Regulatory Impact Analysis

USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments

To The Industrial Recycling Exclusions

Of The RCRA Definition Of Solid Waste

Co-Authored By:

Mark Eads, Economist (703-308-8615; eads.mark@epa.gov)

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Office of Solid Waste (OSW)

Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division (EMRAD)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mailstop 5307P

Washington DC 20460 USA

http://www.epa.gov/osw

DPRA Incorporated

Project contact: David Gustafson (651-215-4253;
david.gustafson@dpra.com)

332 Minnesota Street, Suite E-1500

St. Paul, MN  55101 USA

http://www.dpra.com

25 September  2008

Prefatory Notes

RIA Pedigree

This Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is a revised and updated version
built upon two prior consecutive RIAs from 2003 and 2007, in support of
the USEPA Office of Solid Waste’s (OSW) development of the final rule
amendments to the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (DSW).  The 27 June
2003 RIA (document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0002, 274 pages) is
available from the Federal regulatory docket at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov  in support of
OSW’s 28 October 2003 DSW proposed rule available at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/abr-rule.pdf.  The 22
January 2007 RIA (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0357, 284 pages) is available
at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/ria.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/ria.pdf  in support of
OSW’s 26 March 2007 DSW supplemental re-proposal available at:
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2007/March/Day-26/f5159.htm.  Both the 2003
RIA and the 2007 RIA were subject to public review, and this RIA
includes revisions made by Mark Eads (OSW Economist) to remedy
deficiencies and address enhancements suggested by public commentors. 
This RIA includes updated unit cost data and impact spreadsheet
calculations prepared by DPRA Incorporated as sub-contractor to
Industrial Economics Inc. under FY2008 Work Assignment Number 1-21 of
USEPA Contract Number EP-W-07-011.  Mark Eads was the FY2008 Work
Assignment Manager.

Peer Review of this RIA

Although RIAs do not normally require peer review according to USEPA’s
peer review guidance, prior drafts of this 2008 RIA have been subject to
four independent external reviews outside of OSW, at least one of which
(i.e., Economics Subgroup item 2 below) may be considered peer review. 
Peer review is conducted by qualified individuals (or organizations)
independent of those who performed the work, and who are collectively
equivalent in technical expertise (i.e., peers) to those who performed
the original work.  Peer review is an in-depth assessment of the
assumptions, calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations,
methodology, acceptance criteria, and conclusions pertaining to the
specific major scientific and/or technical work product and of the
documentation that supports them.

Industry review: Both the prior 2003 and 2007 RIAs for the DSW
rulemaking were subject to public review and comment according to the
Administrative Procedure Act Federal agency rulemaking requirements. 
However, USEPA’s peer review guidance does not classify public review
as peer review.

USEPA Economics Subgroup review:  The 27 May 2004 USEPA memorandum from
Steve Johnson (now USEPA Administrator) titled “Improving EPA’s
Action Development Process”, established beginning in 2004 a new
“Economics Subgroup” process for each USEPA economically significant
rule
(http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/108_2003_2004/2004_1117_slj.
pdf).  Mark Eads, OSW Economist, convened on 17 March 2005 an internal
USEPA “Economics Subgroup” to oversee and review the design and
execution of the 2007 RIA and this RIA.  The Subgroup consisted of nine
USEPA employees from OSW, OPEI (http://www.epa.gov/opei), and ORD
(http://www.epa.gov/ord), four of whom are Economists.  Special thanks
to Robin Jenkins (OPEI Economist) of this Subgroup for exceptional
review efforts on prior drafts of this RIA.

USEPA-OPEI review:  In March 2008, OSW provided the draft DSW final rule
package including a March 2008 draft of this RIA to USEPA’s Office of
Policy, Economics & Innovation for review and comment prior to sending
to OMB.

OMB review:  OPEI provided the DSW final rule package including a March
2008 draft of this RIA, to OMB-OIRA for 90-day review (April, May, and
June 2008) according to Executive Order 12866 (Section 6(b)(2)(B)).  OSW
addressed OMB’s comments by making appropriate edits and revisions as
reflected in this finalized RIA.

Discount Rate Applied in this RIA

The average annual economic impact estimates in this RIA are
mathematically formulated in the first instance without discounted
present value computations.  Consequently, the average annual impact
estimates in this RIA are not sensitive to either the 3% or 7% discount
rate prescribed for Federal regulatory analyses in OMB’s September
2003 Circular A-4 “Regulatory Analysis”
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf).  OSW’s 22
January 2007 version of this RIA (284 pages at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/ria.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/ria.pdf ) applied 7%
and 15% discount rates for computing the present value and average
annualized value of capital and O&M investment costs for onsite
materials recovery/ recycling units (plant & equipment), but estimation
of future new investment in onsite recovery/ recycling as a result of
the DSW final rule, is not included in the scope of this RIA because
industry public commentors on the 2007 RIA indicated such investment is
not likely for reasons cited in this RIA.

Table of Contents

1.	Summary & Major Findings													6

1A	Purpose of the 2008 DSW Final Rule											6

1B	Scope of the 2008 DSW Final Rule											6

1C	Summary of Expected Net Cost Savings to Industry for the DSW Final
Rule					8

1D	Summary of Other Findings of this RIA										9

1E	Sensitivity Analysis													12

2.	Statement of Regulatory Need & Executive Order 13422 Problem
Statement						14

2A.	1992 Task Force Recommendation to Improve RCRA Recycling Regulations
				14

2B.	1987-2000 Court Decisions Direct USEPA to Restructure the RCRA DSW
Regulations				15

2C.	USEPA Policy to Encourage Resource Recovery									16

2D.	Industry Commentors on 2003 & 2007 DSW Proposals Identify RCRA
Barriers to Recycling			16

2E.	Independent Published Studies Identify RCRA Barriers to Recycling of
Industrial Materials			18

3.	Background & Scope to this RIA												22

3A	Summary of OSW’s Prior RIAs for the DSW Rulemaking								22

3B	Summary of Public Comments on the 2003 DSW RIA and 2007 DSW RIA				
25

3C	Components of the DSW Final Rule Evaluated in this RIA								29

4.	Data for Baseline Industrial Recycling Potentially De-Regulated by
the DSW Rule						39

4A	Primary Data Source for Identifying Industries, Facilities &
Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected		39

4B	2005 Baseline Hazardous Waste Industrial Recycling Data								41

5.	Data for Identifying Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to
Recycling						52

5A	Identification of Hazardous Waste Disposal Baseline for Potential
Recycling					52

5B	Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Wastes Currently
Disposed					60

5C	Resultant Screening Selection Quantities of Baseline Disposal that
May Switchover to Recycling			66

6.	Estimate of Industry Baseline Cost for Complying with 14 RCRA
Regulatory Requirements				72

6A	Regulatory Burden Basesline Cost Estimation Methodology								72

6B	Unit Costs for Estimating the RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline						
75

6C	Estimate of RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline Cost								79



Table of Contents (Continued)

7.	Estimate of Potential Industry Costs to Meet 12 DSW Exclusion
Conditions						80

8.	Micro-Economic Breakeven Test to Estimate Potential Baseline Disposal
Switchover to Recycling			87

8A	Breakeven Test Methodology												87

8B	Key Assumptions Applied to Breakeven Test									89

8C	Summary of Breakeven Test Results											90

8D	Market Value of Recoverable Commodities in Baseline Disposal for
Recycling Switchover			92

9.	De-Regulatory Cost Savings Net Impact Estimates										95

10.	Distributional Effects														104

10A	Definition of Distributional Effects											104

10B	Potential Distributional Effects on Industries										106

10C	Potential Distributional Effects on State Governments								119

11.	Countervailing Risks														120

	11A	Definition of Countervailing Risks											120

	11B	Potential Countervailing Risks Identified by Public Commentors					
	121

	11C	Countervailing Risk Evaluation Methodology									122

	11D	Evaluation of 12 Countervailing Risks										122

12.	Sensitivity Analysis Factors													136

Appendices																154

Appendix A:	Data Sources for Concentrations, Yield, & Market Values of
Recoverable Commodities			155

Appendix B:	Unit Costs for Estimating Affected Industry Baseline RCRA
Regulatory Burden (Pre-Rule)		170

Appendix C:	Unit Costs for Affected Industries to Meet the 12 Conditions
of DSW Exclusions (Post-Rule)		176

Appendix D:	Unit Costs for Industrial Disposal & Industrial Recycling			
			182

Appendix E:	Data for Estimating State Government Hazardous Waste Fee
Revenues					199

Chapter 1

Summary & Major Findings

Note:	The word industrial “recycling” is used in this RIA as a
generalized term which is not necessarily synonymous to “recovery”
or “reclamation”.  “Recycling” typically involves a series of
industrial activities, including storage and other handling steps that
culminate in the production of a valuable end product of some kind. 
Thus if industrial secondary materials need to be reclaimed in order to
produce a valuable intermediate or end product, the industrial
reclamation activity can be thought of as one step in the overall
industrial recycling process.

		This RIA does not include “burning waste for energy recovery” or
“blending waste for use as fuel” within the scope of the usage of
the word recycling, because those industrial activities are not eligible
for exclusion from RCRA regulation under the 2008 DSW amendments final
rule.  However, some state governments have classified “energy
recovery” and “fuel blending” as forms of recycling.  Although not
included in the “recycling” impact estimates, this RIA does include
both energy recovery and fuel blending in the scope of potential impacts
of the DSW final rule, on baseline hazardous waste “disposal”
methods.

1A.	Purpose of the 2008 DSW Final Rule

The purpose of OSW’s 2008 final rule amendments to the RCRA
“Definition of Solid Waste” (DSW), is to revise and clarify the RCRA
definition of solid waste (40 CFR 261.2) as it pertains to certain types
of hazardous secondary materials that will no longer be considered
“solid wastes” subject to hazardous waste regulation under RCRA
Subtitle C.  OSW initiated this revision to the DSW for the reasons
described in Chapter 2 “Statement of Regulatory Need” of this RIA. 
The DSW revisions final rule builds on:

2003	OSW’s 28 October 2003 proposal (Federal Register, Vol.68, No.208,
pp. 61558-61599):

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/abr-rule.pdf

2007	OSW’s 26 March 2007 DSW supplemental re-proposal (Federal
Register, Vol.72, No. 57, pp.14172-14218):

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/fr3-26-07.pdf

1B.	Scope of the 2008 DSW Final Rule

As summarized in Exhibit 1A below, the 2008 DSW amendments final rule
adds three recycling exclusions to the 16 existing DSW recycling
exclusions at 40 CFR 261 for three categories of industrial recycling
involving hazardous secondary materials (i.e., spent materials, listed
sludges, and listed byproducts).



Exhibit 1A

Three Main Components of OSW’s 2008 DSW Amendments Final Rule

Item	Final Rule Component	Amendments to 40 CFR 260

RCRA DSW Exclusions	Brief Description

1	Exclusion 1: Generator controlled recycling for:

1A. Land-based units*

1B. Non-land based units**	261.4(a)(23) land-based units exclusion

261.2(a)(2)(ii) non-land based units exclusion

260.42 Notification

260.10 Definitions	Generated and legitimately recycled within the US or
its territories under the control of the generator:

Onsite in land*- or non-land** units at the generating facility, or

Offsite within the same company, or

Pursuant to a written agreement between an offsite tolling contractor
and the generator.

2	Exclusion 2: Transfer-based recycling	261.4(a)(24) Exclusion

261.4(a)(25) Exports

260.42 Notification	Generated and subsequently transferred offsite to a
different company, or

Exported to a foreign country for recycling.

3	Exclusion 3: Case-by-case variance for “non-waste determination”
260.30 materials eligible for variances

260.33 variance procedures

260.34 variance standards & criteria	Materials reclaimed in a continuous
industrial process, or

Materials indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a product or
intermediate,.

Explanatory Notes:

* Land-based units = landfill, surface impoundment, pile, injection
well, land treatment, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, mine,
cave, lagoon, pond, reservoir, unlined sump, pit, shaft, trench, trough,
sink hole.

** Non-land based units = tank, tank system, container, containment
building, industrial furnace, incinerator, boiler, kiln, oven, pad,
thermal treatment device (e.g., sludge dryer, distillation column), sump
(e.g., lined pit, lined shaft, lined reservoir, lined trough, lined
trench), totally-enclosed equipment directly connected to an industrial
production process (e.g., pipes), loading dock, vessel.

1C.	Summary of Expected Net Cost Savings to Industry for the DSW Final
Rule

Exhibit 1B below presents this RIA’s estimated average annual net cost
savings to industry of the DSW final rule exclusions, taking into
account the (a) expected future industry annual cost savings from
elimination of 14 baseline RCRA regulatory burden requirements, plus (b)
the new costs to affected industrial facilities to comply with the 12
conditions for the DSW exclusions, plus (c) the expected future annual
net market value of commodities (e.g., metals, solvents) recovered from
induced switchover of some baseline waste disposal to future recycling. 
The scope of economic impacts estimated in this RIA does not include the
legitimate recycling factors for the two recycling exclusions and
non-waste determinations for the reason explained in Chapter 3 (Section
3C) of this RIA.

Note:	The Net Impact Estimates summarized in Exhibit 1D below do not
subtract-out the estimated $0.13 million per year net additional cost to
RCRA-authorized state government agencies to implement the requirements
and conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions.  This added annual cost
to state government agencies is not estimated in this RIA but is
estimated in OSW’s Information Collection Request (ICR) Supporting
Statement for this final rule, which is available from the DSW
rulemaking docket (ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031) at
http://www.regulations.gov.

Exhibit 1B

Expected Annual De-Regulatory Net Cost Savings to Industry for the 2008
Final Rule DSW Exclusions

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

Impact Metric	Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled Recycling	Exclusion 2:

Transfer-Based Recycling	Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case Variance	Combined Impact

(Exclusions 1+2+3)

1.  Count of RCRA-regulated industries affected (2005)	70	211	Not
estimated	281

2.  Count of RCRA-regulated facilities affected (2005)	308	5,182	74*
5,564

3.  Million tons per year of RCRA hazardous wastes affected (2005)	0.506
0.910	0.121	1.537

4.  Cost savings to facilities subject to the rule:

4a. Net industry savings from de-regulating baseline recycling =

4b. Net industry savings from disposal switchover to recycling =

Subtotal direct impacts (4a+4b) =	($millions/year)

$6.8

Not estimated

$6.8 (7%)	($millions/year)

$70.6

$16.7

$87.3 (92%)	($millions/year)

$1.3

Not estimated

$1.3 (1%)	($millions/year)

$78.6 (82%)

$16.7 (18%)

$95.3 (100%)

Explanatory Notes:

Source: The de-regulatory industry cost savings net impact estimates
summarized in this Exhibit are from Chapter 9 of this RIA.

* 74 variances correspond to the average annual number of affected
facilities for an arithmetic series of 7 variances per year over a
future 20-year period.

1D.	Summary of Other Findings of this RIA

De-Regulatory Cost Savings to Industrial Generators of Affected
Secondary Materials

5,564 directly affected industrial facilities, which represents 31% of
the 17,741 LQG+TSDF RCRA 2005 universe facilities.

$95.3 million per year future annual net cost savings to industry:

82% of impact:	$78.6 million/year savings from de-regulating baseline
recycling

18% of impact:	$16.7 million/year savings from expected induced
switchover of baseline disposal to recycling

Cost savings for de-regulation of 1.537 million tons per-year of
hazardous secondary materials currently managed as RCRA hazardous
wastes, which represents 3.5% of the 43.9 million tons/year 2005 RCRA
hazardous waste management universe:

98% of impact:	1.514 million tons/year from de-regulating baseline
recycling

2% of impact:	0.023 million tons/year from expected induced switchover
of baseline disposal to recycling

These direct impact estimates reflect the highly skewed national
distribution of hazardous waste annual tonnage; if the largest waste
generators can take advantage of a DSW exclusion, then most of the
industry cost savings will likely be realized.

Top-5 affected economic sub-sectors (2-digit NAICS) = 86.9%:

1.	48.3%	NAICS 33 manufacturing

2.	27.7%	NAICS 32 manufacturing

3.	4.2%	NAICS 92 public administration

4.	3.7%	NAICS 61 educational services

5.	3.0%	NAICS 54 professional, scientific & technical services

Top-5 affected industry groups (4-digit NAICS) = 24.3%:

	7.0%	NAICS 3344 semiconductor & electronics mfg

	5.1%	NAICS 3251 basic chemical mfg

	4.3%	NAICS 3328 coating, engraving, & heat treating mfg

	4.1%	NAICS 3254 pharmaceutical & medicine mfg

	3.8%	NAICS 3364 aerospace product & parts mfg

Increased Industrial Recycling

Resource Recovery:	Both of OSW’s 2003 and 2007 DSW proposals asserted
this action will encourage resource recovery:

"This regulatory initiative is thus consistent with the Agency’s
longstanding policy of encouraging the recovery and reuse of valuable
resources as an alternative to land disposal.”  (Source: p.61560 of 28
Oct 2003 DSW FR notice, and p.14175 of 26 March 2007 DSW FR notice).

$4.7 million/year market value of potentially recoverable materials
(e.g., metals, solvents, other chemicals) contained in 2.085 million
tons/year baseline disposed RCRA hazardous wastes evaluated in this RIA
for potential switchover from disposal to future recycling.

Induced new  industrial recycling switchover from baseline disposal
could involve 23,000 tons per year, representing:

2% of the annual tonnage impact of the rule

18% of the annual net cost savings to industry from the rule

1.1% increase above the 2005 baseline 2.045 million tons per-year
hazardous waste recycling (i.e., 1.1% increase above the 1.420 million
tons metals recovery + 0.297 million tons solvent recovery + 0.328
million tons other materials recovery reported in the 2005 Biennial
Report)

2,440 industrial facilities may switchover from baseline disposal to
future recycling.

Resource Conservation:	Both of OSW’s 2003 and 2007 DSW proposals
asserted this action will encourage resource conservation:

“It is also consistent with one of the primary goals of the Congress
in enacting the RCRA statute (as evidenced by its name), and with the
Agency's vision of how the RCRA program could evolve over the longer
term to promote sustainability and more efficient use of resources." 
(Source: p.61560 of 28 Oct 2003 Federal Register DSW initial proposal,
and p.14175 of 26 March 2007 Federal Register DSW supplemental
proposal).

902 tons per year of 14 virgin materials (i.e., 6 virgin metals, 7
virgin solvents, 1 other virgin material) may be conserved in the future
as a result of disposal switchover to recycling under the DSW rule:

123 tons/year metals (chromium, copper, lead, molybdenum disulfide,
nickel, zinc)

345 tons/year solvents (acetone, alkyl benzenes, C9-C10 alkyl benzenes,
methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, xylene)

102 tons/year other materials (carbon)

$4.7 million/year market value of 14 virgin materials conserved (i.e.,
production of 14 virgin materials displaced by baseline disposal
switchover to recycling induced by the DSW final rule).

Distributional Effects

Exhibit 1C below presents potential distributional effects on 23
industries, consisting of 8 industries directly affected by the rule by
being engaged in or supporting recycling and subject to the terms of the
rule, and 15 industries possibly indirectly affected by the rule but not
engaged in or supporting recycling nor subject to the terms and
conditions of the final rule exclusions.

Exhibit 1C

Potential Direct & Indirect Distributional Effects on 23 Industries

A	B	C	D	E	F

Item	NAICS industry code	Industry Identity	Count of facilities affected
Average annual distributional effect on industry sales revenues 
Distributional effect as % average annual facility revenues

A. Direct Distributional Effects on Industrial Facilities Engaged in or
Supporting Recycling and Subject to the Terms of the Rule



1

2

3	

331492

562211

562211	A. Hazardous waste recovery/recycling:

H010 metals recovery (secondary smelting nonferrous metals)

H020 solvent recovery

H039 other materials recovery (carbon in this RIA)	

96

57

36	

-$21,892,500

-$2,353,300

-$6,508,400	

-1.995%

-0.422%

-1.845%



4

5

6

7	

562998

562998

562998

42393	B. Intermediate (middlemen) waste/materials distribution

Waste & recycling brokerage facilities

Waste & materials transfer facilities (storage & consolidation)

Waste & materials sorting facilities

Industrial recyclable materials wholesale distribution facilities	

Up to 164

Up to 1,473

Up to 1,233

Up to 16	

$0*

$0*

$0*

$0*	

0%*

0%*

0%*

0%(

8	562112	C. Hazardous waste transportation services (trucking)	Up to 358
-$46,511,300	-2.192%

B. Indirect Distributional Effects on Industrial Facilities Not Engaged
in Recycling Nor Subject to the Terms of the Rule



9

10

11

12

13

14

15	

21223

3241

325

327

493

561

562	D1. Hazardous waste beneficial disposal (H050 & H061 energy
recovery):

Copper, lead, nickel & zinc mining

Petroleum & coal products mfg

Chemical mfg

Nonmetallic mineral product mfg (i.e., cement mfg)

Warehousing & storage

Administrative support services

Waste management & remediation	

1

2

3

20

1

1

15	

-$27,400

-$31,900

-$47,900

-$355,900

-$12,200

-$9,100

-$273,700	

-0.036%

-0.018%

-0.051%

-0.303%

-1.325%

-1.506%

-0.629%



16

17

18	

562211

562211

562211	D2. Hazardous waste non-beneficial disposal:

H132 landfill or surface impoundment disposal

H134 deepwell injection disposal

H040, H071 to H131, H135 other non-beneficial disposal methods	

44

0

88	

-$8,460,200

$0

-$648,700	

-3.324%

0%

-0.096%

19	562212	E. Non-hazardous waste disposal (recycling residuals which
become non-haz)	Up to 2,012	+$943,500	+0.014%



20

21

22	

331492

325199

325188	F. Virgin materials production (displaced by disposal switchover
to recycling):

Virgin metals production (primary smelting nonferrous metals)

Virgin solvent production (all other basic organic chemical mfg)

Virgin other materials production (carbon black mfg)	

Up to 172

Up to 685

Up to 25	

-$3,680,400

-$578,900

-$438,500	

-0.156%

-0.001%

-0.0004%

23	2121	G. Coal mining (to replace lost H050 & H061 energy recovery rows
4 to 10); Note: other substitute fuels could also be available rather
than coal (e.g., other types of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes with
Btu value)	Up to 1,190	+$191,800	+0.0012%

Explanatory Notes:

Source: This exhibit summarizes the distributional effect estimates
presented in Chapter 10 (Exhibits 10B & 10C) of this RIA.

* This RIA assumes no net inter-industry distributional effects on
intermediate middlemen because they handle both hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes/materials.



Small Business Impacts (1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act)

Because the DSW final rule exclusions are voluntary, as well as
deregulatory, there is no expected direct adverse impact to small
entities subject to the DSW rule (industrial waste generators and TSDFs
are subject to the rule’s requirements).

Compared to LQGs, SQGs most likely have a smaller number of hazardous
constituents in their waste and thus may have a technical advantage for
their hazardous wastes to be recycled:

90% of facilities in a 1996 OSW national survey of TSDFs reported that
between 10 and 60 hazardous chemical constituents are present in RCRA
hazardous wastes they manage (i.e., in hazardous wastes TSDFs receive
from LQGs and SQGs or generate themselves).

Over one-third of all TSDFs surveyed reported between 10 and 20
hazardous chemical constituents (the highest number of constituents
reported for a single waste stream was 287).

Each of the 15 most prevalent constituents occurred in 20% of large
waste streams: five heavy metals (lead, chromium, cadmium, barium,
arsenic) and 10 organic chemicals (toluene, xylenes, benzene, acetone,
methyl ethyl ketone, methylene chloride, ethyl benzene, methanol, methyl
isobutyl ketone, ethyl acetate).  Waste streams reported in the survey
carry a total of 724 different chemical constituents.

This survey suggests that most LQGs must address a relatively higher
number of hazardous constituents in developing their waste management
approaches such as recycling, compared to SQGs (source: Chapter 3 of
“National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey Summary Report”, Oct
1998: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/pdf/summary.pdf;
complete survey data are available as item (4) at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm.).

1E.	Sensitivity Analysis

Not revealed in the impact estimates of this RIA are uncertainties in
numerical values for computation factors.  These uncertainties are not
transparent because this RIA assigns single point values to numerical
factors applied in the impact computations, rather than numerical
uncertainty ranges (e.g., lower-bound, most-likely, and upper-bound). 
As defined and derived in Chapter 12 of this RIA, there are 11 impact
estimation uncertainty factors which deserve highlighting how they may
influence the magnitude of future annual impacts of the DSW final rule. 
Exhibit 1D below presents how each of the uncertainty factors could
affect the actual economic impacts of the DSW final rule in any given
future year.  These 11 factors are not necessarily additive (i.e.,
compounding) in any given year, and some factors are over-lapping (e.g.,
factors #3, #4, and #6 are sub-components in part or in whole of factor
#2).

Exhibit 1D

Sensitivity of Annual Impact Estimate to 11 Uncertainty Factors

A	B	C	D	E

Item	Type of Impact Uncertainty Factor	Numerical Uncertainty Range in
Factor*	Impact Estimate Range**

($millions/year)

0	RIA annual impact estimate for Exclusions 1 + 2 + 3 (w/out uncertainty
applied) =	$95.3

Uncertainty ranges =	Low-end	High-end	Low-end	High-end

1	State government adoption uncertainty	-23% 	0%	$73.6	$95.3

2	Future fluctuation in annual tonnage of affected materials (3 major
components):	-57% 	+45%	$41	$138

3	a. Within-year tonnage discrepancy between generation & management of
affected materials	-34% 	+39%	$63	$132

4	b. Future annual economic growth of US industrial output	0% 	+5.6%
$95.3	$100.6

5	c. Data quality assurance (already de-regulated wastes may be in
Biennial Report database)	-0.7% 	0%	$94.6	$95.3

6	Indirect inclusion of SQGs in baseline data on hazardous wastes
(rather than direct inclusion)	+31%	+89%	$125	$180

7	Physical/chemical quality of secondary materials for viable
recovery/recycling	-21%	0%	$75.3	$95.3

8	Expected accuracy of impact estimates	-20%	+30%	$76	$124

9	Change in future market price of commodities recovered from
DSW-excluded materials	-50%	+50%	$94.2	$98.1

	If include in the scope of the disposal switchover to recycling test of
this RIA, rather than omit:	--	--	--	--

10	a. Possibility of same-company facilities sharing offsite captive
recycling facility under Exclusion 1	+10%	+249%	$105	$333

11	b. Possibility of baseline disposal switchover to onsite recycling
under Exclusion 1	+32%	+47%	$126	$140

Summary:***

Non-additive overall minimum and maximum range indicated across all
uncertainty factors =	-57%	+249%	$41	$333

Additive overall minimum and maximum range if add factor #1 to overall
range=	-80%	+249%	$19	$333

Explanatory Notes:

* Definitions and calculations for each sensitivity factor provided in
Chapter 12 of this RIA.

** Columns D & E::

Factors 1 to 8, 10, 11: Low and high impact ranges calculated by
multiplying the annual impact estimate (row 0), by the percentages in
columns B & C.

Ractor 9: Low- and high-end impact ranges calculated by changing the
prices applied within the impact estimation spreadsheets for this RIA.

*** All impact factors are not necessarily additive in any year because
some may be mutually exclusive (e.g., increase in factor 10 tonnage may
lead to decrease in factor 11 tonnage and vice versa), and some factors
may cancel-out others via positive correlation (e.g., decrease in factor
2 tonnage may lead to decrease in factor 10 & 11 tonnages and vice
versa).  However, state government adoption uncertainty is additive to
other factors in any given future year.

Chapter 2

Statement of Regulatory Need & Executive Order 13422 Problem Statement

This chapter traces the historical origin of the need for this
regulatory form, in the form of a 1992 task force and a series of
1987-2000 court decisions on the subject, followed by more recent
environmental policy, industrial comments, and independent studies which
also established the need and provided both a theoretical and empirical
context for the final rule amendment to the RCRA Definition of Solid
Waste.

2A.	1992 Task Force Recommendation to Improve RCRA Recycling Regulations

OSW’s ambition to re-examine the 40 CFR 261 RCRA “Definition of
Solid Waste” (DSW) dates back to October 1992 when it formed the
“Definition of Solid Waste Task Force”, which published
recommendations for developing new DSW regulations in November 1994. 
The DSW Task Force was formed in response to a recommendation in the
July 1992 update to the RCRA Implementation Study (RIS), which concluded
that:

RCRA Subtitle C regulations are difficult to understand and apply, and
that the rules do not regulate [industrial hazardous waste] recycling
consistently.

The RIS update recommended developing policy options that would improve
how RCRA recycling regulations address environmental risks while
reducing barriers to industrial recycling.  The 2008 DSW final rule
reduces barriers to recycling by adding three new regulatory exclusions
for industrial recycling to the 16 existing DSW industrial recycling
exclusions listed in Exhibit 2A below.



Exhibit 2A

16 Current Industrial Recycling Exclusions from the 40 CFR 261 RCRA
Definition of Solid Waste (as of 2007)

Item	Year	40 CFR	Abbreviated Description of Exclusion (see
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr for complete descriptions & conditions)

1	1985	261.2(e)(i)	Materials used or reused as ingredients in an
industrial process to make a product without being reclaimed

2	1985	261.2(e)(ii)	Materials used or reused as effective substitutes
for commercial products

3	1985	261.2(e)(iii)	Materials returned as a feedstock to the industrial
process from which generated without being reclaimed or land disposed

4	1985	261.4(a)(6)	Pulping liquors that are reclaimed in a pulping
liquor recovery furnace and then reused in the pulping process

5	1985	261.4(a)(7)	Spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric
acid

6	1986	261.4(a)(8)	Materials reclaimed and returned to the original
process(es) in which generated for reuse in production if entire process
is closed by tanks, pipes or other enclosed conveyance, if reclamation
doesn’t involve combustion.

7	1990	261.4(a)(9)	Spent wood preserving solutions that have been
reclaimed and reused for their original intended purpose

8	1991	261.4(a)(10)	K060, K087, K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K148
wastes recycled to coke ovens or tar recovery

9	1991	261.4(a)(11)	Recovered non-wastewater splash condenser dross
residue of K061 treatment in metals recovery units

10	1994	261.4(a)(12)	Petroleum refinery oil-bearing sludges, byproducts
or spent materials inserted into the refining process

11	1997	261.4(a)(13)	Scrap metal being recycled

12	1997	261.4(a)(14)	Circuit boards being recycled if stored prior to
recovery and free of mercury, nickel-cadmium & lithium

13	1998	261.4(a)(17)	Spent materials generated by the primary mineral
processing industry for recovery of minerals, acids, etc.

14	1998	261.4(a)(18)	Petrochemical oil recovered from organic chemical
manufacturing if oil is inserted into petro-refining process

15	1998	261.4(a)(19)	Spent caustic solutions from petroleum refining
used as feedstock to produce cresylic or naphthenic acid

16	2002	261.4(a)(20)	Hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc
micronutrient fertilizers



2B.	1987-2000 Court Decisions Direct USEPA to Restructure the RCRA DSW
Regulations

In addition to the purpose of removing regulatory barriers to industrial
recycling, OSW also initiated this final rule partially in response to a
1987 to 2000 series of seven decisions by the US Court of Appeals for
the DC Circuit, which, taken together, have provided OSW with additional
direction regarding RCRA regulatory exclusion of industrial recycling. 
This final rule represents an important addition to and restructuring of
the 40 CFR 261 RCRA DSW regulations that:

Distinguish “wastes” from non-waste (i.e., not “discarded”)
materials for RCRA regulatory purposes when legitimately reclaimed, and

Ensure environmental protections over industrial hazardous secondary
materials recycling practices, 

The DSW final rule is de-regulatory in nature because it excludes
certain recyclable materials that have heretofore been subject to RCRA
hazardous waste regulations, from Subtitle C regulation as hazardous
waste.  The factors for defining “legitimate” recycling in 40 CFR
260.43 for the two recycling exclusions and non-waste determinations are
substantively the same as the current legitimacy policy.  The DSW final
rule is not intended to bring new wastes into the RCRA regulatory
system.

2C.	USEPA Policy to Encourage Resource Recovery

By removing hazardous waste regulatory controls over certain industrial
recycling practices, USEPA expects that this final rule will encourage
the safe, beneficial recycling of additional hazardous secondary
materials.  This regulatory initiative is thus consistent with the
USEPA-OSWER’s longstanding policy of encouraging the recovery,
recycling, and reuse of valuable resources as an alternative to discard
and disposal as waste, while at the same time maintaining protection of
human health and the environment.  It also is consistent with the
primary “resource conservation” goal of the Congress in enacting the
RCRA statute (as evidenced by the RCRA statute’s name: Resource
Conservation & Recovery Act), and with OSW’s vision of how the RCRA
program could evolve over the long-term to promote economic
sustainability and more efficient use of resources.

2D.	Industry Commentors on 2003 & 2007 DSW Proposals Identify RCRA
Barriers to Recycling

OSW received in public comments on the October 2003 and March 2007 DSW
proposals, corroborating evidence that the DSW final rule may stimulate
additional industrial recycling.  Following are para-phrased excerpts
explaining how recycling of five specific types of industrial secondary
materials might be stimulated as identified by public commenters.
(Source: para-phrased from comments by IPC Association of Connecting
Electronics Industries, Commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0458 and Chevron
Corp, Commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0464, available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov ). 
Summarization of these public comments in this RIA does not constitute
OSW endorsement of their content, authors, or sponsoring organizations.

Solder:		Solder dross, a byproduct of the soldering process, is sent
back to the solder manufacturers and returned to electronics facilities
and other solder users.  Due to designation as a hazardous waste by many
states, solder is infrequently recycled or reclaimed from used
electronic components and sweatables (wipers, lead-bearing Q-tips,
solder tips, rollers, and personal protective equipment contaminated
with solder).  Reclamation by the solder manufacturer would occur more
frequently if the regulatory barriers were reduced or removed.  Sludge
from the stencil wash evaporator process can also be sent to the solder
manufacturer for reclamation and would be done more frequently under
less burdensome regulatory schemes.

Copper:	Copper containing drill dust (approximately 10% copper) and
edger dust (20-25%copper) generated during the manufacture of PCBs is
generally not recycled because of the high cost of shipment as compared
to landfill disposal.  Under the DSW rule this secondary material could
be easily combined with copper containing sludge for more efficient
shipment and recycling.

Vanadium:	The primary manufacturing process for vanadium production in
the US is to adsorb raw vanadium from oil, extract the vanadium from the
adsorbent, and produce vanadium products.  This sequence of processes
occurs at multiple industry sites as do many manufacturing chains today.
 However, since the adsorbent was also considered to be "spent" in its
function as a petroleum catalyst, it was listed as a hazardous waste
whether or not it was disposed or processed in the vanadium
manufacturing chain.  The result of the listing has been that the
manufacturing chain became uneconomical for many vanadium sources and
the adsorbent containing raw vanadium has been increasingly disposed of
as hazardous spent catalyst (K172).  The DSW rule may reverse the
negative consequences of the listing with its proposal to clarify when a
material is not a waste. Over time we anticipate more material
containing vanadium will leave the disposal stream and enter the
manufacturing chain.  We believe this is but one example demonstrating
the value of this proposal.

WW sludge:	Hydroxide metal sludge, created through the treatment of
printed circuit board [PCB] electroplating wastewater [WW], is one of
the many secondary materials that would be affected by the DSW proposal.
 Under RCRA, metal precipitate sludge produced in this manner is a
listed hazardous waste, even when it is being shipped off-site for
metals recovery.  The hazardous waste designation increases the cost of
recycling, resulting in a large quantity of valuable metal bearing
sludge being disposed of in hazardous waste landfills rather that being
recycled.  The 1998 Metal Finishing Common Sense Initiative F006
Benchmarking Study found that landfilling was the dominant choice for
final disposal of electroplating sludge.

Plating sludge:	In addition to metal smelters, etchant suppliers are
potentially interested in recycling electroplating sludge from printed
circuit board (PCB) manufacturers.  However the need to become a
RCRA-permitted TSDF in order to perform recycling under EPA's RCRA
hazardous waste regulations has deterred these facilities from pursuing
this type of copper recycling.  When electroplating sludge is mixed into
spent etchant, the residual acid or alkaline content in spent etchant
dissolves the electroplating sludge to produce the same dissolved copper
compounds as the spent etch contains.  Under current RCRA regulations,
etchant suppliers have not been interested in receiving this mixture, as
it would require them to become a permitted TSDF.  Under the DSW
proposal, this combined mixture could be shipped to the etchant supplier
for recycling, allowing the PCB manufacturer to eliminate separate
shipments of electroplating sludge and etchant.  However, because
landfilling is generally less expensive than metals recovery under
current regulatory restrictions, much metals-rich sludge is land filled,
wasting valuable resources.

The prospect for the DSW final rule to reduce existing regulatory
barriers to encourage new future recycling was not shared by all
industry commentors on the 2003 or 2007 DSW proposals.  The
Environmental Technology Council (ETC; commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0119)
in its comments on the 2003 DSW proposal stated:

“It is very likely that a proper engineering and scientific approach
would have shown that there are few barriers to recycling, and that
nearly all wastes that are truly amenable to solvent recovery, metals
recovery or other recovery are being recycled today.  Indeed the only
barrier might be permitting costs, but EPA’s proposed rule on
Standardized Permits will significantly reduce this barrier and cost
when finalized.  Then the only costs will be minor administrative and
recordkeeping costs, which are a small percentage of the savings and
other benefits realized from recycling.  Likewise, EPA’s Uniform and
Electronic Manifesting Rule-Making initiatives will reduce these costs
further.  Throwing out RCRA control for a small increase in recycling
ignores the consequences including public health impacts, increased
environmental releases and contaminated sites resulting from poor
unregulated storage and processing practices.”

2E.	Independent Published Studies Identify RCRA Barriers to Recycling of
Industrial Materials

Not represented in the above descriptions of regulatory need and problem
statements, are independent published studies on the subject of RCRA
regulatory barriers to industrial recycling.  In addition to the four
sources of regulatory need summarized above, five studies published 1989
to 2001 by independent organizations listed below, also identified the
need for reforming the RCRA DSW and identified RCRA regulatory barriers
to industrial materials recovery/recycling.  These studies do not
represent an exhaustive literature search on the subject, but are
studies which OSW easily found via an internet search using the key
phrase <RCRA regulatory industry recycling barriers>.  Summarization of
these studies in this RIA does not constitute OSW endorsement of their
content, authors or sponsoring organizations.

2001	Rand Corporation: “The second kind of regulatory barrier derives
from the regulation of treatment and recycling activities on site.  The
RCRA and many state agencies maintain close controls over these
activities, often with the result that a firm pursues a treatment or
recycling option in the hope of escaping some regulatory burden only to
discover that it has traded one regulatory regime for another. Some
firms fear that the regulators use control over on-site activities
precisely to avoid being displaced by pollution-prevention and other
innovative environmental policies.” (Source: Rand Corporation, Chapter
3 “Chapter Three “Approaches to Environmental Management in
Proactive Commercial Firms” by Frank Camm in “Environmental
Management in Proactive Commercial Firms: Lessons for Central Logistics
Activites in the Department of Defense”, 2001, p.39:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1308.pdf" 
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1308.pdf ).

2000:	Progressive Policy Institute:  “Problem: A major pollution
problem of the iron and steel industry is the discharge of spent
sulfuric, hydrochloric, or mixed acids used to form finished steel. Each
year approximately 1.4 billion gallons of spent hydrochloric and
sulphuric acids are discharged, primarily to receiving waters,
landfills, or injected underground. EPA estimates that only 2 percent
are reclaimed and recycled.   Barriers: The most immediate barrier to
lowering discharges of acids used in the production process is the
definition of solid waste in EPA's RCRA regulations, in which used acids
must be treated as a RCRA waste if they are to be reclaimed. This
requires a firm to apply for a RCRA storage permit, which is difficult
and costly to obtain, and adds significant paperwork if the firm wishes
to reuse the material in the production process. These requirements
escalate the difficulty and cost of recycling so much that it is more
economic for most firms to dispose of the acids instead…  Bottom Line:
EPA should amend the definition of waste to allow reclamation activities
to proceed without having the material become a RCRA waste.” (Source:
PPI Policy Report 01 Aug 2000, “How Environmental Laws Can Discourage
Pollution Prevention: Case Studies of Barriers to Innovation”, Byron
Swift:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=150&content
ID=1159" 
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=150&contentI
D=1159 ).

1999:	Energy & Environmental Research Center  “Regulatory barriers
result from the EPA RCRA designation of [coal combustion byproducts] as
solid wastes even when they are utilized rather than disposed of. In the
absence of special state exemptions from solid waste regulations for
beneficial use, the “waste” designation can trigger case-by-case
approval and permitting procedures that discourage the use of CCBs
because of cost and the time required to complete adjudicatory
processes. The ineffectiveness of federal agencies to promulgate
regulations and guidelines to overcome this barrier continues to hinder
use of byproducts.” (Source: EERC, “Barriers to The Increased
Utilization of Coal Combustion/ Desulfurization By-Products by
Government And Commercial Sectors – Update 1998”, EERC Topical
Report, July 1999; p.xix,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/777109-WOStla/webviewable/7771
09.PDF" 
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/777109-WOStla/webviewable/77710
9.PDF ).

1998:	Resources for the Future: “Used fixer, even if part of a
recycling-based system, is given a "spent material" RCRA classification.
 An unfortunate consequence of this rule is that, simply by using the
product,  DuCare customers become hazardous waste generators. According
to several people interviewed for the case, regulatory burdens
associated with this rule create a powerful motivation to simply
discharge used fixer to the drain and POTW [publicly-owned treatment
works].  The RCRA classification issue is the largest source of DuCare
customer complaints.  Its costs are difficult to quantify but are
related to several factors. From a customer's standpoint, the spent
fixer distribution system requires them to administer special handling
and storage, labeling, training, and reporting procedures.  Many small
printers have never had experience with this sort of regulatory
program…  The classification also increases the costs of providing the
recycling system.  As noted earlier, the "reverse distribution" system
that sends the fixer back for recycling is a major cost component.  The
hazardous classification means that the developer and fixer must be
shipped separately.  The inability to consolidate shipments increases
costs, since there are scale economies associated with the transport of
loads to the central processing facilities.  The licensed transport
required for the fixer is approximately twice as expensive as the
transport used for the spent developer (spent developer has a less
onerous "corrosive" Department of Transportation classification).” 
(Source: RFF,“Searching for the Profit in Pollution Prevention: Case
Studies in the Corporate Evaluation of Environmental Opportunities”,
Discussion Paper 98-30, May 1998, pp.32-33:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-98-30.pdf" 
http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-98-30.pdf ).

1995:	The Reason Foundation: “So whatever “recycling” is, RCRA
applies to it and doesn't apply to “virgin” materials used as
commercial products— even though recycling operations are already
subject to the same environmental regulations as comparable activities
using virgin materials, like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, Superfund, the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. 
Many perfectly acceptable and reusable (and regulated) raw
materials—salts of heavy metals, acids, toxic solvents, water-reactive
materials, and so on—become RCRA hazardous wastes the moment they are
“discarded,” whatever that means, which virtually guarantees that
few people will recycle them.  The market advantage this grants virgin
materials should be clear enough ... It is also a hassle for companies
that want to send their wastes to be recycled, but are afraid that the
recycling facility may eventually be declared a hazardous waste site
(and that they may be subject to Superfund liability) because of a
process determination, not based on whether or not the product is
hazardous.  The EPA's distinctions are important because they affect all
recycling operations—and sometimes they destroy the incentive to
recycle instead of throw away.  The laws applying to recycling are
difficult to understand and implement, and the consequences of recycling
are uncertain.  For many, this becomes an unacceptable risk, and this
risk often leads to avoidance.  Even the EPA concedes that the current
regulations are difficult to implement and discourage safe recycling of
hazardous waste.”  (Source: The Reason Foundation, “Recycling
Hazardous Waste: How RCRA Has Recyclers Running Around in CERCLAS”, by
Alexander Volokh, Policy Study nr. 197, October 1995 at:
http://www.reason.org/ps197.pdf).

1989:The Northwest Policy Center: “[T]he decision to recycle hazardous
wastes on-site becomes less obvious for companies whose alternative
costs of disposal are lower, or for whom process changes are more
difficult or expensive. For some of these companies there is a delicate
balance between on-site recycling and immediate transport, land
disposal, or incineration of all wastes generated. This balance can be
tipped by the regulatory environment toward the latter, even if the
wastes include valuable metals or if re-use of hazardous wastes could
decrease the costs for new raw materials...  For companies operating
batch processes, it may take longer than this 90-day period to
accumulate a sufficient quantity of a particular waste to justify
recycling. From the first day that even small quantities of these wastes
are stored, some companies must also meet EPA and local fire marshal
standards, including the ability of the storage area to hold and
withstand a continuous stream of water if a fire occurs. Meeting these
standards at several locations at a specific facility can create
expenses than are far greater than the immediate benefits of recovery. 
There are extensive requirements for labeling and handling of materials
once they are classified as a hazardous waste, which present significant
obstacles to recycling these wastes.” (Source: TNPC “Hazardous Waste
Source Reduction: Industry Perception Of Regulatory And Other
Impediments”, June 1989, pp.7, 8:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/23/22470.pdf).

However, not all independent studies on the topic of RCRA regulatory
barriers to industrial secondary materials recovery/recycling agree with
the above studies.  For example, a 2003 Boston College study concluded:

2003:	Boston College:  “One possible solution that bodes well for
pollution reduction, or even prevention, has been the concept of
eco-industrial development (EID). EID describes a closed-loop industrial
cycle where generated materials or by-products are returned to the
manufacturing process, either used by another facility, or as feedstock
for the production of other products. It has been argued, usually by the
regulated community, that environmental regulations create unnecessary
impediments to creative solutions like EID. The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations are often cited as the most
obstructing…  To categorically state that RCRA is a barrier to
eco-industrial development, or that such projects are doomed to fail in
the U.S. without regulatory restructuring of RCRA, is simply unfounded.
First, for RCRA to even apply, the recycled secondary material must be a
solid waste, must be hazardous, and must involve one of the regulated
secondary materials and recycling methods. Considering the exclusions
and exemptions, there appear to be many unregulated recycling
possibilities. Second, RCRA’s recycling-as-solid-waste definitions are
designed to restrict unsafe methods of recycling, not legitimate
recycling.” (Source: Jo Jeanne Lown, Managing Editor, Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review, Vol.30, Part 2, 2003, pp.275-314).

Chapter 3

Background & Scope of this RIA

3A.	Summary of OSW’s Prior RIAs for the DSW Rulemaking

Recap of OSW’s 1995 DSW RIA Methodology Study

In support of the work done by OSW’s 1992-1994 DSW Task Force, ICF
Inc. prepared two RIA documents: (a) 1994 document entitled
“Methodology for a Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Definition of
Solid Waste”, which explored conceptually the approaches that OSW
could use to complete an RIA for proposed changes to the DSW; and (b) 30
Sept 1995 “Regulatory Impact Analysis Methodology for the Redefinition
of Solid Waste” which proposed impact estimation methodologies and
data sources for two separate sets of DSW revision options:

Options set #1: RCRA jurisdiction:

In-commerce/minimum conditions

Transfer-based approach (3 sub-options: 1. onsite, 2. intra-industry, 3.
inter-industry)

Options set #2: Regulated recycling:

Tracking system

Management standards

Approval system

Legitimate recycling

Disposal switchover to recycling: The 1995 methodology (pages 105-106)
also included a proposal to estimate potential switchover from baseline
hazardous waste disposal, to new recycling, in addition to estimating
the potential de-regulatory cost savings associated with baseline
hazardous waste recycling.  The Sept 1995 DSW re-definition RIA
methodology conceptual study completed by ICF Inc for OSW, outlined a
2-stage impact estimation process involving four parts

Part 1:	Identify recycling methods for which baseline costs are expected
to be reduced at least 10% by the rule, and the types of wastes being
recycled by those methods.  For those same waste types identify any
tonnages which are subject to baseline disposal rather than recycling.

Part 2:	Conduct focused evaluation to determine if disposed wastes
identified in Part 1 are technically amenable to recycling, for example,
by anticipating that shift-over from disposal to recycling is most
likely to occur from:

Incineration disposal and energy recovery disposal, to solvent recovery;
and

Stabilization followed by landfill disposal, to metals recovery.

Part 3:	Estimate the annualized cost for the hypothetical new recycling,
and compare it to the estimated cost for the baseline disposal, to
determine if the former is lower than the later to signify potential
switchover to recycling.

Part 4:	As a supplement to Part 3, search technical literature on
recycling to determine the best economic scale of recycling operations
(i.e., the minimum tons-per-year of waste feedstock needed for breakeven
operation), and compare to the baseline disposal annual tons.

Recap of OSW’s 2003 RIA for the 2003 DSW Proposed Rule

In June 2003, OSW completed an initial RIA for OSW’s 28 October 2003
DSW proposed rule to exclude certain types of industrial recycling ---
in addition to the current 40 CFR 261.2 industrial recycling exclusions
--- from RCRA solid waste regulation.

The 2003 RIA estimated impacts (i.e., $178 million/year regulatory cost
savings) only for the proposed rule’s main “4-digit NAICS
intra-industry” recycling exclusion option; the 2003 RIA did not
estimate impacts for four other industrial recycling exclusion options
described in the proposed rule (i.e., “onsite” option, “broad”
option w/few conditions, “broad” option w/more conditions, and a
“case-by-case” option).

OSW received review comments on the 2003 RIA from the Environmental
Technology Council (ETC) representing the US commercial hazardous waste
management industry (see pages 43 to 58 at:
http://www.etc.org/ETC_Detailed_Comments.pdf).  In addition, eight
industrial commentors identified 18 specific hazardous waste categories
as potentially impacted and provided related technical suggestions to
improve the economic impact estimates.  OSW evaluated these other waste
categories in the 2007 RIA for the 26 March 2007 DSW revision
re-proposal.

