive
discarded
MCDs
from
their
customers
and
from
other
generators.
28
Second,
some
generators
such
as
hospitals
may
establish
product
swaps
(e.
g.,
trade­
ins
of
mercury
thermometers
for
digital
thermometers)
to
promote
responsible
handling
of
discarded
MCDs.
Due
to
uncertainty
concerning
the
number
of
potential
consolidation
facilities
that
may
be
established,
this
analysis
does
not
model
costs
or
cost
savings
associated
with
these
facilities.

Increase
in
Recycling
by
Regulated
and
Non­
Regulated
Entities
One
of
the
primary
goals
of
RCRA
is
to
conserve
valuable
material
and
energy
resources.
Shifting
post­
consumer
MCDs
from
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
system
to
the
Universal
Waste
system
should
increase
resource
conservation
by
encouraging
recovery
of
mercury
from
discarded
MCDs.

Including
post­
consumer
MCDs
in
the
Universal
Waste
system
will
permit
regulated
entities
(including
those
that
are
not
in
full
compliance
with
hazardous
waste
requirements)
to
accumulate
the
devices
they
generate
(or
send
the
devices
to
consolidation
facilities)
for
future
shipment
to
an
off­
site
recycling
facility.
Allowing
facilities
to
accumulate
larger
quantities
of
MCDs
could
make
recycling
a
more
cost­
effective
option
due
to
economies
of
scale.
An
increase
in
the
demand
for
recycling
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
might
then
encourage
the
recycling
industry
to
develop
and
expand
its
operations,
which
in
turn
could
make
recycling
a
more
attractive
option
for
the
regulated
and
non­
regulated
communities.
Thus,
both
noncompliant
generators
and
some
non­
regulated
entities
may
shift
their
disposal
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
from
landfills
or
incinerators
to
recyclers.
In
addition,
manufactures
of
MCDs
may
be
further
encouraged
to
establish
reverse
distribution
networks
for
discarded
devices
to
assist
both
regulated
and
non­
regulated
generators
in
recycling
discarded
MCDs.

Reduction
in
Mercury
Emissions
More
recycling
of
MCDs
should
occur
as
a
result
of
including
MCDs
in
the
Universal
Waste
system.
Recycling
decreases
the
amount
of
mercury
emissions
that
result
from
landfill
and
incineration
disposal
because
it
diverts
waste
from
disposal.
Mercury
in
recycled
MCDs
is
separated,
distilled,
and
recovered,
rather
than
released
to
the
air
via
incineration
or
landfilling.
30
29
Amber
Bollman,
Boston
Globe,
Nov.
16
30
http://
www.
dep.
state.
fl.
us/
dwm/
programs/
mercury/
lamps/
htm
31
http://
www.
state.
ma.
us/
dep/
files/
mercury/
hgch3b.
htm#
background
The
disposal
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
in
landfills
and
incinerators
often
results
in
mercury
emissions
to
air,
water,
and
other
media.
Mercury
emissions
are
a
serious
problem
because
of
the
volatility
of
this
metal:
one
gram
of
mercury
(the
amount
usually
found
in
a
household
thermometer)
can
foul
up
to
5
million
gallons
of
water.
29
Due
to
the
volatility
of
mercury
and
the
fragility
of
many
MCDs,
mercury
vapor
is
readily
released
into
the
environment
when
waste
containing
MCDs
is
managed
improperly.
30
Mercury
emissions
are
particularly
detrimental
because
they
pollute
both
air
and
water.
Most
mercury
pollution
to
water
is
the
result
of
mercury
deposition
from
air
into
watersheds.
31
8.
Discussion
of
Findings
The
primary
conclusion
drawn
from
the
analysis
is
that
the
total
cost
savings
of
the
rule
and
the
average
savings
per
affected
entity
are
very
small.
Total
savings,
which
are
estimated
to
be
$273,000
per
year,
appear
particularly
small
when
compared
to
the
$70
million
annual
savings
estimated
for
the
original
Universal
Waste
rulemaking,
which
covered
nickel
cadmium
and
other
batteries,
certain
hazardous
waste
pesticides,
and
mercury­
containing
thermostats.

Both
the
RCRA
Subtitle
C
baseline
and
the
Universal
Waste
requirements
modeled
in
this
analysis
assume
that
almost
1,900
entities
will
be
affected
if
post­
consumer
MCDs
are
included
in
the
Universal
Waste
system.
Almost
75
percent
of
the
$273,000
annual
savings
from
this
action
will
accrue
to
existing
generators
of
these
devices,
with
the
remaining
savings
going
to
MCD
retorters
or
brokers.
Relative
to
the
Subtitle
C
baseline,
the
economic
impacts
on
the
entities
in
the
regulated
community
are
expected
to
be
negligible
because
the
rule
provides
savings
for
all
affected
entities.

9.
Assumptions,
Limitations,
and
Sensitivity
Analyses
The
accuracy
of
the
analysis
depends
on
a
wide
variety
of
data
and
assumptions.
The
following
is
a
list
of
key
assumptions,
limitations,
and
other
factors
affecting
the
accuracy
of
the
analysis.
Some
assumptions
tend
to
increase
or
decrease
the
savings
of
the
alternatives,
as
noted
below.
Except
where
noted,
assumptions
are
best
estimates
and
are
not
believed
to
introduce
systematic
bias
into
the
results.

C
When
analyzing
the
BRS
data,
this
analysis
assumes
25
percent
of
potential
MCD
waste
is
actually
MCD
waste
(See
Section
3.1.2).
This
estimate
is
based
on
information
from
a
single
retorter
and
may
not
be
true
across
all
retorters
that
accept
MCD
waste.
In
fact,
some
retorters
may
specialize
in
some
type
of
devices
(like
flourescent
light
recyclers)
and
handle
relatively
little
MCD
waste.
As
a
sensitivity
analysis,
the
savings
of
the
rule
were
also
calculated
assuming
12.5
percent
and
50
percent
figures.
In
both
cases,
the
savings
of
the
rule
are
essentially
unchanged
at
$273,000.
31
C
Most
of
the
incremental
costs
in
this
analysis
are
fixed
per
facility,
rather
than
variable
per
shipment.
As
a
result,
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
generating
MCDs
is
a
more
significant
variable
in
calculating
savings
associated
with
this
rule
than
are
the
quantities
of
MCDs
per
facility.
Because
the
number
of
facilities
was
derived
from
BRS
data,
it
is
believed
to
be
the
best
estimate
available
and
should
be
accurate
given
the
assumptions
of
full
compliance
with
Subtitle
C
regulations.

C
To
some
extent,
this
analysis
may
undercount
the
number
of
regulated
generators
of
MCDs,
because
the
BRS
data
used
do
not
capture
all
generators
that
send
MCDs
to
a
non­
retorting
TSDF.
Specifically,
of
the
1,877
generators
identified
in
this
analysis,
approximately
36
appear
to
be
non­
retorting
TSDFs
(based
on
a
four­
digit
SIC
code
of
either
4953
or
8999.)
These
36
facilities
generated
an
estimated
94
tons
of
MCDs
in
1997.
All
of
the
original
generators
of
these
MCDS
are
not
captured
in
the
analysis,
resulting
in
a
potential
to
have
underestimated
the
number
of
generators.
However,
because
these
original
generators
are
not
assumed
to
shift
management
to
sending
waste
directly
to
a
retorter
or
broker
(see
Section
4.2),
these
generators
would
not
incur
any
costs
or
savings
as
a
result
of
this
rule.
Hence,
this
analysis
may
undercount
the
number
of
regulated
generators,
but
it
does
not
undercount
the
number
of
affected
regulated
generators.

C
Finally,
the
estimate
of
generators
and
quantities
of
MCDs
may
be
slightly
overstated
if
CESQGs
send
MCDs
to
retorters
and
are
captured
by
BRS.
To
minimize
this
effect,
obvious
CESQGs
(e.
g.,
facilities
with
identification
numbers
like
PACESGQ)
were
removed
from
the
data
set.
Thus,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
effect
of
any
CESQGs
being
captured
in
the
analysis
is
significant.