Disposal switchover to recycling: also included in the 2003 RIA in
addition to de-regulatory cost savings for baseline recycling.  The 2003
RIA identified the primary waste types (by SIC industry code and by
physical form code) being reported recycled in the 1999 Biennial Report
(BR) database, and assumed that all of these waste types being reported
as disposed in 1999 (i.e., landfilled or thermally destroyed by energy
recovery, fuel blending, or incineration) had a higher potential for
onsite recycling.  This assumption yielded eight waste types evaluated
using “breakeven” for swichover from disposal to recycling:

Organic liquids generated by SIC 2821, 2834, 2851, 2869 (liquid form
codes = B101-B119, B201-B219)

Emission control dust from SIC 3312 (solid form codes B301-B319,
B401-B409, sludge forms B501-B519, B601-B609)

Metal-containing liquids from SIC 3672 (liquid form codes)

Electroplating wastewater treatment sludges from SIC 3672 (solid form
codes, sludge form codes)

Spent carbon from SIC 2869, 2911 (solid form codes, sludge form codes)

Spent catalysts from SIC 2911 (solid form codes, sludge form codes)

Spent aluminum potliner from SIC 3334 (solid form codes, sludge form
codes)

Spent pickle liquor from SIC 3312 (liquid form codes)

Recap of OSW’s 2007 RIA for the 2007 DSW Supplemental Re-Proposal

In January 2007, OSW completed an RIA for the 26 March 2007 DSW
supplemental re-proposal, which is available at (284 pages)
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/ria.pdf.  The 2007 RIA
evaluated eight regulatory options for DSW exclusions listed in Exhibit
3A below.  RIA “Option 8” was the main option presented in the March
2007 DSW re-proposal, and is the option evaluated in this RIA for the
2008 DSW final rule.  For “Option 8”, the 2007 RIA estimated a range
of $93 million to $205 million per year (“most likely” estimate =
$107 million/year) in potential net annual cost savings benefits to
between 460 to 570 industries under the main option (i.e., “Option
8”), consisting of:

$12 million to $94 million per year in net benefits from inducing
between 1,155 to 1,528 LQG and TSDF facilities to switchover between
0.038 million to 0.213 million tons per year of hazardous wastes from
current RCRA-regulated disposal in landfills and incinerator, to new
DSW-excluded recycling.

$81 million to $111 million per year in RCRA de-regulatory cost savings
to between 2,420 to 3,860 LQG and TSDF facilities associated with
de-regulating between 0.291 million to 1.488 million tons per year of
hazardous waste currently recycled as RCRA-regulated wastes.

Disposal switchover to recycling: also included in the 2007 RIA in
addition to de-regulatory cost savings for baseline recycling.  The 2007
RIA built upon the eight waste types identified in the 2003 RIA, and
incorporated the 18 waste types identified by public commentors on the
2003 RIA, resulting in a list of 12 waste types for breakeven
evaluation, consisting of the same eight disposal waste types from the
2003 RIA, plus four other disposal waste types:

Lead acid batteries

Lead-bearing materials

Oil from petrochemical manufacturing plants

Oil refining spent acids

Exhibit 3A

List of 40 CFR 261 DSW Exclusion Options for Industrial Recycling
Analyzed in OSW’s 22 January 2007 RIA

DSW Exclusion Option	Brief Description of Option

1	Onsite only	Relatively narrow exclusion for recycling that is done
onsite (i.e., at the secondary material generator’s facility),
originally described in the Oct 2003 DSW proposed rule (p.61575).

2	4-digit NAICS

intra-industry transfer	Relatively narrow exclusion for recycling that
is done in a “continuous process within the same industry”,
originally described as the main option of the Oct 2003 DSW proposed
rule (p. 61563-61574).

3	Broad inter-industry offsite transfer w/few conditions	Broad exclusion
with relatively few conditions, as originally described in the preamble
of the Oct 2003 DSW proposed rule (p.61588); the version of this option
analyzed in this RIA includes three implementation conditions under the
“most-likely”* impact estimate: (1) no speculative accumulation, (2)
generator notifies USEPA of recycling activity, and (3) generator
re-notifies if recycling activity changes.  The Oct 2003 DSW proposed
rule listed possible additional conditions for this option
(pp.61588-61589).

4	Broad inter-industry offsite transfer w/additional conditions	Same as
Option 3 with more comprehensive conditions to prevent “discard”;
the “most-likely”* version of this option analyzed includes eight
implementation conditions, consisting of the three conditions (1), (2),
(3) of Option 3, plus five additional conditions: (4) maintain onsite
records of recycling activities, (5) no land placement of materials, (6)
recycler has financial assurance, (7) generator exercises “due
diligence” of recycler, and (8) export of materials for recycling
follows notice and comment requirement.

5	Option 4 as RCRA “exemption” rather than DSW “exclusion”	Same
as Option 4 with a conditional “exemption” from the RCRA definition
of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.3, 261.4), rather than “exclusion”
from the definition of solid waste (40 CFR 261.2).  Note: Although this
option is embedded and displayed as a separate option within the
analytic framework and impact tables of the 2007 RIA, because the
implementation conditions assigned for impact estimation are identical
to Option 4, the estimated impacts for this option in the 2007 RIA are
identical to Option 4.

6	Case-by-case petition	Case-by-case variance mechanism, as described in
the Oct 2003 DSW proposed rule (p.61589).

7	Generator controlled	Same as Option 1 but with two additional
exclusions for offsite transfers: (a) within the “same company” and
(b) with “tolling contractors”.  Note: the 2007 RIA dids not
separately evaluate the “non land based units” and “land based
units” components of this exclusion.

8	Combination of options 4, 6, 7	Option 4 + Option 6 + Option 7.  Note:
this option was not included in the initial analytic framework of the
2007 RIA; consequently, OSW derived an impact estimate for this option
by non-duplicative incremental addition of the estimated impacts for two
of its constituent options (i.e., Option 4 + Option 6); Option 7 impact
was not added because Option 7 impact is nested within Option 4 impact
and is therefore not incremental.

* Note: “most-likely” = to account for various sources of economic
impact estimation uncertainty for each option, this RIA provides impact
estimation ranges consisting of “minimum”, “medium” (i.e.,
most-likely), and “maximum” impact estimates.



3B.	Summary of Public Comments on OSW’s 2003 DSW RIA and 2007 DSW RIA

As identified in Exhibit 3B below, OSW received 25 sets of comments from
30 organizations (two comment sets were submitted jointly by more than
one organization) on the 2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs, and on related economic
analysis sub-topics associated with OSW compliance with Executive Order
12866 procedures for completing Federal government RIAs  These 25
comment sets represent 18% of the total 136 “universe” of public
comment sets on all topics of both the October 2003 DSW proposed rule
and the March 2007 supplemental re-proposal for the DSW rulemaking.  OSW
received 18 comment sets from 23 organizations on the 2003 RIA, and 10
comment sets from 14 organizations on the 2007 RIA.



Exhibit 3B

Identity of Public Commentors on OSW’s 2003 DSW RIA and 2007 DSW RIA

Set	Name of Commentor	Commentor ID nr.*	2003 RIA	2007 RIA

1	American Chemistry Council (ACC)	2002-0031-0093	X

	2	American Ecology Corporation	2002-0031-0193	X

	3	American Iron & Steel Institute	2002-0031-0207	X

	4	Anonymous	2002-0031-0479

X

5	Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC)	2002-0031-0172

2002-0031-0548	X	X

6	Chevron Corp.	2002-0031-0464

X

7	Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc.	2002-0031-0117	X

	8	Congress of the United States	2002-0031-0343	X

	9	Connecticut State Dept of Environmental Protection	2002-0031-0098	X

	10	Earthjustice (jointly filed with Sierra Club, US Public Interest
Research Group, National Environmental Trust, Safe Food & Fertilizer)
2002-0031-0559

X

(n=5)

11	Eastman Chemical Company	2002-0031-0102	X

	12	Environmental Technology Council (ETC)	2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0558	X	X

13	International Metals Reclamation Company, Inc.	2002-0031-0178	X

	14	IPC Association of Connecting Electronics Industries	2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0458	X	X

15	Kentucky State Environmental & Public Protection Cabinet
2002-0031-0130	X

	16	Maine State Dept of Environmental Protection	2002-0031-0095	X

	17	Metals Industries Recycling Coalition	2002-0031-0529

X

18	Newmont Mining Corporation	2002-0031-0089	X

	19	North Carolina State Hazardous Waste Section	2002-0031-0067	X

	20	PPG Industries Inc.	2002-0031-0203	X

	21	Safe Food & Fertilizer	2002-0031-0561

X

22	Safety-Kleen Systems Inc.	2002-0031-0146	X

	23	Sierra Club (jointly flied with US Public Interest Research Group
(PIRG), National Environmental Trust, Pacific Environmental Advocacy
Center, Safe Food & Fertilizer, Northwest Environmental Defense Center)
2002-0031-0231	X

(n=6)

	24	Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA)
2002-0031-0471.2

X

25	Tennessee State Dept of Environment & Conservation	2002-0031-0488

X

Sub-total comment sets =	18 sets

(n=23 organizations)	10 sets

(n=14 organizations)

Total public comments on the two prior RIAs=	25 sets

(n=30 organizations)

* Commentor ID nr. as assigned by the Federal regulatory docket at:
http://www.regulations.gov for docket nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031.

Exhibit 3C below presents a summary of the most prevalent sub-topics
contained in the 25 sets of comments on the two prior DSW RIAs.  These
sub-topics reflect specific excerpts from each comment set as parsed and
bracketed in summer 2007 by an OSW contractor (ICF Inc).  The parsing
and bracketing yielded a total of 76 sub-topics from the 25 comment sets
pertaining to the DSW RIAs, consisting of 53 sub-topics on the 2003 RIA
and 23 sub-topics on the 2007 RIA.

Exhibit 3C

Summary of Public Comment Sub-Topics on OSW’s 2003 DSW RIA and 2007
DSW RIA

Rank	Comment Excerpt Sub-Topic*	Commentor ID nr.	Non-duplicative
Commentor Count

1	Omitted analyses of potential countervailing risks for this rule such
as potential increase in future (a) industrial recycling damage cases
and cleanup costs, (b) human exposure and safety risks, (c) misdirected,
abandoned and lost shipments, (d) traffic accidents, (e) use of coal to
offset loss of hazardous wastes shifting from energy recovery to
recycling, (f) commercial hazardous waste industry bankruptcies, (g)
impacts of the DSW final rule on the functioning of other environmental
and public programs (e.g., effect on “arranger liability” under
CERCLA section 107)..	2002-0031-0067

2002-0031-0095

2002-0031-0098

2002-0031-0117

2002-0031-0119 [ETC]

2002-0031-0130

2002-0031-0146

2002-0031-0172 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0231**

2002-0031-0343

2002-0031-0479

2002-0031-0548 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0558 [ETC]

2002-0031-0559***

2002-0031-0561	16 comment sets

(representing 19 organizations)

2	Over-estimated potential future annual industry cost savings and new
recycling benefits	2002-0031-0093

2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0117

2002-0031-0119 [ETC]

2002-0031-0172 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0203

2002-0031-0231**

2002-0031-0548 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0558 [ETC]

2002-0031-0559***	11 comment sets

(representing 14 organizations)

3	Did not adequately account for potential impacts on state government
agencies (e.g., potential reduction in state hazardous waste fee
revenues, potential non-adoption of DSW final rule by states, state
cleanup costs for recycling damage cases)	2002-0031-0067

2002-0031-0095

2002-0031-0098

2002-0031-0172

2002-0031-0548

2002-0031-0558

2002-0031-0561	7

4	Mis-specified certain unit costs (e.g., baseline RCRA regulatory
paperwork burden unit costs, onsite recycling investment and operating
unit costs, market value of recovered constituents, unit cost for
environmental permits for new onsite recycling, recoverable constituent
concentrations and market values in baseline disposed wastes)
2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0178

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0548	5

5	Incorrectly assumed baseline disposal shift to onsite recycling
scenario is not realistic because of the unavailability of (a)
investment capital, (b) industrial facility space, (c) technical
expertise, (d) skilled labor, and (e) unwillingness to expand beyond
core business NAICS code, (f) lack of economies-of-scale for
implementing new onsite recycling that some individual facilities cannot
support, and (g) superior quality of materials produced by offsite
reclaimers/recyclers.	2002-0031-0479

2002-0031-0093

2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0178

2002-0031-0203	5

6	Under-estimated potential future annual industry cost savings and new
recycling benefits	2002-0031-0458

2002-0031-0471.2

2002-0031-0529	3

7	Did not adequately estimate potential beneficial or adverse impacts on
small businesses	2002-0031-0146

2002-0031-0458

2002-0031-0471.2	3

8	No rationale to assume in the 2003 RIA that hazardous waste tonnage
recycled in 1997 but not in 1999 will again be recycled at some point in
the future because of this rule	2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0213	2

9	Incorrect mathematical treatment of RCRA Biennial Report database
hazardous waste tonnage data outliers	2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0231	2

10	Unsubstantiated desktop analysis assumptions used rather than basing
the impact analysis on an industry survey to determine what recycling
options are available that are not being pursued today for regulatory
reasons and for consideration of hazardous waste characteristics.
2002-0031-0119	1

11	Under-estimated future annual tonnages which may shift from current
energy recovery to future recycling	2002-0031-0548	1

12	Over-estimated future annual tonnages which may shift from current
energy recovery to future recycling	2002-0031-0119	1

13	Did not include an impact analysis for codification of the
“legitimate recycling” criteria	2002-0031-0089	1

14	The 2007 RIA should not have characterized as “transfer effect”
the adverse consequences of potential shift of materials away from
current energy recovery to future recycling, but should have included
this impact as a real resource cost offsetting the de-regulatory cost
savings of the rule	2002-0031-0548	1

Explanatory Notes:

* Full texts of public comments are available from the Federal
regulatory docket at: http://www.regulations.gov for docket nr.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031.

** Commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0231 represents a jointly-submitted set of
comments representing six entities: (1) Sierra Club, (2) US Public
Interest Research Group, (3) National Environmental Trust, (4) Pacific
Environmental Advocacy Center, (5) Safe Food & Fertilizer, (6) Northwest
Environmental Defense Center.

*** Commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0559 represents a jointly-submitted set
of comments representing five entities: (1) Earthjustice, (2) Sierra
Club, (3) US Public Interest Research Group, (4) National Environmental
Trust, (5) Safe Food & Fertilizer.



3C.	Components of the 2008 DSW Final Rule Evaluated in this RIA

Compared to the 2007 DSW RIA, there are seven major improvements to the
structure and methodology of this RIA, which OSW implemented in large
part to address and incorporate public comments on the 2007 RIA.  These
changes are in addition to updating the hazardous waste data and unit
cost data.

Disposal switchover to recycling:	Revised the methodology for estimating
potential baseline disposal switchover to future recycling, to correct
for the under-estimation bias of the 2007 RIA methodology alleged by
public commentors.  This revision consisted of expanding the scope of
impact estimation methodology by:

Dropping NAICS code restrictions to baseline disposal data evaluated for
potential switchover; five of the 12 waste types evaluated in the 2007
RIA were restricted to only five NAICS codes 32411, 331111, 332813,
33412, 334412; (source: count based on 2007 RIA Exhibit 2E, 2nd column,
page 42).

Increasing from a count of 56 primary screening criteria waste codes
applied to baseline disposed waste data in our 2007 RIA (source: count
based on 2007 RIA Exhibit 2E, 3rd column, page 42), to a count of 67 in
this RIA (count based on Exhibit 5F in this RIA), the total count of
RCRA Biennial Report database codes (i.e., Wxxx form codes plus Gxxx
source codes plus Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx regulatory codes) applied for
identifying baseline disposed wastes for recycling evaluation.

Including (rather than excluding as was done in the 2007 RIA) both
energy recovery (H050) and fuel blending (H061) baseline disposal
quantities in the breakeven test evaluation for recycling switchover,
and

Broadening the types of disposed wastes evaluated for breakeven
switchover to recycling, according to three commodity groups (i.e.,
metals, solvents, other materials) which resulted in a count of 15
commodity material constituents (i.e., specific types of chemicals and
materials such as carbon, chromium, copper, lead, methanol, nickel,
zinc, etc.) evaluated in this RIA (source: count based on Appendix A of
this RIA), compared to a count of 11 commodity materials evaluated in
the 2007 RIA (source: Column D of Exhibit 2B, pages 34-35 of 2007 RIA).

Disposed waste constituents:	Integrated empirical data on hazardous
waste constituent characteristics from OSW’s 1996 “National
Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey” (NHWCS; see item 4 at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm) into the
breakeven test of this RIA, to replace prior “desktop judgment”
applied in our 2003 and 2007 RIAs concerning the concentration of
commodity-like constituents potentially recoverable from baseline
disposed hazardous wastes evaluated for possible future switchover to
recycling.

Distributional effects:	Expanded the scope of “Potential Business
Impacts” Chapter 8 of the 2007 RIA, by including additional industries
(e.g., intermediate middlemen industries, virgin material producer
industries) in Chapter 10 of this RIA.

Countervailing risks:	Added a new chapter (Chapter 11) which provides a
qualitative screening assessment of countervailing risks involving
potential adverse environmental and other types potential effects
identified by public commentors on the 2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs.  The new
chapter examines 12 potential countervailing risks: 1. industrial
recycling environmental damages, 2. materials testing, 3. community &
groundwater, 4. employee safety training & traffic safety, 5. human
exposure, 6. material shipments, 7. compliance enforcement, 8. abandoned
sites, 9. site inspections, 10. coal mining, 11. bankruptcy, 12. other
environmental programs.

Sensitivity analysis:	Added four new sensitivity analysis factors,
making a total of nine factors compared to the five factors from the
2007 RIA: (a) -0.7% to 0% data quality assurance factor to acknowledge
that the Biennial Report may contain data on hazardous wastes which have
already been de-regulated under prior DSW and RCRA
exclusions/exemptions, (b) -21% to 0% physical/chemical quality factor
for materials recovery/recycling suitability, (c) -20% to +30% expected
impact estimation accuracy factor to reflect the relatively low
level-of-detail impact estimation methodology applied in this RIA, and
(d) -50% to +50% commodity price factor which applies to price inputs
for the baseline disposal switchover to recycling breakeven test.

Lifecycle analysis:	The 2007 RIA (Appendix D) contained a lifecycle
analysis (LCA) which compares the relative unitized energy (per ton) and
environmental pollution for two case studies one for reclaiming metals
(zinc) from K061 dust, and the other for reclaiming liquid organics for
solvent use.  These LCA case studies revealed the lack of sufficient and
comprehensive LCA data, LCA models, and complex assumptions needed to
execute LCAs for estimating comparative material flow, energy flow, and
environmental impacts associated with the 100s of different nationwide
industries consisting of 1,000s of facilities generating and managing
the 10,000s of hazardous waste streams which may be affected by the DSW
rule.  For example, one limitation of the LCA case studies is that they
did not address differences in transportation distances.  Another major
limitation is the lack of detailed data for all classes of pollutants
(e.g., air pollutants) for all pathways involving all hazardous waste
management scenarios (i.e., disposal vs recovery/recycling) and virgin
raw material production counterparts.  The 2007 RIA listed five LCA
limitations on pages 237 to 238.  In the interim since completing these
two LCA studies for the 2007 RIA, OSW did not add new LCA case studies,
so this RIA does not provide a LCA appendix.

Regulatory options:	Furthermore, this RIA only addresses the three
exclusions contained in the DSW final rule, not all previous exclusion
options evaluated in the 2003 and 2007 RIAs.

Exclusion 1:	Generator Controlled Recycling Exclusion (amendments to 40
CFR 260.10, 261.2, 261.4)

Exclusion 1 is similar to “Option 7” of the 2007 RIA.  Exclusion 1
pertains to de-regulating three types of baseline RCRA-regulated
hazardous waste recycling from the 40 CFR 260 RCRA Definition of Solid
Waste, according to the 7 conditions summarized in Exhibit 3D below:

Onsite recycling (addition of 40 CFR 260.10)

Land-based units (addition to 40 CFR 260.10 and addition of 40 CFR
261.4(a)(23))

Non-land based units (addition of 40 CFR 261.2(a)(2(ii))

Offsite transfer recycling at a different facility under the control of
the generator (addition of 40 CFR 260.10)

Offsite transfer recycling under a tolling contract (addition of 40 CFR
260.10)

Generators who currently recycle wastes either onsite or under either of
the two offsite transfer arrangements for this exclusion, are expected
to realize de-regulatory cost savings.  This RIA estimates this
potential impact in the form of future annual costs savings to industry,
estimated by subtracting the estimated annual cost of future
de-regulated recycling under this exclusion, from the estimated baseline
(current) annual cost for RCRA-regulated recycling.

	Limitations in the Exclusion 1 impact estimation methodology of this
RIA are:

Omission of shared captive offsite recycling:  This RIA did not evaluate
the potential for generator facilities owned or otherwise under
“common control” (40 CFR 260.10(2)) by the same company to construct
a shared (captive) offsite recycling unit in order to enhance the
economy-of-scale feasibility for switchover from baseline disposal to
offsite transfer recycling “within the same company”.  This
potential switchover is excluded from this RIA because of the complexity
of the analysis it would require to assess (a) how many recycling units
need to be constructed by each multi-facility company, (b) how many
facilities might share in the construction and annual operating cost of
each recycling unit, and (c) where these units might be constructed in
relation to the locations of the multiple generator participants sharing
each recycling unit.  The effect of this omission on the net impact
estimate of this RIA is explored in Sensitivity Analysis #10 (Chapter
12). 

Omission of baseline offsite recycling switchover to onsite recycling
under Exclusion 1:  This RIA does not attempt to estimate whether
facilities currently using offsite recycling which may experience DSW
de-regulatory cost savings under Exclusion 2, may elect to switchover to
onsite recycling to take advantage of Exclusion 1.

Omission of baseline disposal switchover to onsite recycling under
Exclusion 1:  As a corollary to the bullet above, this RIA does not
attempt to estimate whether facilities currently disposing wastes either
onsite or offsite, may shift the management of their wastes to recycling
either onsite, under a tolling arrangement, or offsite “under their
control” under Exclusion 1.  Sensitivity Analysis #11 (Chapter 12)
explores the potential magnitude of this omission on the net impact
estimate of this RIA.  However, potential baseline disposal switchover
to future offsite recycling at commercial TSDRFs is evaluated in
conjunction with Exclusion 2 in this RIA.  This omission reflects the
reported low likelihood that generators will begin new recycling
operations onsite according to five industrial public commentors on the
2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs summarized below.  If only one or two single
industry commentors had indicated a low likelihood involving a small
subset of hazardous waste types, OSW would have retained this scenario
in this 2008 RIA.  However, three of the five commentors represent large
associations of diverse industries (i.e., chemical mfg industries,
metals mfg industries, electronics mfg industries) potentially affected
by the DSW final rule, therefore OSW decided to omit this scenario from
this RIA (although it is included in OSW’s 2007 RIA for the 2007 DSW
supplemental proposal).  As identified by the five public commentors,
disposal switchover to onsite recycling is not estimated in this RIA for
13 reasons:

Homogenous materials:	Facilities within the same industry likely
generate similar secondary materials that different industries need as
inputs.

Closed loop exemption:	Secondary materials generators already recycle
onsite all that is feasible using the existing closed-loop exemption.

Expertise/infrastructure:	Other industries, not the generator industry,
have expertise/infrastructure to recycle the materials.

Cost-ineffective:		Recycling is not cost-effective at most sites because
the annual quantity is too small to justify onsite recycling capital
investment.

Different business line:	Onsite recycling operations would be viewed as
separate business lines outside of the generator’s existing business.

Site/facility space:		Industrial facilities (generators) do not have
extra facility/property space for adding onsite recycling operations.

Capital investment:		Industrial facilities (generators) do not have
extra capital investment capacity for adding onsite recycling
operations.

Skilled labor:			Industrial facilities (generators) do not have skilled
labor for adding and operating onsite recycling.

Outsourcing trend:		A recent trend for manufacturing facilities is to
focus on their core business line while outsourcing ancillary business
lines such as recycling of secondary/byproduct materials.

Environmental permits:	It is difficult for industrial facilities to
obtain Federal/state environmental permits for onsite recycling
operations.

Technical challenges:	There are technical feasibility/compatibility
challenges for adding onsite recycling operations.

Extra effort:			Adding onsite recycling operations requires substantial
extra level of effort for (a) separate materials packaging, (b)
package/container labeling, (c) materials storing, and (d) materials
transport/shipping.

Recycling quality:		Concerns about the perceived/real quality of onsite
recycling/recovery compared to offsite commercial recyclers.

These 13 reasons why baseline switchover to onsite recycling is unlikely
are {enumerated} in the excerpts below:

American Chemistry Council (2002-0031-0093): “[F]acilities within a
single NAICS code are {1} likely to produce very similar secondary
materials and {2} if they cannot recycle them in an already permissible,
closed-loop method, they are unlikely to be able to recycle them at all.
 It is much more likely that a different industrial operation, with
needs for input material different from that of the generating industry,
will find a use for the output of the generator…  In actuality, like
all industrial processes, reclamation is cost effective only with
certain economies of scale.  Thus it is {3} more likely that a company
in another industry will have the expertise and industrial
infrastructure to reclaim significant secondary materials from a
different generating industry.  For example, chemical operations
generate secondary metals in catalyst production, but no chemical plant
is likely to build a metal processing, beneficiation or smelting
operation to address its material flows.  It is more likely to seek out
a company in the metal processing industry that also accepts and
reclaims the secondary materials that others in its generating industry
generate.  Another example might involve a large company generating many
different spent solvent streams at many U.S. sites.  While at some sites
the volume and quality of spent solvents justifies the expense of
installing on-site reclamation facilities, {4} at most sites, the
volumes would be too small to justify the capital investment required to
reclaim these materials.  It is more likely that the materials would be
sent off-site for commercial reclamation.  Removal of the RCRA
regulatory barriers from these streams will not change the economics
such that reclamation facilities will be built on site.  However, it may
very well make the economics more favorable for commercial reclamation
instead of disposal by lowering the transportation and management costs
now associated with handling the material as a hazardous waste.”

International Metals Reclamation Company (2002-0031-0178): “[W]hen a
generator makes a new capital investment to build a reclamation process
on-site and staffs it with newly hired employees, {5} the reclamation
activity probably should be viewed as a separate “establishment”
from the generator’s pre-existing production process … [W]ith
respect to the metals sector ... the large capital investment needed to
construct and operate a technologically sophisticated and economically
efficient reclamation process demands that reclaiming operations be
sized so as to realize economies of scale that individual generators
cannot support…  [R]egulatory-driven, economically inefficient
investments in on-site reclamation processes would be avoided, and
existing investments in third-party commercial reclamation facilities
would not be stranded…  [G]enerators would not have to make
economically inefficient investments in on-site recovery facilities in
order to qualify their secondary materials for the exclusion.  Instead
they could send their materials for off-site reclamation without regard
to the NAICS code of the reclaimer.  That would enable them to realize
the reduction in regulatory costs without making new capital investments
and operating expenditures that would not be made absent a regulatory
driver.”

IPC Association of Connecting Electronics Industries (2002-0031-0112):
“EPA's economic analysis of the [October 2003 DSW] proposal's benefits
attempts to show how industries could reconstitute their core businesses
to encompass on-site recycling operations and thus reuse materials
within the same generating industry.  In the analysis, EPA attempted to
quantify the amount of materials that would be recycled by comparing the
break-even cost of onsite, within the same generating industry, waste
recovery. IPC believes that EPA's analysis overestimates the potential
benefit of the proposed rule because it is based on faulty data
analysis, makes incorrect assumptions, and fails to analyze other
factors contributing to the feasibility of onsite recycling.  EPA's
analysis did not consider whether the {6} space, {7} investment capital,
and {8} skilled labor would be available for the construction and
operation of these on-site reclamation facilities. The operation of the
type of reclamation facilities envisioned in the economic analysis would
require a significant quantity of personnel skilled in a set of
operations that are completely divergent from core manufacturing
processes. Recent trends in manufacturing operations are towards a {9}
focus on core business, with as many ancillary operations as possible
being outsourced. EPA's analysis ignores this trend. EPA's analysis also
overlooks the {10} difficulty in obtaining environmental permits for
onsite reclamation processes, particularly those associated with
smelting.  Most on-site precipitation recovery systems are well equipped
to handle copper based solutions, but have difficulty with concentrated
nickel and tin solutions, particularly when combined with chelating
agents or fluorides.  Facilities desiring to undertake on-site recovery
of chelated nickel and tin solutions would face {11} technical
challenges in addition to the {12} effort needed to separately package,
label, store, and ship these additional metals.”

PPG Industries Inc. (2002-0031-0203): “Within our own industries, we
are doing as much recycling as is economically feasible.  Nor can we
envision installing new capital facilities for reclamation without much
greater opportunities for available, affordable materials, and those
opportunities principally lie between industries, not within them.”

Anonymous (2002-0031-0479):  “[G]enerator's who are recycling for
reuse likely will continue to ship their materials [offsite] long
distances because of the {13} preference for the quality of the product
they are accustomed to receiving from the [offsite] facilities that have
been providing such products for years and have the institutional
expertise to work closely with generators to produce such quality.  As
with any consumer, generators purchase not only on price but also on the
reclaimer's ability to meet their specifications.”

Indirect treatment of tolling arrangements:  This RIA does not directly
estimate baseline tolling arrangements for hazardous waste recycling,
nor does it estimate future new tolling arrangements which may be
induced by the DSW final rule.  This is probably not a relatively large
source of de-regulatory cost savings estimation in this RIA, because
baseline offsite recycling (with or without tolling arrangements) is
included in the impact estimation methodology of this RIA for Exclusion
2 below.  However, this RIA does indirectly include estimation of
potential impact on offsite recycling under tolling arrangements, by
using NAICS industry code 32519 “Other Organic Chemical
Manufacturing” as a proxy indicator for recycling tolling
arrangements.  This NAICS code most closely (narrowly) represents the
specialty batch chemical manufacturing industry as represented by the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Association (SOCMA), which
requested OSW on 10 Feb 2007 to add “toll manufacturing operations in
the specialty batch chemical manufacturing sector” to the DSW final
rule exclusions.  The 2005 BR database indicates that a relatively small
fraction of 2,125 tons/year (i.e., 0.06%) of the 3.82 million tons/year
reported for 187 waste streams generated by the NAICS 32519 industry,
was managed by offsite recycling (i.e., by H010, H020, or H039).

Exclusion 2:	Transfer-Based Recycling Exclusion (addition of 40 CFR
261.4(a)(24) & 261.4(a)(25))

Exclusion 2 is similar to “Option 4” of the 2007 RIA.  Exclusion 2
pertains to de-regulating two categories of offsite transfer of
hazardous secondary materials for recycling, according to the 13
conditions/requirements summarized in Exhibit 3D below:

Offsite transfer:	Materials that are generated and then transferred to
another person for recycling (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24))

Exports transfer:	Materials that are exported from the US for recycling
in a foreign country (40 CFR 261.4(a)(25))

This RIA does not separately estimate industry cost savings impacts for
these two different types (i.e., offsite and export) of recycling
exclusions for Exclusion 2.  The generator export tonnages and generator
exporter facility counts are embedded in the generator impacts for this
exclusion, but not separately reported.  On an aggregate (i.e.,
combined) basis for both of these two exclusions for Exclusion 2, this
RIA estimates two potential impacts:

Baseline recycling cost savings:  Generators who currently recycle
wastes offsite under the offsite transfer arrangement eligible for this
exclusion, are expected to realize de-regulatory cost savings by either
assuming:

the baseline offsite commercial hazardous waste recycler (e.g., NAICS
562211) passes through de-regulatory cost savings to the generator by
recycling the DSW-excluded material in a non-regulated recycling unit at
the same offsite TSDF, or

 the generator elects to switch to an offsite non-RCRA commercial
recycler (e.g., NAICS 56292 materials recovery industry) presumed to
offer a lower price in proportion to the de-regulatory costs savings.

This RIA estimates the potential future annual costs savings to
generators for this potential impact by subtracting the estimated annual
future cost of de-regulated offsite recycling under Exclusion 2, from
the estimated baseline annual cost for RCRA-regulated offsite recycling.

Baseline disposal switchover to recycling: Generators currently
disposing hazardous wastes either onsite or offsite may find it more
economical to switch from disposal to commercial offsite recycling
(e.g., NAICS 56292 materials recovery industry) under Exclusion 2.  To
estimate this potential impact, this RIA conducts a breakeven test
(i.e., cost comparison) to determine if it may be economically feasible
for generators to switchover disposal to commercial offsite recycling. 
This test is not conducted to estimate potential switchover to onsite
recycling for the same reasons given in Exclusion 1 above.

An additional limitation in the Exclusion 2 impact estimation
methodology of this RIA is:

Indirect inclusion of intermediate middlemen:  In addition to generators
and recyclers, intermediate (middlemen) facilities (e.g., transfer
facilities) are required to comply with the terms of this Exclusion 2. 
However, this RIA does not include or estimate a separate facility type
category to represent intermediate facilities.  Based on the 2005 RCRA
National Biennial Report (Exhibit 3.9), 359 facilities reported
receiving industrial hazardous waste from offsite for purpose of
intermediate storage and transfer, representing only about 7% of the 8.5
million tons of hazardous waste shipped offsite in 2005.  Given the fact
that most of the 359 RCRA-reporting facilities are also TSDRFs involved
in providing other waste management services (e.g., disposal, treatment,
or recycling), this RIA probably includes most of them indirectly in the
TSDRF impact estimates.  However, this RIA does not base industry
benefits and costs on the larger Economic Census count of potentially
affected intermediate facilities which may handle hazardous secondary
materials under Exclusion 2.  As summarized in Exhibit 10B of this RIA,
the 2002 Economic Census implies that 2,565 establishments have product
lines involving either hazardous or non-hazardous (a) waste & recycling
brokerage (164 establishments), (b) waste & materials transfer or
sorting (2,385 establishments), and (c) industrial recyclable materials
wholesale distribution (16 establishments).  Consequently, this is a
potential source of implementation cost under-estimation in this RIA,
which may contribute to industry cost savings over-estimation in this
RIA.



Exclusion 3:	Case-by-Case “Non-Waste Determination” Variance
(amendments to 40 CFR 260.30 & 260.33 & addition of 260.34)

Exclusion 3 is similar to “Option 6” of the 2007 RIA.  Exclusion 3
adds the following two new materials categories to the three existing 40
CFR 260.30 RCRA non-waste determination variances from classification as
a solid waste, according to the 3 conditions summarized in Exhibit 3D
below:

Materials that are reclaimed in a continuous industrial process
(addition of 40 CFR 260.30(d))

Materials that are indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a
product or intermediate (addition of 40 CFR 260.30(e))

For purpose of estimating the potential impact of this exclusion, there
is an existing RCRA hazardous waste program which may provide a
preliminary indicator of the number of cases per year that might be
expected for this DSW exclusion: the case-by-case RCRA hazardous waste
“delisting” program (40 CFR 260.22).  According to a review of that
program conducted by OSW in June 2002, the RCRA delisting program
granted a total 136 hazardous waste delistings over its initial 20-year
period (1980 to 1999), which represents an average annual case-by-case
activity level of about seven delistings completed per year.  This RIA
uses the average annual affected tonnage per-facility estimated in this
RIA for Exclusion 1, for estimating the potential cost savings impact of
Exclusion 3.  For estimating the affected waste quantities and annual
cost savings impacts, the number of affected facilities was determined
using an arithmetic series (i.e., cumulative series) with seven
facilities per year assumed to apply for a DSW variance (Exclusion 3)
over a future 20-year period.  This 20-year period mirrors the RCRA
“delisting” reference study period.  The mean of the 7 per-year
arithmetic series over 20 years is 73.5 (say 74) average annual affected
facilities.  This RIA uses an annual average of 74 affected facilities
for estimating the potential annual impact of this Exclusion.

Legitimate Recycling (addition of 40 CFR 260.43)

The 2008 DSW final rule includes a requirement that reclamation must be
legitimate for all of the final rule exclusions and non-waste
determination processes.  Because the four factors being added to 40 CFR
260.43 are substantively the same as the current legitimacy policy
articulated since 1989 (“Lowrance Memo”; OSWER directive
9441.1989(19), 26 April 1989), and applied by state governments to
determine “legitimate” from “sham” industrial recycling, this
RIA assumes that the 2008 DSW final rule’s legitimacy factors will
have a small impact not quantified in this RIA.  The basis for this
assumption is the DSW final rule legitimacy factors are not
substantively different than OSW’s longstanding policy since 1989, as
OSW explained in the 2007 DSW supplemental re-proposal:

“As part of proposing regulatory provisions on the legitimacy of
recycling, we are simply reorganizing, streamlining, and clarifying the
existing legitimacy principles.  We believe that the regulatory
definition of legitimate recycling, when applied to specific recycling
scenarios, will result in determinations that are consistent with the
earlier policy.  Therefore, we generally do not see the need for the
regulated community or overseeing agencies to revisit previous
determinations and expect any written determinations from these agencies
to, in effect, be grandfathered.”  (p.14198 of OSW’s 26 March 2007
DSW supplemental re-proposal).

Chapter 4

Data for Baseline Industrial Recycling Potentially De-Regulated by the
DSW Final Rule

4A.	Primary Data Source for Identifying Industries, Facilities &
Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected

The 2008 DSW final rule potentially impacts industrial hazardous
secondary materials that are already defined in the 40 CFR 261.2 RCRA
Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) regulations as “solid wastes” and
are being managed as RCRA “hazardous wastes” under current RCRA
Subtitle C regulations (40 CFR 260 to 299).  The 2008 DSW final rule is
designed to revise the RCRA DSW by excluding certain RCRA hazardous
wastes recycled for metal, solvent or other materials (e.g., acid
recovery).  These wastes will be considered as “hazardous secondary
materials” under the DSW rule and will not be defined as “solid
wastes” subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulation.  This chapter defines
the dataset of currently regulated hazardous waste recycling that may
become de-regulated under the DSW rule by excluded designation as
“hazardous secondary materials” rather than as RCRA “hazardous
wastes”, which forms the physical basis in this RIA for estimating
potential industry cost savings from de-regulation of baseline
recycling.

	As of 2007, RCRA regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 261.2(3) and 261.4(a))
provide 16 DSW exclusions for recycling of certain types of industrial
hazardous secondary materials (see Exhibit 2A).  The earliest DSW
exclusion dates back to 1985.  Consequently, the respective counts of
industries, facilities, and waste streams potentially affected by the
2008 DSW revisions final rule does not apply to these currently excluded
industries and hazardous secondary materials.  OSW does not have data on
the nationwide annual quantities of hazardous wastes which are excluded
form the DSW and which are no longer subject to biennial reporting to
the USEPA under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.

	The RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm) is
a census of the company identity, location, industrial sources, waste
types, waste quantities, and methods of hazardous waste generation,
shipment, receipt, and management (i.e., treatment, disposal, recovery)
at two classes of RCRA-regulated facilities:

LQGs:		RCRA hazardous waste large quantity generators (i.e., sites which
generate 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) or more of hazardous waste in
any single calendar month).  LQGs are required to complete a single
“Form GM” for each hazardous waste generated in each data year.  In
2005, 16,191 LQGs submitted about 225,000 GM forms to the RCRA Biennial
Report  The count of GM forms indicates the count of waste streams
generated by LQGs in each data year.

TSDRFs:	RCRA hazardous waste TSDR facilities are required to complete a
“Form WR” for all hazardous wastes received in the data year.  Each
Form WR contains three separate “waste blocks” for reporting data on
up to three separate waste streams received from different generators. 
In 2005, 1,550 TSDRFs submitted about 832,000 WR form waste blocks to
the Biennial Report.  The count of WR form waste blocks indicates the
count of waste streams received by TSDRFs in each data year.

The Biennial Report (BR) includes both one-time generated industrial
wastes (e.g., equipment closure, corrective action site cleanup) as well
as annually recurring generated industrial process wastes.  This
database is the primary source used in this RIA to identify the current
(i.e., baseline) hazardous wastes generated that have the potential to
become excluded from RCRA Subtitle C jurisdiction under the 2008 DSW
final rule.  Small quantity generators (i.e., SQGs which generate
between 100 and 1,000 kilograms per month) and conditionally exempt
small quantity generators (i.e., CESQGs which generate less than 100
kilograms per month) are not required to submit hazardous waste data to
the BR.  However, SQG waste quantities may be reflected in the BR
because SQGs typically rely on offsite commercial TSDRFs for management
of their hazardous wastes.

	The BR is the most complete set of data on industrial hazardous waste
generation available given it is a census of LQGs and TSDRFs.  It is the
best existing database for evaluating changes to RCRA regulations, given
the fact that data are reported on the waste stream level by single
facilities (some facilities may generate multiple and different waste
streams within any given year).  As mentioned previously, the Biennial
Report does not explicitly include data for SQGs and CESQGs. 
Consequently, the regulatory cost savings estimates might be expected to
increase if the universe of SQGs and CESQGs were explicitly included in
this RIA.  However, this increase would mostly occur from addition of
SQG data because CESQGs are already excluded from most RCRA regulations.

4B.	2005 Baseline Hazardous Waste Industrial Recycling Data

Exhibits 4A to 4G below summarize the Biennial Report (BR) dataset for
baseline hazardous waste recycling for data year 2005.  Data year 2005
is used in this RIA to represent the current (i.e., baseline) year
because the more recent data year 2007 will not be available until
December 2008.  The BR database only contains the primary NAICS code for
each waste generator and waste management facility.  However, many
industrial facilities have more than one NAICS code corresponding to
different types of industrial operations within a single facility, but
the entire quantity of hazardous waste undergoing recycling is reported
under a single NAICS code for each single facility in the BR dataset.

	For each BR historical data year (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999,
2001, 2003, 2005) the national total “management” quantity (tons)
does not necessarily equal the national total “generation” quantity
(tons) because: (a) some hazardous waste tonnages may be double-counted
in “management” because they undergo two or more management steps in
a management train, (b) some wastes may have been generated near
year-end but managed (i.e., treated, recycled or disposed) in the next
year, (c) export of generated wastes for management in other countries,
and (d) import of wastes generated in other countries for management in
the US.

	Exhibit 4A below summarizes the three types of recycling included in
the RCRA Biennial Report, and their associated 2005 count of facilities
and hazardous waste management tonnages, distinguished between onsite
and offsite recycling.



Exhibit 4A

Three Categories of RCRA Hazardous Waste Baseline Recycling (2005*)

	A	B	C	D	E (C+D)	F	G	H (F+G)

Hazardous Waste Recycling Category

(Biennial Report management code**)	2005 count of facilities generating
wastes that are recycled	2005 count of waste streams that are recycled
2005 Count of Facilities Recycling	2005 Quantity Recycled (tons per
year)



	Onsite	Offsite (Received from offsite)	Total facilities	Onsite	Offsite
(Received from offsite)	Total (tons/year)

H010: Metals recovery: high temperature metals recovery, retorting,
secondary smelting, & other metals recovery (e.g., ion exchange, reverse
osmosis, acid leaching).	2,352	5,335	57	96	137	233,214	1,187,107
1,420,320

(69%)

H020: Solvents recovery: fractionation/ distillation, thin film
evaporation, & solvent extraction.	2,466	6,322	444	57	493	69,565	227,117
296,681

(15%)

H039: Other recovery: acid regeneration, waste oil recovery, non-solvent
organic liquids recovery, & other miscellaneous recovery methods except
energy recovery or use as fuel.	829	1,733	45	36	74	153,345	174,834
328,180

(16%)

Non-duplicative totals =	4,809	13,348	529

(81%)	159

(24%)	656

(100%)	456,124

(22%)	1,589,058

(78%)	2.045 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

* All data represents counts and quantities included in the 2005
National Biennial Report:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/national05.pdf.  Some
facilities recycled wastes in more than one management method, and some
facilities both generated onsite and received from offsite. Thus, the
facility counts and percentages will sum to more than 100%.

** Beginning with BR data year 2001, USEPA changed the BR hazardous
waste management codes.  For a comparison of the new waste management
codes with pre-2001 codes, see p.81 of “2001 Hazardous Waste Report
Instructions and Forms”:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/ins-frms.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/ins-frms.pdf 

Exhibit 4B below compares the 2005 baseline recycling data (Columns E &
F) to data on hazardous waste total generation (Columns A & B) and to
total management (Columns C & D), according to 2-digit NAICS code
economic sub-sector.

Exhibit 4B

Identity of Industries Generating & Recycling RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Which are Currently Recycled (2005)*

Item	Economic Sub-Sector

(2-digit NAICS Code)	A	B	C	D	E	F	G (F/D)x100	H (100%-G)



Waste Generation	Waste Management	Waste Recycling



Count of LQGs	Tons Per Year Generated	Count of TSDFs	Tons Per Year
Managed	Count of Recyclers	Tons Per Year Recycled	% Recycled	% Not
Recycled

1	11	Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	14	5,833	-	-	-	-	-	-

2	21	Mining	118	37,427	3	70,571	1	3	< 0.1%	>99.9%

3	22	Utilities	474	194,090	9	1,469	3	54	3.7%	96.3%

4	23	Construction	232	18,084	6	118	4	11	9.5%	90.5%

5	31	Manufacturing	160	14,145	10	5,091	5	350	6.9%	93.1%

6	32	Manufacturing	4,150	29,211,960	492	32,449,736	232	575,988	1.8%
98.2%

7	33	Manufacturing	6,234	5,746,674	547	4,649,586	252	1,215,208	26.1%
73.9%

8	42	Wholesale Trade	567	188,008	27	128,978	11	19,298	15.0%	85.0%

9	44	Retail Trade	359	23,599	1	8	1	8	100.0%	0.0%

10	45	Retail Trade	28	3,008	-	-	-	-	-	-

11	48	Transportation	798	157,075	23	609,197	7	177	< 0.1%	>99.9%

12	49	Postal, Couriers, Warehousing	231	140,023	8	120,477	0	0	0.0%
100.0%

13	51	Information	119	3,938	51	14,038	2	12,781	91.0%	9.0%

14	52	Finance & Insurance	3	356	-	-	-	-	-	-

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	77	14,423	10	966	2	2	0.2%	99.8%

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	522	27,203	34	60,432	8	9	< 0.1%
>99.9%

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	12	868	2	156,889	0	0	0.0%	100.0%

18	56	Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation	615	2,344,388	182	5,513,610	65
220,824	4.0%	96.0%

19	61	Educational Services	439	33,719	37	164	22	78	47.6%	52.4%

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	235	11,322	27	2,833	24	153	5.4%
94.6%

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	34	5,165	1	3	1	3	100.0%	0.0%

22	72	Accommodation & Food Services	2	157	-	-	-	-	-	-

23	81	Other Services	303	24,261	9	3,699	3	13	0.4%	99.6%

24	92	Public Administration	465	141,287	71	135,998	13	222	0.2%	99.8%

25	??	NAICS code not provided	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-

Column totals =	16,191	38,347,011	1,550	43,923,861	656	2.045 million
4.7%	95.3%

Explanatory Notes:

Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm;  1 ton = 2,000
pounds ("short-ton").

(-) No management was reported in 2005. Recycling can not be determined
for wastes that have no management information (excluding management by
storage). 

Exhibit 4C below presents the 2005 data for the three recycling methods
(i.e., H010, H020, H039) according to 2-digit NAICS economic sub-sector.

Exhibit 4C

Annual Quantity of RCRA Hazardous Wastes Which are Currently Recycled by
Type of Generator Industry (2005)

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

Item	Generator Industry

2-digit NAICS code	Managed by H010 Metals Recovery

(tons per year)	Managed by H020 Solvents Recovery

(tons per year)	Managed by H039 Other Recovery

(tons per year)	Row Totals Managed by Recovery

(tons per year)

1	11	Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	-	-	-	-	-

2	21	Mining	0	0	3	3	< 0.1%

3	22	Utilities	53	1	0	54	< 0.1%

4	23	Construction	0	11	0	11	< 0.1%

5	31	Manufacturing	0	350	0	350	< 0.1%

6	32	Manufacturing	251,577	107,363	217,048	575,988	28.2%

7	33	Manufacturing	1,157,453	10,280	47,475	1,215,208	59.4%

8	42	Wholesale Trade	2357	14,873	2,068	19,298	0.9%

9	44	Retail Trade	0	8	0	8	< 0.1%

10	45	Retail Trade	-	-	-	-	-

11	48	Transportation	145	32	0	177	< 0.1%

12	49	Postal, Couriers, Warehousing	0	0	0	0	0.0%

13	51	Information	0	12,781	0	12,781	0.6%

14	52	Finance & Insurance	-	-	-	-	-

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	0	2	0	2	< 0.1%

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	0	9	0	9	< 0.1%

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	0	0	0	0	0.0%

18	56	Admin, Waste Mgt, Remediation	8,581	150,840	61,402	220,824	10.8%

19	61	Educational Services	26	51	1	78	< 0.1%

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	85	62	6	153	< 0.1%

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	0	3	0	3	< 0.1%

22	72	Accommodation & Food Services	-	-	-	-	-

23	81	Other Services	9	4	0	13	< 0.1%

24	92	Public Administration	34	10	178	222	< 0.1%

25	??	NAICS code not provided	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Column totals =	1,420,320	296,681	328,180	2.045 million	100.0%

(-) No management was reported in 2005 (excluding management by
storage). Recycling can not be determined for wastes that have no
management information (including storage of wastes).

Exhibit 4D below presents the same 2005 recycling data according to the
types of industrial processes (i.e., Biennial Report Gxxx codes) which
generated the hazardous waste that is being recycled.