C
As
described
in
Section
3.1.2,
MCDs
are
assumed
to
comprise
five
percent
of
a
facility's
total
waste
stream.
This
assumption
is
used
to
calculate
whether
a
facility
is
an
LQG
or
SQG.
In
reality,
the
amount
of
MCDs
may
not
be
systematically
related
to
total
waste
generation
rates.
The
facility
classification
of
LQG
or
SQG
is
subsequently
used
to
calculate
the
number
of
baseline
shipments.
If
the
number
of
LQGs
is
overestimated,
the
overall
savings
of
the
rule
would
be
slightly
overstated.

C
As
described
in
Section
3.1.2,
SIC
codes
could
be
identified
for
slightly
more
than
half
the
facilities.
Thus,
the
economic
impact
analysis
does
not
address
all
affected
entities.

C
The
impacts
analysis
based
on
costs/
sales
is
likely
to
overstate
economic
impacts
(whether
costs
or
savings)
because
the
sales
data
used
in
the
analysis
represent
average
values
for
each
SIC
code
as
a
whole,
whereas
the
estimated
compliance
costs
arise
only
for
the
entities
that
are
large
enough
to
be
considered
an
SQG
or
LQG
in
the
baseline.
Such
entities
may
have
an
average
sales
value
that
is
slightly
higher
than
the
average
for
the
industry
as
a
whole.
Conversely,
the
profits
analysis
is
likely
to
understate
economic
impacts
because
32
profits
data
are
estimated
based
on
data
for
publicly
held
companies,
which
tend
to
be
relatively
larger
than
other
companies
and
to
have
higher
nominal
profits.
Given
that
the
proposed
rule
will
result
in
savings,
rather
than
costs,
neither
of
these
limitations
are
significant.
However,
the
combined
effect
is
to
make
impacts
appear
more
significant
when
measured
as
a
percent
of
sales
than
as
a
percent
of
profit.

C
This
analysis
assumes
average
device
weights
and
lifetime
for
varying
classes
of
MCDs
to
calculate
the
number
of
devices
needed
to
be
an
SQG
or
LQG
(as
discussed
in
Appendix
A).
These
assumptions
are
not
likely
to
impact
the
finding
that
MCD­
only
generators
are
likely
to
be
CESQGs.

C
The
assumed
distance
for
transportation
is
200
miles
regardless
of
type
of
generator
or
recycler
(non­
retorting
TSDF,
broker,
or
retorter).
In
reality,
the
distance
to
one
type
of
recycler
may
be
significantly
higher
for
a
particular
generator.
Because
no
shift
in
management
has
been
modeled,
the
distance
to
recyclers
will
be
the
same
in
the
baseline
and
post
rule
scenario,
and
this
assumption
is
not
a
significant
factor
in
the
analysis.

C
All
MCDs
shipped
under
the
Universal
Waste
requirements
are
assumed
to
qualify
as
non­
hazardous
materials.
This
assumption
was
made
based
on
the
fact
that
most
MCDs
contain
relatively
small
(i.
e.,
less
than
10
grams)
amounts
of
mercury
(see
Exhibit
2­
1).
The
analysis
assumes
that
discarded
MCDs
will
be
packaged
in
manner
that
precludes
them
from
being
defined
as
hazardous
substances
under
DOT
regulations.
For
shipments
of
post­
consumer
MCDs
that
are
subject
to
the
DOT
hazardous
materials
requirements,
the
transportation
cost
savings
calculated
in
the
analysis
would
decrease.

C
This
analysis
assumes
full
Subtitle
C
compliance
in
the
baseline.
This
assumption
understates
the
potential
savings
of
the
rule.
33
32
A
representative
from
Bethlehem
Apparatus
confirmed
that
there
are
no
MCD­
only
generators.
Appendix
A:
MCD­
Only
Generators
Preliminary
research
conducted
for
this
analysis
yielded
insufficient
data
to
identify,
characterize,
and
quantify
users
(generators)
of
MCDs.
Consequently,
in
order
to
assess
the
likelihood
that
MCD­
only
generators
would
be
affected
by
the
rule,
the
analysis
estimated
the
number
of
MCDs
a
generator
would
have
to
dispose
of
to
be
classified
as
a
SQG
or
LQG.

Through
Internet
research
and
limited
contacts
with
vendors
and
manufacturers,
this
analysis
obtained
data
on
"typical"
weights
of
several
different
kinds
of
MCDs.
When
unable
to
obtain
weights
for
certain
types
of
MCDs,
this
analysis
calculated
MCD
weights
using
a
ratio
of
mercury
content
to
device
weight
for
similar
devices.
This
analysis
then
divided
the
SQG
and
LQG
thresholds
(100
kg/
month
and
1,000
kg/
month)
by
the
device
weights
to
calculate
the
number
of
devices
that
an
MCD­
only
generator
would
need
to
dispose
of
in
order
to
be
a
SQG
or
an
LQG.
Exhibit
A­
1
presents
the
number
of
devices
an
MCD­
only
generator
would
need
to
dispose
of
in
one
month
to
be
an
SQG
or
LQG.
For
example,
to
be
an
SQG,
a
facility
would
need
to
dispose
of
over
12,000
veterinary
thermometers
during
one
month.
Further,
based
on
the
estimated
lifetime
of
each
MCD,
Exhibit
A­
2
presents
the
number
of
devices
that
would
need
be
in
use
at
a
facility
if
all
discarded
MCDs
were
disposed
of
on
an
annual
basis,
or
in
equal
amounts
on
a
quarterly
or
monthly
basis
to
be
an
SQG
or
LQG.

As
can
be
seen
in
Exhibit
A­
2,
MCD­
only
generators
would
have
to
use
and
discard
very
large
numbers
of
MCDs
to
be
classified
as
SQGs
or
LQGs.
As
a
result,
this
analysis
assumes
that
all
MCD­
only
generators
are
CESQGs.
32
Because
CESQGs
are
exempt
from
the
both
Subtitle
C
baseline
requirements
and
Universal
Waste
system
requirements,
these
generators
would
not
be
affected
by
the
inclusion
of
MCDs
in
the
Universal
Waste
system
and
are
thus
excluded
from
this
analysis.
Exhibit
A­
1.
MCDs
Required
to
be
Disposed
of
to
be
Small
or
Large
Quantity
Generator
Device
Category
Reported
Mercury
Content
(grams
per
device)
Weight
of
device
(grams)
Number
of
Devices
Needed
to
be
Disposed
in
one
month
to
be
classified
as:

SQG
LQG
Thermometers
2
("
typical")
1
3.3
30,303
303,030
0.5
(fever
­
low)
2
0.83
120,482
1,204,819
0.61
(fever
­
high)
1.01
99,010
990,099
2.25
(basal
temperature)
3.74
26,738
267,380
3
(lab
­
low)
4.98
20,080
200,803
10
(lab
­
high)
16.61
6,020
60,205
5
(veterinary)
8.3
12,048
120,482
5.56
(industrial
­
low)
9.24
10,823
108,225
19.78
(industrial
­
high)
32.86
3,043
30,432
3.5
("
typical")
5.81
17,212
172,117
34
Device
Category
Reported
Mercury
Content
(grams
per
device)
Weight
of
device
(grams)
Number
of
Devices
Needed
to
be
Disposed
in
one
month
to
be
classified
as:

SQG
LQG
Switches
2.6
(silent
light
switch)
5.2
19,231
192,308
and
Relays
3.5
­
3,600
(industrial
switch)
7200
14
139
1
(float
switch)
3
142
704
7,042
0.5
­1
(automotive
light
switch)
4
1
100,000
1,000,000
2
(chest
freezer
light
switch)
4
25,000
250,000
2
(washing
machine
light
switch)
4
25,000
250,000
3
(anti­
lock
brake
switch)
6
16,667
166,667
1
­
2
(ride
control
system
switch)
4
25,000
250,000
0.14
­
3
(mercury
reed
relay)
6
16,667
166,667
160
(displacement
relay)
320
313
3,125
2.5
(flame
sensor)
5
20,000
200,000
Gauges
and
330
(sphygmomanometer)
5
450
222
2,222
Meters
395
(barometer
­
2
3/
4"
face)
6
159
629
6,289
395
(barometer
­
6"
face)
1542
65
649
340
(typical
manometer)
7
907
110
1,103
91,000
(large
manometer)
8
566,990
0
2
Other
Devices
170
(recoil
suppressor)
340
294
2,941
1,000
(dilator)
2000
50
500
Shaded
Cells
indicated
known
device
weight
Other
Device
Weights
were
calculated
based
on
known
weights
of
similar
devices
and
a
ratio
of
mercury
content.