Exhibit 4D

Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes
(2005)

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

Item	Industrial Process/ Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code	H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year)
H020 Solvents Recovery (tons/year)	H039 Other Recovery (tons/year)	Total
Recovery (tons/year)

1	G01	Dip, flush or spray rinsing	0	4,392	170	4,562	0.2%

2	G02	Stripping and acid or caustic cleaning	0	0	257	257	< 0.1%

3	G03	Plating & phosphating	6,006	22	0	6,028	0.3%

4	G04	Etching	0	32	172	204	< 0.1%

5	G05	Metal forming & treatment	1,773	0	0	1,773	0.1%

6	G06	Painting & coating	0	4,001	15	4,015	0.2%

7	G07	Product & by-product processing	171,889	19,217	15,579	206,685
10.1%

8	G08	Removal of spent process liquids or catalysts	442	2,374	14,573
17,389	0.9%

9	G09	Other production or service-related processes	2,355	4,526	141
7,022	0.3%

Subtotal daily production, service or maintenance processes =	182,466
34,564	30,905	247,935	12.1%

10	G11	Discarding off-spec or out-of-date chemicals or products	1,588
361	28,733	30,682	1.5%

11	G12	Lagoon or sediment dragout and leachate collection	0	0	0	0	0.0%

12	G13	Cleaning-out process equipment	0	17,673	1,661	19,334	0.9%

13	G14	Removal of tank sludge, sediments or slag	588	134	7,006	7,728
0.4%

14	G15	Process equipment change-out or discontinuation of use	0	18	62	81
< 0.1%

15	G16	Oil changes and filter or battery replacement	2	0	5	7	< 0.1%

16	G19	Other one-time or intermittent processes	31	0	124	155	< 0.1%

Subtotal one-time or intermittent events or processes =	2,210	18,186
37,590	57,986	2.8%

17	G21	Air pollution control devices	8,758	0	280	9,038	0.4%

18	G22	Lab analytical wastes	6	99	167	272	< 0.1%

19	G23	Wasetewater treatment	369	0	3,292	3,661	0.2%

20	G24	Solvent or product distillation or recovery	2	7,969	24,856	32,827
1.6%

21	G25	Hazardous waste management	22,313	3,362	649	26,324	1.3%

22	G26	Leachate collection	0	0	0	0	0.0%

23	G27	Residual from treatment or recovery of universal waste	16,685	0
29	16715	0.8%

Subtotal pollution control & waste management residuals =	48,133	11,430
29,274	88,837	4.3%

24	G31	Accidental contamination of materials, containers	0	0	0	0	0.0%

25	G32	Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not routine)	0	0	0	0	0.0%

26	G33	Leak collection & floor sweeping ongoing, routine)	37	0	0	37	<
0.1%

27	G39	Other cleanup of current contamination	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Subtotal spills & accidental releases =	37	0	0	37	< 0.1%

28	G41	Closure of haz waste management unit under RCRA	0	0	0	0	0.0%

29	G42	Correction action at solid waste mgmt unit under RCRA	0	315
49,140	49,456	2.4%

30	G43	Remedial action or emergency response under CERCLA	0	0	0	0	0.0%

31	G44	State program or voluntary cleanup	0	1,250	0	1,250	0.1%

32	G45	Underground storage tank cleanup	0	0	693	693	< 0.1%

33	G49	Other remediation	0	0	5,593	5,593	0.3%

Subtotal remediation of past contamination =	0	1,565	55,426	56,992	2.8%

34	G61	Received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer	0	3,820	21
3,840	0.2%

35	G63 to G75	Imported from a foreign country	0	0	0	0	0.0%

Subtotal not physically generated onsite =	0	3,820	21	3,840	0.2%

36	G??	Source code not provided	1,187,107	227,117	174,834	1,589,058
77.7%

Column totals =	1,420,320	296,681	328,180	2.045 million	100.0%

Exhibit 4E below presents the same 2005 recycling data according to the
types of chemical/physical forms of the wastes (i.e., Biennial Report
Wxxx codes) which are being recycled.

Exhibit 4E

Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

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

Item	Biennial Report Physical Form Code	H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year)
H020 Solvents Recovery (tons/year)	H039 Other Recovery (tons/year)	Total
Recovery (tons/year)

1	W001	Lab packs w/out acute haz waste	44	16	1	61	< 0.1%

2	W002	Contaminated debris	1,228	5,386	3	6,617	0.3%

3	W004	Lab packs w/acute haz waste	1	0	0	1	< 0.1%

4	W301	Contaminated soil	74	48	21,949	22,071	1.1%

5	W309	Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings	813,751	< 1	3,453
817,205	40%

6	W310	Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon	138	2,279
9,222	11,639	0.6%

7	W320	Electrical devices	559	0	1	560	< 0.1%

8	W512	Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds	3	0	129	131	<
0.1%

9	W801	Compressed gases	2,556	1	1	2,558	0.1%

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices =	818,354	7,731	34,759	860,843	42.1%

10	W101	Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water	1,489	3,089	44,297	48,876
2.4%

11	W103	Spent concentrated acid	16,496	30	2,550	19,077	0.9%

12	W105	Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid	258	1	18	277	< 0.1%

13	W107	Aqueous waste containing cyanides	614	0	0	614	< 0.1%

14	W110	Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters	7,290	26	279	7,595	0.4%

15	W113	Other aqueous waste or wastewaters	7,293	4,420	10	11,723	0.6%

16	W117	Waste liquid mercury	80	< 1	< 1	81	< 0.1%

17	W119	Other inorganic liquid	6,544	803	5,506	12,852	0.6%

Subtotal inorganic liquids =	40,065	8,370	52,660	101,094	4.9%

18	W200	Still bottoms liquid form	114	3,340	241	3,695	0.2%

19	W202	Concentrated halogenated solvent	0	25,469	885	26,355	1.3%

20	W203	Concentrated non-halogenated solvent	3	104,945	729	105,677	5.2%

21	W204	Concentrated halogenated/non-halo solvent mixture	< 1	14,544
4,016	18,560	0.9%

22	W205	Oil-water emulsion/mixture	0	1,289	3,993	5,283	0.3%

23	W206	Waste oil	0	7	14	21	< 0.1%

24	W209	Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish	15	10,902	20	10,937	0.5%

25	W210	Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives	0	899	1,359
2,258	0.1%

26	W211	Paint thinner or petroleum distillates	< 1	46,737	0	46,737	2.3%

27	W219	Other organic liquid	49	12,187	83,833	96,069	4.7%

Subtotal organic liquids =	182	220,321	95,090	315,593	15.4%

28	W303	Ash	7,039	0	0	7,039	0.3%

29	W304	Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues	57,088	0	59	57,147
2.8%

30	W307	Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums)	39	< 1	< 1	39	<
0.1%

31	W312	Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems	16	0	0	16
< 0.1%

32	W316	Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide	568	1	157	727	< 0.1%

33	W319	Other inorganic solids	479,845	870	14,816	495,531	24.2%

Subtotal inorganic solids =	544,596	871	15,032	560,499	27.4%

34	W401	Pesticide solids	0	< 1	0	< 1	< 0.1%

35	W403	Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics	3	250	3,419	3,671
0.2%

36	W405	Explosives or reactive organic solids	3	0	0	3	< 0.1%

37	W409	Other organic solids	2,315	2,695	18,990	24,000	1.2%

Subtotal organic solids =	2,320	2,945	22,409	27,674	1.4%

38	W501	Lime or metal hydroxide sludges	1,126	0	0	1,126	0.1%

39	W503	Gypsum sludges from wastewater or air treatment 	9	0	0	9	< 0.1%

40	W504	Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment	455	0	0	455	<
0.1%

41	W505	Metal bearing sludges	346	1	< 1	347	< 0.1%

42	W506	Cyanide-bearing sludges	4	0	0	4	< 0.1%

43	W519	Other inorganic sludges	505	19	271	794	< 0.1%

Subtotal inorganic sludges =	2,445	20	271	2,736	0.1%

44	W603	Oily sludge	0	193	5,068	5,262	0.3%

45	W604	Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms	0	1,714	7	1,721	0.1%

46	W606	Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sluge	0	24	1,638	1,662	0.1%

47	W609	Other organic sludge	3	433	4,897	5,332	0.3%

Subtotal organic sludges =	3	2,364	11,610	13,977	0.7%

48	W???	Physical form code not provided	12,356	54,061	96,348	162,766
8.0%

Totals =	1,420,320	296,681	328,180	2.045 million	100.0%

Exhibit 4F below presents the same 2005 recycling data according to the
types of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste designation regulatory codes
(i.e., Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx codes) which are being recycled.

Exhibit 4F

RCRA Subtitle C Regulatory Waste Codes Assigned to Recycled RCRA
Hazardous Wastes (2005)

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

Item	RCRA Waste Code	H010 Metals Recovery (tons/year)	H020 Solvents
Recovery (tons/year)	H039 Other Recovery (tons/year)	Total Recovery
(tons/year)

1	Dxxx	1 or more toxicity leaching test waste codes only	899,716	134,402
198,166	1,232,284	60.3%

2	Fxxx	1 or more non-specific industrial source waste codes only	4,029
46,017	12,799	62,846	3.1%

3	Kxxx	1 or more specific industrial source waste codes only	481,123	0
23,263	504,386	24.7%

4	Pxxx	1 or more “acutely hazardous” discarded or off-spec
commercial chemical products, container residues & spill residues
thereof	0	0	96	96	< 0.1%

5	Uxxx	1 or more “toxic waste” commercial chemical products,
manufacturing intermediates, or off-spec commercial chemical products	<
1	610	3,097	3,708	0.2%

6	Mixed	Assigned with 2 or more waste code categories above	35,124
95,767	90,748	221,639	10.8%

7	????	Waste code not provided	328	19,885	9	20,223	1.0%

Column totals =	1,420,320	296,681	328,180	2.045 million	100.0%



Exhibit 4G below indicates the respective fractions (i.e., associated
tonnages and percentages) for each of the three recycling methods which
involve recycling “acute” hazardous wastes.  Solid wastes shall be
listed under RCRA Subtitle C as “acute hazardous wastes” if they
either:

Have been found to be fatal to humans in low doses, or

Have been shown in studies to have an oral LD 50 toxicity (rate) of less
than 50 milligrams per kilogram, an inhalation LC 50 toxicity (rat) of
less than 2 milligrams per liter, or a dermal LD 50 toxicity (rabbit) of
less than 200 milligrams per kilogram, or

Are otherwise capable of causing or significantly contributing to an
increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness
(Source: 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2)).

As codified in the 01 July 2006 version of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), RCRA "acute hazardous wastes” are designated with
the hazard code (H) and include:

All 239 Pxxx codes in the table at 40 CFR 261.33(e) are designated as
"acute hazardous (H)" wastes.

Six of the 28 Fxxx codes in the table at 40 CFR 261.31 are designated as
"acute hazardous (H)" wastes: F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, and F027.

Exhibit 4G

Prevalence of RCRA "Acute Hazardous" Waste Recycling (2005)

Recycling method

(Biennial Report management code)

Recycling method definition	2005 BR annual total  tons recycled

(onsite + offsite tons)	2005 Quantity of "acute hazardous" waste
recycled*

(onsite + offsite tons)	% of RCRA hazardous waste recycling involving
"acute hazardous" wastes

(onsite + offsite)

H010: Metals recovery	1,420,320	334	0.02%

H020: Solvents recovery	296,681	19,885	0.97%

H039: Other recovery	328,180	161	0.01%

Column totals =	2.045 million	20,381	1.00%

Explanatory Notes:

Source: Query of USEPA 2005 RCRA Biennial Report (BR) based on selecting
recycleing data corresponding to (a) all of the Pxxx codes and (b) six
of the 28 Fxxx codes which are designated as “acute” hazardous
wastes in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR .261.33 and 261.31,
respectively).



Note:	The baseline hazardous waste recycling tonnage evaluated in this
RIA for potential de-regulatory cost savings is 1.514 million tons, not
2.045 million tons as shown in Exhibits 4A to 4G above.  The 2.045
million tons is based on the RCRA Biennial Report (BR) standard data
programming logic that totals BR Form GM on-site recycling tonnage data
plus BR Form WR waste received tonnage data for offsite recycling. 
Given the baseline recycling tonnage displayed in Exhibits 4A to 4G are
meant to equal the tonnages presented in Exhibits 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of
the 2005 “National Analysis” RCRA Biennial Report
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/national05.pdf), the
same data query logic were used to complete Exhibits 4A to 4G of this
RIA.  In comparison, the 1.514 million tons baseline recycling shown in
Exhibit 9F (column C) of this RIA uses an alternative BR data
programming logic that totals BR Form GM on-site recycling tonnage data
plus BR Form GM off-site shipment tonnage data for recycling.  Hazardous
waste tonnage mass balance does not exist in the BR database for any
given year, between what the generator reports shipping offsite for
recycling on BR Form GM, and what the TSDR facilities report receiving
from generators for recycling on BR Form WR.  Also note that the
recycling tonnages presented in Exhibits 4A through 4G above will not
match the baseline recycling tonnages presented in Exhibits 9D and 9F
and used in the de-regulatory cost savings analysis.  Exhibits 4A
through 4G present the national baseline recycling picture based on BR
data reporting logic.  However, the recycling quantities presented will
be higher than those used in the cost analysis and presented in Exhibits
9D and 9F.  The discrepancy is due to the following:

The on-site recycling tonnages in Exhibit 4A (column E) are sums of the
tonnages reported in Form GM, Section 1F. Quantity Generated in 2005. 
The on-site recycling tonnages used in the cost savings analysis of this
RIA are those reported in Form GM, Section2, On-site Process System 1
and On-site Process System 2.  These numbers sometimes do not match
because either:

There is a data reporting or data entry error, or

Not all of the quantity generated is recovered (i.e., some may be
disposed), or

Not all of the quantity generated in 2005 was recovered in 2005.

Source code G61 received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer
offsite waste is excluded in the cost savings analysis given the waste
is not physically generated on site (see Exhibit 4D, Item 34) by the
generator.

The off-site recycling totals in Exhibit 4A (column F) are based on Form
WR data for wastes received from off site for management.  The off-site
recycling tonnages used in the cost savings analysis (Exhibits 9D and
9F) are based on Form GM reported shipment tonnages to off-site
recycling (i.e., Form GM, Section 3, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3).

Chapter 5

Data for Identifying Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to
Recycling

5A.	Identification of Hazardous Waste Disposal Baseline

The DSW rule may induce more recycling of hazardous wastes which are
disposed, because the potential for net cost savings under the new DSW
exclusions if wastes are recycled, may provide an economic incentive for
some facilities to switchover from disposal to recycling, either by
using offsite commercial recyclers, or by investing and operating onsite
recycling operations.  This RIA only evaluates the possibility of
disposal switchover to commercial offsite recycling for the reasons
given in Chapter 3 (Section 3C).  The entire quantity of each waste
potentially switching-over to recycling is used to estimate total cost
savings post-rule, not just the valuable portion (i.e., constituent) of
the waste.  The generator sends along all the waste to the recycler and
then the recoverer extracts the valuable constituent.  So, when
calculating cost savings to the generators it’s the entire quantity
(i.e., waste matrix mass) that is relevant.

	The disposal baseline forms the basis in this RIA, for evaluating the
potential for disposed wastes to switch from disposal to recycling,
based on (a) the market value of the primary constituent material (e.g.,
metal or organic solvent) in the disposed waste, in comparison to (b)
their current estimated average annual cost for disposal.  This RIA
estimates the future potential for switchover by applying a “breakeven
test” which determines on a micro-level waste stream-by-waste stream
basis (i.e., not on either a facility-by-facility basis nor
industry-by-industry basis), whether the net annual market value of the
recovered metal, solvent or other material, would at least offset by a
minimum of $0.01, the current average annual cost for disposing the
waste stream.

	The series of Exhibits 5A to 5E below provide an overview of the 2005
RCRA hazardous waste disposal baseline.  As displayed in Exhibit 5A
below, note that two beneficial disposal methods are included in this
RIA (i.e., H050 onsite burning waste as fuel, and H061 blending waste
for use as fuel offsite), in addition to 22 non-beneficial disposal
methods.  Although H050 energy recovery and H061 fuel blending are
in-eligible methods for the DSW final rule exclusions, these two methods
are included in this section of the RIA only for the purpose of
evaluating them for potential switchover to future recycling.



Exhibit 5A

Summary of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes by Ultimate*
Disposal Method (2005)

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

Item	Disposal method Code	Disposal description	Count of disposed waste
streams	2005 Count of Facilities Disposing	2005 Tons Disposed
(management quantity)





Onsite	Offsite

(Received)	Total facilities (non-duplicative)	Onsite

(tons/year)	Offsite

(tons/year)	Total

(tons/year)

A.  Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=2):

1	H050	Energy Recovery	9,341	70	44	99	668,669	1,050,721	1,719,390

2	H061	Fuel Blending	37,393	34	87	105	152,994	1,021,631	1,174,625

Subtotal beneficial disposal =	46,296	102	118	188	821,663	2,072,352
2,894,015

B.  Non-Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=22):

1	H040	Incineration	63,402	114	88	164	890,681	547,315	1,437,996

2	H071	Chemical Reduction	1,928	69	28	95	309,722	38,377	348,099

3	H073	Cyanide Destruction	335	33	10	43	70,817	1,582	72,399

4	H075	Chemical Oxidation	229	4	9	13	1,386	55,266	56,652

5	H076	Wet Air Oxidation	14	1	2	3	2	36	38

6	H077	Other Chemical Precipitation	4,598	75	29	103	1,080,828	147,569
1,228,397

7	H081	Biological Treatment	1,310	29	16	41	1,352,875	52,098	1,404,974

8	H082	Adsorption	165	14	9	22	1,308,179	5,069	1,313,248

9	H083	Air Or Steam Stripping	81	15	1	16	637,876	25	637,901

10	H101	Sludge Treatment And/or Dewatering	222	42	11	52	28,522	660
29,182

11	H103	Absorption	61	8	1	9	486,817	4	486,820

12	H111	Stabilization Or Chemical Fixation	11,137	104	43	140	52,920
371,654	424,573

13	H112	Macro-Encapsulation	729	12	10	21	898	460	1,358

14	H121	Neutralization Only	3,081	116	36	148	1,470,724	70,276	1,541,000

15	H122	Evaporation	155	51	3	52	27,821	1,836	29,657

16	H123	Settling Or Clarification	65	13	2	15	19,845	15,977	35,822

17	H124	Phase Separation	177	18	10	26	12,240	148	12,388

18	H129	Other Treatment	3,637	142	60	193	2,402,527	200,160	2,602,687

19	H131	Land Treatment Or Application	1,082	11	10	20	3,204	44	3,248

20	H132	Landfill Or Surface Impoundment	9,526	45	44	68	601,437	1,436,105
2,037,543

21	H134	Deepwell Or Underground Injection	1,635	39	13	46	21,517,154
329,538	21,846,692

22	H135	Discharge To Sewer/POTW Or NPDES	1,018	94	27	118	2,457,774
976,216	3,433,990

Subtotal non-beneficial disposal =	102,443	805	224	944	34,734,248
4,250,416	38,984,665

Column totals =	211,791**	870

(84%)	274

(27%)	1,032

(100%)	35,555,911

(85%)	6,322,769

(15%)	41.879 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes: * Ultimate disposal = Some hazardous wastes undergo
one or more sequential treatment methods prior to ultimate disposal
(i.e., final disposition.)  This exhibit represents ultimate disposal
methods from Form GM, Section 2 for onsite disposal, and from Form WR
for offsite disposal.  Tonnages for management method code H141 (wastes
stored/bulked, transferred without treatment, recovery or disposal at
the transferring site) are not included in this exhibit because transfer
does not represent ultimate disposal.  ** However, waste stream counts
in this exhibit include wastes managed by H141 only, of which there were
a total of 64,666 Form GMs.  146,019 Form GMs reported wastes managed
exclusively by some disposal method (i.e., were not also managed by a
recycle method, ignoring null and storage (H141) codes on form).  Thus,
1,106 Form GMs reported wastes managed by a mix of recycle and disposal
methods.



Exhibit 5B

Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing Total Baseline Disposed
RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)



A	B	C	D (B+C)	E	F	G	H (F+G)

Item	Economic Subsector

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



Count of facilities	Generation disposed

 Onsite	Generation shipped offsite for disposal	Total generation
disposed	Count of facilities	Beneficial disposal**	Non-beneficial
disposal***	Total disposal

1	11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	14	0	9,315	9,315	-	-	-	-

2	21	Mining	98	1,185	32,346	33,531	3	69,381	1,188	70,569

3	22	Utilities	380	8	189,634	189,641	8	2	1,414	1,415

4	23	Construction	200	103	16,660	16,763	2	0	107	107

5	31	Manufacturing	141	4,741	6,984	11,725	5	< 1	4,740	4,741

6	32	Manufacturing	3,628	29,420,925	1,974,949	31,395,874	292	1,800,449
30,073,299	31,873,748

7	33	Manufacturing	5,281	3,406,745	1,539,132	4,945,877	329	93	3,434,285
3,434,378

8	42	Wholesale Trade	476	95,741	61,238	156,978	18	2,805	106,876	109,680

9	44	Retail Trade	264	0	8,640	8,640	-	-	-	-

10	45	Retail Trade	22	0	2,810	2,810	-	-	-	-

11	48	Transportation	657	608,595	106,809	715,403	16	13	609,007	609,020

12	49	Postal, Couriers, Messengers, Storage	197	11,010	142,686	153,696	8
83,099	37,378	120,477

13	51	Information	91	1,257	485	1,741	50	0	1,257	1,257

14	52	Finance & Insurance	3	0	318	318	-	-	-	-

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	69	1	9,404	9,405	10	0	964	964

16	54	Professional, Scientific & Tech Services	453	60,056	20,723	80,779
27	0	60,422	60,422

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	12	156,886	833	157,720	2	0	156,889
156,889

18	56	Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation	585	1,652,856	1,567,260	3,220,116
163	938,069	4,354,717	5,292,786

19	61	Educational Services	365	71	26,715	26,786	21	2	84	86

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	182	39	7,016	7,054	7	3	2,677	2,679

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	27	0	4,975	4,975	-	-	-	-

22	72	Accommodation & Food Services	2	0	157	157	-	-	-	-

23	81	Other Services	202	3,416	14,709	18,125	6	0	3,686	3,686

24	92	Public Administration	386	132,278	119,918	252,196	65	100	135,677
135,777

Column totals =	13,735	35,555,911	5,863,715	41.879 million	1,032
2,894,015

(7%)	38,984,665

(93%)	41.879 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

* Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR):
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

** Beneficial disposal = H050+H061

*** Non-beneficial =
H040+H071+H073+H075+H076+H077+H081+H082+H083+H101+H103+H111+H112+H121+H1
22+H123+H124+H129+H131+H132+H134+H135.



Exhibit 5C

Industrial Process/Activity Sources of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA
Hazardous Wastes (2005)



A	B	C (A+B)

Item	Industrial Process/ Activity

Hazardous Waste Generation Source Code	Beneficial disposal* (tons/year)
Non-beneficial disposal**

(tons/year)	Total disposal

(tons/year)

1	G01	Dip, flush or spray rinsing	181	218,696	218,877

2	G02	Stripping and acid or caustic cleaning	70	256,099	256,169

3	G03	Plating & phosphating	0	565,432	565,432

4	G04	Etching	< 1	656,479	656,479

5	G05	Metal forming & treatment	< 1	196,975	196,976

6	G06	Painting & coating	452	7,118	7,571

7	G07	Product & by-product processing	130,096	9,202,390	9,332,487

8	G08	Removal of spent process liquids or catalysts	101,663	3,676,031
3,777,694

9	G09	Other production or service-related processes	65,677	3,124,046
3,189,723

Subtotal daily production, service or maintenance processes =	298,141
17,903,268	18,201,408

10	G11	Discarding off-spec or out-of-date chemicals or products	1,034
33,227	34,261

11	G12	Lagoon or sediment dragout and leachate collection	0	2,389	2,389

12	G13	Cleaning-out process equipment	2,172	423,798	425,970

13	G14	Removal of tank sludge, sediments or slag	54	5,945	5,999

14	G15	Process equipment change-out or discontinuation of use	12	513	524

15	G16	Oil changes and filter or battery replacement	460	351	811

16	G19	Other one-time or intermittent processes	2	57,846	57,848

Subtotal one-time or intermittent events or processes =	3,734	524,068
527,802

17	G21	Air pollution control devices	1	2,705,462	2,705,462

18	G22	Lab analytical wastes	6,027	3,956	9,983

19	G23	Wasetewater treatment	18,430	3,377,729	3,396,159

20	G24	Solvent or product distillation or recovery	307,916	2,821,083
3,128,998

21	G25	Hazardous waste management	78,043	2,087,197	2,165,240

22	G26	Leachate collection	0	514,715	514,715

23	G27	Haz residual from treatment or recovery of universal waste	0
6,317	6,317

Subtotal pollution control & waste management residuals =	410,417
11,516,459	11,926,875

24	G31	Accidental contamination of products, materials, containers	< 1
3,815	3,815

25	G32	Cleanup of spill residues (infrequent, not routine)	13	2,384
2,397

26	G33	Leak collection & floor sweeping ongoing, routine)	0	1,446	1,446

27	G39	Other cleanup of current contamination	0	96	96

Subtotal spills & accidental releases =	13	7,741	7,754

28	G41	Closure of haz waste management unit under RCRA	2	43,251	43,253

29	G42	Correction action at solid waste mgmt unit under RCRA	0	4,130,721
4,130,721

30	G43	Remedial action or emergency response under CERCLA	0	124,202
124,202

31	G44	State program or voluntary cleanup	0	146,941	146,941

32	G45	Underground storage tank cleanup	0	3	3

33	G49	Other remediation	< 1	236,548	236,548

Subtotal remediation of past contamination =	3	4,681,666	4,681,669

34	G61	Received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer offsite
98,216	99,833	198,048

35	G63 to G75	Imported from a foreign country	11,140	1,215	12,355

Subtotal not physically generated onsite =	109,356	101,047	210,403

36	G??	Source code not provided (Form GM)	0	0	0

37	G??	Source code not available (Form WR)	2,072,352	4,250,416	6,322,769
(15.1%)

Column totals =	2,894,015

(7%)	38,984,665

(93%)	41.879 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR):
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm 

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061

** Non-beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 +
H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 +
H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135



Exhibit 5D

Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)



A	B	C (A+B)

Item	Biennial Report Physical Form Code	Beneficial disposal*

(tons/year)	Non-beneficial disposal**

(tons/year)	Total disposal

(tons/year)

1	W001	Lab packs w/out acute haz waste	2,122	10,967	13,088

2	W002	Contaminated debris	4,416	257,213	261,630

3	W004	Lab packs w/acute haz waste	317	1,541	1,858

4	W301	Contaminated soil	1,144	441,580	442,723

5	W309	Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings	69	19,370	19,439

6	W310	Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon	3,152
27,452	30,604

7	W320	Electrical devices	92	1,123	1,215

8	W512	Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds	1	39,341
39,342

9	W801	Compressed gases	6,610	4,368	10,978

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices =	17,922	802,954	820,875

10	W101	Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water	7,125	12,599,999	12,607,124

11	W103	Spent concentrated acid	1,545	1,276,756	1,278,301

12	W105	Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid	2,671	4,815,506	4,818,176

13	W107	Aqueous waste containing cyanides	133	83,839	83,971

14	W110	Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters	1,748	1,119,752	1,121,500

15	W113	Other aqueous waste or wastewaters	28,559	5,618,002	5,646,561

16	W117	Waste liquid mercury	25	14	38

17	W119	Other inorganic liquid	3,186	860,770	863,956

Subtotal inorganic liquids =	44,990	26,374,638	26,419,628

18	W200	Still bottoms liquid form	35,775	61,143	96,918

19	W202	Concentrated halogenated solvent	15,349	40,146	55,494

20	W203	Concentrated non-halogenated solvent	294,378	104,452	398,830

21	W204	Concentrated halogenated/non-halo solvent mixture	530,935
128,223	659,158

22	W205	Oil-water emulsion/mixture	11,659	44,402	56,061

23	W206	Waste oil	27,883	6,758	34,641

24	W209	Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish	95,431	13,466	108,897

25	W210	Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives	16,323
42,627	58,950

26	W211	Paint thinner or petroleum distillates	127,682	6,014	133,696

27	W219	Other organic liquid	1,011,857	7,647,476	8,659,334

Subtotal organic liquids =	2,167,273	8,094,707	10,261,980

28	W303	Ash	3	190,006	190,008

29	W304	Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues	20	559,547	559,567

30	W307	Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums)	183	20,459	20,641

31	W312	Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems	< 1	25,665
25,665

32	W316	Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide	147	25,902	26,049

33	W319	Other inorganic solids	2,686	503,996	506,682

Subtotal inorganic solids =	3,037	1,325,575	1,328,612

34	W401	Pesticide solids	103	5,815	5,918

35	W403	Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics	7,148	30,235	37,383

36	W405	Explosives or reactive organic solids	6	22,806	22,812

37	W409	Other organic solids	56,208	101,662	157,870

Subtotal organic solids =	63,465	160,518	223,983

38	W501	Lime or metal hydroxide sludges	50	179,873	179,923

39	W503	Gypsum sludges from wastewater or air treatment 	86	3,005	3,092

40	W504	Other sludges from wastewater or air treatment	1,285	91,342
92,627

41	W505	Metal bearing sludges	37	330,994	331,031

42	W506	Cyanide-bearing sludges	16	4,659	4,676

43	W519	Other inorganic sludges	242	20,013	20,256

Subtotal inorganic sludges =	1,716	629,887	631,603

44	W603	Oily sludge	25,553	67,481	93,034

45	W604	Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms	11,324	1,482	12,806

46	W606	Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sluge	37,624	2,803	40,427

47	W609	Other organic sludge	56,586	155,711	212,297

Subtotal organic sludges =	131,087	227,476	358,563

48	W???	Physical form code not provided	464,525	1,368,911	1,833,436
(4.4%)

Totals =	2,894,015

(7%)	38,984,665

(93%)	41.879 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR):
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061

** Non-beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 +
H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 +
H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135



Exhibit 5E

Waste Codes Assigned to Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes
(2005)



A	B	C (A+B)

Item	RCRA Waste Code	Beneficial disposal*

(tons/year)	Non-beneficial disposal**

(tons/year)	Total disposal

(tons/year)

1	Dxxx	1 or more toxicity leaching test waste codes only	1,189,414
21,595,447	22,784,861	54%

2	Fxxx	1 or more non-specific industrial source waste codes only	118,323
1,550,660	1,668,983	4%

3	Kxxx	1 or more specific industrial source waste codes only	75,372
2,720,143	2,795,515	7%

4	Pxxx	1 or more “acutely hazardous” discarded or off-spec
commercial chemical products, container residues & spill residues
thereof	85	153,084	153,169	<1%

5	Uxxx	1 or more “toxic waste” commercial chemical products,
manufacturing intermediates, or off-spec commercial chemical products
6,435	250,852	257,287	<1%

6	Mixed	Assigned with multiple waste codes from 2 or more categories
above	1,234,460	12,288,403	13,522,863	32%

7	????	Waste code not provided	269,927	426,076	696,003	2%

Column totals =	2,894,015	38,984,665	41.879 million	100%

Explanatory Notes:

Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR):
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061

** Non-beneficial disposal = H040 + H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 +
H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 + H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 +
H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 + H135

5B.	Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Wastes Currently
Disposed

This section presents the data screening (i.e., data selection) criteria
applied in this RIA to the baseline disposal data displayed in Exhibits
5A to 5E above.  As described below, this screening process involves two
steps:

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

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

The purpose of these complementary screening steps is to identify the
baseline disposal quantities (i.e., 2005 tons per year) that may be
physically and chemically sufficient for potential future switchover to
recycling under the DSW final rule exclusions.  The baseline disposal
types and associated annual quantities which remain after applying this
two-step data screening process, are applied in this RIA as inputs to
the spreadsheet computations for the disposal switchover breakeven test
described in Chapter 8 of this RIA.  The breakeven test is executed in
this RIA on a micro (i.e., waste stream-by-waste stream) basis, not on a
facility-by-facility basis or industry-by-industry basis.  The breakeven
test represents a micro-economic financial test to determine if
facilities may change their management practices for individual waste
streams to obtain the potential economic benefits of the DSW final rule.

	Before presenting the two-step screening process and results below,
there are two possible observations about the baseline disposal data
presented in Exhibits 5C, 5D and 5E above.  Taken together these two
observations suggest that 76% to 97% of the baseline disposal hazardous
wastes should not be expected, a prior, to yield break-even switchover
recycling under the DSW final rule.  This percentage range represents a
lower-bound and upper-bound range produced by alternatively assuming
complete overlap and assuming no overlap between the two observations,
respectively.

Disposal Data Observation 1:	Low quality physical form of baseline
disposal hazardous wastes (re: Exhibit 5D):

Based on the physical form data presented in Exhibit 5D, a relatively
large 76% segment of the 41.879 million tons of baseline disposal
appears to be low quality in terms of potential commodity recovery
(recycling) efficiency and market value.

Exhibit 5D row 10	Disposal of W101	Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water
12.61 million tons	30.1%

Exhibit 5D row 12	Disposal of W105	Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid		4.82
million tons	11.5%

Exhibit 5D row 15	Disposal of W113	Other aqueous waste or wastewaters
n.e.c.	5.65 million tons	13.5%

Exhibit 5D row 27	Disposal of W219	Other organic liquid n.e.c.			8.66
million tons	20.7%

										Subtotal =	31.74 million tons	76%

Disposal Data Observation 2:	Missing codes from baseline disposal
hazardous wastes (re: Exhibits 5C, 5D, 5E):

Exhibits 5C, 5D and 5E reveal that a relatively large 15% to 21% segment
of baseline disposal tonnage does not have associated Gxx source codes,
Wxxx physical form codes, or Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx waste codes:

Exhibit 5C row 37	Disposal data without Gxx source codes				6.32 million
tons	15.1%

Exhibit 5D row 48	Disposal data without Wxxx physical form codes			1.83
million tons	4.4%

Exhibit 5E row 7	Disposal data without Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx, Pxxx, Uxxx	
0.70 million tons	1.7%

									Subtotal =	6.32 to 8.85 million tons (15% to 21%)

Consequently, 15% to 21% of baseline disposal cannot be evaluated in
this RIA for break-even switchover, because the switchover methodology
is based on using these codes as primary screening selection criteria
for assigning to recycling commodity groupings as described below in
Exhibit 5F.

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

The first data screening step is structured according to each of the
three RCRA baseline recycling methods (i.e., metals recovery, solvent
recovery, and other recovery).  Each materials recovery method is
assigned as a “commodity group” according to the respective types of
materials involved in each of these three recovery methods.  Exhibit 5F
below presents the primary data screening criteria applied in this RIA
according to these three commodity groups.  The screening criteria
consist of three sequentially applied “if then” data selection
criteria involving 67 different Biennial Report (BR) and RCRA waste
codes:

Wxxx:				16 BR physical/chemical form codes

Gxx:				4 BR industrial process/activity source codes

Dxxx, Fxxx, Kxxx:		47 RCRA regulatory waste codes

OSW identified and assigned the screening codes in each criteria based
on determining whether each of these codes pertained to metals,
solvents, or to other types of materials contained in the wastes which
might be amenable for recovery in the three commodity groups.

	The disposed quantities (i.e., 2005 tons) presented in Exhibits 5A to
5E above will not match the disposed quantities presented in Exhibits 5F
to 5J below (which are applied in the breakeven test of this RIA). 
Exhibits 5A to 5E (except for column B of Exhibit 5B as noted
previously) present the national baseline disposal picture based on the
2005 National Biennial Report (NBR) reporting logic.  Given the numbers
in Exhibits 5A to 5E are intended to add-up to the totals presented in
the 2005 RCRA National Biennial Report, a compatible Biennial Report
database query logic was used to complete those exhibits.  However, the
resultant disposed quantities presented in Exhibits 5A to 5E are higher
than those used in the breakeven test as presented in Exhibits 5F to 5J.
 The difference in disposed quantities between these two sets of
exhibits are due to the following technical reasons pertaining to (a)
how the Biennial Report data reporting forms are structured/designed and
(b) there are different BR data reporting forms which separately target
LQGs (i.e., “Form GM”) and TSDFs (i.e., “Form WR”):

The onsite quantity disposed totals in Exhibit 5A (column G) from the
2005 NBR are sums of the numbers reported in Biennial Report Form GM,
Sec. 1, F. Quantity Generated in 2005 (see attached 2005 BR Form GM). 
The on-site quantity disposed totals used in the analysis are those
reported in Form GM, Sec. 2, On-site Process System 1 and On-site
Process System 2.  These numbers sometimes do not match because either
there is a reporting/data entry error, not all of the quantity
generated is recovered (i.e., some may be disposed), or not all of the
quantity generated in 2005 was recovered in 2005.

Source code G61 (received from offsite for storage/bulking for transfer
offsite) waste is excluded in the breakeven test of this RIA given the
waste is not physically generated on site (see Exhibit 5C, Item 34) by
the generator.

The off-site management totals in Exhibit 5A (column H) from the 2005
NBR are based on waste receipts (i.e., wastes reported received from off
site for management on Form WR).  The off-site management totals used in
the cost analysis are based on reported shipments on Form GM. 
The quantities reported shipped for off-site recovery in Form GM, Sec.
3, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 are used.

Step 2 of this data screening methodology Exhibit 5F and Exhibit 5G
present screening selection criteria that eliminate much of the disposed
quantities presented in Exhibits 5A through 5F.

Exhibit 5F

Primary Screening Selection Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Data

for Evaluating Potential Future Switchover to Recycling Under the DSW
Final Rule Exclusions

(Note: the three criteria in this exhibit represent “IF THEN”
criteria*)

Criterion A	Criterion B	Criterion C

BR Physical/Chemical Form Codes**	BR Industrial Process/ Activity

Generation Source Codes**	RCRA Regulatory Codes**

Commodity Group #1: For Possible Metal Recovery:

Include form codes: (n=10)

W107 wastes containing cyanides

W117 waste liquid mercury

W303 ash

W304 slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues

W307 metal scale, filings & scrap (metal drums)

W312 cyanide or metal cyanide solids, chemicals

W316 metal salts or chemicals w/out cyanides

W501 lime and/or metal hydroxide sludges/solids

W505 metal bearing sludges w/out cyanide

W506 cyanide-bearing sludges (non cont.soils)	For wastes with no
reported form codes include source codes: (n=2)

G03 plating & phosphating

G04 etching	For wastes with no reported form codes and no reporting
source codes G03 or G04 include RCRA waste codes: (n=38)

D005 barium

D006 cadmium

D007 chromium

D008 lead

D009 mercury

D010 selenium

D011 silver

F006, F007, F008, F009 metal electroplating

F010, F011, F012 metal heat treating

F019 sludge from conversion coating of aluminum

F035 inorganic wood preservative waste (arsenic or chromium)

K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008 inorganic pigment mfg sludge &
residues (listed for chromium)

K064, K065, K066, K069, K086, K100 lead- or chromium-bearing

K061 iron & steel mfg emission dust

K071, K073, K106, K176, K177, K178 inorganic chemical mfg

K171, K172 petroleum refining spent catalysts



Exhibit 5F

Primary Screening Selection Criteria Applied to Baseline Disposal Data

for Evaluating Potential Future Switchover to Recycling Under the DSW
Final Rule Exclusions

(Note: the three criteria in this exhibit represent “IF THEN”
criteria*)

Criterion A	Criterion B	Criterion C

BR Physical/Chemical Form Codes**	BR Industrial Process/ Activity

Generation Source Codes**	RCRA Regulatory Codes**

Commodity Group #2: For Possible Solvent Recovery:

Include form codes: (n=5)

W202 concentrated halogenated organic liquids

W203 concentrated non-halogenated organic liquids

W204 concentrated halo/non-halogenated solvents

W209 paint, ink, lacquer or varnish

W211 paint thinner or petroleum distillates	For wastes with no reported
form codes include source codes: (n=2)

G01 dip, flush or spray rinsing (using solvents)

G06 painting & coating	For wastes with no reported form codes and no
reporting G01 or G06 include RCRA waste codes: (n=8)

F001, F002, F003, F004, F005 spent solvents

F024, F025 chlorinated aliphatic mfg

K086 solvent washes of ink equipment

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

Include form codes: (n=1)

W310 filters, solid adsorbents, ion exchange resins and spent carbon
(this RIA evaluates carbon only)

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

---	For wastes with no reported form codes include RCRA waste codes and
form code W312 reported with K088 waste code move from Category 1 to
Category 3: (n=1)

K088 aluminum production spent potliners (sodium fluoride)

Total codes A =16	Total codes B =4	Total codes C =47

Explanatory Notes:  

* IF THEN = The three criteria in this exhibit represent sequential
database query criteria within each waste type row.  First the waste
code data were pulled (criterion A), and for remaining data with missing
waste codes, the regulatory waste code data were pulled (criterion B),
then for remaining data with missing waste codes, the source code data
were pulled (criterion C).

**There are a total 47 Wxxx codes, 47 Gxxx codes, 40 Dxxx codes, 28 Fxxx
codes, 120 Kxxx, codes, 205 Pxxx codes, and , 612 Uxxxx codes defined
for data reporting to the RCRA Biennial Report (BR): .for complete lists
see pp. 49 to 54 of the 2005 BR instructions book at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/05report.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/05report.pdf 

*** Upon review of W103 spent acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or
caustic cleaning, and G05 metal forming and treatment waste streams
nearly all the waste is not suitable for switchover to off-site other
recovery.  Much of the waste are dilute acid wastes that are disposed in
on-site wastewater treatment systems followed by POTW/sewer or NPDES
discharge or disposed by Class I UIC permitted deep-well injection. 
These disposal methods are cheap compared to offsite recovery.  It will
not be more economical to ship these wastes offsite for other recovery. 
It is beyond the time and resource constraints of this RIA to
individually carry these records through the analysis.  A small quantity
(< 4,000 tons) of spent pickle liquor (K062) was identified.  The
quantity is too small to carry forward through the analysis.



Step 2: Secondary Screening Criteria Applied to Baseline Waste Disposal
Data (Physical Quality)

Exhibit 5G below presents the secondary screening criteria applied to
baseline disposal wastes  The purpose of these secondary screening
criteria are to introduce a consideration of the anticipated physical
quality of baseline disposed waste streams, prior to evaluating them in
the disposal-switchover-to-recycling breakeven test of this RIA.  The
secondary screening criteria consist of six elements as follows:

Remove disposed waste records that were residuals from hazardous waste
management processes.  Residuals generated by either (a) current
materials recovery operations (H010, H020, H039), (b) energy/fuel
recovery operations (H050, H061), or (c) thermal destructive treatment
processes (H040), are assumed not to have a high content of recoverable
material and are assumed will continue to be disposed.  This corresponds
to removing baseline disposal data records with source code G25. 
Disposed wastes with RCRA waste codes F006 and F007 were retained
because these potentially recoverable wastes were often reported using
this source code because they are derived from wastewater treatment
processes.

Remove disposed waste records that were wastes generated from industrial
processes that are not continuous (e.g., those generated from
remediation or one-time industrial activities).  The material values
from these wastes are less likely to be recoverable given they are not
generated in a controlled process environment (i.e., remediation wastes
involve spills and releases to the environment).  Given their one-time
nature of generation, generators are unlikely to go through the
notification process to the agency for an exclusion from the definition
of solid waste for a one-time waste generation event.  This corresponds
to removing baseline disposal data records corresponding to three sets
of non-continuous source codes: (a) spills and accidental releases G31,
G32, G33, G39, (b) remediation of past contamination G41, G42, G43, G44,
G45, G49, and (c) non-periodic activities G12, G15, G19.

Remove disposed wastes with waste descriptions containing the word
“debris” from the data set.  The material values from these wastes
are less likely to be recoverable given they are not generated in a
controlled process environment.  Given their one-time nature of
generation, generators are unlikely to go through the notification
process to the agency for an exclusion from the definition of solid
waste for a one-time waste generation event.

Remove wastes with waste descriptions indicating they are
“rinsewaters”or “groundwaters” to ensure the physical quality of
the waste (i.e., the minimal recoverable material concentration) is
technically sufficient for recovery.  These dilute aqueous-based wastes
typically do not contain recoverable fractions of valuable materials. 
This screening criteria was only applied to waste streams with no
reported form code.  Normally wastes like these would have a reported
form code of W101 very dilute aqueous waste containing more than 99%
water and W105 acidic aqueous wastes less than 5% acid.

Remove some miscellaneous disposed wastes:

Onsite Commodity Group #2 baseline disposal quantities were primarily
disposed by non-beneficial incineration (H040), or by beneficial energy
recovery (H050), or beneficial fuel blending (H061).  For the purposes
of this RIA, it is assumed that facilities which both generate and
dispose wastes on site via beneficial energy or fuel recovery (i.e.,
H050 or H061) will not change to a materials recovery process under the
DSW final rule exclusions.  All these processes require relatively large
onsite capital investments and air pollution control permitting costs,
which make it less likely that onsite H040, H050 or H061 disposed wastes
will switchover to materials recovery under the DSW exclusions.  This
corresponds to removing baseline disposal data records for onsite waste
generation GM Form Section 2 H040, H050 and H061.  However, this RIA
subjects the disposal data records corresponding to offsite disposal
Form GM involving these three waste codes (i.e., H040, H050, H061) to
the breakeven test for switchover to recovery/recycling.

All records with form code W310 not containing the word “carbon” or
“charcoal” in the waste description were deleted from the list of
disposed spent carbon wastes.  This is necessary because the definition
of the W310 physical/chemical form code allows reporting together in
this single code, four different types of materials: (1) filters, (2)
solid adsorbents, (3) ion exchange resins, and (4) spent carbons. 
Because of lack of characterizing data on the other three waste types,
only spent carbon from these four waste types is evaluated in this RIA
for potential switchover to recovery.

Because of the fact there are tens of thousands of individual waste
streams in the Biennial Report database for any given data year, it is
beyond the time and resource constraints of this RIA to individually
examine each narrative comment for baseline disposed wastes containing
these "other" code sub-categories to determine whether they should be
included in the breakeven test of this RIA.  This corresponds to
removing baseline disposal data records for H129 "other treatment". 
However, this RIA does include the H039 "other recovery or reclamation"
catch-all sub-category in the baseline recycling data records analyzed
elsewhere in this RIA for potential DSW exclusion de-regulatory cost
savings.  The “other” form codes already were removed by their
exclusion from the “primary” screening selection criteria.

Exhibit 5G

Summary of Outcome of Primary & Secondary Screening Criteria

Applied to Baseline Disposal Wastes to be Evaluated for Switchover to
Recycling

Secondary Selection Criteria	Remaining & Removed Disposal Quantities

(2005 tons per year)	Total Remaining Baseline Disposal Quantity

(2005 tons per year)

A. Primary Selection Criteria:

Commodity Group 1

Commodity Group 2

Commodity Group 3

Total Baseline Disposed Quantity Remaining	1,687,044

1,247,510

   161,961

3,096,515	

3,096,515

B. Secondary Screening Criteria:

1. Remove Source Code G25	-624,668	2,471,847

2. Remove Wastes Generated by Non-Continuous Processes	-73,671	2,398,176

3. Remove Debris-Wastes	-23,225	2,374,951

4. Remove Rinsewaters and Groundwaters	-8,913	2,366,038

5. Remove Other Waste Specific Quantity	-235,443	2,130,595

6. Remove “Other Treatment” Quantity	-45,953	2.085 million

5C.	Resultant Screening Selection Quantities of Baseline Disposal that
May Switchover to Recycling

Exhibits 5H through 5J below present the resultant types and quantities
(i.e., tons per year in relation to the baseline data year 2005 applied
in this RIA) of the baseline disposed hazardous waste data selected by
the screening listed in Exhibits 5F and 5G above, which are applied in
the new recycling “breakeven test” in this RIA (Chapter 8).

Exhibit 5H

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven
Test by Ultimate* Disposal Method (2005)

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

Item	Disposal Method Code	Disposal Description	2005 Count of Facilities
Disposing	2005 Tons Disposed (management quantity)



	Onsite	Offsite

(Shipped)	Total Facilities	Onsite

(tons/year)	Offsite

(tons/year)	Total

(tons/year)

A.  Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=2):

1	H050	Energy Recovery	3	945	946	1	155,333	155,334

2	H061	Fuel Blending	0	4,822	4,822	0	304,363	304,363

Subtotal beneficial disposal =	---	---	---	1	  =SUM(ABOVE)  459,696 
459,697

B.  Non-Beneficial Disposal Methods (n=23):

1	H040	Incineration	21	2,319	2,330	2,497	120,724	123,222

2	H071	Chemical Reduction	9	103	110	7,108	6,103	13,210

3	H073	Cyanide Destruction	29	85	109	65,671	1,052	66,722

4	H075	Chemical Oxidation	0	17	17	0	320	320

5	H076	Wet Air Oxidation	0	3	3	0	26	26

6	H077	Other Chemical Precipitation	11	188	197	1,023	11,864	12,886

7	H081	Biological Treatment	0	22	22	0	8,385	8,385

8	H082	Adsorption	0	8	8	0	21	21

9	H083	Air Or Steam Stripping	0	8	8	0	480	480

10	H101	Sludge Treatment And/or Dewatering	28	53	77	1,257	1,350	2,607

11	H103	Absorption	0	9	9	0	140	140

12	H111	Stabilization Or Chemical Fixation	13	855	862	8,157	154,442
162,599

13	H112	Macro-Encapsulation	4	42	44	288	959	1,247

14	H121	Neutralization Only	5	56	58	13	300	314

15	H122	Evaporation	10	7	15	1,873	39	1,912

16	H123	Settling Or Clarification	5	6	9	24	487	511

17	H124	Phase Separation	3	16	17	5	160	165

18	H129	Other Treatment	0	0	0	0	0	0

19	H131	Land Treatment Or Application	4	124	125	40	31,323	31,363

20	H132	Landfill Or Surface Impoundment	10	570	577	88,864	349,272
438,136

21	H134	Deepwell Or Underground Injection	0	38	38	0	4,032	4,032

22	H135	Discharge To Sewer/POTW Or NPDES	10	42	50	294,096	2,110	296,207

23	H141	Site receiving waste stored/bulked & transferred the waste with
no treatment or recovery, fuel blending, or disposal at the receiving
site.	62	3,728	3,765	87,821	372,600	460,421

24	H???	Disposal method not provided	0	1	1	0	18	18

Subtotal non-beneficial disposal =	---	---	---	  =SUM(ABOVE)  558,737 	 
=SUM(ABOVE)  1,066,207 	  =SUM(ABOVE)  1,624,944 

Column totals =	---	---	---	558,738

(27%)	1,529,903

(73%)	2.085 million

(100%)

Note:  * Ultimate disposal = Some hazardous wastes undergo one or more
sequential treatment (e.g., chemical neutralization) methods prior to
ultimate disposal (i.e., final disposition).  Generators report the
ultimate disposal of their hazardous wastes on Form GM, Sec. 2 and Sec.
3.