1
The
weights
of
the
thermometer
types
listed
were
calculated
using
a
ratio
of
amount
of
mercury
to
weight
of
device.
The
ratio
was
derived
by
obtaining
the
weight
of
a
veterinary
thermometer
from
the
Colorado
Serum
Company
(colorado­
serum@
colorado­
serum.
com),
which
is
8.3
g.
This
was
then
used
to
calculate
the
other
thermometers.
2
MCDs
denoted
by
low
and
high
indicate
that
a
range
of
mercury
content
was
estimated.
3
The
weight
of
a
plastic
float
switch
was
estimated
to
be
5
oz
by
Dave
Bornhorst
at
Gateway
Supply
Co.
4
The
weight
of
an
automotive
light
switch
was
derived
by
averaging
estimates
from
two
documents,
one
a
letter
from
The
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation's
Division
of
Solid
and
Hazardous
Materials,
Region
9,
regarding
the
development
of
an
automotive
switch
collection
program,
and
the
other
a
spreadsheet
originating
from
the
Clean
Car
Campaign's
initiative
to
remove
mercury
switches
from
automotives,
titled
A
Method
for
Estimating
Mercury
in
Recalled
Ford
Vehicles.
The
ratio
of
estimated
mercury
content
(~
0.5
g)
to
the
estimated
device
weight
(~
1
g)
was
used
to
calculate
the
remaining
switches,
except
for
float
switches.
5
The
weight
of
a
sphygmomanometer
was
estimated
at
1
lb
by
Richard
Najarian
at
Bruce
Medical
Supply
(brucemedi@
aol.
com).
6
The
weights
of
brass
barometers
with
2
3/
4"
and
6"
faces
were
estimated
to
be
0.35
lbs
and
3.4
lbs,
respectively,
by
Calvin
Smith
at
Red
Sky
At
Night
(info@
redskyatnight.
com).
7
A
typical
manometer
containing
12
oz
of
mercury
is
estimated
to
weigh
2
lbs
by
Erica
Thurner
at
Dwyer
Instruments,
Inc.
(Tech@
dwyer­
inst.
com).
8
The
weight
of
a
large
manometer
was
estimated
to
be
between
1,000
and
1,500
pounds
(~
1,250
lbs)
based
on
the
model
1025LX
manometer
manufactured
by
Schwien
Engineering,
Inc.
(See
www.
schwien.
com/
specs.
htm)
35
***
DRAFT
­­
September
5,
2001
***
Exhibit
A­
2.
MCDs
Required
to
be
in
Use
to
be
Small
or
Large
Quantity
Generator
Device
Category
Reported
Mercury
Content
(grams
per
device)
Estimated
or
Assumed
Device
Lifetime
(years)
Number
of
devices
needed
to
be
in
use
per
facility,
when
disposed
of
Number
of
devices
needed
to
be
in
use
per
facility,
when
disposed
of
Number
of
devices
needed
to
be
in
use
per
facility,
when
disposed
of
on
SQG
LQG
SQG
LQG
SQG
LQG
Thermometers
2
("
typical")
5
151,515
1,515,152
606,061
6,060,606
1,818,182
18,181,818
0.5
(fever
­
low)
5
602,410
6,024,096
2,409,639
24,096,386
7,228,916
72,289,157
0.61
(fever
­
high)
5
495,050
4,950,495
1,980,198
19,801,980
5,940,594
59,405,941
2.25
(basal
temperature)
5
133,690
1,336,898
534,759
5,347,594
1,604,278
16,042,781
3
(lab
­
low)
5
100,402
1,004,016
401,606
4,016,064
1,204,819
12,048,193
10
(lab
­
high)
5
30,102
301,023
120,409
1,204,094
361,228
3,612,282
5
(veterinary)
2
24,096
240,964
96,386
963,855
289,157
2,891,566
5.56
(industrial
­
low)
5
54,113
541,126
216,450
2,164,502
649,351
6,493,506
19.78
(industrial
­
high)
5
15,216
152,161
60,864
608,643
182,593
1,825,928
3.5
("
typical")
5
86,059
860,585
344,234
3,442,341
1,032,702
10,327,022
Switches
2.6
(silent
light
switch)
50
961,538
9,615,385
3,846,154
38,461,538
11,538,462
115,384,615
and
Relays
3.5
­
3,600
(industrial
switch)
20
278
2,778
1,111
11,111
3,333
33,333
1
(float
switch)
20
14,085
140,845
56,338
563,380
169,014
1,690,141
0.5
­1
(automotive
light
switch)
20
2,000,000
20,000,000
8,000,000
80,000,000
24,000,000
240,000,000
2
(chest
freezer
light
switch)
20
500,000
5,000,000
2,000,000
20,000,000
6,000,000
60,000,000
2
(washing
machine
light
switch)
20
500,000
5,000,000
2,000,000
20,000,000
6,000,000
60,000,000
3
(anti­
lock
brake
switch)
20
333,333
3,333,333
1,333,333
13,333,333
4,000,000
40,000,000
1
­
2
(ride
control
system
switch)
20
500,000
5,000,000
2,000,000
20,000,000
6,000,000
60,000,000
0.14
­
3
(mercury
reed
relay)
20
333,333
3,333,333
1,333,333
13,333,333
4,000,000
40,000,000
160
(displacement
relay)
20
6,250
62,500
25,000
250,000
75,000
750,000
2.5
(flame
sensor)
20
400,000
4,000,000
1,600,000
16,000,000
4,800,000
48,000,000
Gauges
and
330
(sphygmomanometer)
4
889
8,889
3,556
35,556
10,667
106,667
Meters
395
(barometer
­
2
3/
4"
face)
4
2,516
25,157
10,063
100,629
30,189
301,887
395
(barometer
­
6"
face)
4
259
2,594
1,038
10,376
3,113
31,128
340
(typical
manometer)
4
441
4,410
1,764
17,641
5,292
52,922
91,000
(large
manometer)
4
1
7
3
28
8
85
Other
Devices
170
(recoil
suppressor)
4
1,176
11,765
4,706
47,059
14,118
141,176
1,000
(dilator)
4
200
2,000
800
8,000
2,400
24,000
36
Appendix
B:
Phone
Logs
37
Bethlehem
Apparatus,
Inc.
890
Front
St.,
P.
O.
Box
Y
Hellertown,
PA
18055
Date:
August
16,
2001
Contact:
John
Boyle
Contact
made
by:
Yvonne
Stone
Bethlehem
Apparatus
Bethlehem
Apparatus
is
the
largest
commercial
mercury
recycling
facility
in
North
America.
It
accepts
all
types
of
mercury
waste
from
free­
flowing
liquid
mercury
to
mercury
containing
devices
to
mercury
contaminated
soil.
Bethlehem
is
a
global
supplier
of
prime
virgin
and
high
purity
mercury.

Procedures
C
Profiling:
All
mercury
is
profiled
before
it
is
accepted.
(Website)

C
Waste
Separation:
MCDs
do
not
typically
arrive
with
universal
waste,
but
this
is
due
to
shipping
requirements,
not
company
policies.
A
client
with
a
broken
manometer,
which
spilled
and
contaminated
other
materials
may
send
a
drum
with
the
broken
manometer,
the
directly
contaminated
material,
the
material
contaminated
in
the
process
of
cleaning
up
the
spill,
and
a
set
of
unbroken
manometers
the
company
decided
to
retire
or
replace.
Bethlehem's
price
quotes
are
for
generic
mixed
material.

Clients
C
Composition:
Bethlehem's
clients
run
the
gamut
in
terms
of
size
and
industry.
Significant
MCD
client
industries
include
brokers
and
utilities.
Although
Boyle
guessed
that
more
than
half
of
MCDs
arrive
from
brokers,
he
wrote
off
all
further
attempts
to
characterize
the
industry.
"There
is
so
little
that
is
typical…
there
is
no
standard
mercury
generator."
It
appears
that
the
reason
it
is
so
hard
to
characterize
mercury
generators
is
that
the
measuring
devices
and
industrial
equipment
that
make
use
of
MCDs
have
such
a
wide
range
of
applications
in
a
wide
range
of
fields.
Thermometers
and
barometers
may
be
used
in
households,
research
laboratories,
health
care
facilities,
or
industry­
each
category
of
which
has
a
different
characteristic
size,
use
pattern,
and
applicable
regulatory
code.
Similarly,
mercury
tilt
switches
are
the
technology
behind
"silent
switches"
used
in
households
as
well
as
in
heavy
machinery
which
could
be
found
in
some
capacity
in
almost
any
industry
category
or
description.
Any
company
with
a
boiler
possesses
a
mercury
containing
device.

C
Volume:
If
little
can
be
said
about
a
"typical"
MCD
generator,
it
appears
that
something
can
be
said
about
the
amount
of
MCDs
handled
and
its
volume
relative
to
a
generator's
other
waste.
Boyle
confirmed
that
no
company
becomes
and
SQG
or
LQG
from
mercury
containing
devices
alone;
mercury
and/
or
MCD
generation
is
typically
a
byproduct
of
a
set
of
operations
that
generate
some
other
waste,
which
gives
a
company
SQG
or
LQG
38
generator
status
in
the
first
place.
Boyle
estimates
that
MCDs
probably
account
for
around
1%
to
5%
of
generator
waste.

C
Motivation
for
Disposal:
Firms
dispose
of
MCDs
when
they
need
to
be
replaced,
not
when
new
products
become
available.
This
means
that
there
is
no
constant
stream
of
MCD
generation.
Although
there
may
be
estimates
of
MCD
lifespan,
Boyle
speculates
that
life
depends
on
usage,
and
therefore
varies
significantly
from
case
to
case.
Some
companies
collect
and
replace
mercury
products
that
they
manufacture,
resulting
in
a
shipment
of
MCDs.
This
represents
a
rather
small
proportion
of
MCD
shipments,
but
it
has
picked
up
lately
as
awareness
of
the
hazards
of
mercury
grows.

C
Use
of
a
Broker:
Whether
a
firm
goes
through
a
broker
depends
on
whether
it
already
uses
one
for
its
other
waste.
If
it
does,
it
is
likely
to
ask
that
broker
to
deal
with
its
mercury
waste
also.
If
the
firm
is
not
otherwise
involved
with
a
broker,
it
tends
to
be
cheaper
to
ship
the
mercury
waste
to
the
retorter
direct.

Shipments
C
Content:
Bethlehem
sees
a
wide
variety
of
MCDs.
Devices
normally
arrive
post­
consumer.

C
Packaging:
MCDs
arrive
in
different
containers
depending
the
type
of
device
and
regulations
applicable
to
the
generator.
Bethlehem
sells
reusable
76
and
2,250
lb.
steel
flasks,
presumably
for
liquid
mercury.
Bethlehem
offers
a
prepaid
shipping
container
and
retorting
program,
not
only
for
lamps,
but
for
thermometers,
for
use
by
CESQGs
and
households
who
need
not
ship
MCDs
under
manifest.
A
thermometer
shipping
container
holds
up
to
450
household
thermometers.

Prices
C
Disclosure:
Price
lists
are
given
freely.

C
Prices:
Prices
depend
on
the
type
of
material
and
packaging.
There
is
no
standardization
of
prices
and
the
range
is
large.
A
55­
gallon
drum
of
mixed
MCDs
would
be
accepted
for
between
$1,000
and
$1,700
dollars.
Some
devices,
such
as
water
meters,
require
less
labor
to
retort;
these
receive
price
discounts
to
as
low
as
$400­$
500
per
55­
gallon
drum.

Universal
Waste
Rule
In
Boyle's
opinion,
a
universal
waste
rule
for
MCDs
would
be
wonderful.
It
would
help
a
lot
of
people.
Companies
are
currently
hurt
when
they
have
just
a
very
small
quantity
of
MCDs
and
must
ship
this
waste
separately
under
manifest.
Boyle
described
pick
up
services
arriving
at
companies
with
a
tractor
trailer
and
then
picking
up
a
2
Quart
container,
which
the
driver
would
drop
off
to
the
retorter
from
his
cab.
Boyle
points
out
that
thermostats
can
contain
larger
bulbs
than
thermometers,
creating
what
generators
see
as
an
"illogical
exclusion"
of
the
latter
from
universal
waste
status.
39
Chemical
Waste
Management
Model
City,
NY
(716)
754­
8231
Date:
August
17,
2001
Contact:
Jill
Knickerbocker
Contact
made
by:
Yvonne
Stone
Chemical
Waste
Management
(CWM)

Chemical
Wastes
Management
is
a
TSDF
that
accepts
MCD
waste,
which
it
ships
on
to
a
mercury
retorter.
Mercury
transhipment
makes
up
a
very
small
proportion
of
its
business.
CWM
currently
receives
just
a
couple
of
containers
of
MCDs
a
month.
Knickerbocker
speculates
that
if
MCDs
were
no
longer
sent
to
her
business,
any
effect
would
be
negligible.

Procedures
Mercury
containing
devices
may
arrive
mixed
together,
but
may
not
be
mixed
with
universal
waste
because
of
differing
regulatory
requirements
for
shipping.
Mercury
containing
devices
often
arrive
in
a
"lab
pack"
which
contains
all
waste
associated
with
a
broken
MCD
(the
broken
device,
materials
contaminated
by
the
device,
materials
used
to
clean
up
the
spill).
The
lab
pack
is
placed
in
a
55­
gallon
drum,
which
arrives
at
Chemical
Waste
Management
and
is
shipped
on
to
the
retorter.
Knickerbocker
remarks
that
the
retorter
does
not
care
if
the
waste
is
separated.

Clients
Mercury
generally
comes
to
Chemical
Waste
Management
from
labs,
hospitals,
or
drug
stores.
Knickerbocker
guesses
that
a
number
of
hospitals
would
be
LQGs,
but
that
LQG
status
would
not
be
due
to
MCD
generation.
On
a
very
rare
occasion,
CWM
would
handle
mercury
switches
from
a
broken
machine
sent
by
industry.
CWM
does
not
receive
MCDs
from
demolition
sites.

Pricing
The
gate
price
for
a
55­
gallon
drum
of
MCDs
at
Chemical
Waste
Management
is
$925.
Knickerbocker
did
not
have
specific
information
about
whether
or
at
what
price
CWM
would
charge
for
MCDs
by
the
pound
but
guessed
that
this
could
be
an
option
for
customers
who
had
a
small
amount
of
MCD
waste.
She
said
that
it
was
likely
that
clients
with
national
accounts
with
Chem
Waste
would
receive
discounts
of
some
sort,
but
that
MCDs
were
such
a
rare
item
that
she
didn't
know
of
specific
examples.
Similarly,
Knickerbocker
guessed
that
few
discounts
were
given
out
for
volume,
not
because
it
would
not
make
economic
sense,
but
because
clients
rarely
have
more
than
one
or
two
drums
to
begin
with.

Universal
Waste
Rule
Knickerbocker
admits
that
she
sees
such
small
quantities
of
mercury
coming
to
her
company's
facility
that
she
assumes
there
is
not
much
mercury
in
use
out
there.
She
suspects
that
a
universal
waste
rule
would
help
those
involved,
but
that
considering
what
she
estimates
to
be
the
size
of
the
industry,
that
number
would
be
low.
40
41
Mercury
Waste
Solutions
302
North
Riverfront
Drive
Mankato,
Minnesota
56001­
3548
(800)
741­
3343
Date:
August
9,
2001
Contact:
Scott
Taylor
Contact
made
by:
Yvonne
Stone
Mercury
Waste
Solutions
Mercury
Waste
Solutions
is
one
of
only
about
six
mercury
retorters
in
the
United
States.
Although
MWS
purifies
some
mercury
on­
site
for
resale
to
small
firms
or
producers
of
dental
amalgam,
the
majority
of
retorted
mercury
is
shipped
as
scrap
grade
to
D.
F.
Goldsmith,
who
purifies
the
mercury
for
resale.
Taylor
explains
that
MWS
has
not
focused
its
efforts
on
sales,
and
so
has
a
smaller
network
of
buyers
than
D.
F.
Goldsmith,
who
is
able
to
find
demand
to
keep
up
with
supply.
Taylor
guesses
that
MCDs
make
up
at
least
25%
of
the
waste
MWS
receives.