Exhibit 5I

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

By Identity of Industries Generating & Disposing RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Which are Currently Disposed (2005)*



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

Item	Economic Subsector

(2-digit NAICS Code)	Location of Generation Tons Per Year	Location of
Disposal Tons Per Year



Generation disposed onsite	Generation disposed offsite

(shipped)	Total generation disposed	Beneficial disposal*	Non-beneficial
disposal**	Total disposal

1	11	Ag, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting	0	3	3	0	0	0

2	21	Mining	0	4,522	4,522	11,475	761	12,236

3	22	Utilities	0	10,632	10,632	0	12	12

4	23	Construction	0	4,418	4,418	1	0	1

5	31	Manufacturing	0	5,263	5,263	0	0	0

6	32	Manufacturing	295,316	509,245	804,561	145,162	439,346	584,508

7	33	Manufacturing	177,120	770,386	947,506	0	179,650	179,650

8	42	Wholesale Trade	62	10,173	10,236	3,120	3,065	6,185

9	44	Retail Trade	0	94	94	0	0	0

10	45	Retail Trade	0	148	148	0	0	0

11	48	Transportation	100	23,583	23,683	246	295	541

12	49	Postal, Couriers, Messengers Storage	4	10,768	10,772	4,686	1,336
6,022

13	51	Information	0	2,223	2,223	50	42	91

14	52	Finance & Insurance	0	18	18	0	0	0

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	0	410	410	10	27	37

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	42	10,024	10,066	17	323	340

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	0	14	14	0	0	0

18	56	Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation	86,045	147,983	234,028	289,798
951,401	1,241,199

19	61	Educational Services	0	3,093	3,093	2	186	187

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	0	2,396	2,396	0	0	0

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	0	277	277	0	36	36

22	72	Accommodation & Food Services	0	0	0	0	0	0

23	81	Other Services	0	2,971	2,971	0	3	3

24	92	Public Administration	48	7,260	7,308	0	147	147

25	??	NAICS code not reported	0	0	0	5,130	48,315	53,445

Column totals =	558,738

(27%)	1,525,904

(73%)	2,085 million

(100%)	459,697

(22%)	1,624,945

(78%)	2,085 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report (BR):
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061;  ** Non-beneficial disposal = H040
+ H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 +
H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 +
H135 + H141



Exhibit 5J

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven
Test by Industries Generating Disposed Hazardous Wastes (2005)



A	B	C	D

Item	Economic Subsector

(2-digit NAICS Code)	Commodity Group 1 disposal	Commodity Group 2
disposal	Commodity 

Group 3 disposal	Total Disposal

1	11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting	0	3	0	3

2	21	Mining	110	2,774	1,637	4,522

3	22	Utilities	611	10,019	3	10,632

4	23	Construction	300	4,119	0	4,418

5	31	Manufacturing	1,890	3,366	7	5,263

6	32	Manufacturing	340,311	459,945	4,305	804,561

7	33	Manufacturing	854,418	92,834	254	947,506

8	42	Wholesale Trade	1,306	8,879	51	10,236

9	44	Retail Trade	0	94	0	94

10	45	Retail Trade	4	144	0	148

11	48	Transportation	20,338	3,326	19	23,683

12	49	Postal, Couriers, Messengers, Storage	564	10,117	91	10,772

13	51	Information	0	2,200	22	2,222

14	52	Finance & Insurance	0	18	0	18

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	4	407	0	411

16	54	Professional, Scientific & Tech Services	396	9,656	14	10,066

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	0	14	0	14

18	56	Admin, Waste Mgt & Remediation	171,796	62,032	200	234,028

19	61	Educational Services	112	2,975	6	3,093

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	20	2,376	0	2,396

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	1	276	0	277

22	72	Accommodation & Food Services	0	0	0	0

23	81	Other Services	86	2,885	0	2,971

24	92	Public Administration	3,754	3,470	84	7,308

25	??	NAICS code not provided	0	0	0	0

Column totals =	1,396,019

(67%)	681,928

(33%)	6,694

(<1%)	  =SUM(ABOVE)  2.085  million

(100%)



Exhibit 5K

Screening Selection Results of Baseline Disposal for Recycling Breakeven
Test by Physical Form of Total Baseline Disposed RCRA Hazardous Wastes
(2005)



A	B	C	D (A+B+C)

Item	Biennial Report Physical Form Code	Commodity Group 1 disposal
Commodity 

Group 2 disposal	Commodity 

Group 3 disposal	Total disposal

1	W001	Lab packs w/out acute haz waste	0	0	0	  =SUM(LEFT)  0 

2	W002	Contaminated debris	0	0	0	  =SUM(LEFT)  0 

3	W004	Lab packs w/acute haz waste	0	0	0	  =SUM(LEFT)  0 

4	W301	Contaminated soil	0	0	0	  =SUM(LEFT)  0 

5	W309	Batteries, battery parts, cores, casings	0	0	0	  =SUM(LEFT)  0 

6	W310	Filters, adsorbents, ion exchange resins, spent carbon	23	0	5,084
  =SUM(LEFT)  5,107 

7	W320	Electrical devices	0	0	0	0

8	W512	Sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds	0	0	0	0

9	W801	Compressed gases	0	0	0	0

Subtotal mixed media/debris/devices =	23	0	5,084	  =SUM(LEFT)  5,107 

10	W101	Very dilute aqueous waste >99% water	0	0	0	0

11	W103	Spent concentrated acid	0	0	0	0

12	W105	Acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid	0	0	0	0

13	W107	Aqueous waste containing cyanides	89,361	0	1,610	  =SUM(ABOVE) 
10,214 

14	W110	Caustic aqueous waste or wastewaters	0	0	0	0

15	W113	Other aqueous waste or wastewaters	0	0	0	0

16	W117	Waste liquid mercury	134	0	0	  =SUM(LEFT)  134 

17	W119	Other inorganic liquid	0	0	0	0

Subtotal inorganic liquids =	89,495	0	1,610	  =SUM(LEFT)  91,105 

18	W200	Still bottoms liquid form	0	0	0	0

19	W202	Concentrated halogenated solvent	0	12,394	0	  =SUM(LEFT)  12,394


20	W203	Concentrated non-halogenated solvent	0	259,999	0	259,999

21	W204	Concentrated halogenated/non-halo solvent mixture	0	160,478	0
160,478

22	W205	Oil-water emulsion/mixture	0	0	0	0

23	W206	Waste oil	0	0	0	0

24	W209	Paint, ink, lacquer or varnish	0	79,946	0	79,946

25	W210	Reactive or polymerizable organic liquids/adhesives	0	0	0	0

26	W211	Paint thinner or petroleum distillates	0	36,663	0	36,663

27	W219	Other organic liquid	0	0	0	0

Subtotal organic liquids =	0	549,480	0	549,480

28	W303	Ash	61,400	0	0	61,400

29	W304	Slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues	320,361	0	0	320,361

30	W307	Metal scale, filings, scrap (including drums)	27,586	0	0	27,586

31	W312	Cyanide or metal cyanide bearing solids, salts, chems	1,184	0	0
1,184

32	W316	Metals salts or chemicals w/out cyanide	28,444	0	0	28,444

33	W319	Other inorganic solids	11,068	0	0	11,068

Subtotal inorganic solids =	450,043	0	0	450,043

34	W401	Pesticide solids	0	0	0	0

35	W403	Solid resins, plastics, polymerized organics	0	0	0	0

36	W405	Explosives or reactive organic solids	0	0	0	0

37	W409	Other organic solids	0	0	0	0

Subtotal organic solids =	0	0	0	0

38	W501	Lime or metal hydroxide sludges	124,120	0	0	124,120

39	W503	Gypsum sludges from wastewater or air treatment 	0	0	0	0

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

41	W505	Metal bearing sludges	412,633	0	0	412,633

42	W506	Cyanide-bearing sludges	161,257	0	0	161,257

43	W519	Other inorganic sludges	0	0	0	0

Subtotal inorganic sludges =	573,890	0	0	573,890

44	W603	Oily sludge	0	0	0	0

45	W604	Paint or ink sludges, still bottoms	0	0	0	0

46	W606	Resins, tars, polymer, tarry sluge	0	0	0	0

47	W609	Other organic sludge	0	0	0	0

Subtotal organic sludges =	0	0	0	0

48	W???	Physical form code not provided	158,450	132,449	0	  =SUM(LEFT) 
290,899 

Totals =	1,396,019

(67%)	681,928

(33%)	6,694

(<1%)	  =SUM(LEFT)  2.085 million 

(100%)

Notes:  Data Source: USEPA 2005 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm

* Beneficial disposal = H050 + H061;  ** Non-beneficial disposal = H040
+ H071 + H073 + H075 + H076 + H077 + H081 + H082 + H083 + H101 + H103 +
H111 + H112 + H121 + H122 + H123 + H124 + H129 + H131 + H132 + H134 +
H135 + H141.

Chapter 6

Estimate of Industry Baseline Cost for Complying with 14 RCRA Regulatory
Requirements

6A.	Regulatory Burden Baseline Cost Estimation Methodology

This chapter estimates the baseline (i.e., current) RCRA regulatory
compliance burden --- consisting of administrative paperwork burden plus
technical standards burden --- which may be eliminated with changes in
RCRA regulatory status of the industrial materials and industrial
facilities under each DSW final rule exclusion.  As itemized in Exhibit
6A below, this RIA estimates 14 elements of baseline RCRA regulatory
burden on the regulated community (i.e., industrial hazardous waste
generators, waste transporters, and waste TSDFs) such as reporting to
USEPA-authorized state governments, onsite recordkeeping, RCRA
permitting of waste management units, waste transport manifesting, and
meeting RCRA Subtitle C technical standards for design, construction,
operation and closure of hazardous waste management units.  These are
the baseline compliance costs associated with managing a facility’s
RCRA hazardous waste.

	Exhibit 6A below presents the 14 baseline burden requirements according
to RCRA-regulatory facility status as LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs, and TSDFs. 
The generator status of a facility may change when recycled wastes are
no longer counted as hazardous waste under the DSW final rule, resulting
in reduction or elimination of some RCRA baseline burden.  The
non-recycled quantity of hazardous waste a facility generates will
determine its post-rule generator status and continued RCRA regulatory
burden.  Some facilities may generate no RCRA hazardous waste post-rule.

	Also, if LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs recycle more waste they may further
reduce their generator status (i.e., switch from LQG to SQG, or switch
from LQG to CESQG, or switch from SQG to CESQG status, or may no longer
be a RCRA hazardous waste generator under any of these three regulatory
categories).  CESQGs already have exclusions from many RCRA regulatory
requirements because of their small annual generation rate (i.e., less
than 100 kilograms per month which is equivalent to 1.3 tons per year). 
SQGs and CESQGs have fewer RCRA regulatory administrative requirements
than LQGs under 40 CFR Part 262 of RCRA Subtitle C (i.e., relatively
less baseline burden for RCRA personnel training, biennial reporting of
hazardous waste generation and management activities, and preparation of
contingency plans).



Exhibit 6A

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

A	B	C	D	E	F	G

Item	RCRA Subtitle C Requirement	Facility Regulatory Classification
Potential Change in Baesline Regulatory Burden Under the DSW Final Rule
Exclusions



LQG	SQG	CESQG	TSDRF

	1	Obtain USEPA ID Number	Required	Required	Not required	Required
Assumed no cost savings because generators already have incurred costs
for obtaining USEPA ID numbers (i.e., assumed “sunk cost”)

2	Personnel Training	Required (40 CFR 262.34)	Basic training required
(40 CFR 262.34)	Not required	Required	Cost savings incurred if generator
becomes a  SQG or CESQG with exclusion.

	3	Recordkeeping	Required for manifests, exception report, and biennial
report.	Required for manifests and exception reports.	Not required
Required for manifests, exception report,  and biennial report	Cost
savings incurred if recycled waste not defined as a hazardous waste or
if generator becomes a SQG  or CESQG with exclusion . 

4	Exception Report	Required within 45 days of hazardous waste being
accepted by initial transporter	Required within 60 days of hazardous
waste being accepted by initial transporter	Not Required	See Generator
Requirements	Cost savings incurred if generator becomes a SQG or CESQG
with exclusion. 

5	Biennial Reporting	Required	Not required	Not required	Required	Cost
savings incurred if generator becomes a SQG or CESQG with exclusion.

6	Storage Requirements for Accumulated Hazardous Waste	Full compliance
with management of containers or tanks	Basic requirements with technical
standards for containers or tanks	None	Full compliance with management
of containers or tanks	Assumed no cost savings if generator status
changes because facilities already have incurred costs (i.e., assumed
“sunk cost”).

7	Part B Permit Renewal	None	None	None	Required	Costs savings incurred
by permitted recycling facilities with exclusion.  If they only recycle
waste, they will incur facility-wide permit renewal savings.  Otherwise,
they only will incur savings associated with the permit renewal for the
storage area associated with the recycling process.

8	Use Manifests	Required	Required, unless the waste is reclaimed under a
contractual agreement	Not required	See Generator Requirements	Cost
savings incurred if recycled waste not defined as a hazardous waste or
if generator becomes a SQG (with contract agreement) or CESQG with
exclusion.

9	Preparadeness & prevention	Required	Not Required	Not Required	Required
Cost savings incurred if generator becomes a SQG or CESQG with
exclusion.

10	Contingency Plan	Required	Not required	Not required	Permit
Requirement	Cost savings incurred if generator becomes a SQG or CESQG
with exclusion.

11	Emergency Plan	Required	Not required	Not required	Permit Requirement
Cost savings incurred if generator becomes a SQG or CESQG with
exclusion.

12	Facility closure	Not required	Not required	Not Required	Required	Cost
savings incurred

13	Post-closure care	Not required	Not required	Not required	Required
Cost savings incurred

14	Accumulation Time	90 days “Speculative accumulation” provisions
(40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar year the amount of
material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for
recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or volume of the material
at the beginning of the period.	180 days [or 270 days if transported
more than 200 miles]

“Speculative accumulation” provisions (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require
that during a calendar year the amount of material that is recycled, or
transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75%
by weight or volume of that material at the beginning of the period.
None	90 days	Cost savings incurred if generator becomes a SQG or CESQG
with exclusion.  Cost savings for longer speculative accumulation time
limits for recycled materials.

Column total requirements =	11	7	0	14

	6B.	Unit Costs for Estimating the RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline

This section identifies the RCRA regulatory compliance baseline unit
costs which form the basis for estimating baseline burden on affected
industries.  Unit cost data and baseline cost estimates are not
presented in this RIA for baseline RCRA regulatory requirements which
(a) are “sunk costs” or (b) the baseline regulatory requirement is
an infrequent event, for example:

Obtaining an USEPA identification number (this is assumed a “sunk
cost” for affected industries)

Preparing a RCRA manifest exception report (this is an unpredictable
baseline regulatory event that does not frequently occur and is not
estimated in this RIA)

Complying with storage requirements for accumulated hazardous waste
(this is assumed a “sunk cost” for affected industries)

Exhibit 6B below provides a summary of 14 RCRA baseline unit costs
applied in this RIA to estimate the RCRA regulatory burden baseline cost
to affected industries, which will be reduced under the DSW final rule
amendments.  Appendix B to this RIA provides background data references
and computations for these baseline RCRA regulatory unit costs.

	The primary sources of many of these baseline burden unit costs are the
labor hour estimates contained in Information Collection Request (ICR)
supporting statements for the RCRA hazardous waste program.  An ICR
describes reporting, record keeping, survey, or other information
collection requirements imposed on the public (e.g., households,
industry) by a Federal agency such as the USEPA.  The ICR provides an
overview of the collection, and estimates the cost and time for the
public to respond.  ICR paperwork burden, referred to as RCRA
administrative requirements in this chapter, are evaluated for
compliance with 40 CFR 262 generator standards such as manifest,
pre-transport, recordkeeping, reporting, and differences in regulatory
requirements for facilities that are LQG, SQG, CESQG, and TSDF
regulatory status.

Exhibit 6B

Summary of 14 Baseline RCRA Regulatory Burden Unit Costs

For RCRA Hazardous Wastes Potentially Affected by the DSW Rule

A	B	C	D	E	F	G

Item	Baseline RCRA hazardous waste (Subtitle C) regulatory requirements
Average unit cost & cost frequency per RCRA regulatory burden activity
by type of facility which incurs this baseline regulatory cost	How this
cost element is applied for cost savings estimation in this RIA	Unit
cost supplemental information & references

	Activity	40 CFR Citation	Type of applicable facility



	1	EPA ID Number	262.12	LQGs, SQGs	---	---	Unit cost not estimated. 
Assumed no cost savings.



264.11	TSDRFs



	2	Personnel training	262.34,	LQGs, SQGs	Haz Waste Handling:

LQG: $2,726/year

SQG: $847/year

CESQG: $0/year

Manifest Preparation:

LQG/SQG: $335/year

CESQG: $0/year	Annual for facilities that change generator status

(i.e., LQGs which are estimated to become SQGs, and for SQGs which are
estimated to become CESQGs)	Supporting Statement for ICR Number 820.10
Hazardous Waste Generator Standards, Jan 2008



264.16 & 265.16	TSDRFs



	3	Record-keeping	262.40	LQGs, SQGs	LQG: $702/year

SQG: $468/year

CESQG: $234/year	Annual for facilities that change generator status	DPRA
professional judgment



263.22	Transporters





	264.74 & 265.75	TSDRFs



	4	Manifest Exception Report	262.42	LQGs, SQGs. TSDRFs	---	---	Not
estimated; unpredictable event does not frequently occur.

5	Biennial reporting	262.41	LQGs	LQG:  $364/year

SQG: $0/year (not required)

CESQG: $0/year (not required)	Annual for facilities that change
generator status	Supporting Statement for USEPA ICR Number 976.13 "The
2007 Hazardous Waste Report", Sept 18, 2007



264.75 & 265.75	TSDRFs



	6	Storage requirements for accumulated Has Waste	265 Subparts I, J, W,
AA, BB & CC	LQGs, SQGs, TSDRFs	---	---	Unit cost not estimated.  Assumed
there would be no incremental cost savings.

7	RCRA Subtitle C Part B permit renewal	270	TSDRFs	Metal Type Wastes:
$2,445 to $4,890/year

Solvent/Acid Type Wastes: $2,418 to $4,836/year	Annual for permitted
recycling facilities	USEPA, Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Estimating
Costs for the Economic Benefits of RCRA Noncompliance, Sept 1994.

8	Use manifest	262 Sub B	LQGs, SQGs	LQG: $48.30/manifest

SQG & Nonhazardous Shipments: $47.63/manifest	Annual for facilities that
change generator status	Supporting Statement for ICR Number 801.15
"Requirements for Generators, Transporters, & Waste Management
Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System.", Dec 30,
2004



263 Sub B	Transporters





	264.71 & 265.71	TSDRFs



	9	Preparedness & prevention	264/265 Subpart C	TSDRFs	See Items 2, 10,
11	Annual for facilities that change generator status	See Items 2, 10,
11

10	Contingency plan	264/265 Subpart D	TSDRFs	LQG:  $733/year

SQG: $0/year

CESQG: $0/year	Annual for facilities that change generator status
Supporting Statement for ICR Number 820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator
Standards, Jan 2008

11	Emergency plan	264/265 Subpart D	TSDRFs	LQG: $482/year

SQG: $94/year

CESQG: $0/year	Annual for facilities that change generator status
Supporting Statement for ICR Number 820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator
Standards, Jan 2008

12	Closure	264/265 Subpart G	TSDRFs	Metal Type Wastes: $3,340/year

Solvent/Acid Type Wastes: $2,266/year 	Annual for facilities that switch
from disposal to recycling	DPRA professional judgment using RACER* 2005
unit costs inflated to 2007 dollars using GDP implicit price deflator.

13	Post-closure	264/265 Subpart G	TSDRFs	see Item 12	Annual for
facilities that switch from disposal to recycling	see Item 12

14	Accumulation Time	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 261.1(c)(8) & 262.34	LQGs,
SQGs, TSDRFs	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Commercial Recovery

Acid Recovery: $171/ton

Solvent Recovery: $785/ton

Metal Recovery: $345/ton

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Waste Testing

$346/load

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Transport for Disposal

Acid Residual: $1,659/load

Solvent Residual: $2,444/load

Metal Residual: $2,144/load

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Transport for Recovery

Acid Recovery: $2,135/load

Solvent Recovery: $2,169/load

Metal Recovery: $3,248/load	Annual for facilities that change generator
status	DPRA professional judgment using RACER* 2005 unit costs inflated
to 2007 dollars using GDP implicit price deflator.

Average fixed** costs per-facility:	LQGs = $5,342/year

SQGs = $1,744/year

CESQGs = $234/year



Explanatory Notes:

* RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating
system:   HYPERLINK
"http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm" 
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm 

** In addition to “fixed costs” per facility, this exhibit also
includes “variable costs” which are dependent upon different
physical quantities (e.g., annual counts of waste shipment manifests,
annual waste tonnage generated and shipped, annual counts of waste
shipment truckloads) which vary from year-to-year across affected
industrial facilities and thus are not summarized in the bottom row of
this exhibit.

6C.	Estimate of RCRA Regulatory Paperwork Burden Baseline

Exhibit 6C

Estimate of Affected Industry Baseline Annual Costs for Complying with
14 Baseline RCRA Regulatory Requirements

Which Will be Eliminated Under the DSW Exclusions

Note: Cost estimates are based on annual hazardous waste tonnages of
both baseline recycling + baseline disposal which may switchover to
recycling

Item	RCRA Requirement	Exclusion 1

Generator-controlled	Exclusion 2

Offsite transfers	Exclusion 3

Case-by-case	Combined Impact

(Exclusions 1+2+3)

1	Obtain USEPA ID number	Assumed $0	Assumed $0	Assumed $0	Assumed $0

2	RCRA Personnel Training	$128,088	$3,227,580	$25,903	$3,381,571

3	Recordkeeping	$17,089	$466,323	$3,455	$486,867

4	Manifest exception reporting	Assumed $0	Assumed $0	Assumed $0	Assumed
$0

5	Biennial Reporting	$21,846	$456,209	$4,417	$482,472

6	Storage requirements for hazardous wastes	Assumed $0	Assumed $0
Assumed $0	Assumed $0

7	Part B permit renewal	$0	$1,620,000	$0	$1,620,000

8	Use Manifests	$42,760	$713,532	$8,647	$764,939

9	Preparedness & prevention	Included in Items 2, 10 & 11	Included in
Items 2, 10 & 11	Included in Items 2, 10 & 11	Included in Items 2, 10 &
11

10	Contingency Plan	$43,992	$186,965	$8,897	$239,854

11	Emergency Planning	$24,480	$555,144	$4,951	$584,575

12	Facility closure	$0	($1,190,745)	$0	($1,190,745)

13	Facility post-closure	Included in 

Item 12	Included in 

Item 12	Included in 

Item 12	Included in 

Item 12

14	Accumulation time

Note: the cost savings for this row item include (net-out) the
incremental costs for row 10 in Exhibit 7C (i.e., recycling residuals
management costs)	Transportation =

Loading =

Recycling =

Waste/Resid. Disposal =

Waste Characterization =

Row 14 subtotal =	$4,974,809

$0

$0

$1,239,189

$306,277

$6,520,875	$40,530,443

($70,345)

$24,557,143

$19,410,294

$6,754,191

$91,181,727	$1,006,062

$0

$0

$250,603

$62,060

$1,318,724	$46,511,314

($70,345)

$24,557,143

$20,900,086

$7122,528

$99,021,326

Column totals =	$6,799,130	$97,216,735	$1,374,994	$106.4 million

Chapter 7

Estimate of Potential Industry Costs to Meet 12 DSW Exclusion Conditions

This chapter estimates the potential cost to industry for meet to 12
conditions associated with the three DSW final rule exclusions. 
Implementation of the DSW rule may cause facilities to incur costs for
meeting these conditions under the DSW exclusions, which may affect
facility onsite waste accumulation practices, waste shipping, site
closure/post-closure, and waste treatment residual management
operations.  For example, notification to RCRA-authorized state
governments (or USEPA regional offices) for excluded materials will be
required, which represents an implementation cost for compliance with
the de-regulatory exclusions under the DSW final rule.

	In addition to new paperwork burden costs for meeting the conditions of
each DSW exclusion, industry compliance with the conditions of each DSW
exclusion may also result in secondary impacts such as:

Generator status:	The resulting changes in generator status from LQG to
SQG, to CESQG, or to non-generator status, will allow longer
accumulation times, resulting in larger truckloads for shipment.  With
larger truckloads minimum management charges (higher unit costs, $/ton)
may be avoided.  Longer accumulation times will result in few shipments
and reduced total shipping costs.

Residuals management:	The DSW rule may cause residuals (e.g., ash,
distillation bottoms) generated from the recycling processes to be no
longer regulated as “derived-from” RCRA hazardous wastes (RCRA 40
CFR 261.3(c)(2)(I)).  Management of previously “listed” hazardous
residuals may shift from RCRA Subtitle C regulated hazardous waste
management to de-regulated management, although RCRA
“characteristic” hazardous waste residuals will continue to need to
be managed as hazardous waste (40 CFR 261 Subpart C of the RCRA
regulations defines “characteristic” hazardous wastes according to
four classifications: 261.21 ignitability, 261.22 corrosivity, 261.23
reactivity, and 261.24 toxicity).

Exhibit 7A below presents a summary of the 12 conditions for the three
DSW final rule exclusions, and Exhibit 7B displays the average unit
costs estimated in this RIA for each.  Additional unit cost details are
provided in Appendix C to this RIA.  Exhibit 7C presents the estimated
annual cost for all affected facilities to comply with these conditions.



Exhibit 7A

12 Conditions for the 2008 DSW Amendments Final Rule Recycling
Exclusions

Conditions	Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled Recycling	Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer Recycling	Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case Variance	Potential Cost Impacts on Affected Industries

1	No speculative accumulation	Yes	Yes	N/A	“Speculative accumulation”
provisions (see 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar year
(beginning January 1) the amount of material that is recycled, or
transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75%
by weight or volume of the amount of that material at the beginning of
the period.  Impact not estimated in this RIA.

2	Generator notifies USEPA initially & every 2-years	Yes	Yes	N/A	Costs
were estimated for generators to complete a notification of RCRA
exclusion for their recycled wastes every 2-years.

3	Notification signed by corporate official	Yes	Yes	N/A	Additional costs
will be incurred in the notification process to brief and obtain the
signature of a corporate official. 

4	Generator submits petition to USEPA to demonstrate that materials are
not solid wastes	N/A	N/A	Yes	Costs will be incurred to conduct waste
characterization (totals and TCLP) to demonstrate waste has metal,
solvent or other material values warranting recovery.

5	Maintain records of all offsite shipments for recycling	No (onsite)

Yes (if involving offsite company affiliate, or tolling agreement)	Yes
N/A	Costs will be incurred by generator to maintain records of materials
shipments to offsite recycling.

6	Confirmation of shipment receipt	Yes	Yes	N/A	Costs will be incurred by
(a) offsite recycler to confirm to generator receipt of shipment, and
(b) generator to maintain record of confirmation receipts.

7	Recycler has liability insurance for accidents	No	Yes	N/A	This RIA
assumes no additional costs will be incurred because assumes all
affected facilities currently have liability insurance for accidents as
part of standard industry practice.

8	Recycler has financial assurance for closure	No	Yes	N/A	Costs incurred
by recycler for obtaining financial assurance for closure/post closure
of secondary materials storage containers.

9	Materials must be contained	Yes	Yes	Yes	This RIA assumes no additional
costs because assumes all affected facilities will ensure containment to
avoid CERCLA  liability and RCRA corrective action for leaks/spills.

10	Residuals derived from recycling managed in
environmentally-protective manner	No	Yes	N/A	Assume all affected
entities are currently treating residuals as listed waste, so cost
savings will be incurred because “listed” waste definitions will no
longer be attached to residuals.

11	Generator exercises due diligence reasonable efforts to ensure
offsite recycling is legitimate	No	Yes	N/A	Generator incurs cost for
conducting due diligence on offsite recycler.

12	Export of materials for recycling requires notice & consent and
filing of an annual report documenting the actual number of shipments
and quantity of material exported	N/A	Yes	N/A	Costs incurred by
generator to notify foreign recycling facility of the requirements of
the DSW exclusions and file an annual report on materials exported. 
This RIA does not estimate the annual fraction (percentage) of affected
hazardous secondary materials which may be exported for recycling. 
However, this is a baseline RCRA Subtitle C requirement (40 CFR 262.53;
40 CFR 262.56), so no incremental cost impact.

Count of total conditions* =	6	11	2

	Explanatory Notes:

N/A = Not applicable.

* Total counts of conditions in this Exhibit (a) do not include the four
“legitimate recycling” factors (2 mandatory factors, plus 2
non-mandatory factors) which are common to all three recycling
exclusions and are substantively the same as the current legitimacy
policy, (b) do not distinguish and include the five sub-elements of item
11 due diligence for Exclusion 2, and (c) do not distinguish and include
the nine criteria for making a non-waste determination under Exclusion
3..  This  more detailed sub-itemization of requirements exceeds the
impact estimation level-of-detail of this RIA  Addition of these 18
omitted sub-items would increase the total count of conditions to 10 for
Exclusion 1, to 20 for Exclusion 2, and to 15 for Exclusion 3.



Exhibit 7B

Summary of Estimated Unit Costs for Industry Compliance with 12 DSW
Exclusion Conditions

Source: Assumptions, Data, & Computations Presented in Appendix C

Item	DSW Exclusion Condition	40 CFR Equiva-lence	Type of Industrial
Facility	Average Unit Cost Per Condition	Frequency of Compliance with
Condition	Description as Applied in this RIA

(note: see the 2008 DSW final rule for exact description)

1	No speculative accumulation)	261.1(c)(8) & 262.34	LQGs, SQGs
Generators may pay surcharges to TSDRFs for more frequent pick-up of
less than full loads:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Commercial Recovery

Acid Recovery: $171/ton

Solvent Recovery: $785/ton

Metal Recovery: $345/ton

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Waste Testing  $346/load

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Transport for Disposal

Acid Residual: $1,659/load

Solvent Residual: $2,444/load

Metal Residual: $2,144/load

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Transport for Recovery

Acid Recovery: $2,135/load

Solvent Recovery: $2,169/load

Metal Recovery: $3,248/load	Varies by recycled tons, recycling type and
changes in generator status	“Speculative accumulation” provisions
(40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)) require that during a calendar year (beginning Jan
1) the amount of material that is recycled, or transferred to a
different site for recycling, must equal at least 75% by weight or
volume, of material at the beginning of the period.

Cost savings incurred if generator becomes a SQG or CESQG under the DSW
exclusions.

DPRA professional judgment using RACER* 2005 unit costs inflated to 2007
dollars using GDP implicit price deflator.

2	Generator notifies USEPA initially & every 2-years	New	LQGs, SQGs,
CESQGs	$122 per initial notification

$122 per re-notification

Average annualized basis = $61 per year (i.e., ($122 every two-years) /
(2 years re-notification period))	Initially plus every 2 years; this RIA
calculates an average annualized cost to apply in the impact estimation
spreadsheets.	DPRA profession judgment assuming 110 minutes labor time
per initial and per re-notification consisting of 38 minutes project
manager time + 64 minutes staff engineer time + 8 minutes clerical time.

3	Notification signed by corporate official	New	LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs	$123
per initial certification

$123 per re-certification

Average annualized basis = $62 per year (i.e., ($123 every 2 years) / (2
year re-notification period))	Initially plus every two years; this RIA
calculates an average annualized cost to apply in the impact estimation
spreadsheets.	DPRA professional judgment; Additional costs will be
incurred in the notification process to brief and obtain the signature
of a corporate official.

4	Generator submits petition to USEPA to demonstrate that materials are
not solid wastes	New	LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs	$11,415/variance	Once	Assume
administrative burden cost to industry is identical to the USEPA
Supporting Statement for ICR nr 1189.14 Identification, Listing, &
Rulemaking Petitions, Sept 13, 2004; To conduct waste characterization
(totals and TCLP) to demonstrate waste has metal, solvent or other
material values warranting recycling.

5	Maintain records of off-site shipments for recycling 	New	LQGs, SQGs,
CESQGs	LQG: $702/year

SQG: $468/year

CESQG: $234/year	Annual for facilities that change generator status	DPRA
professional judgment; Cost incurred by generator to maintain records of
offsite recycling shipments.  Estimated by generator status.

6	Confirmation of shipment receipt

TSDRFs	See Item 6	Every shipment	See Item 6

7	Recycler has liability insurance for accidents	New if not a permitted
TSDRF;

Otherwise,

264.147 for permitted TSDRF	TSDRFs	$0	Annual	Assumed no cost because
affected facilities assumed to have liability insurance.

8	Recycler has financial assurance for closure	264/265 Subpart H	TSDRFs
$1,397 + 1.5% of Closure Costs	Annual for facilities that switch from
disposal to recycling	USEPA-OSW-EMRAD Sept 2000 Unit Cost Compendium
(UCC).**  Costs incurred by recycler for obtaining financial assurance
for closure/post closure of secondary materials storage tanks.

9	Materials must be contained	New	LQGs, SQGs, TSDRFs	$0	Annual	This RIA
assumes no additional costs because assumes all affected facilities will
ensure containment (a) to avoid CERCLA liability costs, and (b) to avoid
RCRA corrective action for leaks/spills.

10	Residuals derived-from recycling managed in
environmentally-protective manner	New	LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs	Metals
(stabilization/landfill): $223/hazardous ton; $2,004 min. charge per haz
load; $37/nonhaz ton; $337 min. charge per nonhaz load;

Solvents (fuel blending): $226/ton; $2,352 min. charge per load;

Acids (precipitation/ dewatering/ stabilization/ landfill): $378/ton;
$3,722 min. charge per load	Annual	Cost savings are incurred because
“listed” waste definitions will no longer be attached to residuals
and accumulation times are longer and shipments are bigger with changes
in generator status.

Cost savings are for changes in generator status allowing longer storage
times and larger shipments resulting in avoided minimum disposal
charges.

Residuals continue to be treated as listed wastes.

The cost for this exclusion condition is not separately estimated in
this chapter of the RIA because this condition is a variation on
baseline RCRA requirements, and is therefore netted-out in the estimated
baseline cost item 14 of Exhibit 6C that will be eliminated from the DSW
exclusions..

11	Generator due diligence to ensure offsite recycling is legitimate	New
LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs	$1,761 per each generator facility per each “due
diligence” event conducted by a generator on a recycler.	Annual
Generator incurs cost to conduct “due diligence” on recycler,
consisting of “reasonable efforts” to ensure recycling is
legitimate.

12	Export for recycling requires notice & consent and filing annual
reports documenting number of shipments and quantity of materials
exported	262 Subpart E	LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs	$7 per shipment for notice &
consent plus per facility costs for assembling and filing an annual
report	Varies by count of annual export shipments	Costs incurred by
generator for notification of foreign recycling facility of the
requirements for the exclusion/exemption.

Costs incurred by generator for assembling and filing an annual report

This RIA does not estimate the annual percentage of affected hazardous
secondary materials which may be exported for recycling.  However,  this
is a baseline RCRA Subtitle C requirement (40 CFR 262.53; 262.56), so no
cost impact estimated in this RIA.

Explanatory Notes:

“Legitimate recycling” factors are not included as conditions in
this Exhibit because the legitimacy factors are common to all three
exclusions and are substantively the same as the current legitimacy
policy.

* RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating
system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm

** UCC = OSW’s 30 Sept 2000 “Unit Cost Compendium” (121 pages) is
available to the public as document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0429 at
the Federal government docket website: http://www.regulations.gov.



Exhibit 7C

Summary of Industry Annual Costs to Meet the 12 Conditions of the DSW
Final Rule Exclusions

Note: impacts in this Exhibit based on annual tonnages from baseline
recycling + baseline disposal switchover to recycling

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

Item	RCRA Requirement	Exclusion 1	Exclusion 2	Exclusion 3	Combined
Exclusions 1+2+3

1	No speculative accumulation	$0	$0	N/A not applicable	$0

2	Generator notifies USEPA initially & every 2-years	$18,909	$367,787
N.A	$386,696

3	Notification signed by corporate official	$18,909	$367,787	N/A
$386,696

4	Generator submits petition to USEPA to demonstrate materials are not
solid wastes	N/A	N/A	$79,905	$79,905

5	Maintain records of all offsite shipments for recycling	$17,089

(assume same as baseline cost in Exhibit 6C row 3)	$466,323

(assume same as baseline cost in Exhibit 6C row 3)	$3,455

(assume same as baseline cost in Exhibit 6C row 3)	$486,867

(assume same as baseline cost in Exhibit 6C row 3)

6	Confirmation of shipment receipt	Assume included in  Item 5	Assume
included in  Item 5	N/A	Assume included in Item 5

7	Recycler has liability insurance for accidents	N/A	$0	N/A	$0

8	Recycler has financial assurance for facility closure	N/A	$1,819,707
N/A	$1,819,707

9	Materials must be contained	$0	$0	$0	$0

10	Residuals derived from recycling managed in
environmentally-protective manner	N/A	Netted-out from baseline burden in
Exhibit 6C item 14; assume residuals managed as haz waste	N/A	Netted-out
from baseline burden in Exhibit 6C item 14; assume residuals managed as
haz waste

11	Generator exercises due diligence reasonable efforts to ensure
offsite recycling is legitimate	N/A	$12,610,993	N/A	$12,610,993

12	Export of materials for recycling requires notice & consent and
filing of an annual report	N/A	$0	N/A	$0

Column totals =	$37,818	$15,165,474	$79,905	$15.8 million

Total count* of requirements =	6	11	2

	Explanatory Notes:

$0 in this exhibit either designates (a) that this RIA assumes these
cost elements will not change relative to baseline, or (b) that these
cost elements are expected to be relatively small and not estimated in
this RIA.

* Total counts in this Exhibit (a) do not include the four “legitimate
recycling” factors (2 mandatory factors, plus 2 non-mandatory factors)
which are common to all three recycling exclusions and are substantively
the same as the current legitimacy policy, (b) do not distinguish and
include the five sub-elements of item 11 due diligence for Exclusion 2,
and (c) do not distinguish and include the nine criteria for making a
non-waste determination under Exclusion 3.  This more detailed
sub-itemization of requirements exceeds the impact estimation
level-of-detail of this RIA  Addition of these 18 omitted sub-items
would increase the count of conditions to 10 for Exclusion 1, 20 for
Exclusion 2, and 15 for Exclusion 3.

Chapter 8

Micro-Economic Breakeven Test

to Estimate Potential Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling

8A.	Breakeven Test Methodology

Excluding metals, solvents, and other industrial “hazardous secondary
materials” from RCRA regulation should make it more economical for
generators and recycling facilities to recover the market-valued
commodities from these materials, if the materials are recycled rather
than disposed.  This chapter presents estimates of the potential new
future industrial recycling that may be induced by the DSW exclusions. 
The induced new recycling estimates are based on applying a financial
“breakeven test” to estimate the portion of baseline hazardous
wastes which might switchover from baseline disposal (either onsite or
offsite disposal) to future offsite recycling.  This impact is relevant
to both Exclusion 1 and Exclusion 2, so this breakeven test is conducted
simultaneously for both exclusions to eliminate double-counting and
over-estimation of this potential switchover impact.

Note:	This RIA does not include a breakeven test to estimate possible
(a) switchover of baseline offsite recycling to onsite recycling, or (b)
switchover of baseline disposal to onsite recycling, as a result of the
DSW final rule.  This RIA does not apply the breakeven test to estimate
new onsite recycling for three reasons: (a) the broad array of 100s of
different industries consisting of 1,000s of industrial facilities
generating or managing 10,000s of industrial hazardous waste streams
potentially affected by the DSW final rule prohibits a meaningful
analysis in this RIA that would reflect the unique onsite plant and
business factors required to formulate an accurate, nationwide estimate,
and (b) some large industrial associations and large industrial
companies representing a large fraction of the industries most likely
affected by the DSW final rule commented to OSW that new investments in
onsite recycling is an unlikely scenario for many diverse industries
because of engineering, technical, financial, and business reasons.  On
the other hand, OSW does anticipate that the DSW final rule may induce
future switchover of hazardous secondary materials from offsite disposal
and offsite recycling, to onsite recycling in some industries, because
such switchovers have been reported in recent technical literature in
absence of the DSW final rule.  Consequently, this limitation in the
methodology of this RIA probably results in a lower new recycling impact
estimate in this chapter.

Compared to the potential future cost savings estimated in this RIA for
exclusion of hazardous wastes currently being recycled, this switchover
impact represents in this RIA, a relatively less certain, hypothetical
future scenario.  It is important to emphasize that this disposal
switchover to recycling scenario does not represent a “prediction”
or “forecast” in this RIA, but represents a “futures analysis”
method often used by USEPA:

“Scenarios are not predictions. They are stories of how the future
might unfold — plausible stories that reflect information about trends
and potential future developments. [Scenarios may be] designed to span a
range of potential future conditions. The actual future is not likely to
match any one of [alternative] depictions, but it will probably fall
somewhere within the range of possibilities that [scenarios] explore.”

The underlying rationale for this disposal switchover scenario is that
excluding metal-, solvent-, and other chemical-bearing wastes that are
recycled, is expected to make it more economical for waste generators
and for waste recycling facilities to recover valuable chemical
constituents from these wastes.  Therefore, induced new recycling
impacts may result in additional savings to generators from at least
three sources:

Relaxed waste accumulation time limits.

De-regulation of waste management residuals (e.g. ash, sludges,
leachates) from recycled materials; i.e., if wastes are no longer
considered a listed hazardous waste, the residuals generated by the
waste recycling processes may no longer be regulated as “hazardous
waste” under the RCRA "Derived-from Rule" (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).
Therefore, the management of these residuals might shift from RCRA
Subtitle C (hazardous waste) to Subtitle D (nonhazardous waste) disposal
if the residuals do not test characteristically hazardous (40 CFR 261
Subpart C).

Reduction and elimination of baseline costs for RCRA regulatory
paperwork burden to affected entities (e.g., for manifesting, for
maintaining RCRA waste management permits).

However, possibly offsetting some fractions of these potential RCRA
regulatory cost savings, are the incremental costs to affected
facilities, associated with complying with the conditions of each DSW
exclusion.  Induced new recycling impacts are a combination of:

RCRA regulatory paperwork burden costs savings to industry

New costs to affected industrial facilities to implement (i.e., comply
with) the 12 DSW exclusion conditions

State government hazardous waste fee cost savings to industry

Waste management costs (i.e., current waste disposal cost compared to
new recycling cost) to industry waste generators

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

All of these elements are integrated in the micro-economic (i.e.,
facility- and waste-specific) financial breakeven test to determine
which facilities may be induced to switchover from baseline disposal to
future recycling under the DSW exclusions.

8B.	Key Assumptions Applied to Breakeven Test

Recycled materials markets:	The breakeven test does not include an
evaluation of whether the US or global markets for recycled industrial
secondary materials are large enough to absorb the potential increase in
supply of recycled materials estimated in this RIA.  Market conditions
for recycled secondary materials can vary considerably over time. 
Demand for recycled solvent, for example, is largely dependent on the
petroleum market: because virgin solvent is made from petroleum
products, high petroleum prices encourage solvent recycling.  Similarly,
high metals prices obviously favor the recycling of metal-bearing
secondary materials.

National average unit costs:	The breakeven test assumes national average
unit costs for industrial recycling equipment/operations, and does not
account for variability in regional or local industrial and recycling
market conditions.

Quality & technical feasibility:	The resultant baseline disposal wastes
quantities selected according to the primary and secondary screening
criteria in Chapter 5 of this RIA, are assumed to have yielded a subset
of disposed waste types/quantities which of sufficient physical quality
and technical acceptability for potential materials recovery.

Spreadsheet computation:	This breakeven test is structured according to
an “IF statement” cost comparison structure which compares baseline
disposal costs for each waste category, to the hypothetical alternative
cost for each facility to switch management of wastes to offsite
commercial recycling under Exclusion 2.  This cost comparison indicates
that facilities may switch to new recycling if the hypothetical cost for
recycling is less than the baseline disposal cost.  The breakeven test
was not applied to the case-by-case Exclusion 3, because this RIA
assumes that baseline disposal switchover will not occur under Exclusion
3 which involves case-by-case variances.

8C.	Summary of Breakeven Test Results

Exhibit 8A presents the micro-economic breakeven points as measured by
the minimum annual tonnage of waste generated which may be more
economical to offsite commercial recycle (under Exclusion 2), compared
to the cost of their baseline disposal.  This breakeven test is not
applied to the relative small number of average annual facilities and
associated small waste quantities (tons per year) which may become
excluded under Exclusion 3.

	The breakeven test compared five categories of cost elements for
baseline RCRA-regulated waste disposal, to hypothetical switchover to
DSW-excluded recycling:

Potential cost savings from reduced RCRA regulatory burden associated
with baseline disposal, as described in Chapter 6.

Potential offsetting costs to generators and recyclers for compliance
with the 12 conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions as presented in
Chapter 7.

Potential cost savings to generators from reduced hazardous waste taxes
paid to state governments as presented in Chapter 10.

Potential market value of recoverable commodities contained in the
baseline disposed wastes as presented in Appendix A.

Differences in baseline disposal costs as compared to offsite commercial
recycling prices, as presented in Appendix D.



Exhibit 8A

Breakeven Point (tons/year) Where Offsite Recycling is Potentially More
Economical than Baseline Disposal

A	B	C	D	E	F

Item	Baseline disposal category	Baseline disposal method	Assumed offsite
recycling method	Micro-economic breakeven for switchover to offsite
recycling

(tons/year)	Baseline disposal exceeding breakeven

(tons/year)

Commodity Group #1: Metals

1A	Metal Containing Liquids 	H071/H077

Chemical Precipitation	Offsite Ion Exchange 

Metals Recovery	Not economical at any reported quantity 	0

1B	Metal Containing Solids 	H111 stabilization & H132 landfill	Offsite
Smelting	≤ 36.5 tons/yr if LQG pre-rule. 

28<x<36.5 tons/yr if change to lower generator status 	2,489

1C	Metal Containing Sludges 	H111 stabilization & H132 landfill	Offsite
Smelting	≤ 30.9 tons/yr if LQG pre-rule	5,082

1D	Emission Control Dust 	H111 stabilization & H132 landfill	Offsite
Smelting	≤ 22 tons/yr if LQG pre-rule	4.5

1E	Catalyst	H111 stabilization & H132 landfill	Offsite Smelting	≥ 0
tons/yr if LQG pre-rule	10,947

Commodity Group #2: Solvents

2A	Solvent Bearing Liquids 	H050 Energy Recovery	Offsite Fractionation/
Distillation	≤ 15.2 tons/yr if change in generator status from LQG
2,682

2B	Other Organic Liquids 	H050 Energy Recovery	Offsite Fractionation/
Distillation	≤ 17.1 tons/yr if change in generator status from LQG
1,073

Commodity Group #3: Other Materials

3A	Carbon	H040 incineration	Offsite Carbon Regeneration	≤ 32 tons if
LQG pre-rule. 	1,136

3B	Sodium Fluoride	H111 stabilization & H132 landfill	Offsite Fluoride
Recovery using Vortec technology	Not economical at any reported quantity
(no commercial capacity has been constructed)	0

Column total =	23,413

8D.	Market Value of Recoverable Commodities in Baseline Disposal for
Recycling Switchover

Exhibit 8B below presents estimates of the potential market value
embedded in the potentially recoverable materials for the 11 disposed
waste types potentially affected by the DSW final rule.  In the exhibit,
the potential market value is based on an assumption that 100% of the
waste tonnage per year shifts from baseline disposal to future recycling
as a result of the DSW rule, according to the assumed (a) concentration,
(b) recovery yield, and (c) market price for each commodity recovered
from the waste (see Appendix A for data references).  However, for whom
the cost of recycling becomes more favorable than their baseline cost
for disposal, will be determined in the breakeven test presented
elsewhere in this RIA.

	The market value estimate incorporates a factor to account for possible
quality losses in the purity or effectiveness of the recoverable
product.  The potential market value of recoverable constituents is
estimated in this RIA using commercial market values.  As listed below,
there are at least three important factors which determine the potential
market value of recoverable constituents, pertaining to the relative
quality (i.e., physical/chemical composition) of the constituents in the
secondary materials:

Constituent type:	The chemical type and concentration of constituents
present in the secondary material impacts the cost for reclaimers to
manage the waste, and the cost of reclamation is influenced by the
market price the recyclers can obtain for the constituents they recover.

Multiple constituents:	The presence of multiple metals and/or other
chemical constituents may impact both the marketability and feasibility
of reclamation.  While the waste may contain multiple recoverable metals
or other chemical constituents, reclaimers prefer that generators not
co-mingle multiple metals, solvents, etc. in their secondary materials. 
For example, reclaimers prefer to accept wastes that have been
segregated into a mono-metal or bi-metal sludge.  (Source: Borst, Paul
A., USEPA Office of Solid Waste, Economic, Methods and Risk Analysis
Division, “Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Sludges from
Electroplating Operations,” F006, 18th AESF/EPA Pollution Prevention
and Control Conference, January 27-29, 1997, p. 179.).  In certain
instances, reclaimers face higher costs to handle impurities (i.e.,
metal/chemical constituents considered not to be of market value by the
offsite reclaimer) in excess of a specified concentration.  (Source:
Lamancusa, James P., “Strategies at a Decorative Chromium
Electroplating Facility: On-line vs. Off-line Recycling,” Plating and
Surface Finishing, April 1995, p.48.)

Constituent quality:	Generators may attempt to improve the quality of
their secondary materials containing potential recoverable materials, in
order to improve the productivity of reclamation, thereby allowing them
to accumulate more cost-effective quantities for reclamation.



Exhibit 8B

Market Value of Recoverable Commodities in Baseline Disposed Wastes
Meeting the Recycling Switchover Breakeven Test

 ADVANCE \d4 A	 ADVANCE \d4 B	 ADVANCE \d4 C	 ADVANCE \d4 D	E	F	 ADVANCE
\d4 G (B x C x D x E)	 ADVANCE \d4 H (F x G)

Type of commodity in baseline disposed wastes	 ADVANCE \d4 Baseline
disposed Waste quantity meeting breakeven test (tons/year)	 ADVANCE \d4
Typical recoverable commodity concentration in disposed waste

(% waste tonnage)	 ADVANCE \d4 Percentage of baseline disposed wastes
which may contain the commodity	Breakeven test spread sheet calibration
factor	Commodity value @90% market price for virgin materials

($/ ton)	 ADVANCE \d4 Quantity of commodities potentially recoverable
from disposed waste (tons/year)	 ADVANCE \d4 Potential annual market
value of recoverable commodities @90% virgin material price

Commodity Group #1: Metals

1A. Metal Containing Liquids (copper, lead, zinc)	0	 ADVANCE \d4 0.025% 
100%	0%	$2,063	0	$0

1B. Metal Containing Solids (copper, lead, zinc)	2,489	 ADVANCE \d4
4.152% 	36%	100%	$2,072	37.2	$77,086

1C. Metal Containing Sludges (chromium, copper, nickel, zinc)	5,082	
ADVANCE \d4 1.004% 	7%	100%	$9,413	3.6	$33,619

1D. Emission Control Dust (zinc)	4.5	 ADVANCE \d4 2.451% 	62%	100%
$1,908	0.07	$130

1E. Catalyst (molybdenum disulfide)	10,947	 ADVANCE \d4 5% 	90%	16.7%
$43,390	82.3	$3,569,552

Group #1 subtotal =	18,522.5



	123.2	$3,680,400

Commodity Group #2: Solvents

2A. Solvent Bearing Liquids (alkyl benzenes, toluene, xylene, methanol)
2,682	37.85%	56%	100%	$845	568.5	$480,363

2B. Other Organic Liquids (acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene,
xylene)	1,073	27.31%	37%	100%	$909	108.4	$98,557

Group #2 subtotal =	3,755



	676.9	$578,900

Commodity Group #3: Other Materials

3A. Carbon	 ADVANCE \d4 1,136	 ADVANCE \d4 90%	 ADVANCE \d4 100%	10%
$4,289	102.2	$438,500

3B. Sodium Fluoride	 ADVANCE \d4 0	 ADVANCE \d4 2% 	 ADVANCE \d4 100%	0%
$39,051	0	$0

Group #3 subtotal =	1,136



	102.2	$438,500

Column Total =	23,413



	902.3	$4.7 million

Explanatory Notes:

Column A: Assumed commodity constituents in baseline disposed wastes
identified based on data and references presented in Appendix A to this
RIA.

Column B: Tonnage is output of the spreadsheets used for the Chapter 8
micro-economic breakeven test of this RIA (based on 2005 RCRA Biennial
Report).

Column C: “Typical” concentrations calculated to represent
tonnage-weighted mean (i.e., harmonic mean) concentrations relative to
the entire quantity of the waste matrix for wastes with the chemical
present (i.e., >0ppm) , based on parts-per-million (ppm) data and
references presented in Appendix A to this RIA.  For purpose of
converting ppm data to percentages, the number 1,000,000 ppm is
numerically equivalent to 100% of the entire waste tonnage, 500,000 ppm
equals 50% of the waste tonnage, 100,000 ppm equals 10% of the waste
tonnage, and .10,000 ppm equals 1% of the waste tonnage.

Column D: Derived from the data and references presented in Appendix A
to this RIA.

Column E: Calibration factor applied to the micro-economic breakeven
test spreadsheets (Chapter 8 of this RIA) in order to calibrate the
breakeven calculations so that the spreadsheets do not estimate that
baseline disposed hazardous wastes would be expected to switch to
recycling without de-regulatory industry cost savings from exclusions
under the DSW final rule.  This calibration factor can be interpreted as
a numerical adjustment to offset and compensate for the lack of
highly-detailed and exact unit cost estimates for each of the nationwide
100s of different industries consisting of 1,000s of facilities which
are generating and managing 10,000s of individual waste streams which
may be affected by the DSW  rule, and which are evaluated in the
breakeven spreadsheets (a total of 14,144 baseline disposal waste
streams are evaluated in the breakeven spreadsheets).  A 100%
calibration factor in this Exhibit indicates no adjustment was required
for the particular waste type.  Calibration factors <100% in this
Exhibit indicate the breakeven test spreadsheets estimated that the
alternative cost for recycling the particular waste type in absence of
the DSW exclusion cost savings was already lower than the current
baseline hazardous waste disposal cost.  For all such cases in the
breakeven spreadsheets, the estimated recovered commodity market value
component of the alternative recycling cost was multiplied by the <100%
factor to achieve parity in the estimated recycling cost with baseline
disposal cost, absent the estimated cost savings of the DSW exclusions.

Column F: Derived from the data and references in Appendix A to this
RIA; 90% market price applied to account for perceived or real lower
quality.

Chapter 9

De-Regulatory Cost Savings Net Impact Estimates

This chapter contains a series of exhibits which present the outcome of
the net impact estimation spreadsheet computations for this RIA.  The
net impact estimates consist of three additive components:

Baseline cost:		This RIA estimates annual industry cost savings to LQGs,
SQGs, transporters, and TSDRFs for elimination of all 14 baseline
regulatory cost elements estimated in Chapter 6 under all three DSW
final rule exclusions.  However, because baseline hazardous waste
recyclers (particularly commercial recyclers) may operate multiple types
of hazardous waste management units at their facilities (thus not
completely eliminating their TSDF regulatory status under RCRA Subtitle
C), this RIA only estimates baseline cost savings for one of the TSDRF
recycler cost elements listed in Chapter 6 (i.e., Exhibit 6B row item 7
“Part B permit renewal” cost savings).

New costs:		To affected industries for complying with the paperwork
burden conditions under each DSW exclusion.

Net market value:	Of industrial secondary materials recovered from
potential switchover of some hazardous wastestreams from baseline
disposal to new future recycling under the DSW exclusions (as estimated
in Chapter 8).

The following exhibits parse the impact estimates (i.e., net cost
savings) for each exclusion, according to 2-digit NAICS code economic
sub-sectors:

Exhibit 9A:		Presents estimated counts of affected hazardous industrial
waste streams

Exhibit 9B:		Presents estimated counts of affected industrial facilities

Exhibit 9C:		Presents estimated counts of affected industries (i.e.,
5-digit NAICS code industry counts within the 24 different 2-digit NAICS
sectors)

Exhibit 9D:		Presents estimated annual tonnages of affected hazardous
wastes

Exhibit 9E:		Presents the dollar-value of estimated annual net cost
savings to industry according to 2-digit NAICS sectors

Exhibit 9F:		Presents the combined impact for all three exclusions
according to two impact components: (a) industry cost savings from
de-regulation of baseline recycling (columns A to D), and (b) net cost
savings from regulated baseline disposal switchover to de-regulated
recycling (columns E to H).

Exhibit 9G: 	Presents the estimated future shift in baseline RCRA
regulatory generator status of affected industrial facilities (i.e.,
pre-rule and post-rule estimated counts of affected LQGs, SQGs, and
CESQGs)

This RIA estimates net cost savings to industry for each exclusion,
based on the following additional considerations for some exclusions:

Exclusion 1C:	Tolling arrangement offsite recycling indirectly estimated
using baseline offsite recycling for NAICS industry code 32519 Other
Organic Chemical Mfg.

Exclusion 2:	Offsite transfer recycling based on all other offsite
recycling not covered under Exclusion 1 (i.e., mutually-exclusive
non-duplicative impact), plus all baseline disposal estimated to
potentially shift to offsite recycling.

Exclusion 3:	Average annual waste stream count estimated by assuming one
waste stream excluded per average annual affected facility.  Note that
each exhibit of this chapter does not present Exclusion 3 as a separate
exhibit column according to the 2-digit NAICS code itemization, because
Exclusion 3 is estimated in this RIA based on a simple methodology
outside of the baseline recycling and baseline disposal datasets applied
in the de-regulatory cost savings and disposal switchover breakeven test
analyses used to estimate impacts for Exclusion 1 and Exclusion 2.  For
this reason, only the aggregate annual impact estimate for Exclusion 3
is presented as a bottom row of each exhibit.



Exhibit 9A

Estimated Average Annual Count of Affected Hazardous Waste Streams
(2005)

(Count of Baseline Recycling Waste Streams + Count of Baseline Disposal
Waste Streams Which May Switchover to Recycling)

Item	Industry 2-digit NAICS code	A	B	C	D	E (A+B+C+D)



Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)	Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)	Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)	Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)	Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1	11	Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	0	0	0	7	7

2	21	Mining	0	0	0	46	46

3	22	Utilities	0	2	0	218	218

4	23	Construction	1	0	0	34	35

5	31	Manufacturing	0	0	0	76	76

6	32	Manufacturing	116	31	322	3,794	4,263

7	33	Manufacturing	60	21	0	9,076	9,157

8	42	Wholesale Trade	6	0	0	301	307

9	44	Retail Trade	0	0	0	34	34

10	45	Retail Trade	0	0	0	6	6

11	48	Transportation	2	0	0	277	279

12	49	Postal, Messengers, Storage	0	2	0	48	50

13	51	Information	1	0	0	25	26

14	52	Finance & Insurance	0	0	0	0	0

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	0	6	0	17	23

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	1	2	0	457	460

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	0	0	0	10	10

18	56	Admin, Waste, & Remediation	37	327	0	434	798

19	61	Educational Services	2	3	0	1,045	1,050

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	2	5	0	217	224

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	0	0	0	11	11

22	72	Accommod & Food Services	0	0	0	0	0

23	81	Other Services	0	1	0	206	207

24	92	Public Administration	0	2	0	1,045	1,047

25	??	NAICS code not provided	0	0	0	0	0

Column totals =	228	402	322	17,382	18,334

Sub-total offsite tonnage excluded (Columns B+C+D) =	18,106

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

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) =	18,408



Exhibit 9B

Estimated Count of Affected Facilities

(i.e., Existing Facilities Which May Become Eligible for the Three DSW
Final Rule Exclusions)

Item	Industry 2-digit NAICS code	A	B	C	D	E (A+B+C+D)



Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)	Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)	Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)	Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)	Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1	11	Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	0	0	0	3	3

2	21	Mining	0	0	0	23	23

3	22	Utilities	0	2	0	105	107

4	23	Construction	1	0	0	23	24

5	31	Manufacturing	0	0	0	38	38

6	32	Manufacturing	55	5	102	1,309	1,471

7	33	Manufacturing	40	10	0	2,497	2,547

8	42	Wholesale Trade	1	0	0	117	118

9	44	Retail Trade	0	0	0	33	33

10	45	Retail Trade	0	0	0	5	5

11	48	Transportation	1	0	0	116	117

12	49	Postal, Messengers, Storage	0	1	0	31	32

13	51	Information	1	0	0	11	12

14	52	Finance & Insurance	0	0	0	0	0

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	0	6	0	9	15

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	1	1	0	177	179

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	0	0	0	5	5

18	56	Admin, Waste, & Remediation	8	64	0	96	168

19	61	Educational Services	2	2	0	186	190

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	2	1	0	90	93

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	0	0	0	7	7

22	72	Accommod & Food Services	0	0	0	0	0

23	81	Other Services	0	1	0	88	89

24	92	Public Administration	0	1	0	213	214

25	??	NAICS code not provided





	Column totals =	112	94	102	5,182	5,490

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

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) =	5,564



Exhibit 9C

Estimated Count of Affected Industries (5-digit NAICS codes)

Item	Industry 2-digit NAICS code	A	B	C	D	E (A+B+C+D)



Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)	Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)

Incremental above Exclusion 1A	Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)

Incremental above Exclusion 1A & 1B	Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)

Incremental above Exclusion 1A, 1B & 1C	Combined

Exclusions 1+2

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

2	21	Mining	0	0	0	4	4

3	22	Utilities	0	1	0	5	6

4	23	Construction	1	0	0	4	5

5	31	Manufacturing	0	0	0	9	9

6	32	Manufacturing	21	1	1	44	67

7	33	Manufacturing	22	4	0	73	99

8	42	Wholesale Trade	1	0	0	13	14

9	44	Retail Trade	0	0	0	0	0

10	45	Retail Trade	0	0	0	1	1

11	48	Transportation	1	0	0	16	17

12	49	Postal, Messengers, Storage	0	1	0	3	4

13	51	Information	1	0	0	3	4

14	52	Finance & Insurance	0	0	0	0	0

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	0	1	0	3	4

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	1	1	0	4	6

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	0	0	0	1	1

18	56	Admin, Waste, & Remediation	3	3	0	7	13

19	61	Educational Services	2	0	0	3	5

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	2	0	0	4	6

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	0	0	0	1	1

22	72	Accommod & Food Services	0	0	0	0	0

23	81	Other Services	0	1	0	4	5

24	92	Public Administration	0	1	0	8	9

25	??	NAICS code not provided	0	0	0	0	0

Column totals =	55	14	1	211	281

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

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) =	281



Exhibit 9D

Estimated Annual Tonnage of Affected Hazardous Wastes

(Based on 2005 Hazardous Waste Generation & Management Tons Reported in
the RCRA Biennial Report)

Item	Industry 2-digit NAICS code	A	B	C	D	E (A+B+C+D)



Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)	Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)	Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)	Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)	Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1	11	Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	0	0	0	12	12

2	21	Mining	0	0	0	125	125

3	22	Utilities	0	<1	0	1,454	1,454

4	23	Construction	4	0	0	809	813

5	31	Manufacturing	0	0	0	307	307

6	32	Manufacturing	140,187	1,265	41,561	169,118	352,131

7	33	Manufacturing	282,279	4,103	0	685,123	971,505

8	42	Wholesale Trade	654	0	0	28,145	28,799

9	44	Retail Trade	0	0	0	235	235

10	45	Retail Trade	0	0	0	53	53

11	48	Transportation	19	0	0	1,599	1,618

12	49	Postal, Messengers, Storage	0	1	0	1,202	1,203

13	51	Information	11	0	0	256	266

14	52	Finance & Insurance	0	0	0	0	0

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	0	3,413	0	85	3,498

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	<1	13	0	1,037	1,050

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	0	0	0	26	26

18	56	Admin, Waste, & Remediation	14,703	17,263	0	16,641	48,606

19	61	Educational Services	7	7	0	806	819

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	83	10	0	520	613

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	0	0	0	12	12

22	72	Accommod & Food Services	0	0	0	0	0

23	81	Other Services	0	1	0	1,017	1,018

24	92	Public Administration	0	50	0	1,411	1,461

25	??	NAICS code not provided	0	0	0	0	0

Column totals =	437,948	26,126	41,561	909,990	1,415,625

Sub-total offsite tonnage excluded (Columns B+C+D) =	977,677

(227,400 shipments*)

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for
Exclusion 3 not estimated) =	121,484

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) =	1.537
million

Explanatory Notes:

* Annual offsite shipments (i.e., RCRA manifests) affected estimated by
dividing offsite tonnage by range of 4.3 tons average partial load from
Exhibit D12 of this RIA.



Exhibit 9E

Estimated Net Annual Cost Savings to Industry (De-Regulatory Cost
Savings to Baseline Recycling Plus Net Value of Commodities Recovered
from Baseline Disposal Switchover to Recycling)*

Item	Industry 2-digit NAICS code	A	B	C	D	E (A+B+C+D)



Exclusion 1A

(Generator onsite)	Exclusion 1B

(Same co. offsite)	Exclusion 1C

(offsite tolling)	Exclusion 2

(Transfer-based)	Combined

Exclusions 1+2

1	11	Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	$0	$0	$0	$7,512	$7,512

2	21	Mining	$0	$0	$0	$390,908	$390,908

3	22	Utilities	$0	$67,766	$0	$1,164,898	$1,231,663

4	23	Construction	$16,161	$0	$0	$227,356	$243,517

5	31	Manufacturing	$0	$0	$0	$563,771	$563,771

6	32	Manufacturing	$598,500	$74,453	$3,152,740	$22,232,035	$26,017,729

7	33	Manufacturing	$1,416,248	$262,935	$0	$43,731,442	$45,410,625

8	42	Wholesale Trade	$229	$0	$0	$1,685,941	$1,686,170

9	44	Retail Trade	$0	$0	$0	$180,466	$180,466

10	45	Retail Trade	$0	$0	$0	$89,026	$89,026

11	48	Transportation	($1,108)*	$0	$0	$1,854,278	$1,853,170

12	49	Postal, Messengers, Storage	$0	$32,544	$0	$532,552	$565,097

13	51	Information	$16,060	$0	$0	$226,667	$242,737

14	52	Finance & Insurance	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	$0	$27,692	$0	$104,741	$132,433

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	$16,229	$50,126	$0	$2,711,792
$2,778,146

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	$0	$0	$0	$83,982	$83,982

18	56	Admin, Waste, & Remediation	$147,296	$683,958	$0	$1,672,231
$2,503,484

19	61	Educational Services	$30,679	$65,931	$0	$3,377,907	$3,474,516

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	$13,953	$63,371	$0	$1,357,893
$1,435,217

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	$0	$0	$0	$63,965	$63,965

22	72	Accommod & Food Services	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

23	81	Other Services	$0	$33,382	$0	$1,092,644	$1,126,027

24	92	Public Administration	$0	$33,167	$0	$3,930,941	$3,964,109

25	??	NAICS code not provided	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

Column totals =	$2,214,246	$1,394,325	$3,152,741	$87,282,962	$94,044,273

Average per affected facility ($/facility) =	$19,770	$14,800	$30,900
$16,800	$17,100

Average per affected wastestream ($/waste) =	$9,710	$3,470	$9,790	$5,020
$5,180

Average per affected waste annual ton ($/ton) =	$5	$53	$76	$96	$62

Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS code industry-by-industry impact for
Exclusion 3 not estimated) =	$1,279,795

Combined impact (Exclusion 1 + Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) =	$95.3
million

* Reductions in state fees may influence a generator’s waste
management decisions (e.g., disposal vs. recycling) and are included in
the micro-economic breakeven test. Distributive effects on state
governments are not treated as social costs in this RIA for estimating
the net economic impact of the DSW final rule.  Government fees often
represent “transfer payments” not real resource costs.  State fees
are taken out from the net economic impact.  As a result, cost savings
may be negative in this table.



Exhibit 9F

Estimated Net Impacts Parsed According to Two Major Components:

Impacts on Baseline Recycling and Impacts on Baseline Disposal

Item	Industry 2-digit NAICS code	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H



Impact on Baseline Recycling	Impact on Baseline Disposal (Switchover to
Recycling)



Waste streams	Facilities	Tons/year	Net savings	Waste streams	Facilities
Tons/year	Net savings

1	11	Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	6	2	9	$6,229	1	1	3	$1,283

2	21	Mining	26	17	66	$306,089	20	8	58	$84,819

3	22	Utilities	181	91	1,354	$1,090,061	37	21	100	$141,602

4	23	Construction	17	15	684	$201,383	19	11	129	$41,134

5	31	Manufacturing	46	25	257	$457,325	30	15	50	$106,447

6	32	Manufacturing	2,867	1,001	346,491	$20,617,400	1,420	729	5,640
$5,400,329

7	33	Manufacturing	6,248	1,861	956,805	$38,229,311	2,936	1,078	14,701
$7,181,314

8	42	Wholesale Trade	149	71	28,192	$1,379,861	158	55	607	$306,309

9	44	Retail Trade	34	33	235	$180,466	0	0	0	$0

10	45	Retail Trade	4	4	49	$78,914	2	1	4	$10,112

11	48	Transportation	169	88	1,315	$1,580,602	110	44	303	$272,568

12	49	Postal, Messengers, Storage	23	14	1,096	$369,577	27	18	107
$195,520

13	51	Information	25	12	245	$227,991	1	1	21	$14,745

14	52	Finance & Insurance	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	18	12	3,489	$110,816	5	4	9	$21,617

16	54	Prof, Scientific & Tech Services	254	118	654	$2,256,243	208	95	396
$521,903

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	7	4	17	$80,628	3	1	9	$3,354

18	56	Admin, Waste, & Remediation	697	148	48,406	$2,197,868	102	42	200
$305,615

19	61	Educational Services	404	134	546	$2,805,125	650	102	274	$669,391

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	144	68	419	$1,246,513	81	39	195
$188,703

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	10	6	12	$57,474	1	1	0	$6,491

22	72	Accommod & Food Services	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

23	81	Other Services	192	78	959	$1,069,891	16	12	59	$56,135

24	92	Public Administration	398	124	910	$2,766,006	652	162	552
$1,198,103

25	??	NAICS code not provided	0	0	0	$0	0	0	0	$0

Column totals =	11,919	3,926	1,392,210	$77,315,777	6,479	2,440	23,413
$16,728,493

	74	74	121,484	$1,279,795	= Impact for Exclusion 3 (NAICS not estimated)


Baseline recycling + baseline disposal combined impact (Exclusion 1 +
Exclusion 2 + Exclusion 3) =	18,408	5,564	1.537 million	$95.3 million



Exhibit 9G below presents the estimated potential shift in RCRA
regulatory generator classification (i.e., status) as a result of the
DSW final rule exclusions.  This potential change in RCRA status is a
driver (i.e., determinant) for five of the 14 RCRA regulatory paperwork
burden elements itemized in Chapter 6 (i.e., Exhibit 6A row items 2, 3,
8, 10, 11, as determined by different unit costs for LQGs, SQGs, CESQGs
shown in Exhibit 6B), and thus a driver for five of the 14 annual cost
savings estimates displayed in the Exhibits of this chapter above.  To a
much lesser extent, RCRA generator status is also a determinant of one
of the 12 DSW exclusion conditions itemized in Chapter 7 (i.e., row item
5 of Exhibit 7B).

	The estimate of potential change in generator status in this RIA is in
relation to the entire annual tonnage of baseline RCRA hazardous wastes
generated or managed at each potentially affected facility (i.e., the
facility-wide total annual tonnage for all hazardous waste streams
generated or managed at a single facility), not just in relation to the
sub-set of annual hazardous waste stream tonnage which may be affected
by the DSW final rule recovery/recycling exclusions.  Thus, as estimated
in this RIA, this potential shift in RCRA regulatory status for
generators is potentially more beneficial to the relatively large number
of small-sized facilities (e.g., small businesses) which generate a
relatively small number (i.e., <5) of small tonnage hazardous wastes
annually, and less beneficial to the relatively small number of
large-sized facilities (e.g. large companies) which generate a large
number (i.e., >5) of hazardous waste streams annually.

Exhibit 9G

Expected Change in Baseline RCRA Regulatory Generator Status Under the
DSW Final Rule Exclusions

Note: impacts in this Exhibit based on annual tonnages from both
baseline recycling + baseline disposal switchover to recycling

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

	Baseline Facility Status Counts	Post-Rule Facility Status Counts

Generator Status*	Facilities Affected by Exclusion 1	Facilities Affected
by Exclusion 2	Facilities Affected by Exclusion 3	Combined

(Exclusions 1+2+3)	Facilities Affected by Exclusion 1	Facilities
Affected by Exclusion 2	Facilities Affected by Exclusion 3	Combined

(Exclusions 1+2+3)	Impact (incremental change)

LQG	284	4,176 	Not estimated	4,460	224	3,129	Not estimated	3,353	-1,107

SQG	19	923	Not estimated	942	66	1,319	Not estimated	1,385	+443

CESQG	5	83	Not estimated	88	18	734	Not estimated	752	+664

Column totals	308	5,182	74	5,564	308	5,182	74	5,564	0

Explanatory Notes:

* RCRA generator status is determined by the monthly hazardous waste
generation tonnages reported by each facility in the RCRA Biennial
Report:

LQGs = >13.2 tons/year

SQGs = Between 1.3 and 13.2 tons/year

CESQG = <1.3 tons per year (note: this RIA counts facilities post-rule
as CESQGs even if they are expected to become non-generators post rule).

“Acute hazardous” wastes determinations of generator status are not
taken into consideration in this RIA.

Chapter 10

Distributional Effects

10A.	Definition of Distributional Effects

This section presents an evaluation of potential distributional impacts
of the DSW final rule on various industries which are inter-related
(i.e., within the same 2-digit NAICS economic sector, or within the same
3-digit NAICS industry group, or in counterpart industries) to the
industrial facilities subject to the 12 conditions of the DSW final rule
exclusions.  As stated in the Federal Register announcement for the DSW
final rule, its main purpose is to provide additional RCRA regulatory
exclusions for industrial recycling:

“In today’s rule, EPA is revising the definition of solid waste to
exclude from regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA (42 USC 6921 through
6939(e)) certain hazardous secondary materials which are being
reclaimed.  We have defined hazardous secondary materials as those which
would be classified as hazardous wastes if discarded.  We are also
promulgating regulatory factors for determining when recycling is
legitimate” (underscoring added here for emphasis).

Thus, entities affected by the rule are those industrial facilities
which engage or support recycling operations according to the conditions
of the DSW final rule.  Under Exclusion 2, affected entities also
include intermediate (middlemen) facilities.  However, there are other
industries which may be economically affected by the rule but which are
not engaged in recycling or otherwise subject to the conditions of the
DSW final rule, but which may experience gain or loss in business
activity because of this rule.  The purpose of this chapter is to
identify these two sets of industries, by categorizing them as “direct
effects” and “indirect effects”, respectively.

	Public commentors on the 2003 RIA and 2007 RIA identified at least two
such possible indirect effects:

NAICS 56221:	The Environmental Technology Council (ETC) commenting on
the 2003 DSW proposed rule identified a potential adverse effect on the
NAICS 562211 commercial hazardous waste management industry.

NAICS 327310:	Portland cement manufacturing industry is another
relatively large current receiver (i.e., consumer) of RCRA hazardous
wastes for purpose of energy recovery (i.e., use as a fuel).  Wastes
used as fuel is a beneficial form of waste disposal whereby the energy
content (i.e., Btu value) embodied in wastes is beneficially extracted
during the waste’s destruction, by using the waste as fuel for an
industrial process to augment other sources of fuel such as coal or
natural gas.  According to the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC;
http://www.ckrc.org), 14 of the 100 to 105 Portland cement manufacturing
plants in the US receive RCRA hazardous wastes from fuel blenders who
collect spent solvents from auto body shops, printing plants, and large
paint makers, and use the spent solvents to augment coal as a fuel for
operating the kilns which produce Portland cement.

From a national economic perspective, this RIA evaluates two simplified
categories of potential distributional effects.  These two categories
are simplified in this RIA, in the sense that baseline hazardous waste
generators, baseline hazardous waste recyclers, and baseline hazardous
waste disposers identified in the RCRA Biennial Report as facilities
possibly subject to the DSW final rule, may in fact
generate/handle/manage multiple types of wastes (i.e., both hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes) involving multiple types of industrial
operations, and therefore be classifiable according to multiple NAICS
codes.  An example of the former is some NAICS 562211 hazardous waste
TSDRFs may also be classifiable as NAICS 562212, 562213 or 562219
non-hazardous waste TSDRFs.  An example of the later is NAICS 32 or
NAICS 33 manufacturing industries may also be secondarily classifiable
as NAICS 56 TSDRFs recyclers (e.g., NAICS 3314 secondary non-ferrous
metal smelter manufacturers who receive metal-bearing secondary
materials for metals recovery may also be secondarily classifiable as
NAICS 56292 materials recovery facilities).

	The two distributional effects categories evaluated in this RIA involve
23 industries:

Direct effects:		Net economic gain or loss to industrial facilities
engaged or supporting recycling operations and subject to the conditions
of the DSW final rule exclusions according to 8 industries grouped into
three groups:

A. Hazardous waste recycling industries: This RIA simplistically assumes
that hazardous waste recyclers will continue to provide recycling
services under the DSW exclusions at a price which passes-through their
de-regulatory cost savings to hazardous waste generator customers.

Note:	This RIA does not evaluate the extent to which baseline hazardous
waste recycling and baseline disposal switchover to recycling, may
switch to non-hazardous waste recyclers.

B. Intermediate (middlemen) service industries to hazardous waste and
hazardous secondary materials recyclers

C. Transportation: Hazardous waste transport and hazardous secondary
materials transport.

Indirect effects:	Net economic gain or loss to industrial facilities
which are not engaged in recycling nor otherwise subject to the
recycling exclusion conditions of DSW final rule, but which are lateral
or counterpart to the industries subject to the rule.  This category
includes 15 industries in four groups:

D. Hazardous waste disposal industries (displaced by induced switchover
to recycling)

E. Non-hazardous waste disposal industries (displaced by induced
switchover to recycling)

F. Virgin materials production industries (resources conserved by
recycling switchover)

G. Coal mining:	Identified in this RIA as an example substitute fuel to
replace hazardous wastes currently disposed as fuel/energy which may be
induced by the DSW final rule to switch to recycling; there many other
possible substitute fuels not evaluated in this RIA.

This chapter presents estimates for each category of potential
distributional effects.  It is important to note that indirect effects
are not necessarily additive to direct effects in all cases because some
indirect effects may represent financial “transfer effects” rather
than “real resource effects”.

10B.	Potential Distributional Effects on Industries

Exhibit 10A below presents potential distributional effects indicated by
possible shifts in annual tonnages of current hazardous wastes which may
become de-regulated as hazardous secondary materials, for 24 economic
sub-sectors (i.e., at the 2-digit NAICS code level).  These tonnage
shifts are estimated in relation to the affected tonnages displayed in
Exhibit 9D.  Based on the potential tonnage shifts displayed in Exhibit
10A, Exhibit 10B presents estimates of potential direct distributional
effects, and Exhibit 10C presents estimates of potential indirect
distributional effects in relation to annual business revenues.  This
RIA expresses these potential effects as a percentage of current annual
business revenues per-facility in affected industries.  There are six
important limitations in the scope of the distributional effects
estimated in this chapter:

Partial equilibrium effects:	The effects represent “partial
equilibrium” effects, not “general equilibrium” effects.  In other
words, this RIA estimates distributional effect based on static
prices/costs, not based on dynamic prices/costs according to price
elasticities (i.e., this RIA does not include potential changes in
relative prices between (a) hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal
services, (b) industrial hazardous secondary materials recycling
services, (c) waste truck transportation services, or (d) recycled
materials markets, as a result of the DSW rule).

Lateral/counterpart industries: Exhibit 10B presents potential
distributional effects for 23 industries, not for all of the 100s of
upstream and downstream industries inter-linked to affected facilities. 
The 23 industries represent two categories of industries:

19 lateral industries:		Consisting of industries involved in hazardous
and non-hazardous waste management recycling, disposal, transport,
intermediate support services.

4 counterpart industries:	Three commodity groups (i.e., metals,
solvents, other materials) potentially affected by baseline disposal
switchover to new recycling alternative supply of these materials, as
well as energy production (coal mining) to offset the possible loss of
energy recovery and fuel blending disposal tonnages that may switchover
to recycling under the DSW rule.

Transportation modes:	According to generalized data on hazardous waste
transportation not specific to the hazardous wastes potentially affected
by the DSW final rule, there are three modes of hazardous waste
transport, of which trucking is the predominant mode (source: page 26 of
OSW “Economics Background Document: Economic Analysis of the USEPA’s
Final Rule Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form”, 24
Nov 2004, document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032-0106 at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov ):

NAICS 482	Rail transportation		6% of shipments

NAICS 483	Water transportation		3% of shipments

NAICS 484	Truck transportation		91% of shipments

This RIA does not distinguish distributional effects according to these
three modes because this RIA simply assumes that current hazardous waste
transporters (NAICS 562112) will continue to transport the de-regulated
hazardous secondary material under the DSW rule, but at cost savings
from reduced partial load surcharge fees and from shorter average haul
distances.

Multiple unit facilities:	Because each sub-sector consists of many
different industries (i.e., multiple 5- and 6-digit NAICS codes), some
material shifts may also occur within the same industry group (i.e.,
3-digit NAICS code level), which is not indicated in Exhibit 10A.  For
example, DSW-excluded secondary materials could shift from baseline
hazardous waste recycling and baseline hazardous waste disposal (NAICS
562211), to non-hazardous waste recycling (NAICS 56292 materials
recovery).  The likelihood of this inter-industry shift within the NAICS
562 waste management industry sub-group is not estimated in this RIA,
for the following reason.  According to written comments submitted 25
June 2007 to the DSW rulemaking docket ID number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002--0031
at http://www.regulations.gov from the Environmental Technology Council
(ETC) which is a "national trade association of commercial firms that
provide technologies and services to customers for the treatment,
recycling, and secure disposal of industrial and hazardous wastes"
(p.1), and which is "the largest association of companies that operate
RCRA-permitted facilities" (p.20), RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
management permits (i.e., "RCRA permits") do not cover an entire single
industrial facility or an entire single industrial property, but usually
only cover a distinct plant/equipment operational "unit" within a single
facility or property (e.g., waste landfill, waste storage tank, waste
incinerator, waste recycling process, waste treatment process).  For
example, ETC stated:

"In some cases, the RCRA permit may address an unrelated unit elsewhere
on the property, and the reclamation [i.e., recycling] facility itself
is not in any way covered by the permit." (p.20).

On a single facility basis, both RCRA-permitted and non-permitted
industrial recycling operations may occur within a single
facility/property (e.g., industrial secondary materials recovery
facility), which makes it difficult to estimate in this RIA where (i.e.,
at RCRA-permitted facilities or at non-permitted facilities) future new
induced industrial recycling may occur as a result of the DSW final
rule.

Tertiary effects:		Not included with the indirectly affected industries
(Exhibit 10C) are potential tertiary indirect effects such as the
possible reduction in sulfuric acid production associated with a
reduction in virgin metals production from mineral ores.

Industrial capacity:		Furthermore, this methodology implicitly assumes
that adequate industrial capacity exists in other industries affected by
potential distribution effects.  As a test of this second assumption,
based on the most recent (2006) industrial capacity utilization data for
US manufacturing industries, industrial capacity ranged between 62% to
72% in 2006 across the following three NAICS codes applied in this RIA
as proxies for industries which may receive baseline disposed hazardous
wastes which become DSW-excluded “hazardous secondary materials” for
new future recycling, suggesting a range of 28% to 38% available
non-utilized industrial capacity (source: US Dept of Commerce, Bureau of
Census, Economics & Statistics Administration, "Survey of Plant
Capacity" data are only available for NAICS 31-33 manufacturing sectors
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/cir/www/mqc1pag2.html" 
http://www.census.gov/cir/www/mqc1pag2.html ):

Proxy for solvent recycling:		NAICS 325199 all other basic organic
chemical mfg = 72% capacity utilization

Proxy for metals recycling:		NAICS 331492 other nonferrous metals
secondary smelting = 65% capacity

Proxy for acids/other recycling:	NAICS 325188 all other basic inorganic
chemical mfg = 62% capacity



Exhibit 10A

Comparison of Distribution of Affected Materials Quantities Before &
After DSW Final Rule

A	B	C	D	E	F

Item	2-digit NAICS code Industry Location

of Recycling & Disposing Activities

Involving Hazardous Wastes

Affected by the DSW Final Rule	Baseline (Pre-Rule)	Post-Rule	% change*



Location of baseline recycling expected to become excluded under DSW
rule

(million tons/year)	Location of baseline disposal meeting breakeven test
for switchover to recycling

(million tons/year)	Location of expected recycling post-rule
(de-regulated + switchover)

(million tons/year)

	1	11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting	0	0	0	0%

2	21	Mining	39	16	39	-29%

3	22	Utilities	0	0.03	0	-100%

4	23	Construction	4	0	4	0%

5	31	Manufacturing	0	0	0	0%

6	32	Manufacturing	416,091	408	416,091	0%

7	33	Manufacturing	581,664	84	600,187	+3%

8	42	Wholesale Trade	15,661	401	15,661	-2%

9	44	Retail Trade	0	0	0	0%

10	45	Retail Trade	0	0	0	0%

11	48	Transportation	33	0.004	33	0%

12	49	Postal, Couriers, Warehousing	187	35	187	-16%

13	51	Information	2,829	3	2,829	0%

14	52	Finance & Insurance	0	0	0	0%

15	53	Real Estate, Rental & Leasing	15	1	15	-6%

16	54	Professional, Scientific & Tech Services	7	0.09	7	-1%

17	55	Mgt of Companies/Enterprises	0	0	0	0%

18	56	Admin Support, Waste Mgt	160,432	12,564	165,325	-4%

19	61	Educational Services	44	6	44	-12%

20	62	Health Care, Social Assistance	106	0	106	0%

21	71	Arts, Entertainment, Recreation	0	0	0	0%

22	72	Accommodation & Food Services	0	0	0	0%

23	81	Other Services	1	0	1	0%

24	92	Public Administration	76	13	76	-15%

25	??	NAICS code not provided	215,020	9,883	215,020	-4%

Column totals =	  =SUM(ABOVE)  1,392,210 	23,417	1,415,625	0%

Exclusion 3 affected materials not itemized according to NAICS codes =
121,484



1.537 million

	* % change = (E - (C+D)) / (C+D)



Exhibit 10B

Potential Direct Distributional Effects

on 8 Industries Engaged in or Supporting Recycling and Subject to the
Conditions of the DSW Final Rule

(Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual
Revenues)

A	B	C	D	E	F	G (F/D)	H	I (G/Hx100)

Item	Type of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially
Affected	NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)	2005 count of potentially affected facilities
Potential annual quantity materials affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)	Potential annual distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss	Average annual effect per affected facility	2002
average annual facility revenues for PLC	Distribution effect as % of
average facility PLC revenues

A. Industries Engaged in Recycling Operations Subject to the Conditions
of the DSW Final Rule:

1	H010 haz waste metals recovery	331492 Secondary smelting, refining,
alloying nonferrous metals	96 (a)	+18,522 from hazardous waste disposal
industries	+$6,390,100 ($345/ton x 18,522 tons)

-$28,634,800 (69% ton-weighted from Exhibit 4C)

-$41,499,600 decreased minimum charge revenues

+$352,100 (Part B permit renewal savings: 96 x $3,668/yr)

Net = -$21,892,500	-$228,000	$11,433,500	-1.995%

2	H020 haz waste solvent recovery	562 PLC 38472 haz waste recyclable
material recovery & preparation services	57 (a)	+3,755 tons from
hazardous waste disposal industries

(organic containing wastes)	+$3,664,900

($976/ton x 3,755 tons)

-$6,224,900 (15% ton-weighted from Exhibit 4C)

-$41,499,600 decreased minimum charge revenues

+$206,700 (Part B permit renewal savings: 57 x $3,627/yr)

Net = -$2,353,300	-$41,300	$9,797,500	-0.422%

3	H039 haz waste other materials recovery (in this RIA H039 represents
carbon recovery)	562 PLC 38472 haz waste recyclable material recovery &
preparation services	36 (a)	+1,136 tons from hazardous waste disposal
industries (carbon recovery)	+$986,000 ($868/ton x 1,136 tons)

-$6,639,900 (16% ton-weighted from Exhibit 4C)

-$41,499,600 decreased minimum charge revenues

+$130,600 (Part B permit renewal savings: 36 x $3,627/yr)

Net = -$6,508,400	-$180,800	$9,797,500	-1.845%

A, subtotal =	159

(non-duplicative)	+23,413	-$30,754,200



	B. Intermediate (Middlemen) Service Industries Supporting Industrial
Recyclers Subject to the DSW Final Rule

4	Waste & Recycling Brokerage facilities	562 PLC 38510 haz waste brokers
Up to 119 (c)	NNC	NNC	NNC	$1,758,200	NNC



562 PLC 38520 haz recyclable materials brokers	Up to 45 (c)	NNC	NNC	NNC
$15,751,100	NNC

5	Waste & materials transfer facilities (storage & consolidation)	562
PLC 38471 haz waste transfer facilities	Up to 225 (c)	NNC	NNC	NNC
$6,407,500	NNC



562 PLC 38771 non-haz waste & recyclable materials transfer facilities
Up to 1,248 (c)	NNC	NNC	NNC	$5,443,500	NNC

6	Waste & materials sorting facilities	562 PLC 38472 prepare haz waste
recyclable materials for recovery	Up to 108 (c)	NNC	NNC	NNC	$9,797,500
NNC



562 PLC 38772 prepare non-haz waste recyclable materials for recovery	Up
to 1,125 (c)	NNC	NNC	NNC	$2,798,300	NNC

7	Industrial recyclable materials wholesale distribution facilities
42393 PLC 15330 wholesale distributors of industrial recyclable
materials including chemicals products, industrial gases, petroleum	Up
to 16 (c)	NNC	NNC	NNC	$4,429,400	NNC

B. sub-total =	Up to 2,565 (c)

(non-duplicative)	0	$0



	C. Truck Transportation Services Supporting Industrial Facilities
Engaged in Recycling and Subject to the Terms of the DSW Final Rule

8	Truck Transportation

Note: Although tonnage loss is indicated in column E, this RIA assumes
this effect involves reduction in fees charged rather than shift in
tonnage to NAICS 4842 specialized freight truck transport	562 PLC 38430
hazardous waste transportation services	Up to 358	-977,677

(Columns B+C+D of Exhibit 9D)	-$46,511,314

(Row 14 Exhibit 6C)	-$129,920	$5,927,690	-2.192%

Explanatory Notes:

*PLC code = NAICS product line code.

** Hxxx = all other affected Hxxx disposal codes (i.e., not including
codes H010, H020, H039, H050, H132, H134).

NNC = “No net change” expected because this RIA assumes the
potential distributional effect of the DSW final rule exclusions is a
potential intra-industry shift rather than an inter-industry shift,
because the particular affected industry has both hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes or secondary materials product lines (i.e., as
evidenced by NAICS product line code statistics).

Column D data sources:

(a) Exhibit 4A off-site receivers of waste

(b) Exhibit 5A off-site receivers of waste

(c) Total establishment counts for NAICS industry code and/or specific
NAICS PLC code from the US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Census “2002
Economic Census” at:
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/us/US000.HTM

Column H: average facility revenues calculated for each NAICS & PLC code
by [(total annual PLC receipts) / (total count establishments)] based on
data from the US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Census 2002 Economic Census
“Industry Series” data for respective NAICS industry and PLC codes
at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM" 
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM 

Exhibit 10C below presents four groups of possible indirect
distributional effects for industrial facilities not engaged in
recycling nor subject to the conditions of the DSW final rule.  As noted
in the introduction to this chapter, this classification is a
simplification because many facilities in these industries may have
multiple NAICS codes reflecting diverse operations at any single
facility within the groups displayed below in Exhibit 10C.  The indirect
distributional effects for non-hazardous commercial waste management
industries are already included in the impact estimates of Chapter 9. 
The potential decrease in virgin materials production is estimated based
on the tonnage of baseline disposal switchover to recycling estimated in
Chapter 8 (Exhibit 8B) of this RIA.  The potential increase in coal
production represents a replacement energy source for the anticipated
switchover of beneficial disposal to recycling as a result of the DSW
final rule (i.e., switchover of baseline H050 energy recovery and
baseline H061 fuel blending), which this RIA estimates in Chapter 9
(Exhibit 9F).

Exhibit 10C

Potential Indirect Distributional Effects

on 15 Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor Subject to the Conditions
of the DSW Final Rule

Potential Distributional Effects on Business Sales/Service Annual
Revenues

(Note: Column A row item numbers follow consecutively from Exhibit 10B)

A	B	C	D	E	F	G (F/D)	H	I (G/Hx100)

Item	Type of Industrial Material or Business Activity Potentially
Affected	NAICS industry code

& NAICS PLC* code

(affiliated or proxy)	2005 count of potentially affected facilities
Potential annual quantity materials affected

+ = business gain

- = business loss

(tons/year)	Potential annual distributional effect

+ = business gain

- = business loss	Average annual effect per affected facility	2002
average annual facility revenues for PLC	Distribution effect as % of
average facility PLC revenues

D. Hazardous Waste Disposal Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor
Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15	H050 haz waste energy recovery beneficial disposal	21223 Copper,
lead, nickel & zinc mining

3241 Petroleum & coal products mfg

325 Chemical mfg

327 Nonmetallic mineral (cement mfg)

493 Warehousing

561 Admin. support

562 Waste mgt	44 (b)

By NAICS code:

2123 = 3.6% = 1

3241 = 4.2% = 2

325 = 6.3% = 3

327 = 46.8% = 20

493 = 1.6% = 1

561 = 1.2% = 1

562 = 36.0% = 15

Misc = 3.9% =1	-3,755 tons (switch to haz. waste solvent recovery)

+1,239 tons (33%  haz. waste solvent recovery tons are residuals & 100%
require energy recovery; assume continue haz. energy recovery)

+0 tons (assume deregulated “listed” baseline recycling residuals
continue haz. energy recovery)

Net =-2,516 tons	-$568,600 ($226/ton H050 energy recovery fee x -2,516
net tons)

-$191,800 loss for increased coal purchase (e)

Net = -$760,400	-$17,300	By NAICS:

$48,041,200

$95,187,000

$34,166,300

$5,702,200

$1,305,900

$1,148,700

$2,749,400	By NAICS:

-0.036%

-0.018%

-0.051%

-0.303%

-1.325%

-1.506%

-0.629%

16	H132 landfill or surface impoundment disposal	562 PLC 38441 haz waste
landfill disposal	44 (b)	-18,522 tons (switching to haz waste metals
recovery)

+5,631 tons (32% of haz. waste metals recovery tons are residuals & 95%
remains haz requiring landfill)

+ 85 tons (10% of haz. waste other recovery tons are residuals & 75%
remain haz requiring landfill)

-25,132 tons (deregulated “listed” baseline recycling residuals)

Net = -37,938 tons	- $8,460,200

($223/ton x 37,938 tons)	-$192,300	$5,784,400	-3.324%

17	H134 deepwell injection disposal	562 PLC 38442  haz waste deepwell &
other disposal	0	0	$0	$0	$7,572,000	0%

18	Hxxx** other disposal methods

(H040 incineration)	562 PLC 38450 haz waste disposal other than
confinement	88 (b)	-1,136 tons (switch to haz. waste other recovery:
carbon regeneration)	- $648,700

($571/ton x 1,136 tons)	-$7,400	$7,678,600	-0.096%

D. subtotal =	176	-41,590	-$9,869,300



	E. Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Industries Not Engaged in Recycling Nor
Subject to the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule:

19	Non-hazardous waste landfills	562 PLC 38791 non-haz waste landfill
disposal services	Up to 2,012 (c)	+25,132 tons (deregulated “listed”
baseline recycling residuals)

+296 tons (32% of switch to metals recovery tons are residuals &5% non-
haz requires landfill)

+28 tons (10% of switch to other recovery are residuals & 25% is non-
haz requiring landfill) 

Net = +25,456 tons	+$943,500

($37/ton x 25,500 tons)	+$500	$3,513,700	+0.014%

E. subtotal  =	Up to 2,012	+25,456	+$943,500



	F. Virgin Industrial Materials Production Industries Not Engaged in
Recycling Nor Subject to the Terms of the DSW Final Rule:

20	Virgin metals production	331419 Other nonferrous metal primary
smelting	Up to 172 (c)	-123	-$3,680,400

(from Exhibit 8B)	-$21,400	$13,752,400	-0.156%

21	Virgin solvent production	325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Mfg
Up to 685 (c)	-677	-$578,900

(from Exhibit 8B)	-$900	$70,496,800	-0.001%

22	Virgin other materials production	325182 Carbon black mfg	Up to 25
(c)	-102

(carbon)	-$438,500

(from Exhibit 8B)	-$17,500	$41,340,600	-0.0004%

F. subtotal =	Up to 882	-902	-$4.7 million



	G. Ancillary Industries:

23	Coal production	2121 Coal mining	Up to 1,190 (c)	+2,413 (d)	+$191,800
(e)	+$200	$17,303,700	+0.0012%

Net materials resource conservation (14+15+16+17) =	-$4.5 million



	Explanatory Notes:

*PLC code = NAICS product line code.

Column D data sources:

(c) Total establishment counts for NAICS industry code and/or specific
NAICS PLC code from the US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Census “2002
Economic Census” at:
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/us/US000.HTM

Column E data sources:

(d) Step 1: Assume the estimated annual tonnage that may switchover from
H050 energy recovery disposal to future solvent recycling, has 8.34
lbs/gallon specific gravity similar to water: (2,516 net H050 short
tons/year switchover to recycling) x (2,000 lbs/short ton) x (1 gallon
per 8.34 lbs) = 603,400 gallons/year spent solvent equivalent switchover
from H050 to solvent recycling.  Step 2: Assume ratio coal:to:H050 spent
solvent is 800,000 tons coal for every 200 million gallons H050 spent
solvent:

(603,400 gallons/year H050 spent solvent switchover to recycling) x
(800,000 tons/200,000,000 gals) = 2,413 tons/year coal equivalent (ratio
source: page 5 at
http://www.wbcsd.org/web/projects/cement/tf2/HWF-CKS.pdf).

(e) Assume average delivered cost of coal = $53/ton (source: average of
07 March 2008 spot prices for coal for five US regional coal supply
sources which ranged between $14/ton to $84/ton   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html" 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html ), and
assume shipping & handling adds 50%: (2,413 tons/year coal equivalent) x
($53/ton x 1.50 S&H) = $191,800/year cost of equivalent coal to replace
loss of H050 spent solvents.

Column H: average facility revenues calculated for each NAICS & PLC code
by [(total annual PLC receipts) / (total count establishments)] based on
data from the US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Census 2002 Economic Census
“Industry Series” data for respective NAICS industry and PLC codes
at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM" 
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM 

10C.	Potential Distribution Effects on State Governments (Hazardous
Waste Fee Revenues)

Certain state governments charge hazardous waste generation taxes and
fees.  Under the DSW final rule, some industrial secondary materials may
no longer be regulated as RCRA hazardous waste, and thus the generators
may no longer incur a state government hazardous waste generation tax or
fee for affected baseline hazardous wastes.  Depending upon the extent
to which state governments adopt the DSW final rule as part of their
RCRA-authorized programs, certain state government hazardous waste
programs may experience reductions in annual revenues from these fees. 
Distributive effects on state governments are not treated as social
costs in this RIA for estimating the net economic impact of the DSW
final rule, because government taxes often represent “transfer
payments” not real resource costs.  However, reductions in taxes and
fees may influence a generator’s waste management decisions (e.g.,
disposal vs. recycling) and are included in the financial breakeven test
in this RIA.

	Exhibit 10D below presents the estimated potential future reduction in
state government hazardous waste tax/fee annual revenues as a result of
the 2008 DSW final rule.  These estimates are based on the state
government hazardous waste generation fees identified for 31 states in
Appendix E to this RIA.  The remaining 20 states (including the District
of Columbia) either (a) could not be determined from the data source
reviewed if hazardous wastes that are recycled are taxed similarly to
wastes that are treated or disposed, and further clarification is needed
to determine applicability (applicable to eight states), or (b) charge
TSDFs for permits or other waste management fees but do not charge waste
generators.  Note that at least one state (SC) charges both hazardous
waste and non-hazardous waste fees.

Exhibit 10D

Estimated Potential Reduction in State Government Hazardous Waste
Tax/Fee Annual Revenues

As a Result of the 2008 DSW Final Rule (2007$/year)*

Generator Impact Category	Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled	Exclusion 2:

Transfer-Based	Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case Variance	Combined

(Exclusions 1+2+3)

1	Baseline RCRA-regulated hazardous waste recycling that may become
excluded under the DSW final rule	$279,185	$4,698,582	$56,460	$5,034,227

2	Baseline RCRA-regulated hazardous waste disposal that may be induced
to de-regulated recycling under the DSW final rule	$0	$46,444	$0	$46,444

Totals =	$279,185	$4,465,841	$56,460	$5.1 million

Explanatory Notes:

* Annual revenue reduction estimates in this Exhibit are based on
hazardous waste generator tax/fee data for 31 states displayed in
Appendix E of this RIA.  The impacts do not include eight states (DE,
IL, NE, NV, NY, OH, TX, WV) for which further analysis needs to be
conducted to determine tax rates. 

Chapter 11

Countervailing Risks

Note:	This chapter presents a qualitative screening analyses which
corroborates OSW’s 2003 and 2007 DSW proposed rule assertion: “EPA
expects that this proposal will encourage the safe, beneficial recycling
of hazardous secondary materials… while at the same time maintaining
protection of human health and the environment” (Source: Federal
Register, Vol.68, No.208, 28 Oct 2003, p.61560 and Vol.72, No.57, 26
March 2007, p.14174, respectively).