Procedures
C
Profiling:
All
waste
is
profiled
before
it
is
accepted.
Waste
that
arrives
that
does
not
match
specifications
will
still
be
accepted
in
most
cases,
but
the
customer
will
be
charged
a
~30%
off­
specification
surcharge.

C
Waste
Separation:
MWS
separates
waste
according
to
regulatory
status.
If
the
client
has
only
small
amounts
of
two
different
types
of
MCDs,
MWS
will
usually
allow
that
client
to
ship
them
in
the
same
55­
gallon
drum.
Similarly,
if
a
small
number
of
batteries,
for
example,
were
included
in
a
shipment
of
MCDs,
these
would
also
be
accepted
without
penalty.
However,
if
a
large
amount
of
MCD
and
non­
MCD
objects
arrive
together
in
the
same
drum,
the
customer
will
be
required
to
pay
a
surcharge
to
cover
the
costs
of
hand
separation.

Clients
C
Location:
Clients
come
from
throughout
the
lower
48
states,
although
MWS'
business
is
strongest
in
the
Midwest
and
Northeast,
where
the
company
has
retorting
facilities.
Few
clients
come
from
the
West
Coast.
Taylor
explains
that
one
reason
why
distant
clients
may
choose
MWS
over
a
closer
retorter
is
that
not
all
retorting
facilities
are
approved,
narrowing
retorter
choices.
A
second
reason
is
that
the
clients
of
some
brokers
request
that
MWS
be
used.
Some
large
companies
have
corporate
accounts
with
MWS,
giving
them
access
to
more
competitive
pricing.

C
Composition:
Although
MWS
sees
a
wide
variety
of
clients,
the
majority
are
waste
brokering
firms
as
opposed
to
individual
generators.
The
generators
who
use
their
services
tend
to
be
large
manufacturers
in
industries
such
as
lighting
(Sylvania,
for
42
example),
auto
makers,
and
manufacturers
of
heavy
machinery
that
make
use
of
mercury
switches.

Shipments
C
Content:
The
size
and
type
of
devices
sent
varies.

C
Packaging:
Shipments
arrive
in
55­
gallon
drums.
Drums
are
generally
full
since
MWS
prices
per
drum.

C
Frequency:
The
number
of
shipments
clients
make
vary
considerably.
MWS
sees
everything
from
SQGs
and
CESQGs
clients,
who
may
make
only
one
shipment
per
year
or
one
shipment
ever,
to
large
firms
that
may
deliver
50­
60
55­
gallon
drums
per
year.

Prices
C
Disclosure:
Prices
were
quoted
freely.

C
Prices:
The
price
for
accepting
a
55­
gallon
drum
of
MCDs
varies
from
$1300
for
a
single
small
shipment
to
$900
per
drum
for
large
corporate
clients
shipping
50­
60
drums
a
year.
The
prices
for
mid­
sized
shipment
falls
between
these
figures,
varying
inversely
with
volume.
There
are
about
10
or
12
price
schedules
for
MCDs.
One
55­
gallon
drum
filled
with
MCDs
weighs
about
400
to
800
lbs.
Sometimes
drums
run
into
DOT
weight
limits,
and
thus
arrive
only
partially
full.
In
general,
however,
drums
arrive
full
since
shipments
are
generally
priced
per
container
rather
than
by
weight.
MWS
sometimes
accommodate
customers
who
would
like
their
shipments
priced
per
pound.
The
price
per
pound
ranges
from
around
$2.75
to
$2
per
pound,
with
a
$250
dollar
minimum
per
drum.

Universal
Waste
Rule
Commentary
C
Prepaid
return
program
for
MCDs:
Taylor
believes
that
a
prepaid
return
program
for
MCDs,
similar
to
MWS'
Lamptracker
program
for
florescent
lights,
would
be
both
beneficial
and
feasible,
given
a
universal
waste
rule
for
mercury
containing
devices.
He
does
not
foresee
different
MCD
sizes
as
a
barrier
to
such
a
program.
Firms
would
be
given
5­
gallon
(potentially
3­
gallon)
pails
in
which
to
collect
and
then
ship
MCDs.

C
Effect
on
Recycling
:
Taylor
believes
that
lowering
transportation
costs
through
a
universal
waste
rule
could
increase
the
level
of
mercury
recycling.
He
notes
that
for
many
small
companies,
transportation
costs
are
currently
prohibitive.
A
firm
with
only
5­
10
lbs
of
mercury
would
have
to
pay
about
$300­$
500
just
for
trucking.

C
Effect
on
MWS:
MWS
currently
operates
at
about
80
percent
of
capacity.
An
increase
in
the
number
of
MCDs
retorted
would
make
a
noticeable
difference
in
MWS
operations.
MWS
stores
mercury
waste
by
regulatory
level,
and
so
would
have
to
make
accommodations
if
the
amount
of
universal
waste
coming
in
was
much
larger
than
usual.
MWS
does
have
options
to
address
short­
term
influxes
of
products.
On
occasion,
when
the
inflow
of
mercury
at
one
plant
exceeds
capacity,
the
excess
mercury
is
43
transported
to
its
other
retorting
facility.
When
inflow
exceeds
capacity
at
both
plants,
as
happens
during
the
seasonal
variation
of
November
and
December
(large
manufacturers
clear
out
their
inventories
for
the
start
of
the
next
year),
the
excess
mercury
products
are
stored
for
later
processing
when
business
slows
(usually
January).
44
MTI/
AERC
West
Melbourne,
FL
(800)
808­
4684
Date:
August
7,
2001
Contact:
Tracy
DePaola
Date:
August
9,
2001
Contact:
Bob
Blanchfield
Contact
made
by:
Yvonne
Stone
MTI/
AERC
MTI/
AERC
is
a
mercury
retorter
and
a
member
of
the
Association
of
Lighting
and
Mercury
Recyclers
(ALMR).
MTI/
AERC
processes
and
then
retorts
the
mercury
it
receives.
For
example,
lamps
are
crushed
and
then
the
lamp
powder
processed
[Blanchfield].
MTI/
AERC
accepts
all
types
of
MCDs.

Procedures
C
Waste
Separation:
MCDs
must
arrive
sorted
by
material
composition.
For
example,
two
different
devices
both
comprised
of
liquid
mercury
and
glass
could
come
shipped
together,
but
neither
device
could
arrive
in
the
same
package
with
batteries
or
a
florescent
light
[DePaola].

Clients
C
Composition:
MTI/
AERC
sees
a
variety
of
contractors
from
small
labs
to
demolition
contractors
and
industrial
sites.
A
large
contract
for
the
firm
involves
Becton­
Dickenson,
a
thermometer
manufacturer,
who
is
pulling
one
quarter
million
of
its
thermometers
out
of
circulation
[Blanchfield].

C
Noncompliance:
Blanchfield
believes
that
one
of
the
large
sources
of
noncompliance
is
property
management.
Although
transportation
costs
are
high,
Blanchfield
believes
that
noncompliance
by
property
managers
is
driven
by
a
desire
not
to
enter
the
entire
retorting
process.
They
would
rather
"stick
their
heads
in
the
sand."
Blanchfield
speculates
that
a
scenario
in
which
property
managers
would
be
brought
into
compliance
would
be
partnership
with
a
large
firm
whose
business
was
already
inextricably
linked
with
regulation,
such
as
a
large
pharmaceutical
company.
In
this
case,
the
partnering
company
would
demand
that
its
products
be
disposed
of
correctly
for
liability
reasons.