11A.		Definition of Countervailing Risk

OMB Circular A-4 indicates that Federal agencies should look beyond the
direct benefits and direct costs of rulemakings and consider any
important countervailing risks.  OMB defines a countervailing risk as:

“[A] countervailing risk is an adverse economic, health, safety, or
environmental consequence that occurs due to a rule and is not already
accounted for in the direct cost of the rule.”

The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate potential countervailing
risks concerning unintentional future environmental, human health, and
safety risks identified by 18 public commentors on OSWs 2003 and 2007
DSW rulemaking proposals, listed in Exhibit 11A:

Exhibit 11A

18 Public Commentors on Possible Countervailing Risks

Count	Type of Commentor	Commentor Identity

1	Federal government	US Congress

3	Commercial TSDFs	American Ecology Corp, Clean Harbors Environmental
Services Inc, Safety-Kleen Systems Inc

3	Industry associations	Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, Environmental
Technology Council, IPC Association Connecting Electronics Industries

4	State governments	Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina

7	Environmental organizations	Earth Justice, Sierra Club, US Public
Interest Research Group, Nat’l Environmental Trust, NW Environmental
Defense Center, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center, Safe Food &
Fertilizer

11B.		Potential Countervailing Risks Identified by Public Commentors

Exhibit 11B below identifies the 12 countervailing risks the 18 public
commentors requested OSW analyze and quantify to the extent possible. 
Please note that the categories in the Exhibit are overlapping.  They
are not intended to be mutually exclusive but rather to represent the
variety of potential negative outcomes noted by the public commentors.

Exhibit 11B

12 Overlapping Categories of Countervailing Risks Identified by Public
Commentors

Item	Type of Countervailing Risk	Description of Countervailing Risk

1	Recycling environmental damages	Potential increase in future
industrial recycling environmental damages & cleanup costs

2	Industrial secondary materials testing	Potential decrease in assurance
that excluded industrial secondary materials will be adequately tested
to determine if they are hazardous.

3	Community & groundwater impacts	Potential increase in environmental,
health, and safety risks from wastes formerly sent to RCRA Subtitle C
landfills may now be disposed at other facilities with less monitoring
of community & groundwater impacts.

4	Employee training	Potential increase in environmental, health, and
safety risks from reduction in training of industrial employees thereby
increasing risk during handling and transport of excluded materials.

5	Human exposure to hazardous materials	Potential increase in human
exposure risk to hazardous secondary materials.

6	Material shipments	Potential increase in environmental, health, and
safety risks of misdirected, abandoned, and lost hazardous secondary
materials shipments.

7	DSW rule compliance enforcement	Potential increase in costs for
compliance assurance and enforcement with the 12 conditions of DSW
exclusions.

8	Abandoned recycling sites	Potential increase in costs for
investigating and stabilizing abandoned recycling sites.

9	Recycler site inspections	Potential reduction in inspections may lead
to future increase in sites requiring remediation.

10	Worker fatalities/injuries from inter-industry distributional effects
Potential increase use of additional coal to offset the likely shift of
hazardous wastes currently burned as fuel (i.e., energy recovery) to
future recycling, may increase coal miner fatalities/injuries.

Note:	Although not identified by public commentors, for purpose of
formulating a balanced evaluation of this potential countervailing risk,
this RIA also evaluates potential distributional effects on  worker
fatalities/injuries in virgin materials producing industries other than
coal production.

11	Commercial recycler bankruptcy	Potential increase in risk that
current commercial recyclers may fail in bankruptcy from increased
competition by non-regulated recyclers

12	Other environmental & health programs	Potential adverse impacts on
functioning of other public programs that protect the environment &
public health.

11C.	Countervailing Risk Evaluation Methodology

The countervailing risks addressed in this chapter represent screening
analyses and with the exception of one risk element, represent
qualitative analyses.  USEPA’s information and data quality
guidelines, which are based on OMB’s government-wide policy regarding
information dissemination to the public, describe mechanisms USEPA will
use to ensure to the objectivity, accuracy, reliability, and un-biasness
of data and information of USEPA risk assessments.  According to the
flexibility of those guidelines, the risk analysis of this chapter does
not meet the “influential” risk assessment criteria.  Rather, this
risk analysis represents a relatively low level-of-effort
“screening” risk analysis approach, which under the guidelines may
be appropriate for environmental, ecological, human health and safety
risk assessments:

“EPA conducts many risk assessments every year.  Some of these are
screening level assessments based on scientific experts' judgments using
conservative assumptions and available data and can involve human
health, safety, or environmental risk assessments.  Such screening
assessments provide useful information that are sufficient for
regulatory purposes in instances where more elaborate, quantitative
assessments are unnecessary.  For example, such assessments could
indicate, even with conservative assumptions, the level of risk does not
warrant further investigation."  "Only if potential risks are identified
in a screening level assessment is it necessary to pursue a more
refined, data-intensive risk assessment..,,  Nevertheless, such
assessments may be useful in making regulatory decisions, as when the
absence of concern from a screening level assessment is used (along with
other information) to approve the new use of a pesticide or chemical or
to decide whether to remediate very low levels of waste contamination."
(Source: USEPA Information Quality Guidelines Section A.3.6).

11D.		Evaluation of 12 Countervailing Risks

11D-1.  Potential Increase in Future Industrial Recycling Environmental
Damages & Cleanup Costs

This section presents a qualitative, screening analysis of the potential
impact of the DSW final rule exclusions on environmental protection. 
This qualitative risk screening analysis begins by examining the causes
for environmental damages in OSW’s study of 208 historical industrial
recycling damage cases.  These 208 cases are a non-exhaustive set of
damage cases which occurred between 1982 and 2005.  Exhibit 11C below
presents a comparison of the major causes of environmental damages in
the 2008 cases, to the environmental, health, and safety protection
conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions.  OSW selected these
conditions to safeguard against the causes uncovered in the damage case
study.  The extent to which the conditions address the major causes is a
rough indicator that the DSW final rule may prevent an increase in
industrial recycling damages in the future, relative to recent
historical average annual industrial recycling damages involving
hazardous secondary materials.  The historical recycling damage
causation identification method is explained in the 2007 damage case
background document:

"Many of the cases that were investigated were well documented, and we
were able to assemble virtually all of this information. This was the
case, for example, for many of the Superfund NPL sites. However, in many
other cases it was not possible given the limitations of the study to
document all of these facts. Often, there was considerable technical
information as to the nature and extent of the contamination at the
site, but relatively little information regarding the activities and
circumstances that originally caused it. For some of the sites, we were
able to collect only very basic information....  While our analysis did
not attempt to probe in great detail the exact actions or circumstances
that led to contamination problems at these sites, in most cases we were
able to identify in general terms the primary cause of the
contamination." Source: pp. 5 & 8
at:http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/env-prob.pdf.

Exhibit 11C below presents the five primary categories of known causes
--- which account for 96% of all causes in the historical damage cases
reference study after subtracting the 4% “unknown causes” category,
and compares these causes with the implementation conditions of the DSW
final rule exclusions (as listed in Exhibit 7A of this RIA, plus the
legitimate recycling factors described in Chapter 3).  As displayed at
the bottom of Exhibit 11C, this comparison (i.e., gap analysis) reveals
that the DSW final rule conditions address the damage causes for all
three exclusions, which suggests a high level of protection from future
recycling operation-related damages to the environment and human health.
 Furthermore, most all exclusions have three or more protective
conditions which address each of the five known primary causes of
historical recycling damages.

Exhibit 11C

Comparison of the Conditions of the DSW Final Rule Exclusions

to Historical Causes of Industrial Recycling Damages Involving Hazardous
Secondary Materials

A	B	C	D	E

Primary cause of historical recycling environmental damages	Historical
occurrence in 208 recycling damage cases (1982-2005)	Exclusion 1:

Generator-controlled recycling involving land- & non-land based
recycling units	Exclusion 2:

Transfer-based recycling	Exclusion 3:

Case-by-case variance

non-waste determination

1. Mis-management of recyclables	40%

(81 cases)	No speculative accumulation

Materials must be contained

Generator initially, annually & upon change notifies USEPA of offsite
recycling shipments

Generator maintains offsite recycling shipment records (receipts)

Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSW-excluded material as valuable commodity,
or as analogous raw material, or contained (40 CFR 260.43).	Same as
Exclusion 1 plus:

Does recycler intend to legitimately recycle the material? (40 CFR
261.4(a)(24)(v)(B)  reasonable efforts question #1 of 5)

Generator maintains offsite recycling shipment records

Credible evidence recycler will manage materials safely based on
environmental violations history (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) reasonable
efforts question #3 of 5)	Materials must be contained

1st Criterion for continuous process: extent the secondary material is
managed as part of the continuous process (40 CFR 260.34(b)).

1st Criterion for indistinguishable product: likely markets and market
value for secondary materials (40 CFR 260.34(c))

Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSW-excluded material as valuable commodity,
or as analogous raw material, or contained (40 CFR 260.43).

2. Mis-management of recycling residuals	34%

(71 cases)	Materials must be contained

Corollary to Legitimacy Factor 1 : in cases where a hazardous component
of the secondary material is not being used in the recycling process,
the recycler is responsible for management of any hazardous residuals of
the recycling process (40 CFR 260.43).

RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations still apply to residuals
either exhibiting 40 CFR 261 subpart C hazardous characteristics or 40
CFR 261 subpart D hazardous waste listing descriptions	Same as Exclusion
1 plus:

Recycler has financial assurance for site closure.

Does recycler have permits to manage residuals, or credible evidence
that recycler will manage residuals safely? (40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)(v)(B)
reasonable efforts question #5 of 5)	Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

3rd Criterion for continuous process: whether hazardous constituents in
secondary materials are reclaimed rather than released to the air, land
or water (40 CFR 260.34(b)).

4th Criterion for indistinguishable product: whether hazardous
constituents in the secondary materials are reclaimed rather than
released to the air, land, water (40 CFR 260.34(c)).

3. Abandoned materials	14%

(30 cases)	Materials must be contained

No speculative accumulation

Generator initially, annually & upon change notifies USEPA of offsite
recycling shipments

Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSW-excluded material as valuable commodity,
or as analogous raw material, or contained (40 CFR 260.43).	Same as
Exclusion 1 plus:

Does recycler has financial assurance for site closure? (40 CFR
261.4(a)(24)(vi(B) reasonable efforts question #2 of 5)	Materials must
be contained

1st Criterion for indistinguishable product: likely markets and market
value for secondary materials (40 CFR 260.34(c))

2nd Criterion for continuous process: capacity of production process to
use the secondary material in a reasonable time (40 CFR 260.34(b))

Legitimacy Factor 3: manage DSW-excluded material as valuable commodity,
or as analogous raw material, or contained (40 CFR 260.43).

4. Fire or accident	5%

(11 cases)	Materials must be contained

No speculative accumulation

Legitimacy Factor 4: product of recycling process does not contain
hazardous constituent concentrations or exhibit a hazardous
characteristic (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity) (40 CFR
260.43).

[Note: Although not counted in this RIA exhibit as a condition of this
DSW exclusion, other regulatory fire and accident prevention
requirements apply such as OSHA workplace standards & local fire codes.]
Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

Does recycler have equipment & trained personnel for safe recycling? (40
CFR 261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) reasonable efforts question #4 of 5)

Recycler must have liability insurance for accidents	Legitimacy Factor
4: product of recycling process does not contain hazardous constituent
concentrations or exhibit a hazardous characteristic (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity) (40 CFR 260.43).

[Note: Although not counted in this RIA exhibit as a condition of this
DSW exclusion, other regulatory fire and accident prevention
requirements apply such as OSHA workplace standards & local fire codes.]

5. Sham recycling	3%

(7 cases)	Legitimacy Factor 1: DSW-excluded material must provide a
useful contribution to the recycling process (40 CFR 260.43).

Legitimacy Factor 2: recycling process must produce a valuable product
(40 CFR 260.43).

Legitimacy Factor 3: generator & recycler manages secondary materials as
a valuable commodity (40 CFR 260.43).

Legitimacy Factor 4: product of recycling process does not contain
hazardous constituent concentrations or exhibit a hazardous
characteristic (40 CFR 260.43).	Same as Exclusion 1 plus:

Does the recycler intend to legitimately recycle the material? (40 CFR
261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) reasonable efforts question #1 of 5)	Same as
Exclusion 1 plus:

1st Criterion for continuous process: extent the secondary material is
managed as part of the continuous process (40 CFR 260.34(b)).

2nd Criterion for continuous process: capacity of production process to
use the secondary material in a reasonable time (40 CFR 260.34(b)).

3rd Criterion for continuous process: whether hazardous constituents in
secondary materials are reclaimed rather than released to the air, land
or water (40 CFR 260.34(b)).

1st Criterion for indistinguishable product: likely markets and market
value for secondary materials (40 CFR 260.34(c))

2nd Criterion for indistinguishable product: chemical/physical identity
of secondary material comparable to products or intermediates (40 CFR
260.34(c))

3rd Criterion for indistinguishable product: capacity of market to use
the secondary material in a reasonable time (40 CFR 260.34(c)).

4th Criterion for indistinguishable product: whether hazardous
constituents in the secondary materials are reclaimed rather than
released to the air, land, water (40 CFR 260.34(c)).

5th Criterion for indistinguishable product: any other relevant factors
that demonstrate the material is not discarded (40 CFR 260.34(c)).

6. Unknown causes	4%

(8 cases)	Not analyzed in this RIA	Not analyzed in this RIA	Not analyzed
in this RIA

Duplicative count* of protective conditions =	19	25	25

(actual count will vary on case-by-case basis)

Explanatory Notes:

* Total counts in this Exhibit are duplicative because they double-count
exclusion conditions as relevant to more than one recycling damage
cause.  Furthermore, these duplicative counts are higher than the counts
of conditions displayed in Exhibits 7A and 7C of this RIA, because this
Exhibit distinguishes the following requirement sub-items: (a) four
“legitimate recycling” factors (2 mandatory factors, plus 2
non-mandatory factors) which are common to all three DSW recycling
exclusions and are substantively the same as the current legitimacy
policy, (b) five sub-elements of due diligence for Exclusion 2, and (c)
nine criteria for making a non-waste determination under Exclusion 3.

The 11 remaining categories of countervailing risks discussed in the
following sections of this chapter do not coincide with the 4% of
damages from unknown causes that is listed in Exhibit 11C (row item 6). 
Instead the categories of potential countervailing risks covered in the
remainder of this chapter reflect descriptions provided by public
commenters of potential negative consequences associated with the DSW
rule.

11D-2.  Potential Decrease in Assurance That Excluded Industrial
Secondary Materials Will be Adequately Tested to Determine if They Are
Hazardous

Adequate testing is assured by one of the legitimate recycling factors:
whether the product or the recycling process contains hazardous
constituents or exhibits a hazardous characteristic.  This factor is
assumed to be current (baseline) practice because USEPA already issued
this factor in 1989 as policy guidance (“Lowrance Memo”; OSWER
directive 9441.1989(19), 26 April 1989), which has been applied by state
governments to determine “legitimate” from “sham” industrial
recycling.

11D-3.  Wastes Formerly Sent to RCRA Subtitle C Landfills May Now be
Disposed at Other Facilities With Less Monitoring of Community &
Groundwater Impacts

Wastes sent to Subtitle C landfills will not be excluded by the DSW rule
unless they shift to legitimate recycling operations which conform to
the exclusion requirements.  In such cases, the affected materials
formerly sent to Subtitle C landfills will be recycled and not disposed
elsewhere.  Furthermore, any residuals generated from recycling the
formerly landfilled materials at an DSW-excluded recycling operation
must be managed in an environmentally protective manner, and if any
residuals exhibit a hazardous characteristic according to 40 CFR 261
Subpart C, or themselves are RCRA-listed hazardous wastes, they are
hazardous wastes if discarded and must be managed according to the
applicable RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory requirements of 40
CFR 260 to 272.

11D-4.  Potential Reduction in Training of Industrial Employees Thereby
Increasing Risk During Handling & Transport of Excluded Materials

All employees of truckers, air shippers, and vessel shippers who
directly affect the safe and legal packaging, shipping, or
transportation of hazardous materials must be trained before performing
hazmat duties (and retrained every three years and as rules change)
according to US Department of Transportation (DOT) 49 CFR haz mat
training regulations, plus IATA dangerous goods training for air
employees, and IMO dangerous goods training for vessel employees.  This
training consists of hazardous materials classification, proper shipping
name, packaging requirements, preparing DOT shipping papers, hazard
communication container marking/labeling, placards, loading, moving,
unloading, security, handling incidents, emergencies, and recordkeeping.

11D-5.  Potential Increase in Human Exposure to Hazardous Materials

Based on the historical recycling damage cases reviewed in Exhibit 11C
above, the two causal factors “mis-management of recycling
residuals” and the “fire or accident” (i.e., row items 1 and 4 in
Exhibit 11C, respectively) which could cause immediate human exposure
risks are addressed by the conditions of each exclusion.  Furthermore,
the other causal factors which could result in either direct or indirect
human exposure risks are also addressed by two or more conditions for
each exclusion.  Therefore, this RIA does not anticipate potential
increase in human exposure.

11D-6.  Potential Increase in Misdirected, Abandoned, and Lost Shipments

One of the 208 historical recycling damage cases in OSW’s
non-exhaustive study (FLD982085003; 1994) compiled in the “Appendix 2:
Profiles of Damage Cases from Hazardous Materials Recycling
Operations” involved a roadway truck abandoned shipment over the
24-year historical period (source:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/app-2.pdf).  Based on
the historical recycling damage case causation evaluation presented in
Exhibit 11C above, the “abandoned materials” causal factor (i.e.,
row item 3 in Exhibit 11C) is addressed by all three DSW final rule
exclusions, which suggests no expected change (increase) in this
countervailing risk.

11D-7.  Potential Increase in Costs for Compliance Assurance &
Enforcement with Conditions of DSW Exclusions

The DSW final rule is voluntary, not mandatory, for RCRA-authorized
state governments to adopt.  State governments may potentially weigh any
possible increase in compliance assurance and enforcement costs, with
the anticipated economic benefits the DSW final rule exclusions may have
in their respective states, such that the incremental costs to the state
governments are benefit-cost justified at a societal level.  The
expected net change in RCRA administrative paperwork burden costs (such
as labor FTE costs for increased compliance and enforcement burden) to
RCRA-authorized state governments is estimated in the Information
Collection Request (ICR) Supporting Statement for the DSW final rule.

	To the extent that the DSW final rule exclusions may affect shifts in
RCRA regulatory status from LQG to SQG status (which would result in a
decrease of four RCRA Subtitle C regulatory requirements from 11 for
LQGs to 7 for SQGs as shown in the bottom row of Exhibit 6A of this
RIA), and from SQG to CESQG status (which would result in a decrease of
one Subtitle C requirements from 7 for SQGs to 6 for CESQGs as shown in
the bottom row of Exhibit 6A), such shifts may be expected to reduce
future RCRA Subtitle C compliance assurance and enforcement for affected
facilities (as estimated in Exhibit 6D), which will offset any increase
in compliance assurance and enforcement for the DSW final rule
exclusion.

11D-8.  Potential Increase in Costs for Investigating and Stabilizing
Abandoned Recycling Sites

OSW’s January 2007 recycling damage case database does not identify
abandoned sites per se as causation of historical damages.  However, the
database does indicate 33% (i.e., 69) of the 208 cases involved
abandoned materials as one of the five known causation categories
(source: Exhibit 2 at 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/env-prob.pdf), which
represents an average annual occurrence of 2.9 abandoned materials cases
per year (i.e., (69 abandonment cases)/ (24 years)).  Materials
abandonment constitutes the primary cause of damages for a smaller 14%
(i.e., 30) of the 208 recycling damage cases (source: Exhibit 3, ibid). 
Based on the historical recycling damage case causation evaluation
presented in Exhibit 11C above, the “abandoned materials” causal
factor (i.e., row item 3 in Exhibit 11C) is addressed by all three DSW
final rule exclusions, which suggests no expected change (increase) in
this countervailing risk.

11D-9.  Potential Reduction in Site Inspections May Lead to Future
Increase in Sites Requiring Remediation

Although OSW has not verified this potential effect, it seems reasonable
to assume that some hazardous wastes which become excluded under the DSW
rule may be expected to shift to less-regulated (e.g., non
RCRA-permitted) industrial recycling facilities, and thus possibly be
subject to relatively less frequent annual environmental protection and
regulatory enforcement site inspections.  However, OSW designed the
conditions of the DSW final rule exclusions to minimize any adverse
environmental outcome from this type of possible change (i.e., reduction
in relative number of annual site inspections) in regulatory oversight. 
These requirements include (a) legitimate recycling, (b) containerized
materials, (c) no speculative accumulation, (d) management of residuals
in environmentally protective manner, (e) site closure financial
assurance, (f) generator due diligence oversight of offsite recyclers,
(g) initial and annual notifications, and (h) offsite shipment
recordkeeping.

11D-10.  Potential Worker Fatality/Injury Risks from Inter-Industry
Distributional Effects

In its 25 June 2007 written comments (ID nr. 2002-0031-0548) to OSW on
the March 2007 DSW supplemental proposal, the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition (CKRC) wrote that:

“[T]he Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule has not appropriately
considered the potential for and magnitude of the negative impact this
rule will have on the beneficial recycling practice of recovering energy
from secondary hazardous materials in cement kilns…  EPA has ignored
or underestimated the extent to which the proposed rule would encourage
energy-bearing hazardous secondary materials to move away from energy
recovery in cement kilns and towards other less-regulated forms of
recycling… EPA’s DSW RIA correctly assumes that if cement plants are
forced to reduce energy recovery they will meet their resulting
increased energy needs with coal.  However, the RIA does not address the
additional adverse health and safety impacts that will result from the
increased production, transportation and use of this additional coal... 
In [CKRC’s 1996 comments on another EPA rule], CKRC found that
reducing the use of hazardous waste derived fuels and substituting coal
would increase fatalities and injuries due to more coal mining
accidents, lung cancer among miners, black lung diseases among miners,
coal train accidents, and coal truck accidents”

Although this comment only identifies a potential worker fatality/injury
countervailing risk involving a possible indirect distributional effect
of the DSW final rule on the coal production industry (i.e., NAICS code
2121), there are other industries which may be directly and indirectly
affected by the DSW rule (as identified in Chapter 10 of this RIA) due
to:

Direct distributional effects:	May arise from future shifts in secondary
materials management between:

Decrease in business activity at commercial hazardous waste management
industries (i.e., NAICS code 562)

Increase in business activity at secondary materials recovery/recycling
industries (e.g., NAICS 331492 secondary smelting of nonferrous metals).

Indirect distributional effects:	May occur from compensating changes in
production of virgin industrial materials such as:

Decrease in virgin metals production (NAICS 331419 other nonferrous
metal ore primary smelting & refining)

Decrease in virgin solvent production (NAICS 325199 all other basic
organic chemical mfg)

Decrease in other virgin materials production (e.g., NAICS 325182 carbon
black mfg)

Increase in coal production (NAICS 2121) to replace baseline hazardous
wastes used as fuel for energy recovery which may switchover to
materials recovery (e.g., solvent recovery) under the DSW final rule
exclusions

One study of the historical trend in annual worker injuries and
fatalities in the US coal mining industry indicates that worker injury
and fatality rates have fluctuated annually in that industry, as
measured and normalized in relation to annual work-hours.  Exhibit 11D
below displays counts of worker fatalities, injuries and illnesses for
the coal mining industry and the other major industries potentially
affected directly and indirectly by the DSW rule, compared to the
magnitude of the potential annual distributional effect estimated in
Chapter 10 of this RIA (Exhibits 10B & 10C, respectively).  This
indicator reveals that the relative size of the potential distributional
effect of the DSW rule is very small compared to the magnitude of
work-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities in each industry (2006).
 Furthermore, from a national perspective, potential small marginal
business gains (i.e., potential increases in annual work hours) in
industrial secondary materials recovery and coal mining industries, are
expected to be offset to a large degree by potential small marginal
business loses (i.e., potential reductions in annual work hours) for
virgin materials production industries.

Exhibit 11D

Comparison of Potential Annual Distributional Effects to Annual
Work-Related Worker Injuries, Illnesses & Fatalities

in 23 Industries Potentially Directly & Indirectly Affected by the DSW
Final Rule

A	B	C	D	E	F	G

Item	NAICS industry codes	Industry Identity	Worker IIF Statistics (2006)
Annual distributional effect



	Fatalities	Non-fatal illnesses	Non-fatal injuries

	

1

2

3	

331492

562211

562211	A. Hazardous waste recovery/recycling:

H010 metals recovery (secondary smelting nonferrous metals)

H020 solvent recovery

H039 other materials recovery (carbon in this RIA)	

Not avlble

5

5	

<100

100

100	

500

1,400\

1,400	

-1.995%

-0.422%

-1.845%



4

5

6

7	

562998

562998

562998

42393	B. Intermediate (middlemen) waste/materials distribution:

Waste & recycling brokerage

Waste & materials transfer (storage & consolidation)

Waste & materials sorting

Industrial recyclable materials wholesale distribution	

Not avlble

Not avlble

Not avlble

15	

<100

<100

<100

200	

2,100

2,100

2,100

9,400	

0%

0%

0%

0%

8	562112	C. Hazardous waste transportation services (trucking)	Not
avlble	Not avlble	Not avlbe	-2.192%



9

10

11

12

13

14

15	

21223

3241

325

327

493

561

562	D1. Hazardous waste beneficial disposal (H050 & H061 energy
recovery):

Copper, lead, nickel & zinc mining

Petroleum & coal products mfg

Chemical mfg

Nonmetallic mineral product mfg (i.e., cement mfg kilns)

Warehousing & storage

Administrative support services

Waste management & remediation	

5

9

32

59

17

294

77	

<100

200

3,100

2,100

1,400

9,000

500	

400

3,100

22,600

35,400

44,600

126,300

22,600	

-0.036%

-0.018%

-0.051%

-0.303%

-1.325%

-1.506%

-0.629%



16

17

18	

562211

562211

562211	E2. Hazardous waste non-beneficial disposal:

H132 landfill or surface impoundment disposal

H134 deepwell injection disposal

H040, H071 to H131, H135 other non-beneficial disposal	

5

5

5	

100

100

100	

1,400

1,400

1,400	

-3.324%

0%

-0.096%

19	562212	E. Non-hazardous waste disposal (displaced by switchover to
recycling)	8	100	3,900	+0.014%



20

21

22	

331492

325199

325188	F. Virgin materials production (resources conserved by recycling
switchover):

Virgin metals production (primary smelting nonferrous metals)

Virgin solvent production (all other basic organic chemical mfg)

Virgin other materials production (carbon black mfg)	

Not avlble

3

3	

<100

100

100	

500

600

900	

-0.156%

-0.001%

-0.0004%

23	2121	G. Coal mining (to replace recycling switchover loss of H050 &
H061)	47	100	4,400	+0.0012%

Explanatory Notes:

Columns D, E  & F data source: US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics “Injuries, Illnesses & Fatalities” (IIF) database at
http://www.bls.gov/iif

Column G data source: Estimated potential percentage change in annual
business revenues from Exhibits 10B & 10C of this RIA.  Positive numbers
(+) indicate potential business gain and negative numbers (-) indicate
potential business loss.  This percentage revenue change represents for
purpose of this Exhibit an indicator of potential future change in
annual work hours in each industry, compared to baseline annual work
hours and IIF counts..



11D-11.  Potential Increase in Risk That Current Commercial Recyclers
May Fail in Bankruptcy From Increased Competition by Non-Regulated
Recyclers

Although OSW has not verified this potential effect, it is reasonable to
assume that some hazardous wastes which become excluded under the DSW
final rule may be expected to shift to less-regulated (e.g., non
RCRA-permitted) industrial recycling facilities, and thus possibly
induce some business closures (e.g., bankruptcies) among commercial
recyclers.   This RIA estimates no potential future increase in business
closures because the fraction of affected business activity as measured
by average annual company revenues potentially lost (i.e., transferred
to other industries) as a result of the DSW final rule, is relatively
small in all affected industries, as estimated in Chapter 10
“Distributional Effects” of this RIA.  For example, some current
Subtitle C permitted hazardous waste recyclers may continue to manage
the DSW-excluded secondary materials in other units of their same
facilities after this rule is implemented, which would mitigate any
potential future business loss for the commercial hazardous waste
treatment industry.

11D-12.  Potential Adverse Impacts on Functioning of Other Public
Programs that Protect the Environment & Health

The Federal Register announcements for both the 2007 DSW supplemental
proposal (Vol.72, No.57, 26 March 2007, Section XIII., pp.14205-14207),
and for the DSW final rule, provide a description of the expected
effects of this final rule on nine other governmental environmental and
health programs:

RCRA solid waste exclusions found in 40 CFR 261.4(a):  OSW does not
expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from
the DSW final rule because hazardous secondary materials that are
currently excluded from the RCRA definition of solid waste in 40 CFR
261.4(a) with specific conditions, will be required to continue to meet
those prior requirements.  In addition, recycling of such hazardous
secondary materials at new facilities, or at existing facilities that
are not currently operating under the terms of an existing RCRA
definition of solid waste exclusion, would also be subject to the
existing applicable regulatory exclusion, rather than to the DSW final
rule exclusions.

Spent lead-acid battery recycling:  OSW does not expect an increase in
this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule
because spent lead-acid batteries must continue to be managed according
to (a) the requirements of the recycling exclusion found in 40 CFR 266
subpart G, or  (b) the universal waste standards of 40 CFR part 273, or 
(c) full Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements (if disposed).

Other RCRA recycling exclusions:  For other hazardous secondary
materials currently eligible for management under other exclusions or
alternative regulatory structures that do not include an exclusion from
the RCRA definition of solid waste (such as the universal waste
regulations in 40 CFR part 273), the facility would have the choice of
either continuing to manage his hazardous secondary material as a
hazardous waste under the existing RCRA regulations or under today’s
exclusions from the definition of solid waste.  Because the DSW final
rule exclusions contain environmentally-protective conditions which may
equal or exceed the conditions of baseline (existing) RCRA Subtitle C
exemptions, OSW does not expect an increase in this type of
countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule.  Furthermore, for
those facilities that are currently excluded from boiler and industrial
furnace (BIF) regulations under 40 CFR 266.100 subpart H for
“smelting, melting, and refining furnaces” and precious metals
recovery furnaces, hazardous secondary materials burned for metals
recovery would still be required to meet the minimum metals and maximum
toxic organic metals content specified in 40 CFR 266 subpart H, because
these conditions define when an operation involving combustion is a
legitimate materials recovery operation, rather than burning for energy
recovery or burning for destruction, which are not eligible for the DSW
final rule exclusions.

RCRA-permitted TSDFs: Permitted facilities that continue to manage
hazardous wastes in addition to managing hazardous secondary materials
excluded under the DSW final rule must continue to maintain their RCRA
permits.  In addition, permit requirements applicable to newly excluded
units will remain in effect until they are removed from the permit by
submitting a permit modification request.  On the other hand, a
permitted facility that manages only hazardous secondary materials
excluded under the DSW final rule and is, therefore, no longer a
hazardous waste management facility, will no longer be required to
maintain a RCRA hazardous waste operating permit, and will no longer be
required to comply with the existing RCRA hazardous waste regulations
governing permitted facilities.  However, permits issued to these
facilities remain in effect until they are terminated.  To support a
request for permit termination by modifying the permit term, the owner
or operator must demonstrate that the operations meet the conditions of
the exclusion, and that the facility does not manage non-excluded
hazardous wastes.  In addition, as was explained in the October 2003
proposal and in the March 2007 proposal, the obligation of 40 CFR
264.101 to address facility-wide corrective action at permitted
facilities, which attaches at permit issuance, is not affected by this
final rule and remains in effect until corrective action at the facility
is completed.  Therefore, an owner or operator of a facility that
manages only hazardous secondary materials excluded under the DSW final
rule seeking to terminate the facility’s permit by modifying the
permit term must demonstrate as part of the permit modification request
that corrective action obligations at the facility have been addressed. 
If facility-wide corrective action has not been addressed, the permit
generally should not be terminated but, rather, modified to include only
corrective action requirements.  For these reasons, OSW does not expect
an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW
final rule.

RCRA interim status TSDFs: A facility that is operating under interim
status will be affected by the DSW final rule in much the same way as a
RCRA-permitted facility, and the issue of corrective action will be
addressed in a similar manner.  Thus, OSW does not expect an increase in
this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule.

Corrective action for releases from formerly RCRA-regulated units:  To
maintain a DSW final rule exclusion, owners and operators of facilities
with excluded units must comply with the conditions of the exclusion,
including the conditions of (a) containment of the hazardous secondary
material in the unit and (b) the prohibition against speculative
accumulation.  In some cases, units that release materials may no longer
meet the condition of containment and, if such releases are not promptly
addressed and containment at the unit is not promptly restored, the unit
will no longer qualify for the exclusion provided under the DSW final
rule.  If a unit loses its exclusion, the unit itself, as well as
materials in the unit, once again will become subject to all RCRA
regulatory requirements that were applicable prior to the DSW final
rule.  In addition, releases from the unit that were not promptly
addressed become discarded solid and hazardous wastes and are not
excluded secondary materials under the DSW final rule.  In other cases,
a unit that currently meets the conditions and thereby qualifies for the
exclusion provided in the DSW final rule, including the containment
condition, may have unaddressed releases from earlier waste management
activities at the now-excluded unit.  This release material is discarded
solid and hazardous waste and is not excluded material under the DS
final rule.  Thus, in both cases described above, the owner/operator
retains the obligation to address releases from the unit through
corrective action.  For these reasons, OSW does not expect an increase
in this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW final rule.

Financial assurance obtained for closure at non-excluded RCRA-regulated
units:  Owners and operators of units eligible for the DSW final rule
“Exclusion 2” and “Exclusion 3” would be required to remove and
decontaminate all contaminated structures, equipment, and soils. The
financial assurance provided under subpart H of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265
was designed to assure that funds would be available for these
activities.  In the case of “Exclusion 1” where financial assurance
is no longer required, previous releases from the unit, which would have
been addressed during closure and for which financial assurance was
obtained, will as a result of the DSW final rule, now be addressed
through corrective action authority.  For these reasons, OSW does not
expect an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from
the DSW final rule.

CERCLA & SREA:  At least one commentor (2002-0031-0193) on the 2003 DSW
RIA requested OSW to address the potential for the DSW rule to affect
“arranger liability” under CERCLA section 107.  OSW does not expect
an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW
final rule because in 1999, Congress enacted the Superfund Recycling
Equity Act (SREA) which explicitly defined those hazardous substance
recycling activities that potentially may be exempted from liability
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).  These exempted activities are listed in CERCLA
section 127.  The DSW final rule does not change the universe of
recycling activities that could be exempted from CERCLA liability
pursuant to CERCLA section 127.  The DSW final rule only changes the
RCRA definition of solid waste for purposes of RCRA Subtitle C
requirements.  The final rule also does not limit or otherwise affect
USEPA’s ability to pursue potentially responsible persons under
section 107 of CERCLA for releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances.

Hazardous secondary materials imports and exports:  OSW does not expect
an increase in this type of countervailing risk resulting from the DSW
final rule for two reasons:

The DSW final rule exclusion for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed
under the control of the generating facility (“Exclusion 1” in this
RIA) is limited to recycling performed in the United States or its
territories, and

Although the transfer-based recycling exclusion (“Exclusion 2”) and
the non-waste determination (“Exclusion 3”) included in the DSW
final rule do not place any geographic restrictions on movements of
hazardous secondary materials, provided they meet the
environmentally-protective conditions (i.e., description) of these two
exclusions.  It is therefore possible that in some cases excluded
hazardous secondary materials could be generated in the United States or
its territories and subsequently exported for reclamation to a facility
in a foreign country or hazardous secondary materials could be generated
in a foreign country and imported for reclamation in the United States.
Under the DSW final rule, the exclusion would only be effective while
the hazardous secondary material is within the United States or its
territories; excluded hazardous secondary materials may be subject to
regulation as hazardous wastes in the receiving or (for imports) in the
originating country, even if they are excluded from the definition of
solid waste in the U.S. under RCRA. If this is the case, the U.S.
facility who exports or imports hazardous secondary material will need
to comply with any applicable requirements of the subsequent foreign
country.

Chapter 12

Sensitivity Analysis Factors

This chapter derives nine different sensitivity analysis factors which
are applied in Chapter 1 (Exhibit 1D) of this RIA to the bottom-line
economic impact estimate of this RIA (from Chapter 9).  The purpose of
these factors is to illustrate in Exhibit 1D, the extent to which the
annual industry net costs savings estimated in this RIA based on 2005
data year, may fluctuate year-to-year in the future after the DSW final
rule is promulgated.  These factors are not meant to be additive and
some are sub-components in part or in whole of other factors (e.g.,
factors #3, #4 and #5 are sub-components of factor #2).  To avoid
duplication of information in this RIA, refer to Exhibit 1D for the
results of how these sensitivity factors affect the industry cost
savings estimate for the DSW final rule.

Sensitivity Analysis #1:	State Government Adoption Uncertainty

The bottom two rows of Exhibit 12A present two alternative average
annual impacts according to two scenarios:

All states adopt the respective voluntary exclusions (i.e., 100% state
adoption), or

Only some states adopt the exclusions; for this scenario potential
non-adopting states are indicated in Exhibit 12A with shaded cells,
based on OSW’s analysis of 26 state government comments submitted to
the USEPA Docket in response to OSW’s 28 October 2003 proposed rule
(note: state government and other public comments are available in
Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0031 at:   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulation.gov"
 http://www.regulation.gov ).  For Exclusion 1, four states indicated
possible non-adoption, for exclusion 2, 12 states indicated possible
non-adoption.

Exhibit 12A

Sensitivity Analysis #1:

State-by-State Net Cost Savings Impact and Possible Non-Adoption of DSW
Final Rule

Item	State	Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled Recycling	Exclusion 2:

Offsite Transfer Recycling	Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case Recycling	Combined Net Impact (Exclusions 1+2+3)

1	Alabama	$1,004,543	$1,537,776	Not estimated on state-by-state basis
$2542319

2	Alaska	$0	$421,673	Not Est.	$421,673

3	Arizona	$34,713	$1,384,478	Not Est.	$1,418,191

4	Arkansas	$48,262	$565,259	Not Est.	$613,521

5	California	$522,971	$12,381,199	Not Est.	$12,904,170

6	Colorado	$68,730	$786,136	Not Est.	$854,866

7	Connecticut	$16,352	$2,205,657	Not Est.	$2,222,009

8	Delaware	$32,448	$373,179	Not Est.	$405,627

9	Dist. of Columbia	$0	$58,045	Not Est.	$58,045

10	Florida	$201,310	$1,561,563	Not Est.	$1,762,873

11	Georgia	$218,686	$1,501,058	Not Est.	$1,719,744

12	Guam	$0	$26,783	Not Est.	$26,783

13	Hawaii	$0	$41,233	Not Est.	$41,233

14	Idaho	-$199	$264,881	Not Est.	$264,682

15	Illinois	$114,561	$2,915,222	Not Est.	$3,029,783

16	Indiana	$161,220	$2,746,457	Not Est.	$2,907,678

17	Iowa	$30,898	$1,182,695	Not Est.	$1,213,593

18	Kansas	$65,807	$1,147,841	Not Est.	$1,213,648

19	Kentucky	$165,735	$1,433,990	Not Est.	$1,599,725

20	Louisiana	$448,575	$1,387,431	Not Est.	$1,836,006

21	Maine	$32,407	$270,165	Not Est.	$302,572

22	Maryland	$7,932	$1,056,642	Not Est.	$1,064,574

23	Massachusetts	$69,911	$3,165,705	Not Est.	$3,235,616

24	Michigan	$124,142	$4,097,662	Not Est.	$4,221,804

25	Minnesota	$82,802	$2,396,032	Not Est.	$2,478,833

26	Mississippi	$71,345	$783,331	Not Est.	$854,677

27	Missouri	$103,661	$1,403,563	Not Est.	$1,507,223

28	Montana	$0	$149,534	Not Est.	$149,534

29	Navajo Nation	$0	$0	Not Est.	$0

30	Nebraska	$1,253	$601,498	Not Est.	$602,752

31	Nevada	$0	$283,817	Not Est.	$283,817

32	New Hampshire*	$0	$0	Not Est.	$0

33	New Jersey	$342,740	$3,091,261	Not Est.	$3,434,002

34	New Mexico	-$165	$284,489	Not Est.	$284,323

35	New York	$262,252	$4,012,324	Not Est.	$4,274,576

36	North Carolina	$164,477	$1,942,456	Not Est.	$2,106,933

37	North Dakota	$0	$129,194	Not Est.	$129,194

38	Ohio	$266,756	$5,379,702	Not Est.	$5,646,457

39	Oklahoma	$31,560	$1,115,910	Not Est.	$1,147,470

40	Oregon	$1,946	$1,445,313	Not Est.	$1,447,259

41	Pennsylvania	$455,698	$3,599,587	Not Est.	$4,055,285

42	Puerto Rico	$2,818	$838,106	Not Est.	$840,925

43	Rhode Island	$0	$912,193	Not Est.	$912,193

44	South Carolina*	$212	$564,002	Not Est.	$564,213

45	South Dakota	$15,778	$101,842	Not Est.	$117,620

46	Tennessee	$250,202	$1,391,441	Not Est.	$1,641,643

47	Texas	$807,676	$3,115,011	Not Est.	$3,922,687

48	Trust Territories	$0	$0	Not Est.	$0

49	Utah	$35,934	$535,389	Not Est.	$571,323

50	Vermont	$16,001	$385,040	Not Est.	$401,041

51	Virgin Islands	$0	$1,676	Not Est.	$1,676

52	Virginia	$146,285	$2,231,942	Not Est.	$2,378,227

53	Washington	$98,421	$2,047,162	Not Est.	$2,145,583

54	West Virginia	$55,517	$658,106	Not Est.	$714,623

55	Wisconsin	$215,956	$3,645,023	Not Est.	$3,860,978

56	Wyoming	$0	$53,539	Not Est.	$53,539

Column Totals

If include all states =	$6.8 million	$87.3 million	$1.3 million	$95.3
million

Count of shaded cells (possible non-adoption) =	4 states	12 states	Not
estimated	12 states (non-duplicative count)

If exclude shaded cells =	$5.4 million	$66.9 million	$1.3 million	$73.6
million

% reduction in all states impact =	-19.8%	-23.3%	Not Est. (0%)	-23.0%



Sensitivity Analysis #2:	Future Annual Fluctuation in Affected Materials
Quantities

Because this RIA is based on 2005 RCRA Biennial Report data, it is
important to recognize the year-to-year variability (fluctuations) in
hazardous waste generation and management tonnage as reported to the
Biennial Report in prior data years (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999,
2001, 2003; prior years are at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm), as
an indicator of the extent to which future year tonnages may also
fluctuate.  In particular, year-to-year fluctuations in the tonnages of
hazardous waste recycling and hazardous waste disposal affected by the
DSW final rule exclusions --- which would otherwise be RCRA-regulated in
absence of this final rule --- implies that the actual impacts of the
DSW final rule will fluctuate in future years, compared to the estimates
presented in this RIA based on the 2005 single-year data snapshot.

	For purpose of illustrating the potential magnitude of future annual
fluctuations in recycling and disposal tonnages, Exhibits 12B and 12C
present 1997-2005 historical time-trend data for annual facility counts
and annual hazardous waste quantities (tons/year) recycled (Exhibit 12B)
and disposed (Exhibit 12C).  This retrospective is truncated at 1997
rather than extending to 1991 because the RCRA Biennial Report
methodology discontinued collection of industrial wastewater data after
1995, so that data years 1995 and before which include both wastewater
and non-wastewater data (i.e., sludge, solids, gases), are inconsistent
with the 1997 to 2005 data years which exclude wastewater data.  The
data in the Exhibits below are from OSW’s RCRA Hazardous Waste
Biennial Report “National Analysis” reports.  Exhibits 12B and 12C
provide annual percentage deviations for two time-trend metrics (i.e.,
annual facility counts and annual tonnages), relative to the annual
average values for the 1997-2005 historical period.  The 1997-2005
hazardous waste data trends show that:

Baseline hazardous waste recycling has varied (from Exhibit 12B):

-57% to +45% by annual recycler facility count

-41% to +39% by annual tonnage recycled

Baseline hazardous waste disposal has varied (from Exhibit 12C):

-24% to +28% by annual disposal facility count

-19% to +19% by annual tonnage disposed.

Based on the minimum and maximum annual deviation percentages over these
four deviation ranges, the national impacts of the DSW rule could range
from -57% to +45% on any given future year, compared to the average
annualized impact estimates presented in this RIA.  This range is not a
statistical confidence interval; it represents the overall minimum and
maximum range in percentage variation between 1997-2005 annual counts of
industrial facilities which reported recycling RCRA hazardous wastes to
the RCRA Biennial Report, compared to the average count over that 9-year
period.  The purpose of this time-trend deviation computation is to
provide an aggregate indicator of how national waste quantities
fluctuate year-to-year.

	There are at least four reasons for annual fluctuations in the quantity
of hazardous wastes reported as disposed and recycled.  One reason is
within-year discrepancies between generation tonnage and management
tonnage, which is addressed as Sensitivity Analysis #3 in this RIA.  A
second reason is the economic level of industrial activity in any given
year which is addressed by Sensitivity Analysis #4 of this RIA.  A third
reason is data over-reporting to the Biennial Report by LQGs and TSDRFs
involving reporting of non-required data for state-regulated hazardous
wastes, which is addressed by Sensitivity Analysis #5 of this RIA.  A
fourth reason -- although not in itself quantified as a separate factor
in this chapter -- is that OSW may add or subtract industrial secondary
materials to the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program, such that in
any given year, the number and types of wastes covered by the RCRA
program may vary from OSW or RCRA-authorized state government
environmental agencies:

Adding new waste streams to the program using the 40 CFR 261.11
“listing” procedure.

Removing waste streams from RCRA regulation using the 40 CFR 260.22
“delisting” procedure.

Such changes may influence the types of industries, industrial
facilities, and hazardous wastes that may be affected in any future year
by the DSW rulemaking.  USEPA publishes in the Federal Register its
Regulatory Agenda twice per year.  USEPA’s Fall 2007 Regulatory Agenda
published on 10 Dec 2007, lists 31 planned actions for OSWER ---
consisting of 9 planned proposed rules, 8 planned final rules, 11
planned long-term actions, plus 3 recently completed actions --- of
which 15 may affect (i.e., increase or decrease) future annual waste
quantities managed under the RCRA hazardous waste program for certain
industries and waste types.

Exhibit 12B

Sensitivity Analysis #2:

9-Year Time-Trend (1997-2005) Data for RCRA Hazardous Waste Recycling
(Onsite + Offsite)

Data Item	Year	A	B	C	D	E	F	G (A+C+E)	H (B+D+F)



Metals Recovery*

(M011 to M019, or H010)	Solvent Recovery*

(M021 to M029, or H020)	Other Recovery**

(M031 to M039, or H039)	Row Total Recovery**

(%s represent deviations from average)



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

1	1997	96	1.078	154	0.617	52	0.443	302 (-47%)	2.138 (+2%)

2	1999	88	0.720	111	0.368	46	0.152	245 (-57%)	1.240 (-41%)

3	2001	191	1.462	534	0.425	97	1.026	822 (+45%)	2.913 (+39%)

4	2003	159	1.152	523	0.263	85	0.729	767 (+35%)	2.144 (+2%)

5	2005	137	1.420	493	0.297	74	0.328	704 (+24%)	2.045 (-2%)

9-year average =	568	2.096

Deviation range =	-57% to +45%	-41% to +39%

Explanatory Notes:

(1) Data source: USEPA RCRA Hazardous Waste “National Analysis”
Biennial Reports:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm

(2) * USEPA RCRA Biennial Report waste management “method codes”
changed in 2001 from M-codes to H-codes.

(3) ** “Other Recovery” in this exhibit excludes (1) energy recovery
and (2) fuel blending because they are not eligible for the DSW final
rule exclusions.

(4) *** Facility row total counts overstate actual counts because row
totals are duplicative of facilities operating two or more recycling
methods.



Exhibit 12C

Sensitivity Analysis #2 (cont’d):

9-Year Time-Trend (1997-2005) Data for RCRA Hazardous Waste Disposal
(Onsite + Offsite)

Data Item	Year	A	B	C	D	E	F	G (A+C+E)	H (B+D+F)



Landfill or Surface Impoundment Disposal (M132 & M133, or H132)*
Incineration Disposal

(M041 to M049, or H040)	Other Disposal**

(M131, or H131)	Row Total Disposal

(%s represent deviations from avg)



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

1	1997	72	2.539	166	1.656	104	26.452	342 (-14%)	30.647 (+19%)

2	1999	62	2.115	149	1.454	92	17.473	303 (-24%)	21.042 (-19%)

3	2001	69	2.090	174	1.646	268	24.177	511 (+28%)	27.913 (+8%)

4	2003	72	1.676	162	1.273	184	17.856	418 (+5%)	20.805 (-19%)

5	2005	68	2.038	164	1.438	184	25.284	416 (+5%)	28.760 (+11%)

9-year average =	398	25.833

Deviation range =	-24% to +28%	-19% to +19%

Explanatory Notes:

(1) Data source: USEPA RCRA Hazardous Waste “National Analysis”
Biennial Reports:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm

(2) * USEPA RCRA Biennial Report waste management “method codes”
changed in 2001 from M-codes to H-codes.

(3) ** “Other Disposal” includes (1) other disposal, (2) deepwell
injection, (3) land application.

(4) *** Facility counts for “Other Disposal” overstate actual counts
because totals are duplicative of facilities operating two or more
disposal methods.



Sensitivity Analysis #3:	Within-Year Discrepancy Between Generation &
Management Tons

This factor may be a sub-component, in part or in whole, of Sensitivity
Analysis #2.  For any single data year, the total tons of hazardous
wastes reported as “generated” in the RCRA Biennial Report by LQGs
does not match the total tons of hazardous wastes reported as
“managed” by TSDRFs.  This discrepancy may to a large degree result
from the fact that typically 17% to 24% of hazardous wastes generated in
recent years (1997-2005) are reported as transported (i.e., shipped)
either (1) to another industrial unit with a separate USEPA ID number
within the same LQG facility or (2) offsite for management at a TSDRF,
rather than managed onsite by the LQG.  Because the economic impacts
estimated in this RIA are proportional to the annual tonnage of affected
materials, this within-year discrepancy suggests that the estimated net
cost savings in this RIA based on 2005 BR data, could be between -34% to
+39% for any future year.  This range is not a statistical confidence
interval; it represents the overall minimum and maximum range in
percentage variation between 1997-2005 generation quantities of RCRA
hazardous wastes compared to the within-year management quantities
reported to the Biennial Report over that 9-year period as displayed in
Exhibit 12D below.

Exhibit 12D

Sensitivity Analysis #3

9-Year Time Trend (1997-2005) in Hazardous Waste Generation & Management
Tonnages

Indicator	1997	1999	2001	2003	2005

1. Million tons generated	40.7	40.0	40.8	30.2	38.3

2. Million tons managed	37.7	26.3	45.4	42.1	43.9

Percent discrepancy indicated by ratio of tons managed:to:generated
((2-1) / 1)	-7.4%	-34.3%	+11.3%	+39.4%	+14.6%

Explanatory Notes:

Data source: RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Reports:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm.



Sensitivity Analysis #4:	Fluctuation in Future Annual US Industrial
Economic Conditions

This factor may be a sub-component, in part or in whole, of Sensitivity
Analysis #2.  This RIA is built upon a single year 2005 snap shot of
potentially affected industries, facilities, and hazardous waste
tonnage; it does not include a future projection.  Future year impacts
are likely to fluctuate because future year counts of industries,
facilities and materials quantities fluctuate with changing
macro-economic conditions.  For example, one of the top-10 potentially
impacted industries --- NAICS 32411 petroleum refining --- is expected
to grow +5.6% annually in the US through year 2010 (source: The
Freedonia Group, Cleveland OH, “Refinery Chemicals: Industry Study
with Forecasts to 2005 & 2010”, Study #2065, June 2006, 214 pages, at:
http://www.freedoniagroup.com/pdf/2065smwe.pdf).

Sensitivity Analysis #5:	Data Quality Assurance

This factor may be a sub-component, in part or in whole, of Sensitivity
Analysis #2.  For any given data reporting year, some LQG and TSDRF data
records in the RCRA Biennial Report (BR) may be inaccurately or
incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily) included in the Biennial Report
database for at least three reasons:

Misreporting of data

State regulatory reporting requirements for hazardous waste data are in
excess of Federal RCRA requirements in some states:

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

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

As listed earlier in this RIA, there are 16 existing exclusions from the
RCRA Definition of Solid Waste, but it appears that the Biennial Report
may incorrectly contain data from some facilities for wastes that are
already excluded.

Including any such misreported and state waste data in the baseline
dataset used for this RIA could result in errors in impact estimation. 
However, two factors mitigate these potential sources of inaccuracy: (a)
state governments are required to subject Biennial Report data to
quality assurance prior to submitting it to the USEPA for aggregation
into the Biennial Report database, and (b) the Biennial Report database
has a data element which is intended to distinguish between “Federal
regulated hazardous wastes” and “state government regulated
hazardous wastes”.  Furthermore, with respect to state-regulated data
included in the Biennial Report, this RIA only included Federal data
from the Biennial Report for impact estimation.

	Otherwise, the purpose of this sensitivity analysis is to provide a
quality assurance factor in this RIA, by illustrating the degree to
which data quality questions may affect the impact estimates.  Exhibit
12E below identifies 6 of the 16 existing DSW exclusions for which data
may have been incorrectly (i.e., unnecessarily) reported by LQGs or
TSDFs to the 2005 Biennial Report (BR).  OSW’s 2003 RIA (p.3-12)
identified three of these six categories (i.e., oil, recovery,
by-products, sludges), and the 2007 RIA (Exhibit 1A) identified four of
these categories, based on QA/QC random visual inspection of waste
descriptions supplied by the LQGs (Form GM, Section 1A) and TSDRFs (Form
WR, Section A) reporting to the Biennial Report database applied in the
prior RIAs.  Two additional categories were identified from QA/QC random
visual inspection of th 2005 dataset applied in this RIA.  The
percentage displayed at the bottom of Column D of Exhibit 12E may be
interpreted as a rough approximation of the possible over-estimation of
economic impacts in this RIA, as a result of this data quality assurance
sensitivity factor.



Exhibit 12E

Sensitivity Analysis #5:

Six Industrial Secondary Materials Already-Excluded from the DSW Which
May be Incorrectly in RIA Baseline Recycling Data

A	B	C	D

Type of Excluded Material	Description	Biennial Report Data Code to
Identify the Excluded Material	2005 Generation

(million tons)

1. Oil Recovery	Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already
be excluded under the existing DSW exclusion for oil recovery in the
petroleum refining industry under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(ii).  This
exclusion requires materials be “inserted into the petroleum refining
process”; this RIA assumes facilities reporting this to the BR do not
meet this condition and are included in the dataset for this RIA.	SIC
code 2911 (petroleum refinery; same as NAICS code 32411) and

W206 waste oil	0

2. Recycled By-products Exhibiting Characteristic of Hazardous Waste
Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded
under the existing DSW exclusion for “by-products” exhibiting a
characteristic of hazardous waste that are not solid wastes when
reclaimed under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).	D001 (ignitability characteristic)
or

D002 (corrosivity characteristic) or

D003 (reactivity characteristic) or

D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and

G07 source code “Product & by-product processing”	221,242*

3. Recycled Sludge Exhibiting Characteristic of Hazardous Waste	Reported
wastes quantities in the BR dataset may already be excluded under the
existing DSW exclusion for “sludges” exhibiting a characteristic of
hazardous waste that are not solid wastes when reclaimed under 40 CFR
261.2(c)(3).	D001 (ignitability characteristic) or

D002 (corrosivity characteristic) or

D003 (reactivity characteristic) or

D004 to D043 (toxicity characteristic), and

W5xx or W6xx sludges physical form code	5,906

4. Recycled Commercial Chemical Products	Reported waste quantities in
the BR dataset may already be excluded under the existing DSW exclusion
for “commercial chemical products” when reclaimed under 40 CFR
261.2(c)(3).	 G11 source code “Discarding off-spec or out-of-date
chemicals or products: unused chemicals or products – corresponds to P
and U hazardous waste codes”)	55,665

5. Oil refining spent acids	Reported waste quantities in the BR dataset
may be already excluded from the DSW if reclaimed under either 40 CFR
261.4(a)(7) or 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12).	D002 (corrosivity characteristic)
and

SIC code 2911 petroleum refinery (same as NAICS code 32411).	2,915

6. Oil bearing petrochemical wastes	Reported waste quantities in the BR
dataset may be already excluded from the DSW if reclaimed under 40 CFR
261.4(a)(18) if “inserted into the petroleum refining process (SIC
coded 2911) along with normal petroleum refinery process streams”	D001
(ignitable characteristic) or

D018 (benzene toxicity characteristic) and

SIC 2865 “Cyclic Organic Crudes, Intermediates & Organic
Dyes/Pigments, or SIC 2869 Industrial Organic Chemicals (both SIC codes
are same as NAICS 32511 petrochemical mfg)	58

Column total =	285,797

Percentage of 2005 National Biennial Report total hazardous waste
generation =	-0.7%

*  One waste stream accounts for 171,748 tons with the waste description
“spent lead/acid batteries and lead bearing scrap dismembered for
metals recovery and recycling.”



Sensitivity Analysis #6:	Indirect Inclusion of RCRA SQGs in this RIA

Small quantity generators generate between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of
hazardous waste per month, whereas large quantity generators (LQGs)
generate more than 1,000 kilograms per month.  Because the impact
estimates of this RIA are built upon the RCRA Biennial Report which
contains data reported by LQGs and TSDFs but not by SQGs, the complete
SQG facility univers count is not included in this RIA, only the small
fraction of TSDFs which are also SQGs.  To the extent that the DSW final
rule de-regulatory impacts correlate to tonnage as variable cost
impacts, ven though SQG annual waste tonnages are not directly reported
by SQGs to the RCRA Biennial Report, most if not all, of their annual
tonnage waste generation is reflected in the TSDF management tonnages
reported because SQGs almost solely send their waste offsite to TSDFs. 
Thus the components of de-regulatory cost savings which are variable
according to tonnage is indirectly captured in this RIA.  However,
because some components of expected de-regulatory cost savings are fixed
on a per-facility basis, rather than variable according to t per-tonnage
basis, the net cost savings impact estimated in this RIA is likely
under-estimated by the following percentage range:

Between 1993 and 2005, there was a low estimate of 84,000 SQGs (1993) to
a high estimate of 236,000 SQGs (Source: page 4 of “Work Assignment 7
Task 5 Quick Response Task 1 Memorandum: Study of Impact of Imposing
Part 262 Manifest Requirements on Generators of HWIR-Exited Waste”,
prepared 01 Feb 1999 by Dynamac Corp for OSW).

Step 1:	Apply the same 30% ratio of LQGs managing wastes by
recovery/recycling (source: 4,809 recycling LQGs from Exhibit 4A Column
A divided by 16,191 total LQGs from Exhibit 4B Column A), to these SQG
counts suggest that 24,950 to 70,100 SQGs generate hazardous wastes
which are managed by recovery/recycling.

Step 2:	Subtract the 942 SQGs included in this RIA (Exhibit 6D Column D)
produces a range of about 24,000 to 69,200 SQGs omitted from this RIA.

Step 3:	Calculate the percent of SQGs which may drop to CESQG status
under the DSW final rule (based on Exhibit 6D):

		(1,385 post-rule SQGs – 1,107 LQGs which drop to SQG status
post-rule) = 278 of the pre-rule SQGs remain SQGs post-rule (from
columns H & I of Exhibit 6D).

(942 pre-rule SQGs– 278) = 664 SQGs drop to CESQG status (from column
D of Exhibit 6D).

(664/942) = 70% of SQGs drop to CESQG status

Step 4:	Assume 70% of the Step 3 SQG count range of 24,000 to 69,200
omitted SQGs become excluded from RCRA regulation by the DSW final rule
and multiply the 24,000 to 69,200 SQGs by the $1,744 SQG per-facility
average annual cost for RCRA paperwork burden (from Exhibit 6B Column
E), which may be eliminated from SQGs involved in recycling/recovery =
$29.3 million to $84.5 million per year additional industry cost
savings.

Step 5:	Compare to the net impact estimate to establish percentage range
for this sensitivity analysis factor:

($29.3 million to $84.5 million per year) / ($95.3 million/year) = +31%
to +89% additional cost saving impact.

Sensitivity Analysis #7:	Physical/Chemical Quality of Secondary
Materials for Viable Recovery/Recycling

The methodology applied in Chapter 5 of this RIA for identifying
baseline disposal wastes for potential switchover to recycling under the
DSW final rule, may have been overly broad (i.e., overly inclusive) in
the physical/chemical types and industrial sources identified.  Exhibit
12F below identifies nine categories of baseline disposed wastes that
may not be suitable for recycling, and their corresponding tonnages in
the 2005 Biennial Report, as an indicator of potential industry cost
savings over-estimation in this RIA from possible over-estimation of the
baseline disposal tonnage with may switchover to recycling under the DSW
final rule.

Exhibit 12F

Sensitivity Analysis #7

Criteria to Identify Baseline Disposal Hazardous Wastes

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

Types of Disposed Haz Wastes Unlikely Suitable for Recycling	Criterion A
Criterion B	Criterion C	2005 Generation

(tons)

	Physical/ Chemical Form Codes	Industrial Source Codes	RCRA Hazardous
Waste Codes

	1. Probably better suited for energy recovery or use as fuel (e.g.,
oily wastes, tarry wastes, PAHs, heavy ends, petroleum refining wastes)
For wastes not reporting source code G61 include:

W205 oil-water emulsion

W206 waste oil

W403 solid resins, plastics or polymerized organics

W409 other organic solids

W603 oily sludge

W604 paint or ink sludges, still bottoms in sludge form

W606 other organic sludge

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through
G06, G24, G26, or G61, or RCRA waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item
8 below include RCRA waste codes:

F024heavy end, tars reactor clean-out process wastes

F032, F034 chlorophenolic & creosote wood preservative wastewaters

F037, F038 petroleum refinery oil/water separation sludge

K001 wood preserving bottom sediment sludges

K018, K030, K035, K042, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052, K087, K096, K101,
K107, K108, K115 heavy ends, overheads

K141, K142, K143, K144, K147, K148 coking operation tars

K169, K170 oil tank sediment	1,024,341

2. Likely contains acutely toxic (dioxans/furans) or mutiple mixed
hazardous constituents

For wastes with no reported form codes include source code:

G26 leachate collection	For wastes with no form codes and not reporting
source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA waste codes
listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes:

F020, F021, F022, F023 listed for dioxins/furans

F026, F027, F028, F032 listed for dioxins/furans

F039 land disposal leachate

K032, K033, K034 listed for carcinogen hexachlorocyclopentadiene

K174 listed for dioxins/furans

P001 to P205 (i.e., all Pxxx) acutely hazardous discarded or off-spec
commercial chemical products, container residues	19,508

3. Explosive or reactive material	For wastes not reporting source code
G61 include:

W210 reactive or polymerizable organic liquids and adhesives

W405 explosives or reactive organic solids

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through
G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8
below include RCRA waste codes:

K044, K045, K046, K047 explosives mfg wastewaters, sludge, spent carbon
98,300

4. Already subject to recovery/ recycling	4a. Distillation residuals
(may be better suited for energy recovery)	For wastes not reporting
source code G61 include:

W200 still bottoms in liquid form	For wastes with no reported form codes
include source code:

G24 solvent or product distillation or recovery	For wastes with no form
codes and not reporting source codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61
or RCRA waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8 below include RCRA
waste codes:

K009, K010, K015, K016, K019, K020, K022, K023, K024, K025, K026, K027,
K036, K083, K085, K093, K094, K095, K116, K136, K149 chemical mfg
product distillation bottoms or solvent recovery residues	95,140

	4b. Acid recovery residuals

	For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01
through G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F
or item 8 below include RCRA waste codes:

K150 hydrochloric acid recovery residuals	0

5. Material unlikely to contain recoverable constituents of recycling
value	For wastes not reporting source code G61 include:

W301 contaminated soil

W512 sediment or lagoon dragout, drilling or other muds

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through
G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8
below include RCRA waste codes:

F028residues from incineration of contaminated soil

K060 ammonia still lime sludge

K102 residue from use of activated carbon for decolorization	437,048

6. Materials not eligible for DSW final rule exclusions*	For wastes not
reporting source code G61 include:

W309 (lead-acid batteries)

W320 electrical devices (lamps, thermostats, CRTs)

	257,948

7. Materials not currently widely recovered/ recycled**	W401 used or
discarded pesticide solids

W503 gypsum sludges

For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source codes G01 through
G06, G24, G26, or G61 or RCRA waste codes listed in Exhibit 5F or item 8
below include RCRA waste codes:

D004 arsenic	8,552

8.  Materials unlikely to be economically recovered off site***	For
wastes not reporting source code G61 include:

W103 spent concentrated acid >5%

W110 caustic aqueous waste without cysnides	For wastes with no form code
include source codes:

G02 stripping & acid or caustic cleaning

G05 metal forming	For wastes with no form codes and not reporting source
codes G01 through G06, G24, G26, or G61 include RCRA waste codes:

K031, K043, K097, K099, K123, K124, K125, K126, K131, K132 pesticide mfg
wastewaters, sludges, absorbents, solids

K062 iron & steel spent pickle liquor	6,068,617

9. Mixture of RCRA Waste Codes

	Wastes that have multiple RCRA waste codes reported and the fall under
more than one of the first seven categories.	143

Column total =	8,009,597

Percentage of 2005 National Biennial Report total hazardous waste
generation (38.347 million tons, Exhibit 4A) =	-21%

Explanatory Notes:

Some materials identified in this exhibit may contain potential
beneficial re-use market value (e.g., construction fill, soil
amendments, cement additives) which is not covered under the DSW final
rule exclusions, and therefore not included in this RIA for evaluation
of potential switchover from baseline disposal to future recycling.

* Or which may be managed as excluded materials under other RCRA
exemptions (e.g., as “universal wastes”).

** As determined by comparison with the physical/chemical types or
constituent s of RCRA hazardous wastes currently being recovered/
recycled according to H010, H020, or H039 management method codes in the
2005 Biennial Report.

*** Note that these data were initially pulled from the 2005 BR under
Commodity Group #3 in Exhibit 5F.  Upon review of W103 spent
concentrated acids > 5%, G02 stripping and acid or caustic cleaning, and
G05 metal forming and treatment waste streams nearly all the waste is
not suitable for switchover to off-site other recovery.  Much of the
waste are dilute acid wastes that are disposed in on-site wastewater
treatment systems followed by POTW/sewer or NPDES discharge or disposed
by Class I UIC permitted deep-well injection.  These disposal methods
are cheap compared to offsite recovery.  It will not be more economical
to ship these wastes offsite for other recovery.  It is beyond the time
and resource constraints of this RIA to individually carry these records
through the analysis.  A small quantity (< 4,000 tons) of spent pickle
liquor (K062) was identified.  The quantity is too small to carry
forward through the analysis.





Sensitivity Analysis #8:	Expected Accuracy of Impact Estimates

This RIA is based on a semi-detailed cost data designed to provide
semi-detailed estimates rather than exact engineering cost and benefit
estimates for each of the almost 300 different industries (Exhibit 9C)
consisting of about 5,600 of facilities (Exhibit 9B) which are
generating and managing 10,000s of individual waste streams (Exhibit 9A)
which may be affected by the DSW rule.  For purpose of classifying
relative degrees of estimation accuracy, the Association for the
Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines five generic classes of
cost estimation accuracy for application in engineering, procurement,
and industry.  AACE defined these classes in relation to ANSI standards
Z94.0 and Z94.2.  In the context of this RIA, the purpose of estimation
accuracy classification is to indicate the relative degree to which the
“ex-post” (i.e., post-rule) actual economic impacts for the DSW rule
may vary from the “ex-ante” (i.e., pre-rule) impacts estimated in
this RIA.  The AACE classification scheme expresses five levels of
estimation accuracy according to a +/- percentage range around the point
estimate.  The five accuracy classes are formulated to reflect varying,
relative degrees of:

Project definition, design, and planning maturity level (e.g, <2% vs
>50% complete),

End usage purpose of cost estimates (e.g., initial concept screening vs
contract bid),

Type of estimation methodology (e.g., judgment vs detailed unit costs),
and

Estimate preparation level-of-effort (e.g., <200 hours vs >1,000 hours
to prepare).

The five accuracy classifications range from -50% :to:+100% for Class 5
“order-of-magnitude” type estimates, to -10% to +15% Class 1
“definitive estimates”.  Basically, as the level-of-detail and
level-of-effort given to a cost (or cost savings) estimate increases,
the expected accuracy of the estimate tends to improve, as indicated by
a tighter +/- accuracy range assigned to it according to the accuracy
classification scheme.  The impact estimates of this RIA may be
classified as a “Class 3” semi-detailed type of estimate with
expected accuracy range of -20% to +30%, because this RIA includes
semi-detailed unit costs, but which are less than the thousands of
highly detailed unit costs and other details that typify a "Class 2"
type estimate with -15% to +20% expected accuracy range.

Sensitivity Analysis #9:	Future Change in Market Price of Recovered
Commodities

The Chapter 8 micro-economic (i.e., facility-by-facility level)
breakeven test of this RIA which estimates potential switchover of
baseline hazardous waste disposal to recycling, utilizes the market
price of recoverable commodities in the breakeven calculation.  The
purpose of this sensitivity factor is to illustrate how the overall
industry cost savings estimate of this RIA (i.e., average annual
industry cost savings), may fluctuate in any given future year according
to fluctuations in the price of the recoverable commodities.  Exhibit
12G below displays the 28 market price data points utilized in the
breakeven test (from Appendix A of this RIA), and alternative prices
representing a +/-50% fluctuation range.  A relatively large +/-50%
illustrative range is applied rather than a relatively smaller deviation
(e.g., +/-10%) particularly to acknowledge relatively large fluctuations
in commodity metals prices in recent years.

Exhibit 12G

Sensitivity Analysis #9:

Change in Future Market Price of Commodities Recovered from Baseline
Disposal Switchover to Recycling

A	B	C	D (C x 50%)	E (C x 150%)

Item	Commodity Type	Baseline price @90% market price ($/ton)	-50%

future change

(@90% price)	+50%

future change

(@90% price)

Commodity Group #1: Metals

	1A. Metal Containing Liquids



	1	Copper	$5,778	$2,889	$8,667

2	Lead	$2,124	$1,062	$3,186

3	Zinc	$1,908	$954	$2,862

4	Metal Cont. Liquids Weighted Average	$2,063	$1,032	$3,094

	1B. Metal Containing Solids



	5	Copper	$5,778 	$2,889	$8,667

6	Lead	$2,124	$1,062	$3,186

7	Zinc	$1,908	$954	$2,862

8	Metal Cont. Solids Weighted Average	$2,072	$1,036	$3,108

	1C. Metal Containing Sludges



	9	Chromium	$2,412	$1,206	$3,618

10	Copper	$5,778	$2,889	$8,667

11	Nickel	$22,644	$11,322	$33,966

12	Zinc	$1,908	$954	$2,862

13	Metal Cont. Sludges Weighted Average	$9,413	$4,706	$14,120

	1D. Emission Control Dust (K061)



	14	Zinc	$1,908	$954	$2,862

	1E. Molybdenum Disulfide Catalyst



	15	Molybdenum disulfide	$39,051	$19,526	$58,576

Commodity Group #2: Solvents

	2A. Solvent Bearing Liquids (1)



	16	Alkyl Benzenes 	$911	$456	$1,366

17	C9-C10 Alkyl Benzenes	$911	$456	$1,366

18	Toluene 	$900	$450	$1,350

19	Xylene	$923	$462	$1,384

20	Methanol	$442	$221	$663

21	Solvent Bearing Liquids Weighted Average	$845	$422	$1,268

	2B. Other Organic Liquids



	22	Acetone	$756	$378	$1,134

23	MEK	$1,152	$576	$1,728

24	Toluene	$900	$450	$1,350

25	Xylene	$923	$462	$1,384

26	Other Organic Liquids Weighted Average	$909	$454	$1,364

Commodity Group #3: Other

27	Carbon	$4,289	$2,144	$6,434

28	Acids	$46	$23	$69

Explanatory Notes:

(a) Source for Columns B & C: Appendix A of this RIA.

(b) This RIA assumes that recoverable materials from baseline disposed
hazardous wastes may on average capture 90% of market price because of
perceived or real lower quality relative to virgin materials.



Sensitivity Analysis #10:	Omission of Baseline Disposal Switchover to
Same-Company Shared Offsite Recycling Under Exclusion 1

An indicator of the potential magnitude of this omission is the ratio of
single- and multi-establishment firms in the “Establishment & Firm
Size” industry subject series reports published by the Bureau of
Census.  Although such report is not available for the US manufacturing
sector (NAICS 32 & 33) which represents eight of the top-10 4-digit
NAICS code industries generating RCRA hazardous waste in 2005
(accounting for 32.45 million tons/year (85%) of the 38.35 million
tons/year generation reported in the 2005 Biennial Report (BR) for all
industries), there is a 2002 report for the NAICS 562 “Waste
Management & Remediation Services” industry group which represents the
4th and 10th industries in the 2005 top-10 generator industries
(accounting for 2.13 million tons/year (6%) of the 38.35 million
tons/year hazardous waste reported generated by all industries in the
2005 BR).

	For NAICS 562 in year 2002, only 4% of the 15,084 firms (companies)
operated more than one establishment (facility).  However, this small 4%
of multi-facility companies operated 22% of the 18,662 total facilities,
and accounted for a large 66% share of the $51.3 billion annual business
receipts.  To the extent that the quantity of annual hazardous waste
generation for any single facility correlates to a large degree with the
dollar magnitude of annual business receipts for that facility, this
indicates that the omission from this RIA of shared within-company
offsite recycling facilities may be a relatively large source of
industry cost savings impact under-estimation in this RIA for Exclusion
1.  To estimate the potential magnitude of this impact under-estimation,
the four numerical factors in combination yield an sensitivity analysis
range which is calculated below:

Four Numerical Factors for Calculating a sensitivity analysis
uncertainty range:

The two multi-facility company percentages (i.e., 22% and 66%) cited
above for NAICSS 562;

The 76% to 97% baseline disposal physical/chemical waste form
low-quality constraint described in Chapter 5 (Section 5B) of this RIA;

The 2.062 million tons un-impacted baseline disposal tons evaluated in
this RIA for breakeven switchover to offsite (i.e., (2.085 million
baseline disposal tons from Exhibit 5G) – (0.023 million tons impacted
baseline disposal from Exhibit 8A) = 2.062 million tons);

The $16.7 million/year estimated net cost savings associated with the
23,413 tons estimated baseline switchover to recycling (from Exhibit 9F,
Column H), produces the following impact under-estimation range:

Lower-Bound: If based on 22% same-company facilities and omit 97%
low-quality disposal tonnage:

Step 1:	(2.062 million tons/year total baseline disposal evaluated for
switchover to recycling)  x (100%–97% sufficient quality) x (22%
same-company) = 0.014 million tons/year additional switchover

Step 2:	(0.014 million tons) / (0.023 million tons/year baseline
disposal switchover to recycling) x ($16.7 million net benefits) = $9.7
million/year cost savings under-estimation

Step 3:	($9.7 million under-estimation) / ($95.3 million/year impact for
this RIA) = 10% under-estimation

Upper-Bound: If based on 66% same-company revenues and omit 76%
low-quality disposal tonnage:

Step 1:	(2.062 million tons/year total baseline disposal evaluated for
switchover to recycling) x (100%–76% sufficient quality) x (66%
same-company) = 0.327 million tons/year additional switchover

Step 2:	(0.327 million tons) / (0.023 million tons/year baseline
disposal switchover to recycling) x ($16.7 million net benefits) = $237
million/year cost savings under-estimation

Step 3:	($237 million under-estimation) / ($95.3 million/year impact for
this RIA) = 249% under-estimation

Sensitivity Analysis #11:	Omission of Baseline Disposal Switchover to
Onsite Recycling Under Exclusion 1

Concerning the potential of the DSW final rule to induce baseline
disposal to switchover to future recycling, this RIA does not attempt to
estimate whether baseline hazardous waste generator facilities:

Currently disposing their hazardous wastes either onsite or offsite, may
shift the management of their disposed wastes to recycling either onsite
under Exclusion 1, or

Currently using offsite hazardous waste recycling, and who may
experience DSW de-regulatory cost savings under Exclusion 2, may elect
to switchover to onsite recycling to take advantage of Exclusion 1

This omission reflects the reported low likelihood that generators will
construct and operate new onsite recycling operations, according to to
13 reasons identified by five industrial public commentors on the 2003
and 2007 DSW RIAs as summarized in Section 3C of this RIA.  The
consequence of this omission on the net impact estimate of this RIA may
be estimated as by reviewing the contribution of this switchover to
onsite recycling scenario as estimated in the 2007 DSW RIA (i.e., for
Option 8 in Exhibit 6B).  The 2007 RIA estimated the following ratios
between swithover to onsite and to offsite recycling:

1.8 ratio:	From 0.106 million tons onsite recycling: to: 0.059 million
tons offsite recycling (source: 2007 RIA Exhibit 6B Columns G, H)

2.7 ratio:	From $60 million net savings for onsite recycling: to : $22
million net savings for offsite recycling (source: 2007 RIA Exhibit 6B
Columns K, L)

Applying these two alternative ratios to the corresponding impact
results of this DSW final rule RIA, produces the following sensitivity
analysis estimate range:

Lower-Bound: If based on tonnage ratio = 1.8

Step 1:		($16.7 million/year disposal switchover to offsite recycling in
this RIA) x (1.8 ratio) = $30.1 million/year omitted impact

Step 2:		($30.1 million/year omitted impact) / ($95.3 million/year
impact for this RIA) = 32%

Upper-Bound: If based on net impact dollar ratio = 2.7

Step 1:		($16.7 million/year disposal switchover to offsite recycling in
this RIA) x (2.7 ratio) = $45.1 million/year omitted impact

Step 2:		($45.1 million/year omitted impact) / ($95.3 million/year
impact for this RIA) = 47%

Appendices

Appendix A

Data Sources for Concentrations, Yield, & Market Values for Recoverable
Commodities

This Appendix presents the data and references applied in this RIA for
purpose of estimating the potential market value (aka “salvage
value”) of chemical commodities contained in RCRA industrial hazardous
wastes currently disposed, for potential switchover to
recovery/recycling.  These data are applied as inputs to the
micro-economic breakeven test in this RIA (Chapter 8).  Rather than
using engineering judgment and miscellaneous secondary sources, this RIA
attempted to derive these chemical commodity concentration data from
OSW’s 1996 “National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey” (NHWCS)
database.  The NHWCS was benchmarked to the 1993 RCRA Biennial Report
hazardous waste streams, and is the only nationally comprehensive and
representative database of its kind.  OSW queried the NHWCS database for
chemical constituent identities and corresponding concentrations for
disposed wastes (i.e., excluding M011 to M019 metals recovery, M021 to
M029 solvents recovery, and M031 to M039 other materials recovery).

	To build the NHWCS database, in 1996 OSW mailed survey questionnaires
to 221 of the largest managers (i.e., TSDRFs) of industrial process RCRA
hazardous wastes in the US.  This facility sample also included some of
the largest LQGs who manage their own hazardous wastes onsite.  The
survey data responses received from 156 TSDRFs of this targeted survey
sample group accounted for 1,020 industrial process waste streams,
representing 115 million annual tons (42%) of the 235 million annual
hazardous waste management tonnage universe reported in the 1993 RCRA
Biennial Report by the 2,584 TSDRF universe.

	Data reported in the survey included over 12,000 parts-per-million
(ppm) concentration data corresponding to 2.0 million tons of 724
different chemical constituents in the wastes (i.e., chemicals with
Chemical Abstract Service CAS ID numbers), although 815 chemicals plus
other material constituents such as “ash”, “cement”, “clay”,
“concrete”, “soybean oil”, “waste oil” etc. were reported
(see Exhibit A3 below).  The 2.0 million tons with constituent data
represents 1.8% of the 115 million tons covered in the survey response,
but only 0.9% of the 235 million tons total hazardous waste managed in
2003.

	Although constituent data were collected in the NHWCS for a very small
percentage of the RCRA-regulated annual hazardous waste tonnage, the
NHWCS data reported by the 156 TSDRFs represented hazardous wastes
generated by, and received from, a broad spectrum of hundreds of 4-digit
SIC code industries within the following 12 2-digit SIC code industry
sub-sectors listed below:

SIC 28 Chemicals & allied products mfg

SIC 29 Petroleum products mfg

SIC 32 Stone, clay & glass products mfg

SIC 33 Primary metal mfg

SIC 34 Fabricated metal products mfg

SIC 36 Electronic & other electrical equipment mfg

SIC 38 Instruments & related products mfg

SIC 42 Trucking & warehousing

SIC 49 Electric, gas & sanitary services

SIC 50 Wholesale trade

SIC 73 Business services not elsewhere classified (nec)

SIC 95 Environmental quality & housing



Furthermore, as listed beloe, the chemical constituent data represented
hazardous wastes managed using a broad spectrum of 13 methods involving
both:

Onsite methods (61% of the constituent data tonnage) in which the
hazardous wastes generator is also the manager (i.e., recycler,
recoverer, treater, and/or disposer) at the same site, and

Offsite methods (39% of the constituent data tonnage) in which the
generator ships the hazardous waste for management at another facility
either owned by the same company or another company such as a commercial
hazardous waste service:

Metals recovery

Solvents recovery

Energy recovery (i.e., for onsite use by same generator)

Fuel blending (i.e., for offsite use by another facility)

Stabilization

Sludge treatment

Landfills

Surface impoundments

Incineration

Aqueous inorganic treatment

Aqueous organic treatment

Deepwell injection

Land application



Exhibit A1 below presents the NHWCS data for each commodity group
evaluated by the micro-economic breakeven test in this RIA.  Column G of
Exhibit A1 also presents the baseline market prices associated with
these recoverable commodities, adjusted by 90% factor to account for
real or perceived lower materials quality compared to virgin materials,
as applied in the Chapter 8 micro-economic breakeven test of this RIA. 
Before presenting Exhibit A1 containing the NHWCS data results for
identifying commodity values in baseline disposed wasets, there are two
prior “lessons learned” derived from a 1998 summary study report of
the NHWCS database which are worth noting their possible implications on
the use of the NHWCS data in this RIA:

Waste constituents:	Recycling RCRA hazardous wastes is made technically
difficult in some cases (i.e., for some industrial operations and for
some sources/types of RCRA hazardous wastes), because of numerous
chemical co-contaminates in the wastes.  Based on Chapter 3 of the 1998
NHWCS database summary report cited above, 90% of facilities reported
between 10 and 60 hazardous chemical constituents in individual waste
streams they receive for management (i.e., for disposal, materials
recovery/recycling, or energy/ fuel recovery).  Over 33% of facilities
reported between 10 and 20 constituents in individual waste streams. 
The highest number of constituents reported for a single waste stream is
287.  Waste streams reported in the survey carry over 800 different
chemical constituents (see Exhibit A3 below).  This NHWCS suggests that
most LQGs and TSDRFs must address a relatively high number of hazardous
chemical constituents in evaluating the technical feasibility of their
waste management options such as recycling.  The constituent complexity
factor is not explicitly addressed in this RIA and represents a source
of potential over-estimation of baseline disposal switchover to
recycling in this RIA.

Waste assay value:	Some RCRA hazardous wastes have relatively low (e.g.,
less than 1%) concentrations for constituents of commodity market value.
 Based on the 1998 NHWCS database summary report referenced above,
analysis of concentrations of highly prevalent constituents concluded
that concentrations of prevalent non-metal chemicals are significantly
higher than those reported for prevalent metals:

Non-metals:	The median concentration of five prevalent non-metals —
toluene, xylene, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methylene chloride
— is between 10,000 and 100,000 parts per million (ppm), which
represents a non-metals concentration range of 1% to 10% waste volume. 
Benzene is the only non-metal with a median concentration below 100 ppm
(i.e., below 0.01%).

Metals:	In comparison, median concentrations of three of four prevalent
metals — lead, chromium, cadmium, and barium — are over an order of
magnitude lower, ranging between 1 and 200 ppm (i.e., 0.0001% to 0.02%
assay value).  Of the 10 most prevalent metal constituents, only lead
and barium have median concentrations higher than 100 ppm (i.e., higher
than 0.01% assay value).  Cadmium, silver, mercury, and nickel all have
median concentrations less than 10 ppm (i.e., less than 0.001% assay
value); mercury has the lowest median concentration at 0.3 ppm (0.00003%
assay value).

The implication of this data finding is that the a priori expected
outcome of the breakeven test (described in Chapter 8 of this RIA) is
that it may yield a relatively higher tonnage of wastes containing
non-metal commodity values compared to waste tonnages containing metal
commodity values.

Exhibit A1

Data for Estimating Recoverable Materials Quantities, Potential Recovery
Yield, & Market Value

A	B	C	D	E	F	G

Item	Commodity Type	Tonnage & percentage of NHWCS waste streams with
commodity present	Count & percent of NHWCS waste streams >0ppm	Commodity
Concentration in NHWCS Disposed Wastes	90% of market price

($/ton)





Minimum

ppm	Maximum

ppm	Tonnage-weighted mean ppm

	Commodity Group #1: Metals

	1A. Metal Containing Liquids







1	Copper	113,393 (5.5%)	1 (100%)	10.5	10.5	10.5 (0.001%)	$5,778 (a)

2	Lead	610,434 (29.7%)	5 (100%)	0.85	250	165.89 (0.017%)	$2,124 (a)

3	Zinc	113,383 (5.5%)	1 (100%)	443.8	443.8	443.8 (0.044%)	$1,908 (a)

4	Metal Cont. Liqs Weighted Average	610,434 (29.7%)	5 (100%)

	250.27 (0.025%)	$2,063

	1B. Metal Containing Solids







5	Copper	24,369 (1.2%)	8 (90%)	199	5,040	50,207 (5.021%)	$5,778 (a)

6	Lead	87,727 (4.3%)	24 (36%)	0.16	48,000	1,840 (0.184%)	$2,124 (a)

7	Zinc	46,130 (2.2%)	10 (51%)	660	140,000	14,607 (1.461%)	$1,908 (a)

8	Metal Cont. Solids Weighted Average	87,727 (4.3%)	24 (36%)

	41,519 (4.152%)	$2,072

	1C. Metal Containing Sludges







9	Chromium	25,834 (1.3%)	9 (6%)	0.058	5,000	1,197 (0.120%)	$2,412 (b)

10	Copper	2,773 (0.1%)	2 (37%)	162	406	271 (0.027%)	$5,778 (a)

11	Nickel	24,184 (1.2%)	9 (8%)	0.03	51,000	9,939 (0.994%)	$22,644 (a)

12	Zinc	2,773 (0.1%)	2 (4%)	6,730	23,600	16,043 (1.604%)	$1,908 (a)

13	Metal Cont. Sludges Weighted Average	31,531 (1.5%)	11 (7%)

	10,040 (1.004%)	$9,413

	1D. Emission Control Dust (K061)







14	Zinc	160,640 (7.8%)	4 (62%)	36,111	140,000	24,507 (2.451%)	$1,908 (a)

	1E. Molybdenum Disulfide Catalyst







15	Molybdenum disulfide	No data in NHWCS	No data in NHWCS	No data in
NHWCS	No data in NHWCS	No data in

NHWCS (5%)**	$39,051

Commodity Group #2: Solvents

	2A. Solvent Bearing Liquids (1)







16	Alkyl Benzenes**	66,406 (3.2%)	20 (100%)	380,900 	380,900	380,900
(38.09%)	$911 (c)

17	C9-C10 Alkyl Benzenes	80,309 (3.9%)	14 (100%)	98,700 	98,700	98,700
(9.87%)	$911 (c)

18	Toluene 	504,254 (24.5%)	163 (52%)	0.171	935,000	140,198 (14.02%)
$900 (c)

19	Xylene	426,152 (20.7%)	145 (39%)	0.077	852,800	156,983 (15.70%)	$923
(c)

20	Methanol	274,651 (13.3%)	103 (31%)	2.58	990,000	129,504 (12.95%)	$442
(c)

21	Solvent Bearing Liqs. Wtd Average	545,253 (26.5%)	183 (56%)

	378,509 (37.85%)	$845

	2B. Other Organic Liquids







22	Acetone	124,556 (6.1%)	23 (56%)	25	400,000	54,640 (5.46%)	$756 (c)

23	MEK	117,662 (5.7%)	21 (35%)	50	100,000	44,977 (4.50%)	$1,152 (c)

24	Toluene	138,808 (6.7%)	33 (51%)	15	222,000	111,239 (11.12%)	$900 (c)

25	Xylene	128,218 (6.2%)	27 (56%)	27	448,000	88,185 (8.82%)	$923 (c)

26	Other Organic Liqs. Weighted Average	142,035 (6.9%)	35 (37%)

	273,101 (27.31%)	$909

Commodity Group #3: Other

27	Carbon	No data in NHWCS	No data in NHWCS	No data in NHWCS	No data in
NHWCS	No data in

NHWCS (90%)**	$4,289**

28	Acids	No data in NHWCS	No data in NHWCS	No data in NHWCS	No data in
NHWCS	No data in

NHWCS (74%)**	$46 (a)

Non-duplicative total =	1,577,620 (77%)	262 (70%)





Explanatory Notes:

Column A: Chemicals for each commodity group identified based on
chemicals with >0pm concentrations in a substantial annual tonnage
(i.e., greater than 10,000 tons/year) of 1993 disposed hazardous wastes
reported in OSW’s 1996 “National Hazardous Waste Constituent
Survey” (NHWCS) database, which is available as webpage item 4 at:  
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm .  OSW
identified the chemicals for each commodity group/sub-group by using the
NHWCS data codes displayed in Exhibit A2 below.

* The NHWCS database listed several constituents that were grouped
together for pricing purposes for solvent bearing liquids subgroup as
alkyl benzenes. alkyl benzenes includes those constituents listed as
alkyl benzene, C9 – C10 alkyl benzene, xylene, and toluene.

Column B: Annual tonnage of the entire waste matrix (i.e., not just the
single chemical constituent mass) reported in the NHWCS database for the
associated one or more disposed waste streams containing the commodity
chemical, and the corresponding percentage of the 2.1 million tons of
the NWHCS database for which chemical constituents were identified as
present by survey respondents.

Column C: Count of individual waste streams reporting the presence
(i.e., >0ppm) and the respective percentage of the Column B tonnage with
constituent concentration data >0ppm.

Columns D, E, F: Based on the disposed waste streams reporting the
presence (i.e., >0ppm) of the chemical constituent in the NHWCS
database.

Column G: To account for possible perceived or real lower quality
compared to virgin-materials, recovered commodities are assumed to
obtain 90% of market price from the following price sources:

(a) London Metal Exchange, Average January 2008 price:
http://www.lme.com

(b) http://www.MetalPrices.com average weekly price from March 2, 2007
through August 24, 2007 (2007 price applied to avoid Jan/Feb 2008 spike
price).

(c) ICIS Pricing, February 22, 2008: http://www.icis.com.  The price for
the alkyl benzenes is based on a weighted average price for 47% toluene
& 53% xylene.

** Other data sources for commodities in disposed wastes for which there
is no NHWCS data:

Row 15: Received verbal price quote from Atlantic Equipment Engineers
listed on http://www.micronmetals.com for Molybdenum Disulfide in
quantities of 100lbs or greater and averaged with price of technical
grade in 50 lb. lot from:
http://rosemillcom.host-manager.com/product.asp?productid=258465.  An
assay value of 16.7% is assumed for the recovered value of the catalysts
based on a calibration of the baseline cost estimates comparing offsite
disposal to onsite recycling under pre-rule conditions (i.e., assumed
percent of tonnage containing recoverable catalyst).  The percentage
recovered product from spent catalyst (waste codes K171 and K172) was
estimated using engineering judgment as to the concentration of the
recoverable product from the waste stream, likelihood of destruction
during the recovery process and potential of the recovered product to
retain useable characteristics.  The percentage recovered product for
spent catalyst is 5% (i.e., 5% of catalyst is reusable).

Row 26: From RACER 2005 cost estimating software was used for the unit
price (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost
estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm).  The percentage
recovered product from spent granular activated carbon was estimated
using engineering judgment as to the concentration of the recoverable
product from the waste stream, likelihood of destruction during the
recovery process and potential of the recovered product to retain
useable characteristics.  An assay value of 10% was assumed for the
price of recovered activated carbon based on a calibration of the
baseline cost estimates comparing offsite disposal to onsite recycling
under pre-rule conditions (i.e., percent of tonnage containing
recoverable carbon).  The percentage recovered product for spent
granular activated carbon is 90% (i.e., 90% of carbon is reusable).

Row 28:The percentage recovered product for acids recovered from acid
waste streams was estimated.  Waste streams at selected recovery
facilities were reviewed by comments, disposal system type, and origin
to determine the likely waste streams generated from the recovery
operations.  Assuming there are minimal lost products by spillage or
evaporation, the mass of the original waste stream (recovery waste
stream) minus the reported residuals waste stream (i.e., sludge, and
wastewater) is the mass of the recovered product.  The waste residual
fraction is described in the respective recovery technology section. 
Based on the estimated waste residual mass fraction, the recoverable
product mass fraction is estimated at 74% for acid product recovery.



OSW’s query for this RIA, of the 1996 NHWCS database for disposed
hazardous waste constituents, yielded 32,575 rows of data, each row
representing a single chemical/material constituent for a single waste
stream at a single facility.  However, 21,807 (67%) of the 32,575 data
rows indicated zero ppm (i.e., 0 ppm), which were excluded from
calculation of the tonnage-weighted means displayed in Exhibit A1 above.
 Zero ppm data were excluded from computation of the tonnage-weighted
means because they signify:

Missing ppm data, or

Non-numerical data such as:

“None/Not Applicable (NA)”, Not Tested (NT)”

“Present at Unknown Concentration (PR)”

“Not Detected”

“Less Than Detection Limit (ND)”

“Trace (TR)”

“Don't Know (DK)” 

Exhibit A2 below presents the data code crosswalk OSW used to analyze
the disposed hazardous waste data extracted from the 1996 NHWCS
database, to identify commodity constituents relevant for assigning to
each of the three commodity groups/sub-groups displayed in Exhibit A1. 
This crosswalk was necessary because the 1996 NWHCS database is based on
the pre-2001 RCRA Biennial Reports coding system (USEPA revised the RCRA
Biennial Reporting codes beginning with data year 2001).  See pages 77
to 81 of the 2001 Hazardous Waste Biennial Report “Instructions and
Forms” (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/brs01/ins-frms.pdf)
for a comparison of the pre-2001 RCRA codes with the current RCRA codes
involving hazardous waste (a) industrial source codes (i.e., Gxx
compared to Axx on page 77), (b) physical/chemical form codes (i.e.,
Wxxx compared to Bxxx on pages 79-80), and (c) management method codes
(i.e., Hxxx compared to Mxxx on page 81).



Exhibit A2

Definition of Commodity Sub-Groups

for Assignment of Recoverable Constituents and Average Concentrations
from the NHWCS Database*

for Evaluating Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to Future
Recovery/Recycling

Commodity Sub-Group	Physical Form Codes**	RCRA Regulatory Codes

	NHWCS form codes = Bxxx	NHWCS regulatory codes = same as Biennial
Report

Commodity Group #1: For Possible Metal Recovery:

1A. Metal-bearing liquids	B106 + B107 = W107 wastes containing cyanides
D005 barium

D006 cadmium

D007 chromium

D008 lead

D009 mercury

D010 selenium

D011 silver

F006, F007, F008, F009 metal electroplating

F010, F011, F012 metal heat treating

F019 sludge from conversion coating of aluminum

F035 inorganic wood preservative waste (arsenic or chromium)

K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008 inorganic pigment mfg sludge &
residues (listed for chromium)

K064, K065, K066, K069, K086, K100 lead- or chromium-bearing

K061 iron & steel mfg emission dust

K071, K073, K106, K176, K177, K178 inorganic chemical mfg

K171, K172 petroleum refining spent catalysts

1B. Mercury-bearing wastes	B117 = W117 waste liquid mercury

	1C. Metal-bearing solids	B303 = W303 ash

B304 = W304 slags, drosses, other solid thermal residues

B307 = W307 metal scale, filings & scrap (metal drums)

B312 = W312 cyanide or metal cyanide solids, chemicals

B316 = W316 metal salts or chemicals w/out cyanides

B319 = W319 other inorganic solids

	1D. Metal-bearing sludges	B305 + B306 = W501 lime and/or metal
hydroxide sludge/solids

B505 = W505 metal bearing sludge w/out cyanide

B506 = W506 cyanide-bearing sludge (non contaminated soils)

B519 = W519 other inorganic sludge

	Commodity Group #2: For Possible Solvent Recovery:

2A. Solvent-bearing liquids	B202 = W202 concentrated halogenated organic
liquids

B203 = W203 concentrated non-halogenated organic liquids

B201 + B204 = W204 concentrated halo/non-halogenated solvents	F001,
F002, F003, F004, F005 spent solvents

F024, F025 chlorinated aliphatic mfg

K086 solvent washes of ink equipment

2B. Other organic-bearing liquids	B209 = W209 paint, ink, lacquer or
varnish

B211 = W211 paint thinner or petroleum distillates

B219 = W219 other organic liquid

	Commodity Group #3: For Possible Other Recovery (e.g. Acids and Carbon
Regeneration)

3A. Acids	B103 + B104 = W103 spent concentrated acid >5%

B105 = W105 acidic aqueous wastes <5% acid	K031, K043; K097, K098, K099,
K123, K124, K125, K126, K131, K132 pesticide mfg wastewaters, sludges,
absorbents, solids

K062 iron & steel mfg spent pickle liquor

K088 aluminum production spent potliners (sodium fluoride)

3B. Caustics	B108 + B109 + B110 = W110 caustic aqueous waste without
cyanides

	3C. Spent carbon	B310 + B403 + B404 = W310 filters, adsorbents, resins
& spent carbon

	3D. Sodium fluoride	Any

	Explanatory Notes:

* NHWCS = 1993 OSW National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey,
available as item 4 at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/economic.htm.

** There are a total 47 Wxxx codes, 47 Gxxx codes, 40 Dxxx codes, 28
Fxxx codes, 120 Kxxx, codes, 205 Pxxx codes, and , 612 Uxxxx codes
defined for data reporting to the RCRA Biennial Report (BR): .for
complete lists see pp. 49 to 54 of the 2005 BR instructions book at:  
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/05report.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/05report.pdf 



Exhibit A3 below displays a consolidated list of 815 chemical and
material constituents reported with concentrations > 0 ppm
(parts-per-million) in disposed hazardous waste data from the 1996 NHWCS
database.  This list is consolidated from the 32,575 constituent
datapoint rows produced by query of the 1996 NHWCS database for disposed
wastes (i.e., RCRA Biennial Report system codes = M041 to M137).  Many
of these constituents are either (a) associated with only one waste
stream, or (b) associated with more than one waste stream which
aggregate to a relatively small quantity, so they were excluded from the
baseline disposal switchover to recycling breakeven test of this RIA. 
This exclusion of other constituents from the breakeven test is a source
of resource recovery benefit under-estimation in this RIA.