Shipping
C
Composition:
Drums
of
MCDs
often
arrive
with
drums
of
other
mercury
waste.
This
is
because
there
are
almost
never
enough
drums
of
MCDs
to
fill
an
entire
truck
when
it
comes
time
to
transport
mercury
within
the
company.
Trucks
usually
arrive
full
[Blanchfield].
45
Prices
C
Prices:
MTI/
AERC
does
not
generally
give
out
price
lists.
Prices
are
not
published
to
shield
that
information
from
competitors.
To
this
end,
prices
are
not
given
out
to
public
studies
[DePaola].

Universal
Waste
Rule
MTI/
AERC
was
very
involved
with
the
creation
of
the
universal
waste
rule
for
florescent
lights,
working
with
the
EPA
on
the
issue
since
1993.
MTI/
AERC
is
interested
in
seeing
a
universal
waste
rule
come
out
for
MCDs
[Blanchfield].
A
universal
waste
rule
would
make
mercury
recycling
more
cost
effective
by
lowering
transportation
costs
[DePaola].
46
National
Environmental
Services
(NES)
Minneapolis,
MN
(952)
830­
1348
Dates:
August
7
and
28,
2001
Contact:
Dale
Borton
Contact
made
by:
Yvonne
Stone
National
Environmental
Services
(NES)

National
Environmental
Services
is
a
mercury
broker
with
locations
in
Tampa,
FL
and
Minneapolis,
MN.
It
does
not
retort
mercury.
NES
accepts
all
types
of
MCDs,
which
it
ships
immediately
to
one
of
two
retorters
depending
on
where
the
MCD
waste
originated.
Waste
that
arrives
from
within
Minnesota
is
sent
to
Superior
at
Fort
Washington.
Waste
that
arrives
from
out
of
state
is
sent
to
Lighting
Resources'
retorting
facility
in
Phoenix,
AZ.
NES
does
not
deal
in
mercury
waste
laced
with
any
other
type
of
contaminant.
MCDs
make
up
less
than
10
percent
of
the
mercury
waste
that
NES
receives.

Procedures
C
Profiling:
NES
requires
that
all
waste
be
profiled
before
it
is
brokered
(and
typically
before
price
of
service
information
is
given
out).
Virtually
all
waste
is
shipped
under
manifest.

C
Waste
Separation:
Devices
must
be
separated
by
type
to
be
accepted.
It
would
be
possible,
however,
to
ship
two
different
types
of
MCD
in
one
55­
gallon
drum
as
long
as
the
devices
were
in
separated
by
containers
inside
that
drum.

Devices
C
Size:
The
devices
that
NES
receives
most
frequently
are
switches
and
barometers.
While
switches
are
quite
small,
a
standard
barometer
measures
three
to
four
feet
in
length
and
measures
about
15
lbs.
Barometers
are
the
largest
MCDs
that
NES
generally
receives.

C
Pre­
processing:
Many
devices
have
broken
down
before
they
are
sent
to
NES.
In
a
typical
scenario,
a
customer
might
have
a
jar
of
mercury
or
have
a
consolidated
mercury
from
a
collection
of
units,
breaking
off
a
glass
part
of
a
device
from
a
mercury
bead.
Barometers
typically
cannot
be
broken
down
because
they
have
a
large,
long
bead
of
liquid
mercury.

Clients
C
Location:
Clients
come
from
throughout
the
lower
48
states.

C
Composition:
Most
client
companies
have
250
or
more
employees.
47
C
Noncompliance:
While
the
typical
MCD
shipment
that
NES
receives
is
a
batch
of
switches,
these
switches
very
rarely
come
from
demolition
projects,
leading
Borton
to
believe
that
most
demolition
projects
do
not
recycle.
Similarly,
NES
sees
very
few
small
companies
(<
250
employees),
which
Borton
believes
reflects
a
status
quo
of
non­
compliance
among
these
companies.

Shipping
C
Size:
Most
MCD
shipments
consist
of
a
couple
of
55­
gallon
drums.
A
four
drum
shipment
would
be
considered
large
and
reach
the
threshold
for
receiving
a
discount.

C
Packaging:
Most
devices,
whether
large
or
small,
are
packaged
in
55­
gallon
drums.
Borton
notes
that
55­
gallon
drums
appear
to
be
the
industry
standard.
NES
does
often
provide
special
containers
for
waste
disposal.

C
Frequency:
The
size
and
number
of
shipments
varies
by
client
industry
and
generator
status
(CESQG,
SQG,
LQG).
Barometers
generally
come
to
NES
one
or
two
at
a
time.
The
average
number
of
MCD
shipments
in
a
year
is
around
two.

Prices
C
Disclosure:
NES
avoids
giving
price
lists;
it
wants
to
know
about
the
waste
it
is
dealing
with
before
giving
quotes.
Borton
emphasizes
that
the
company
must
operate
according
to
strict
regulations.
Presumably
NES
does
not
want
to
enter
a
situation
in
which
a
client
is
quoted
a
low
standard
price,
further
information
reveals
new
necessary
procedures
that
raise
costs,
and
the
client
is
displeased.

C
Prices:
Transhipment
of
MCD
waste
is
usually
billed
by
the
pound.
The
average
cost
for
accepting
a
pound
of
MCDs
is
about
$5.50.
Large
shipments
(about
four
55­
gallon
drums)
could
be
discounted
as
much
as
a
dollar
to
$4.50
per
pound.
Borton
describes
mercury
brokering
as
a
"volume
driven
industry."
As
the
volume
of
waste
brokered
through
NES
rises,
prices
for
each
type
of
waste
fall.
For
example,
if
a
company
shipped
2,000
florescent
lamps
to
NES
along
with
a
drum
of
MCDs,
the
drum
of
MCDs
would
be
priced
at
a
discount.
NES
passes
along
a
lot
of
the
low
prices
it
receives
from
retorters
for
shipping
making
many
shipments
a
year.
For
a
good
customer
with
an
800
lb
drum
of
MCDs,
NES
said
they
might
charge
$2,500
(~$
3.13/
lb).

Universal
Waste
Proposal
C
Prepaid
return
program
for
MCDs:
Borton
believes
that
MCDs
could
be
"an
easy
fit"
for
a
prepaid
return
program
like
the
Green
Kit
program
NES
has
in
place
for
florescent
lamps.

C
Effect
on
Mercury
Recycling:
Anything
that
brings
down
transportation
and/
or
administrative
costs
could
make
recycling
more
accessible
and
bring
more
firms
into
compliance
with
disposal
regulations.
Borton
notes
that
100
devices
is
a
lot
for
a
smaller
firm
to
generate
in
a
year.
A
firm
in
Texas
with
a
couple
of
switches
probably
does
not
comply
today,
but
could
be
likely
to
comply
in
the
future,
given
lower
transportation
costs.
48
C
Effect
on
NES:
A
universal
waste
rule
would
also
be
advantageous
to
NES
since
it
would
allow
NES
to
store
MCDs
before
shipping
them,
raising
the
volume
of
MCDs
per
shipment
and
lowering
both
shipping
and
disposal
costs.
In
both
transportation
and
retorting,
prices
fall
as
quantity
rises.
Borton
predicts
that
NES
savings
would
be
reflected
in
the
price
of
their
services.
Competition
between
brokers
would
drive
prices
down.
49
Onyx
Environmental
Services
1
Eden
Lane
Flanders
,
NJ
07836
(973)
347­
7111
Date:
August
30,
2001
Contact:
Sales
Department
Contact
made
by:
Yvonne
Stone
Onyx
Environmental
Services
Onyx
Environmental
Services
is
the
new
name
for
Waste
Management,
Inc.
The
company
is
a
national
waste
brokering
and
disposal
facility.
Onyx
Environmental
Services,
formerly
Waste
Management,
Inc.,
owns
Chemical
Waste
Management
and
Rust
International.
(See
http://
www.
greenlink.
org/
grassroots/
soc/
wastenot/
97i02799.
html).
Some
facilities
appear
to
still
operate
under
the
name
Waste
Management,
Inc.,
for
example
the
facility
at
Port
Arthur,
Tx,
Phone:
(409)
736­
2821.
Company
services
include:
landfill,
stabilization,
solidification,
macro
encapsulation,
and
drum
bulking
for
transshipment.
The
company
accepts
MCD
waste.
In
addition
to
transshipment,
the
company
can
be
hired
to
package
and
transport
mercury
waste
from
the
client
facility
(Information
at:
http://
www.
chwmeg.
org/
asp/
search/
detail.
asp?
ID=
18).

Prices
Onyx
has
a
very
wide
range
of
prices.
In
addition
to
waste
volume,
type
of
mercury
containing
device
and
client
location
are
significant
variables
in
what
Onyx
charges
for
MCD
disposal.
The
New
Jersey
facility
alone
handles
10
different
territories,
each
with
its
own
price
schedule.
Although
prices
vary
tremendously,
the
sales
department
was
able
to
provide
ballpark
figures.
Disposal
costs
for
5
gallons
of
MCD
waste
through
their
company,
not
including
transportation
costs
to
their
facility
or
the
cost
of
packaging,
will
cost
around
$800
to
$900.
To
dispose
of
a
55­
gallon
drum
of
MCDs,
a
customer
will
pay
over
$2,000.

Clients
It
may
be
noted
that
the
sales
department
first
offered
the
5­
gallon
price
when
asked
for
price
schedule
information
(the
full
drum
price
was
offered
in
response
to
a
specific
question).
Although
this
may
not
be
significant,
it
may
be
indicative
of
the
scale
of
typical
MCD
shipments
received.
(The
contact
was
not
asked
follow
up
questions
as
she
specifically
stated
that
information
requests
not
from
non­
clients
were
low
priority
and
that
she
was
pressed
for
time.)
50
Safety­
Kleen
Corporation
Salt
Lake
City,
UT
(801)
323­
8100
Date:
August
30,
2001
Contact:
Sherm
Monson
Contact
made
by:
Yvonne
Stone
Safety­
Kleen
Corporation
Safety­
Kleen,
also
known
as
Laidlaw,
is
a
TSDF
that
offers
Incineration,
landfill,
hazardous
liquids
(acid)
broker
and
transfer
services
(Information
at:
http://
www.
chwmeg.
org/
asp/
search/
detail.
asp?
ID=
3).
It
is
a
broker
for
MCD
waste,
all
of
which
it
ships
to
Superior
at
Fort
Washington.

Procedures
C
Waste
Separation:
Different
types
of
MCDs
may
arrive
packaged
together,
but
they
may
not
be
mixed
with
items
such
as
lamps
or
batteries
that
are
subject
to
a
different
set
of
regulations.

C
Transshipment:
MCD
waste
received
from
clients
is
consolidated,
but
not
repackaged.
Safety­
Kleen
stores
the
MCDs
waste
at
its
facilities
until
it
has
enough
for
a
full
load,
at
which
time
it
remanifests
the
waste
and
ships
it
to
its
retorter.

Prices
Safety­
Kleen
has
one
price
list
for
all
clients,
regardless
of
location
and/
or
type
of
MCD.
Its
price
list,
based
on
MCD
waste
volume,
is
as
follows:

1­
5
gallons
$245
6­
25
gallons
$653
26­
30
gallons
$783
31­
55
gallons
$1,002
More
than
one
55
gallon
drum
$1,002
per
drum
Safety­
Kleen
does
not
offer
further
discounts
for
frequent
customers
or
extra
large
shipment
volumes.
Safety­
Kleen
does
not
offer
customers
the
option
of
pricing
per
pound.
51
52
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Reston,
VA,
(703)
648­
4981
Date:
July
31,
2001
Contact:
Robert
Reese
Contact
made
by:
Yvonne
Stone
The
Market
for
Mercury
C
Price:
The
price
of
mercury
has
followed
a
downward
trend.
Mercury
now
sells
for
around
$150/
ton.

C
Import/
Export:
As
to
why
the
amount
exported
and
imported
varies
so
considerably,
Reese
speculated
that
the
observed
import/
export
patterns
may
arise
from
firms
taking
advantage
of
opportunities
in
foreign
exchange
markets,
changes
in
buyer/
seller
prices,
or
other
economic
circumstances
of
the
firm.
The
mercury
shipped
abroad
is
not
qualitatively
different
from
that
imported
into
the
United
States.

C
Future:
The
amount
of
mercury
used
in
products
is
falling
in
all
industries.
Retorters
would
have
a
hard
time
selling
more
mercury.
The
market
for
mercury
is
a
"dead
horse."

Universal
Waste
Rule
Reese
was
not
familiar
with
universal
waste
regulations
or
with
changes
over
time
in
the
market
for
recycling
batteries
and
florescent
lamps.
Even
if
shipping
costs
were
significantly
reduced,
there
would
be
little
incentive
for
new
consolidation
companies
to
arise
to
sell
retorted
mercury.
53
Appendix
C:
Subtitle
D
Baseline
Analysis
The
main
analysis
in
this
document
assumes
full
baseline
compliance
with
Subtitle
C
regulations
for
all
SQGs
and
LQGs.
This
appendix
evaluates
an
alternative
baseline
that
assumes
some
Subtitle
D
disposal
of
MCDs
both
before
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
after
the
rule.

The
first
step
is
to
estimate
the
percent
of
the
regulated
universe
disposing
of
MCDs
as
MSW.
This
is
equivalent
to
asking
"what
percent
of
the
LQG
and
SQG
universe
is
out
of
compliance
with
the
Subtitle
C
regulations
in
the
baseline?"
Neither
a
literature
review
or
phone
interviews
with
selected
individuals
involved
in
mercury
recycling
and
disposal
suggested
a
noncompliance
rate,
although
one
vendor
indicated
that
his
firm
does
not
receive
switches
from
demolition
contractors,
suggesting
that
mercury
switches
generated
during
demolition
may
commonly
be
disposed
of
as
MSW.
In
the
absence
of
further
information,
this
analysis
assumes
that
half
of
the
universe
is
out
of
compliance.
Because
the
universe
in
the
main
analysis
is
based
on
BRS
data
(i.
e.,
data
on
generators
known
to
comply
with
Subtitle
C
regulations),
this
analysis
assumes
that
LQGs
and
SQGs
disposing
of
MCDs
as
MSW
are
in
addition
to
the
1,877
generators
identified
in
the
main
analysis.

The
second
step
is
to
determine
if
any
portion
of
generators
disposing
of
MCDs
as
MSW
will
change
management
practices
as
a
result
of
the
rule.
This
analysis
assumes
there
are
two
major
reasons
for
noncompliance:
(1)
cost,
and
(2)
ignorance
that
waste
contains
MCDs
or
that
MCDs
should
be
disposed
of
as
Subtitle
C
waste.
As
seen
in
the
main
analysis,
the
savings
associated
with
the
rule
for
a
generator
are
small,
estimated
at
just
over
$100
per
facility.
Given
the
relative
magnitude
of
the
disposal
costs
($
1,000
to
$2,500
per
drum),
this
savings
is
not
likely
to
motivate
noncompliant
generators
to
change
their
management
practices.
In
addition,
the
rule
does
not
provide
for
any
major
public
awareness
campaigns
about
MCDs,
and
is
not
likely
to
inform
generators
that
their
devices
are
hazardous.
However,
mercury
retorters
and
brokers
may
attempt
to
raise
public
awareness
of
the
new
regulatory
status
of
MCDs,
at
least
to
their
customers
who
may
be
sending
mercury
lamps
or
mercury
thermostats
for
disposal.
Consequently,
this
analysis
assumes
that
a
small
percentage
(five
percent)
of
the
generators
incorrectly
disposing
of
MCDs
as
MSW
will
change
their
management
practices.
As
a
result,
approximately
94
additional
generators
will
manage
MCDs
as
a
Universal
Waste
in
the
post
rule
scenario.

The
third
step
is
to
estimate
the
cost
or
savings
for
these
additional
94
generators.
The
cost
of
a
generator
moving
from
Subtitle
D
management
to
Universal
Waste
management
include
(1)
new
transportation
costs,
(2)
new
disposal
costs,
and
(3)
additional
administrative
costs.
Baseline
transportation
and
disposal
costs
for
the
94
generators
are
assumed
to
be
essentially
zero,
as
the
generators
were
previously
disposing
of
MCDs
as
MSW,
and
the
quantities
of
MCDs
are
small.
In
other
words,
the
relative
baseline
disposal
cost
of
throwing
a
few
devices
in
with
the
facility's
normal
MSW
is
negligible.
Therefore,
assuming
a
MCD
quantity
of
less
than
one
ton
per
year,
the
annual
transportation
and
administrative
cost
will
be
$189.
(See
Section
4.2
for
more
information
on
the
derivation
of
this
cost.)
The
disposal
cost
will
increase
from
essentially
zero
to
approximately
$1,500
(the
average
retorting
cost
for
one
drum
from
Exhibit
3­
3).
section
the
average
for
a
single
drum
at
Bethlehem
Apparatus
and
Mercury
Waste
Solutions).
The
total
of
these
costs
($
1,689)
pre
facility
per
year
is
multiplied
by
the
94
generators
assumed
to
switch
management
practices
to
result
in
a
total
new
cost
of
$158,766.
54
Subtracting
this
cost
from
the
$273,000
savings
estimated
in
Section
5.2
results
in
a
total
savings
under
the
Subtitle
D
baseline
of
approximately
$114,000.

The
preceding
result
considers
the
added
cost
to
generators
of
managing
MCDs
according
to
the
Universal
Waste
regulations
as
opposed
to
the
considerably
less
expensive
Subtitle
D
regulations.
An
alternative
view
would
be
to
consider
the
rule
as
reducing
the
cost
of
compliance
for
these
facilities
because
these
generators
would
incur
the
relatively
less
expensive
costs
of
Universal
Waste
regulations
instead
of
the
somewhat
higher
cost
of
full
Subtitle
C
regulations.
If
the
rule
is
viewed
as
creating
savings
because
these
generators
would
spend
less
to
come
into
compliance,
the
savings
can
be
calculated
by
multiplying
the
average
facility
savings
calculated
in
the
main
analysis
($
106/
generator)
by
the
number
of
facilities
likely
to
change
management
practices
(94
facilities).
The
resulting
savings
is
$9,964
for
these
facilities.
Adding
in
the
$273,000
savings
estimated
in
section
5.2
results
in
total
savings
under
the
Subtitle
D
baseline
of
approximately
$283,000.
55
Appendix
D:
References
Bethlehem
Apparatus
Company,
Inc.
web
page
(www.
bethapp.
thomasregister.
com).

Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
"Mercury­
Containing
Lamps
&
Devices."
(http://
www.
dep.
state.
fl.
us/
dwm/
programs/
mercury/
lamps.
htm)

Franklin
Associates
(1999),
"Characterization
of
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
the
United
States:
1998
Update,"
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
July
1999.

ICF
Incorporated
(1998),
"Baseline
Costs
and
Cost
Comparisons
Between
Hazardous
Waste,
Hazardous
Material,
and
Non­
Hazardous
Shipments,"
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
August
31,
1998.

ICF
Incorporated
(1999a),
"Draft
Assessment
of
the
Cost
and
Economic
Impacts
of
the
CSI
Regulatory
Option
for
Glass­
to­
Glass
Recycling
of
CRTs,"
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
February
24,
1999.

ICF
Incorporated
(1999b),
"Modification
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Program:
Hazardous
Waste
Lamps
(Final
Economic
Assessment),"
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
March
11,
1999.

Jasinski,
Stephen
M.
(1994),
The
Materials
Flow
of
Mercury
in
the
United
States,
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Mines
Information
Circular
9412,
1994.

Lake
Michigan
Forum
(1999),
"Mercury
Sources
of
Three
Indiana
Steel
Mills,"
September
1999.
(www.
lkmichiganforum.
org/
mercury)

Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(1996),
"Mercury
in
Massachusetts:
An
Evaluation
of
Sources
Emissions,
Impacts
and
Controls,"
June
1996.
(www.
magnet.
state.
ma.
us/
dep/
files/
mercury.
html)

Mercury
Waste
Solutions,
Inc.
web
page
(www.
mwsi.
com).

Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(1998),
"Companies
that
Accept
Elemental
(Free
Flowing)
Mercury,"
March
12,
1998.
(http://
www.
deq.
state.
mi.
us/
ead/
p2sect/
mercury/
mtable1.
html)

Michigan
Mercury
Pollution
Prevention
Task
Force
(1996),
"Mercury
Pollution
Prevention
in
Michigan:
Summary
of
Current
Efforts
and
Recommendations
for
Future
Activities
(Final
Report),"
April
1996.

Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
(2000),
"Report
to
the
Advisory
Council
of
the
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
Mercury
Contamination
Reduction
Initiative:
Options
and
Strategies
for
Reducing
Mercury
Releases,"
Policy
&
Planning
Division,
April
2000.
(http://
www.
pca.
state.
mn.
us/
air/
mercury­
mn.
html)
56
The
Pollution
Prevention
Partnership
and
the
Milwaukee
Metropolitan
Sewerage
District
(1997),
"Mercury
Source
Sector
Assessment
for
the
Greater
Milwaukee
Area,"
September
1997.
(http://
www.
epa.
gov/
glnpo/
bnsdocs/
milwaukeehg/
mercury.
pdf)

Schwien
Engineering,
Inc.
web
page
(www.
schwien.
com).

Science
Applications
International
Corporation
(1998),
"Analysis
of
Current
Mercury
Waste
Generation
and
Treatment,"
June
19,
1998.

Science
Applications
International
Corporation
and
Research
Triangle
Institute
(1999),
"Nationwide
Generation
of
Mercury
Bearing
Wastes:
Pollution
Prevention
Analysis
and
Technical
Report,"
prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
September
17,
1999.

U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census
(1997),
County
Business
Patterns,
1997.

U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census
(1999),
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States:
National
Data
Book,
Edition
119,
October
1999.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
"Background
Information
on
Mercury
Sources
and
Regulations."
(http://
www.
epa.
gov/
glnpo/
bnsdocs/
mercsrce/)

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
"Mercury
in
Medical
Institutions."
(http://
www.
epa.
gov/
glnpo/
seahome/
mercury/
src/
mercmed.
htm)

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
web
page
(www.
epa.
gov/
osw).

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(1992),
"Characterization
of
Products
Containing
Mercury
In
Municipal
Solid
Waste
in
the
United
States,
1970
to
2000,"
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
April
1992.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(1997a),
"Mercury
in
The
Environment:
The
Waste
Connection,"
March
1997.
(www.
epa.
gov/
glnpo/
p2/
mercpam.
html)

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(1997b),
"National
Analysis:
The
National
Biennial
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Report
(Based
on
1995
Data),"
August
1997.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(1997c),
"Mercury
Study
Report
to
Congress,
Volume
II:
An
Inventory
of
Anthropogenic
Mercury
Emissions
in
the
United
States,"
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
&
Standards
and
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
December
1997.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(1999),
"Supporting
Statement
for
Information
Collection
Request
Number
801,
`Requirements
for
Generators,
Transporters,
and
Waste
Management
Facilities
Under
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
System',"
October
22,
1999.

U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
Mineral
Commodity
Summaries:
Mercury,
various
years
(1996,
1997,
1998,
1999,
2000).
57
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
Minerals
Yearbook:
Mercury,
various
years
(1990,
1991,
1994,
1995,
1996,
1997,
1998).

Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(1996),
"Petition
of
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group,
the
Edison
Electric
Institute,
the
American
Public
Power
Association,
and
the
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association
to
Include
Mercury
Containing
Equipment
in
the
Universal
Waste
Management
Program,
40
C.
F.
R.
Part
273,"
submitted
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
October
11,
1996.

Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(1997),
"Wisconsin
Mercury
Sourcebook:
A
Guide
to
Help
Your
Community
Identify
and
Reduce
Releases
of
Elemental
Mercury,"
May
1997.
(http://
www.
epa.
gov/
glnpo/
bnsdocs/
hgsbook/)