Exhibit A3

List of 815 Constituents with Concentrations > 0ppm in Disposed
Hazardous Wastes in the 1996 NHWCS Database

1-Chloro-1,3-butadiene

1-Hexanol

1-Hexene

1-Methylnaphthalene

1-Methylpiperidine [N-Methylpiperidine

1-Pentene

1-Pentyne

12-Hydroxyoctadecanoic acid

1,1'-Methylenebis(isocyanato)benzene

1,1-Dichloroethane [Ethylidene dichloride]

1,1-Dichloroethylene [Vinylidene chloride]

1,1,1-Trichloroethane [Methyl chloroform]

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane [Freon 113]

1,1,2-Trichloroethane [Vinyl trichloride]

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,2-Dichlorobenzene [o-Dichlorobenzene]

1,2-Dichloroethane [Ethylene dichloride]

1,2-Dichloroethylene, mixed isomers

1,2-Dichloropropane [Propylene dichloride]

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene [Tetralin]

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene [Pseudocumene]

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene

1,3-Butadiene

1,3-Butylene glycol

1,3-Dichloro-2-butene

1,3-Dichlorobenzene [m-Dichlorobenzene]

1,3-Dichloropropene [1,3-Dichloro-1-propene][mixed isomers]

1,3-Dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone [N,N'-Dimethylethylene urea]

1,3-Pentadiene

1,3,3-Trichloropropene

1,3,5-Trimethyl-2,4,6-tris-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4hydroxybenzyl)    benzene

1,4-Butanediol

1,4-Cyclohexanedimethanol

1,4-Dichloro-2-butene, mixed isomers

1,4-Dichlorobenzene [p-Dichlorobenzene]

1,4-Dioxane [1,4-Diethyleneoxide]

1,4-hexadiene, (Z)-

1,4-Pentadiene

1,5-Cyclooctadiene

1,5-Pentanediol

1,6-Hexamethylene diisocyanate

1,6-Hexanediol [Hexamethylene glycol]

2'-Hydroxy acteophenone

2- Chloroethanol [Ethylene chlorohydrin]

2-Acetylaminofluorene [2-AAF]

2-Benzotriazol

2-Butanol [sec-Butanol]

2-Butoxyethanol [Butyl cellosolve][Ethylene gycol monobutyl    ether]

2-Butyne-1,4-diol

2-Butyne [Crotnylene]

2-Chloronaphthalene [beta-Chloronaphthalene]

2-Chlorophenol [o-Chlorophenol]

2-Ethoxyethanol acetate [2-EEA][Cellosolveacetate]

2-Ethoxyethanol [Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether][Cellosolve]

2-Ethyl-1-hexanol

2-Ethyl-1,3-butylene glycol

2-Ethyl-1,3-propanediol

2-Ethylhexanal

2-Hexanone

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate [Glycol methacrylate]

2-Mercaptoethanol

2-Methoxy-1-propyl acetate

2-Methoxyethanol [Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether]

2-Methyl-1-butene

2-Methyl-2-butene [Amylene]

2-Methyl-2-propanethiol [tert-Butyl mercaptan]

2-Methyl-2,4-pentanediol [Hexylene glycol]

2-Methyl pentane

2-Methylhexane

2-Methylnaphthalene

2-Nitroaniline [o-Nitroaniline]

2-Nitrobenzoic Acid

2-Nitrophenol [o-Nitrophenol]

2-Nitropropane

2-Pentanol

2-Pentene [Beta-N-amylene]

2-Picoline [alpha-Picoline][2-Methylpyridine]

2-Propanol [Isopropyl alcohol][Isopropanol]

2-(3-Isobutyl phenyl) proprionic acid

2-(4-Isobutyl phenyl) proprionic acid [Ibuprofen]

2 B-3 Alcohol

2,2'-Methylene bis(6-tert-butyl phenol)

2,2-Dimethylbutane

2,2,4-Trimethylpentane [Iso-octane]

2,3-Diamino toluene [2,3-Toluenediamine]

2,3-Dichloro-1-propene

2,3-Dichlorobutane

2,3-Dimethyl butane

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol

2,4- and 2,6-Toluene diisocyanate mixture

2,4-D [2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid]

2,4-di-tert-Butylphenol

2,4-Dichlorophenol

2,4-Dimethyl-4-Vinyl Cyclohexene

2,4-Dimethylphenol

2,4-Dinitrophenol

2,4-Dinitrotoluene

2,4-Toluene diisocyanate

2,4-Toluenediamine [2,4-Diaminotoluene]

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

2,4,6-Di-tert-butylphenol

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

2,5-Di-tert-amylhydroquinone [2,5-Di-tert-pentylhydroquinone]

2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol

2,6-Dichlorophenol

2,6-Dinitrotoluene

2,6-Toluene diisocyanate

2,6-Toluenediamine [2,6-Diaminotoluene]

3-Methyl-1,4-pentadiene

3-Methyl-2-butanone [Methyl isopropyl ketone]

3-Methyl pentane

3-Methyl pyridine [beta-Picoline]

3-Nitro-o-xylene

3-Nitroaniline [m-Nitroaniline]

3-Pentanol

3-Pentanone [Diethyl ketone]

3-(4-Isobutyl phenyl) proprionic acid

3-(Dimethylamino)propylamine

3-(Triethoxysilyl)-1-propanamine [3-Aminopropyl)    triethoxysilane]

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine

3,3-Dichloropropene

3,3,3-Trichloro-2-Metyl-1-Propene

3,4-Dichlorobutene-1

3,4-Toluenediamine [3,4-Diaminotoluene]

4'-Isobutyl acetophenone

4-Acetoxy acteophenone

4-alpha-Cumylphenol

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether [p-Bromo diphenyl ether]

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether

4-Hydroxy acetophenone

4-Isobutyl ethyl benzene

4-Isobutyl phenyl ethenol

4-Isobutyl styrene

4-Methyl morpholine

4-Nitro-o-xylene

4-Nitroaniline [p-Nitroaniline][4-Nitrobenzenamine]

4-Nitrophenol [p-Nitrophenol]

4-Vinylcyclohexene

4-(Diglycidamino) phenyl glycidyl ether

4,4'-Methylene-bis-(2,6-diethylaniline)

4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)

4,4'-Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
[MDI][Methylenebis(phenylisocyante)]

4,4'-Methylenedianiline [p,p'-Diaminodiphenylmethane][MDA]

4,4'-Thiobis(6-tert-butyl)phenol

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol [4,6-Dinitro-2-methyl phenol]

7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene

Acenaphthene

Acenaphthylene

Acetaldehyde [Ethanal]

Acetamide

Acetates

Acetic acid

Acetic anhydride

Acetone [2-Propanone]

Acetonitrile [Methyl cyanide]

Acetophenone

Acetyl chloride

Acetylene

Acridine

Acrolein [2-Propenal]

Acronitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Polymer

Acronitrile-Butadiene Polymer

Acrylamide

Acrylic acid

Acrylic Copolymer

Acrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile]

Acryloyl chloride

Adiponitrile [Hexanedinitrile]

Al Compounds

Alcohol Sd No.3a Absolute

Aldrin

Alkyl benzenes

Alkyl naphthalenes

Alkylalkanolamines

Allyl alcohol

Allyl chloride [3-Chloropropylene][3-Chloropropene]

Allyl methacrylate

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane [alpha-BHC]

alpha-Methylstyrene

alpha-Pinene Polymers

Aluminum

Aluminum chloride hexahydrate

Aluminum silicate

Aluminum silicate, hydrated

Ammonia, gas

Ammonium acetate

Ammonium Acetone Disulfonate

Ammonium bicarbonate

Ammonium chloride

Ammonium hydroxide [Ammonia solution]

Ammonium oxides

Ammonium phosphate

Ammonium sulfate

Ammoniun phosphate, dibasic

Amyl acetate

Aniline

Anthracene

Antimony

Antimony trioxide

Aroclor 1242 [PCB 1242]

Aromatic 200

Arsenic

Ash

Atrazine

Azeo Oil

Barium

Barium metaborate

Barium Oxide

Barium sulfate

Bentone 38 organophillic clay

Benzal chloride [Dichloromethyl benzene]

Benzene

Benzoic acid

Benzophenone

Benzoyl peroxide

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene

Benzyl alcohol

Benzyl chloride

Benz[a]anthracene

Beryllium

Beta-cis-amylene [2-Pentene-cis]

beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane [beta-BHC]

beta-Myrcene

beta-Pinene, alpha-Pinene

beta-Pinine Polymer

Bis-(2-chloroethoxy)methane [Dichloromethoxy ethane]

Bismuth

Bisphenol A-Epichlorohydrin copolymer

Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether [Epoxide A]

Bisphenol A [2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane)]

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether [Dichloroethyl ether]

Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether [2,2'-Oxybis(2-chloropropane)]

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate]

Brass Foundry/Silica

Bromine

Bromodichloromethane [Dichlorobromomethane]

Bromoform [Tribromomethane]

Bromomethane [Methyl bromide]

Brown/Red Clay

BTEX

Butyl benzyl phthalate

Butyl glycolate

Butyl methacrylate [2-Methyl butyl acrylate]

Butyric acid [Butanoic acid]

C12-C20 Parrafins

C4-6 Dicarbonic acid, mixture

C6-C12 Aliphatics

C6 Alkenes/Alkenes

C9-C10 Alkyl Benzenes

Cadmium

Cadmium hydroxide

Cadmium sulfide

Calcium

Calcium carbonate

Calcium chloride

Calcium hydroxide

Calcium nitrate

Calcium oxide

Calcium resinate

Calcium sulfate

Calcium zinc resinate

Caprolactam

Caprylene [1-Octene]

Carbazole

Carbon

Carbon black

Carbon dioxide

Carbon disulfide

Carbon monoxide

Carbon tetrachloride

Carboxy Methyl Cellulose

Catalyst Tlf 2370c

Catechol

CD-dimers

Cellite

Cellulose

Cement

Chlordane

Chlorine

Chloroacetone

Chlorobenzene

Chlorobutanes

Chloroethane [Ethyl chloride]

Chloroform

Chloromethane [Methyl chloride]

Chloroprene-Sulfur polymer

Chloroprene [2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene]

Chlorothalonil

Chlorotoluene, mixed isomers

Chromium

Chromium oxide

Chromium trioxide

Chrysene

CI Pigment Blue 15 [Copper Phthalocyanine]

CI Pigment Green 36

CI Pigment Green 7

CI Pigment Yellow 14 [Benzidine yellow OT]

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene

cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene [cis-1,3-Dichloropropene]

cis-4-Methyl-2-pentene

cis-Polybutadiene

Clay

Coal tar creosote

Cobalt

Concrete

Copper

Copper acetylide

Creosote

Cresols, mixed isomers

Crotonaldehyde

Crotonaldehyde, trans- stereoisomer

Crude Oil Soilds (Parrefins)

Crushed Drums

Cryolite [Sodium aluminofluoride]

Cumene [Isopropyl benzene]

Cyanides

Cyanides (Amenable)

Cyanides (Cyanohydrins)

Cyanogen bromide [Bromine cyanide]

Cyclohexane

Cyclohexanol

Cyclohexanone

Cyclohexylamine

Cyclopentadiene

Cyclopentane

D-Limonene

Dacthal [2,3,5,6-Tetrachloroterephthalic acid][DCPA]

Decalin

delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane [delta-BHC]

Deuterated Toluene

Di-n-butyl phthalate

Di-n-butylether [n-Butyl ether]

Di-n-octyl phthalate

Diacetone alcohol

Dibenzofuran

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Dibromochloromethane [Chlorodibromomethane]

Dichlorobenzene, mixed isomers

Dichlorodifluoromethane [CFC-12]

Dichloropropane, mixed isomers

Dicyanodiamide

Dicyclopentadiene

Dieldrin

Diethyl phthalate

Diethylene glycol-trimethylpropane-adipate polymer

Diethylene glycol dimethyl ether [Diglyme]

Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether [Butyl carbitol]

Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether [Methyl Carbitol]

Diethylenetriamine

Diisobutyl ketone [Isobutyl ketone]

Diisopropylfluorophosphate [DFP]

Dimethyl adipate

Dimethyl disulfide

Dimethyl gluterate [Pentanedioic acid, dimethyl ester]

Dimethyl hydrogen phosphite [Phosphonic acid, dimethyl ester]

Dimethyl methyl phosphonate

Dimethyl naphthalene

Dimethyl phthalate

Dimethyl succinate [Butanedioic acid, dimethyl ester]

Dimethyl sulfate

Dimethyl sulfide [Methyl sulfide][Thiobismethane]

Dimethyl sulfoxide

Dinitro-o-xylenes (3,4 & 3,5)

Dinitrotoluene, mixed isomers

Dinitroxylenols

Dinoseb [2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol]

Diphenyl ether [diphenyl oxide]

Diphenylamine

DIPRENE

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether

Dirt/Sand/Soil/Rocks/Gravel/Debris

Distillates, petroleum, solvent-refined light paraffinic

Disulfoton

Ditrimethylol propane

Dust/Lime/Metal

Echinocandin B

Endosulfan

Endosulfan I [alpha-Endosulfan]

Endosulfan II [beta-Endosulfan]

Endosulfan sulfate

Endrin

Endrin aldehyde

Epoxy resin [Epikote 862]

Epoxynovalac

Ethanol [Ethyl alcohol]

Ethyl acrylate

Ethyl butyl ketone [3-Heptanone]

Ethyl cyanide [Propionitrile][Propanenitrile]

Ethyl ether [Ethane 1,1'-oxybis]

Ethyl formate

Ethyl methacrylate

Ethylbenzene

Ethylene

Ethylene dibromide [1,2-Dibromoethane]

Ethylene glycol

Ethylene glycol butyl ether acetate [Butyl cellosolve acetate]

Ethylene glycol dimethyl ether [1,2-Dimethoxyethane]

Ethylene oxide

Ethylenediamine

Extracts (petroleum), heavy naphtha solvent

Ferric chloride

Ferric Salt Of 3-Nitro

Filter Aid-Carbon

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Fluoride

Fluoroalkyl carboxylate

Fluorochemical adduct

Formaldehyde

Formamide

Formic Acid

Fuel oil #2

Fuel oil #6

Fumaronitrile

Fumaronitrile [Fumaric acid dinitrile]

Furan

gamma-Picoline [4-Methyl pyridine]

Glutaraldehyde

Glycol ethers

Gylcerin [Glycerol][Propanetriol]

HEAVY ENDS

Heptachlor

Heptachlor epoxide

Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene [Hexachlorobutadiene]

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Hexachloroethane

Hexadiene Oligomers

Hexamethyldisilazane

High boiling aliphatic hydrocarbons

HOC

HXCDFS

Hydrazine

Hydrocarbon polymer resin

Hydrogen chloride [Hydrochloric acid]

Hydrogen fluoride [Hydrofluoric acid]

Hydrogen peroxide

Hydroiodic acid

Hydroquinone

Hydrotreated heavy naphtha

Hyrdrocarbon sludge

Hyrdrocarbons

Hyrdrocarbons (Low Boiling)

Imidazole

Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene

Indole

Ink

Inorganics

Iodine

Iodomethane [Methyl iodide]

Irganox

Iron

Iron oxide

Isoamyl acetate

Isobutyl acetate

Isobutyl Acrylate

Isobutyl alcohol

Isobutyl isobutyrate

Isobutyraldehyde

Isom Reactor

Isooctyl acrylate

Isoparaffinnic hydrocarbons

Isopentane

Isophorone

Isoprene [2-Methyl-1,3-butadiene]

Isopropyl acetate

Isopropyl ether

K-10 Bentonite clay

Kerosene

L-Aspartic acid

L-Limonene

Lanolin

Lauryl methacrylate

Lead

Lead chromate VI oxide

Lead II sulfate

Limonene, racemic mixture [Dipentene]

Lindane [gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane][gamma-BHC]

Lithium fluoride

Loracarbef monohydrate

m-Cresol [3-Methyl phenol]

Magnesium

Magnesium hydrate

Magnesium oxide

Magnesium resinate

Maleic acid

Maleic anhydride

Malic Anhydride

Malononitrile

Manganese

Meat & Meat By-Products

Mercury

Mesityl oxide

Metal Oxides (Zinc, Brass, Aluminum)

Methacrylic acid

Methacrylonitrile

Methacryloyl chloride

Methanol [Methyl alcohol]

Methoxychlor

Methyl acetate

Methyl amyl ketone [2-Heptanone]

Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide

Methyl ethyl ketone [2-Butanone][MEK]

Methyl ethyl ketoxime [2-Butanone oxime]

Methyl formate

Methyl isoamyl ketone [5-Methyl-2-hexanone]

Methyl isobutyl ketone [Hexone][4-Methyl-2-pentanone]

Methyl isobutyrate [2-Methylpropanoic acid methyl ester]

Methyl methacrylate

Methyl naphthalenes

Methyl parathion

Methyl tert-butyl ether

Methylchrysene (Total)

Methylcyclohexane

Methylene chloride [Dichloromethane]

Mica

Mineral oil, light and heavy

Mineral spirits

Mirror Backing

Misc. Chlorinated Organics

Mixed Alcohols

Mixed Esters & Diols

Molybdenum

Morpholine

Mycelia Solids

n-Amyl alcohol [1-Pentanol]

n-Butyl-n-butyrate

n-Butyl acetate

n-Butyl alcohol [n-Butanol]

n-Butyl bromide

n-Butyl formate

n-Butyraldehyde [Butanal]

N-Ethyl morpholine

n-Heptane

n-Hexane

N-Methyldiethanolamine

N-Methylpyrrolidone [1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone]

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine [Di-n-propylnitrosamine]

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine [Diphenylnitrosamine]

n-Octyl mercaptan [1-Octanethiol]

n-Propyl acetate

n-Propyl alcohol [n-Propanol]

n-Propylamine [1-Propanamine]

n-tert-Butylphenol-formaldehyde polymer

n-Vinyl-Caprolactam

N-(1-Ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl benzamine

Naphtha [Petroleum benzin]

Naphthalene

Naphtha, light steam-cracked aromatic, piperylene conc. polymd.

Natural rubber [Polyisoprene]

Neopentyl glycol

Neopentyl glycol gylcidyl ether

Nickel

Nickel hydroxide

Nicotinonitrile [3-Pyridinecarbonitrile]

Nitrates

Nitrobenzene

Nitrogen

Nitromethane

Nitrotoluene

Nonyl phenol

N,N'-Dimethyl acetamide

N,N-Diethyl aniline

N,N-Dimethyl-N-octylamine

N,N-Dimethyl formamide

o-Cresol [2-Methyl phenol]

o-Toluidine [2-Methylaniline]

o-Xylene [1,2-Dimethylbenzene]

Octadecyl acrylate

Octadecyl isocyanate

Octadecyl methacrylate

Octane

Octane sulfonic acid sodium salt monohydrate

Oily sludge

Oil/Oils

Organic Esters

Organic Nitrogen

Organic Residues

Organic Tar & Salts

Organophillic clay

Other Misc Organics

Other Organics

Other Polymers

Oxazole

Oxygen

o,p'-DDD

o,p'-DDE [o,p'-TDE]

o,p'-DDT

p-Chloro-m-cresol

p-Chloroaniline [4-Chloroaniline]

p-Chlorophenol

p-Cresol [4-Methyl phenol]

p-Nitrobenzoic acid

p-Toluidine [4-Methylaniline]

Paint

para-Nitrobenzyl bromide

para-Nitrobenzyl ester of PVSO

para-Toluene sulfonic acid

Paraffinic Olefinic Hydrocarbons

PCB's

Peatanane Tech Normal

PECDFS

Pendimethalin

Pentachlorobenzene

Pentachlorobutadiene

Pentachloroethane

Pentachlorophenol [PCP]

Pentaerythritol tetraacrylate

Pentane

Petroleum distillate

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Petroleum resins

Petroleum Sludges

Petroluem naphtha [Ligroin]

Phenacetin

Phenanthrene

Phenol

Phenol-formaldehyde polymer

Phenoldisulfonic acid

Phenolic Resin

Phenothiazine

Phenyl acetate

Phenylacetic acid

Phenylenediamine, mixed isomers

Phenylenedicarbonyl

Phorate

Phosgene [Carbonic dichloride]

Phosphoric acid

Phosphorus

Phthalazine

Phthalic

Phthalic anhydride

Pigment Blue

Pivalic acid [Trimethyl acetic acid]

PNA'S

Polyacrylic acid [2-Propenoic acid homopolymer]

Polyamide Resin

Polybutylene

Polychloroprene

Polymer

Polymethylene [Isocyanic acid, polymethylenepolyphenylene ester]

Polypropylene glycid glycerol triether

Polypropylene glycol

Polystryene

Polytetrahydrofuran

Polyurethane

Polyurethane resin

Poly(alpha-methylstyrene)

Poly(ethylene terephthalate)

Poly(isoprene) [Rubber]

Potassium acetate

Potassium chloride

Potassium hydroxide

Potassium sulfate

Potassium tetrafluoroborate

Potassium tetrathionate

Production Intermediates

Propyl cellosolve

Propylene glycol methyl ether

Propylene glycol methyl ether acetate

Propylene glycol monopropyl ether

Propylene glycol [1,2-Propane diol]

PYRANS

Pyrene

Pyridine

Pyridoxal-5'-phosphate

p,p'-DDD

p,p'-DDE [p,p'-TDE]

p,p'-DDT

Quartz

Quinoline

Quinone [p-Benzoquinone]

R-11

Rags/Filters

Refractory Brick

Resin acids and Rosin acids, hydrogenated, esters with glycerol

Rosin

Salicyclic acid

Sand/Silica/Glass

sec-Butylamine

Selenium

Silane [Silicon hydride]

Silica gel

Silica [Silicon oxide]

Silica, amorphous [Silica, vitreous]

Silicon

Silicon carbide

Silicon tetrachloride

Silicone oil

Silicones, all

Siloxanes & silicones

Silver

Silvex [2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid][2,4,5-TP]

Sodium

Sodium azide

Sodium bicarbonate

Sodium bromide

Sodium carbonate

Sodium chloride

Sodium cyanide

Sodium hydroxide

Sodium hypochlorite

Sodium iodide

Sodium lactate

Sodium lauryl sulfate

Sodium methylate [Sodium methoxide]

Sodium nitrate

Sodium phosphate dibasic

Sodium phosphate dibasic, 7-hydrate

Sodium phosphate monobasic

Sodium Salts Of Organic Acids

Sodium sulfate

Sodium trifluoroacetate

Solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic

Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic

Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aromatics

Solvent naphtha (petroleum), medium aliphatic

Solvents

Soybean oil

Sterigmatocystin

Stoddard solvent

Streptomycin sulfate

Stryene-isoprene copolymer

Styrene-butadiene polymer

Styrene [Vinyl benzene][Phenylethylene]

Succinonitrile [Butanedinitrile]

Sulfate

Sulfide

Sulfur

Sulfur dioxide

Sulfuric acid

Talc

Tar

TCDFS

Terbufos

Terephthalic acid [1,4-Benzenedicarboxyllic acid][p-Phthalic acid]

Terpene hydrocarbons

Terphenyl, hydrogenated

tert-Amyl alcohol [2-Methyl -2-butanol][tert-Pentanol]

tert-Butanol [2-Methyl-2-propanol]

tert-Butyl phenol

Tetrabutyl ammonium hydroxide

Tetrachloroethylene [Perchloroethylene]

Tetraethylamine

Tetraethylene glycol Diacrylate

Tetraethylene pentamine

Tetrahydrofuran

Texanol [Propanoic acid, 2-methyl, monoester with
2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol]

Thallium

Thioacetamide

Thiomethanol [Methyl mercaptan][Methanethiol]

Thiram [Thiuram][Tetramethylthiuram disulfide]

Tin

Tin Hydroxide

Titanium

Titanium dioxide

Titanium dioxide, anatase form

Toluene [Methylbenzene]

Toluenediamine [Diaminotoluene]

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Toxaphene [Chlorinated camphene]

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene [trans-1,3-Dichloropropene]

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene

Tributylamine

Trichloroethylene

Trichlorofluoromethane [Trichloromonofluoromethane][CFC-11]

Trichloromethane-deuterated [Chloroform-D]

Triethylamine

Triethylamine Acetate

Triethylenetetramine [Trientine]

Trifluoroacetic acid

Trifluralin

Trimethyl phosphate

Trimethylated silica

Trimethylol propane acetate

Trimethylol propane diallyl ether

Trimethylol propane [2-Ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol]

Triphenyl phosphite

Tris Buffer

Tris Buffer W/EDTA 7-Molar Urea

Turpene resin

Turpentine

Ultimate residue

Undecane

Unknown Heavy Ends

Unleaded Gasoline, Rust, Scale, Water

Unspecified Hydrocarbons

Unspecified Organics

Urea

Urethane Polymer

V-PNB Furan

Vanadium

Vanadium Pentoxide

Vermiculite

Vinyl acetate

Vinyl chloride [Chloroethylene][Ethylene Chloride]

Vinyltrimethoxysilanes

Waste Oil

Water

White mineral oil [Paraffin oil]

Xylenes, mixed isomers [Xyenes, total]

Zinc

Zinc oxide

Zinc resinate

Zinc stearate

(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-1,2-benzenediol

(Z)(Z)-2,4-Hexadiene

>C6 Alkenes/Alkenes

Appendix B

Unit Costs for Estimating Affected Industry Baseline RCRA Regulatory
Burden

(Pre-Rule)

B0.	Regulatory Burden Labor Wage Rates

Many of the baseline RCRA regulatory administrative burden elements
consist of labor burden cost.  Thus, a beginning point for estimating
regulatory burden unit costs, is to obtain data on labor unit costs
(i.e., hourly wage rates) to be applied in this RIA (see Exhibit B1
below).  It should be noted that this RIA applies in Appendix C, these
same labor unit costs for the purpose of estimating the
administrative-(paperwork) type conditions of the DSW final rule
exclusions.

Exhibit B1

Labor Wage Rates (2007 $/hour)

Note: These same labor wage rates are also applied in Appendix C to this
RIA

A	B	C	D	E	F (D x E)

Item	Labor Category	National Compensation Survey Category*	Labor Loading
Multipliers (Benefits* + Overhead**)	Unloaded Labor Rate ($/hour)***
Loaded Labor Rate

(2007 $/hour)

1	Office Manager	Managers & Administrators, not elsewhere classified
(nec)	43.4% + 43.6% = 87.0%	$44.00	$90.61

2	Field/ Process Technician	Furnace, kiln, & oven operators, except food
46.7% + 43.6% = 90.3%	$14.91	$31.41

3	Project Manager	Supervisors, production	43.4% + 43.6% = 87.0%	$22.92
$47.20

4	Drafting	Drafter	39.8% + 43.6% = 83.1%	$22.20	$44.57

5	Staff Engineer	Chemical Engineer	39.8% + 43.6% = 83.1%	$38.87	$78.03

6	Legal	Lawyer	39.8% + 43.6% = 83.1%	$58.07	$116.58

7	Clerical	Administrative support including clerical	42.6% + 43.6% =
86.2%	$15.08	$30.88

Explanatory Notes:

* Source for benefits loading factor: US Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, USDL 05-432, March 16, 2005.

** Source for overhead loading factor: Overhead consists of 12% G&A
overhead + 16.6% fixed overhead + 5% insurance + 10% profit estimated
using RACER 2005 defaults (Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements
cost estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm).  General &
administrative (G&A) cost overhead can include expenses such as human
resources, payroll, accounting, sales personnel, executive salaries,
legal fees, office supplies, equipment, communications, administrative
buildings, office space, travel, subscriptions, and other overhead items
related to administrative activities that support operating (production)
labor.  Fixed overhead can include a proportion of the cost of building
services (e.g., medical, safety, recreation, general engineering,
general plant maintenance, janitorial, and cafeteria), electricity,
heating, interplant transportation, warehouses, shipping and receiving
facilities, insurance, and other resources shared throughout the
organization in support of operating labor.

*** Unloaded labor wage rate: US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor
Statistics “National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the
United States”,   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm" 
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm 

B1.	EPA ID Number

This RCRA regulatory baseline cost was not estimated in this RIA,
because this RIA assumes that obtaining a USEPA ID number is an
historical one-time sunk cost for all affected RCRA-regulated facilities
included in the datasets used for this RIA.  This RIA does not attempt
to simulate the future annual numbers of new facilities which may begin
generating or recycling or disposing RCRA-regulated hazardous wastes, or
which may begin generating or recycling DSW-excluded hazardous secondary
materials.

B2.	40 CFR 262.34(g) (LQGs) & 262.34(d) (SQGs) & 264.16 (TSDFs)
Personnel Training

Training includes costs for manifesting and hazardous materials handling
training.  These costs are assumed to be incurred for all LQGs and SQGs.
 Facilities classified as CESQGs were not assumed to have training costs
for manifesting as these facilities are not required to manifest wastes
generated or the resulting manifest reporting/storage requirements. 
CESQGs were excluded from hazardous materials handling training as
described in 40 CFR 262.16 Subpart B.  The hazardous materials handling
training requirements for LQGs and SQGs include on-the-job training for
emergency response and inspection of emergency response equipment.

Manifest training is estimated to cost $335 per year (2007$).  Training
costs include an estimated 4.0 hours every 3-years for a process
technician and a manager (assuming a 3-year capital recovery factor
(CRF) at 7% is 0.38105).  A turn over of the process technician is
assumed to occur once every 4-years (assumed a 4-year CRF at 7% is
0.29523); seven years for the manager (assumed a 7 year CRF at 7% is
0.18555).  Each year 0.6 hours are included for administrative
requirements associated with the training (i.e., updating records,
refresher/new class scheduling, etc.).  The class training cost per
trainee is estimated as $100 based on current pricing for the training
services from on-line providers.  This unit cost is based on USEPA
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.10
Hazardous Waste Generator Status, January, 2008.

Hazardous materials handling training is estimated to cost $847 per year
for SQGs (2007$) and $2,726 per year for LQGs (2007$).  Training costs
for SQGs include an estimated eight hours per year each for a process
technician and a manager.  Training costs for LQGs include an estimated
eight hours per year each for four process technicians, a manager, and a
branch manager.  Each year 0.6 hours are included for administrative
requirements associated with the training (i.e., updating records,
refresher/new class scheduling, etc.).  The class training cost per
trainee is estimated as $100 based on current pricing for the training
services from on-line providers.  This unit cost is based on USEPA
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.10
Hazardous Waste Generator Status, January, 2008.

B3.	40 CFR 262.40 (Generators), 263.22 (Transporters), & 264.74 (TSDFs)
RCRA Recordkeeping

These costs are assumed to be direct labor costs for a staff engineer to
conduct annual record keeping associated with RCRA hazardous waste
management.  Labor hours and labor cost (2007$) are estimated based on
DPRA professional judgment:

CESQGs = 3.0 hours at a cost of $234 per year per-facility

SQGs = 6.0 hours at a cost of $468 per year per-facility

LQGs = 9.0 hours at a cost of $702 per year per-facility

B4.	Manifest Exception Reports

This RCRA regulatory baseline cost was not estimated in this RIA because
it is an unpredictable, infrequent occurrence.

B5.	40 CFR 262.41 (LQGs) & 40 CFR 264.75 (TSDFs) RCRA Biennial Reporting

Biennial reporting as well as other generator recordkeeping and
reporting is required for all LQGs and TSDFs.  There are no reporting
Biennial reporting requirements for SQG or CESQG facilities.  Annual
costs for biennial reporting is estimated to cost $364 for a LQG
facility (2007$).  The average facility is estimated to fill out 11 GM
forms for the reporting cycle.  The reporting labor is estimated at 1.37
hours of a project manger level, 3.57 hours of a staff engineer level,
and 0.61 hours of clerical labor.  This activity along with manifest and
annual reporting of recycling activity requirements covers the costs for
documenting two other conditions - “no land placement” and “track
offsite shipments”.  This unit cost is based on Supporting Statement
for USEPA Information Collection Request Nr. 976.13 “The 2007
Hazardous Waste Report,” September 18, 2007

B6.	40 CFR 264 Subparts I to DD (TSDF) Storage Requirements for
Accumulated Hazardous Waste

This RIA assumes that plant and equipment investments for both hazardous
waste and “hazardous secondary materials” storage are sunk costs, so
no incremental effect (i.e., cost savings) is estimated in this RIA for
the DSW final rule exclusions.

B7.	40 CFR 270 RCRA “Part B” TSDRF Permit Renewal Costs

Savings to onsite and offsite recyclers may result from no longer
needing to renew their 40 CFR 270 RCRA hazardous waste TSDF permits. 
The maximum duration that a RCRA permit is valid is 10 years; therefore,
a TSDRF facility is required to renew the 40 CFR 270 “Part B”
portion of the RCRA permit application a minimum of once every 10 years.
 Recyclers (TSDRFs) who become excluded from RCRA regulation under the
DSW final rule have two options concerning not renewing their RCRA 40
CFR 270 TSDRF permits:

Option 1: the TSDRF may do nothing and just let their permit expire
according to its current 10-year expiration date

Option 2: the TSDRF may file a termination request to the
RCRA-authorized state agency.

This RIA does not assign a cost under option 2, so this RIA assumes
option 1.

	The Part B application is composed of a general facility section and
the technology specific section for storage and/or disposal of the
hazardous waste.  Facilities reclaiming metals, solvents, or acids
onsite may not require a TSDRF permit for their facility or for one or
more particular recycling units at their facility affected by the DSW
rule, as these wastes will no longer be considered solid wastes. 
Therefore, the facility would not be a RCRA TSDRF.  The facilities
potentially affected by the DSW rule would not need to resubmit the Part
B application to renew the TSDRF RCRA permit.

	Costs for preparing and renewing the RCRA Part B application are from
Estimating Costs for the Economic Benefits of RCRA Noncompliance, USEPA
Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Sept 1997,
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/f006/s0004.pdf.  The general
facility portion of the Part B application estimated cost was $43,693
($56,559 inflated to 2007$; inflated from 1994$ to 2002$ using a 1.127
multiplier and inflated from 2002$ to 2007$ using a 1.148646184
multiplier from: Table 1.1.9 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic
Product, Bureau of Economics Analysis last revised January 30, 2008. 
The technology specific section of the permit has estimated costs of
$9,371 ($12,130 inflated to 2007$) for container systems and $8,780
($11,365 inflated to 2007$) for tank systems.

	The update of the Part B application is estimated to cost 25% to 50%
the original preparation cost.  All TSDRF facilities would be required
to submit the general facility portion of the Part B application.  In
general, it is assumed that TSDRF facilities reclaiming metals would
require the container systems technical requirements of the Part B
application and the solvent and acid reclamation facilities would
require the tank system technical requirements of the Part B
application.  Exhibit B3 below provides an estimate of the number of
baseline (pre-rule) RCRA hazardous waste recycling facilities (TSDRFs)
by material type which incur RCRA Subtitle C Part B permit renewal
costs, and which may realize associated Part B cost savings under the
DSW rule.

Exhibit B3

2003 Estimate of the Baseline (Pre-Rule) Count of Offsite Recycling
Facilities

130	25

4	Estimate #1 (maximum estimate):

Total Number of Recycling Facilities Based on Reported Shipments (i.e.,
Row 1 – Row 2 – Row 3)	307	150	113

5	Estimate #2 (minimum estimate):

Total Number of Recycling Facilities Based on Reported Waste Receipts
from Offsite (source: USEPA 2003 RCRA Biennial Report, Exhibit 3.9)	106
47	40

6	Average annualized potential RCRA Part B permit renewal cost savings
per-recycling facility (see text above this Exhibit for data source; the
range reflects the 25% to 50% data source reference range); range
midpoint applied in this RIA	$2,445 to $4,890/year per-facility

[midpoint= $3,668]	$2,418 to $4,836/year per-facility

[mp= $3,627]	$2,418 to $4,836/year per-facility

[mp=$3,627]

7	Potential RCRA Subtitle C Part B Permit Renewal Annual Cost Savings:

Min estimate ((Row 5)x(minimum of Row 6 in same column))

Max estimate ((Row 4)x(maximum of Row 6 in same column))

Range midpoint applied in this RIA	$0.26 to $1.50 million/year

[mp= $0.88 mill/yr]	$0.11 to $0.73 million/year

[mp= $0.42 mill/yr]	$0.10 to $0.55 million/year

[mp= $0.32 mill/yr]



B8.	40 CFR 262 Subpart B (Generators), 263 Subpart B (Transporters) &
264 Subpart E (TSDFs) RCRA Hazardous Waste Shipment Manifests (EPA Form
8700-22)

In general, under the current hazardous waste regulations, wastes are
tracked through the use of a hazardous waste manifest which accompanies
each waste shipment.  Manifesting costs were estimated using the
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number
801.15 "Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management
Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System.", December
30, 2004.  Costs were estimated using the labor rates in Exhibit B1 of
this RIA Appendix, and miscellaneous costs were inflated to 2007$.  The
manifesting cost incurred by the generator per manifest was determined
to be $48 for SQGs and LQGs (2007$).  The cost for non-hazardous
shipping papers under a reclamation agreement were estimated to be
comparable to a SQG’s shipping RCRA manifests.  All pre rule shipments
were assumed to require hazardous waste manifests (including same-NAICS
recycling transportation shipments).  Post-rule shipments are all
assumed to require non-hazardous shipping papers, except for the portion
of the residuals assumed to be characteristically hazardous (95% of
metals recovery residuals, 85% of solvent recovery residuals, and 75% of
acid regeneration residuals).

B9.	Preparedness & Prevention

Preparedness and prevention costs are included in personnel training
(Appendix B, section B2), contingency plan (Appendix B, section B10),
and emergency plan (Appendix B, section B11).

B10.	40 CFR 262.34(g) (LQGs) & 264 Subpart D (TSDFs) Contingency Plan

Contingency planning costs are estimated to cover the requirements as
stated in 40 CFR 264 Subpart D relating to the development of TSDF
contingency plans.  LQGs are required by 40 CFR 262.34(g)(4)(C)(2)(v) to
prepare and maintain the same contingency plan as TSDFs.  The cost
includes labor burden of eight hours for a staff engineer and 3.36 hours
for clerical support for an average per-facility expense of $733/year
(2007$).  This cost is incurred on an annual basis and is based on USEPA
Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 820.10
Hazardous Waste Generator Status, January 2008.

B11.	40 CFR 262.34(g) (LQGs), 262.34(d) (SQGs) & 264 Subpart D (TSDFs)
Emergency Plan

Emergency plan costs are estimated to cover the requirements as stated
in 40 CFR 264 Subpart D relating to the development of a contingency
plan.  LQGs and SQGs are required to prepare and maintain a emergency
plan.  The cost for a LQG facility  includes labor burden of 4.4 hours
for a staff engineer, 0.34 hours for legal review, and 2.16 hours for
clerical support, and $23 in copying and postage, for a total expense of
$481 (2007$).  The cost for a SQG facility  includes labor burden of 1.1
hours for a legal review, 0.1 for a managerial review, and $5 in copying
and postage, for an average per-facility expense of $94 per year
(2007$).  This cost is incurred on an annual basis.  This unit cost is
based on USEPA “Supporting Statement for Information Collection
Request Number 820.10 Hazardous Waste Generator Status”, January 2008.

B12.	Closure

See Appendix C, Section C9.

B13.	Post-Closure

See Appendix C, Section C9.

B14.	Accumulation Time

Unit costs are a combination of hazardous waste disposal, recycling,
transport and testing costs presented in Appendix D, Sections D1 and D3.
 Because hazardous residuals from DSW-excluded recycling still must be
managed in an environmentally-responsible manner, this RIA assumes that
residuals are managed in RCRA Subtitle C units.  Consequently, this
baseline cost element nets-out the estimated future annual cost for
managing as RCRA hazardous wastes, the quantities of future annual
recycling residuals.

Appendix C

Unit Costs for Affected Industries to Meet the 12 Conditions of the DSW
Final Rule Exclusions

(Post-Rule)

C1.	No Speculative Accumulation

The generator status of a facility may change when recycled wastes are
no longer counted as hazardous waste under the DSW exclusion.  The
non-recycled quantity of hazardous waste a facility generates will
determine its post-rule generator status and influence its accumulation
time requirements.  A change in generator status from being a LQG to
either SQG, to CESQG, or to non-generator status, results in longer
accumulation time for residuals and secondary materials from 90 days for
LQGs to 180/270 for SQGs to 360 days as the assumed time limit based on
speculative accumulation requirements for CESQGs.  The extended
accumulation time translates into fewer shipments, fuller truck loads,
and a decreased frequency of minimum disposal/recycling and
transportation charges that result from acceptance of small loads of
wastes/secondary materials.

	Under this existing rule, a material is accumulated speculatively if
the person accumulating it cannot show that the material is potentially
recyclable and has a feasible means of being recycled.  The person
accumulating the material must show that during a calendar year
(beginning January 1) the amount of material that is recycled, or
transferred to a different site for recycling, must equal at least 75%
by weight or volume of the amount of that material at the beginning of
the period.  This provision already applies to secondary materials not
otherwise considered to be wastes when recycled, such as materials used
as ingredients or commercial product substitutes, materials that are
recycled in a closed loop production process, or unlisted sludges and
byproducts being reclaimed.  These restrictions on speculative
accumulation have been an important element of the RCRA recycling
regulations since they were promulgated on January 4, 1985.  In the cost
estimates of this RIA, it is assumed that recycled materials are shipped
offsite at least once per year.

	To estimate the impacts associated with changes in accumulation time,
the following cost elements need to be estimated:

Offsite metal recovery, solvent recovery, other recovery (represented by
acid regeneration as a proxy), and residual hazardous and nonhazardous
landfill costs on a per ton or minimum charge basis to estimate cost
savings resulting from avoided minimum recycling process and handling
charges because larger truck shipments are being received and processed;
and

Disposal transportation, recycling transportation, and waste
characterization testing unit costs and minimum charges to estimate cost
savings resulting from fewer shipments and avoided minimum
transportation charges because larger loads are shipped.

Unit costs are a combination of disposal, recycling, transport and
testing costs presented in Appendix D, Sections D1 and D3.

C2.	Generator Notifies USEPA Initially & Every 2-Years

Based on DPRA professional judgment, costs were estimated for generators
to complete an initial and biennial (every two years) re-notification of
RCRA exclusion for their recycled wastes.  This RIA assumes that each
notification (i.e., initial and subsequent biennial re-notification)
requires a labor burden of:

0.64 hours (38 minutes) project manager

1.06 hours (64 minutes) staff engineer

0.14 hours (8 minutes) clerical support

for an average per-facility labor burden of 1.84 hours (110 minutes) per
notification action.  Multiplying these labor hour estimates by the
respective 2007 wage rates from Exhibit B1 yields an average cost
estimate of $122 for each notification action (2007$).  An additional $5
per notification in miscellaneous copies and postage cost is also
included.  This RIA converts this per notification cost into an average
annualized cost by dividing by two years (i.e., ($122 per notification
action) / (notification required initially and every two years) =
$61/year per facility).

	Note: The assumed identical average labor time per-facility for both
initial notification and re-notification may be a source of cost
over-estimation in this RIA for this condition (i.e., a source of
industry net cost savings under-estimation), as evidenced by two
alternative estimates of notification labor time contained in two
relevant existing “Information Collection Request” (ICR) supporting
statements associated with two existing RCRA-related notification forms:

ICR for RCRA “Notification of Regulated Waste Activity” (EPA Form
8700-12; “Instructions and Form” document dated July 2006 at  
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/form8700/8700-12.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/form8700/8700-12.pdf .  This
ICR estimates “The reporting burden for information collection
requirements associated with initial notification requirements is
estimated to be approximately 2.00 hours [120 minutes]. The burden
estimate includes time for reading the regulations and preparing and
submitting the initial notification. The reporting burden for
information collection requirements associated with subsequent
notification is estimated to be approximately 1.00 hour [60 minutes].
The burden estimate includes time for reading the regulations, preparing
and submitting a subsequent notification.”

ICR for the “RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form“ (EPA Form
8700-13 A/B, revised Oct 2005; available in docket ID nr.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0003 at http://www.regulations.gov): This ICR estimates
20 minutes to prepare a Site ID Form and 10 minutes to update it.  These
numbers are probably more appropriate for this DSW final rule exclusion
condition (rather than the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity
ICR), because the burden estimates in the Biennial Report ICR reflect an
assumption that reporters on a regular submittal cycle will develop
efficiencies from submitting the Site ID form, unlike the Notification
ICR, which does not include this assumption.  One particular efficiency
is that, with notifications submitted on a regular cycle, there will be
fewer updates needed per submittal and hence less time burden in
comparison with notifications occurring more or less randomly as is the
case with notifications addressed by the Notification ICR.  Most of the
data elements are easily collected (e.g., name, address, NAICS code, the
type of exclusion, etc.) and information on regularly submitted forms
will be pre-populated and not need much, if any, updating from cycle to
cycle.  There also will be little or no learning curve for sites from
cycle to cycle.

C3.	Notification Signed by Corporate Official

As an option in addition to the above described one time notification of
exclusion, it is assumed that certification of the one-time notification
of exclusion will take extra time for the generator’s staff engineer
to set up a meeting and brief the generator’s office manager on the
new DSW exclusion rule and the implications of his/her signature on the
one-time notification.  This cost is a one-time initial cost, unless
changes occur in the name, address or USEPA ID number of the facility or
a change in the type of material(s) recycled, which would require
submission of a revised notice with new certification (frequency and
annual count of future re-certifications not estimated in this RIA). 
This RIA estimates an average per-facility labor time burden of:

0.5 hour (30 minutes) office manager

1.0 hour (60 minutes) staff engineer

to acquire a signature by a corporate official, totaling 1.5 hours (90
minutes) average added time per notification for certification. 
Multiplying the labor hour estimates by the respective 2007 labor wage
rates from Exhibit B1 yields an average added cost estimate of $123 for
certification of the one-time notification (2007$).  If added to the
average $122 cost per facility for a one-time notification as estimated
above, yields a one-time certified notification cost estimate of $251
per facility.  Analogous to the method applied in item C2 above, this
RIA converts this $123 certification cost into an average annualized
cost by dividing by two years: (i.e., ($123 per certification action) /
(certification required initially and every two years) = $62/year per
facility).

C4.	Generator Submits Petition to USEPA to Demonstrate Materials are Not
Solid Wastes

A petition to be granted a variance from classification as a solid waste
was estimated using the CFR 260.31(b) and 260.33(a) rules regulating
fertilizer byproducts as a proxy. The labor burden was estimated using
labor hour estimates from the "Supporting Statement for USEPA
Information Collection Request Number 1189.14 Identification, Listing,
and Rulemaking Petitions", September 13, 2004 and the labor rates listed
previously.  A total labor burden of 146 hours for a staff engineer
multiplied by the average labor wage rate for 2007 (from Exhibit B1),
plus additional $22 for copying, shipping and communication cost was
assumed, yielding an average cost estimate of $11,415 per variance.  The
labor burden includes presentation of the following elements: economic
viability of the product; industry wide prevalence of the practice; the
handling of the material prior to reclamation; the time line of storage,
handling, reclamation, and reuse; describe reclamation location and
process; the reuse process; describe the reclaimer/recycler; and any
additional relevant information.

C5.	Maintain Records of All Offsite Shipments for Recycling

Cost for recording and maintaining records of recycling activities are
included in the general administrative duties described above. 
Additional record keeping costs for the DSW rule are not anticipated.

C6.	Confirmation of Shipment Receipt

Costs for generators maintaining records of offsite recycling shipments
and confirmation receipts are included in recordkeeping costs described
in Appendix B, Section B2.

C7.	Recycler Has Liability Insurance for Accidents

This RIA assumes no additional costs will be incurred because all
affected industrial facilities are assumed to currently have liability
insurance for accidents as part of standard industry practice.

C8.	Recycler Has Financial Assurance for Closure

To estimate this condition, financial assurance costs were estimated in
this RIA using the OSW’s Sept 2000 "Unit Cost Compendium" (UCC).  The
costs to determine the financial assurance mechanism, develop the
financial test, setup the surety bond, and estimate the required funds
necessary were annualized over a ten year period using a capital
recovery factor at 15% (i.e., 0.19925).  The costs were inflated from
1999$ to 2005$ using a CPI factor of 1.194.  The annualized set up costs
is estimated as $384 (2005$).  An additional fee for the surety bond is
estimated to cost 1.5% of the value of the following average closure
cost assumptions per-facility, and a $826 (2005$) annual fee for the
bond.  Costs inflated from 2005 to 2007 dollars using Table 1.1.9
Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product, Bureau of Economics
Analysis last revised January 30, 2008 of 1.0591.  (Note: the
“RACER” data reference cited belw = Remedial Action Cost Engineering
Requirements cost estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm):

Metals recycler	$3,340:	Source: RACER 2005: Two 20 foot by 20 foot by 10
feet high holding pads one open side, a cost of high pressure wash at
137.5 SF/hour, $1.76/square foot, $338 Mob/Demob charge.

Solvent recycler	$2,266:	Source: RACER 2005: 2 1000 gallon AST holding
tanks, triple rinse two 55 gallon drums, associated piping.  Pressure
Cleaning, 40 SF per hour, $4.62/sf, $338 Mob/Demob charge.

Acid recycler	$2,266:	Source: RACER 2005: 2 1000 gallon AST holding
tanks, triple rinse two 55 gallon drums, associated piping.  Pressure
Cleaning, 40 SF per hour, $4.62/sf, $338 Mob/Demob charge.

For facilities currently recycling RCRA hazardous waste, the estimate
for the added cost of requiring financial assurance is estimated to be
an average cost of $1,397/year plus 1.5% of closure costs.  Off-site
recyclers are assumed to pass through 100 percent of these costs back to
their customers.  On average, it is estimated that 6.5 generators ship
waste to each recovery facility based on 2003 Biennial Report data. 
Off-site financial assurance and closure costs are divided by 6.5 to
estimate the cost passed through to the generator.

C9.	Materials Must be Contained

This RIA assumes no additional costs because assumes all affected
facilities will ensure containment (a) to avoid CERCLA liability costs,
and (b) to avoid RCRA corrective action for leaks/spills.

C10.	Residuals Derived from Recycling Managed in
Environmentally-Protective Manner

This RIA assumes that future annual generation of hazardous residuals
from DSW-excluded recycling processes will be managed as RCRA hazardous
wastes, according to the baseline RCRA regulatory requirements itemized
in Chapter 6 and in Appendix B (section B14).  Therefore, this RIA
assumes this exclusion condition represents baseline requirements, and
nets-out the continued future cost for managing recycling residuals as
RCRA hazardous wastes, from the Chapter 6 baseline cost that will be
eliminated.

C11.	Generator Exercises Due Diligence Reasonable Efforts to Ensure
Offsite Recycling is Legitimate

A condition for Exclusion 2 is that generators need to exercise due
diligence or reasonable efforts to ensure recycling is legitimate.  This
RIA’s due diligence unit cost estimate is based on the assumption that
the due diligence condition is somewhat similar, but not identical, to
real estate due diligence or facility environmental compliance reviews,
but different in that the generator would not be required to conduct an
actual facility visit and could rely on information provided by the
recycler (e.g., company brochures) and publicly-available information. 
On average, each due diligence event is estimated to require a labor
burden of 20 hours of a staff engineer at the generator facility, plus a
facility environmental data report, per each due diligence event:

Labor:	The generator’s labor cost per event is estimated at ((20 staff
engineer hours/event) x ($78.03/hour labor rate from Exhibit B1)) =
$1,661 per event.

Report:	The facility environmental data report summarizes various
listings of the recycling facility in federal, state, and local
environmental files and databases at an estimated cost of $100 per
event.

For purpose of this RIA, an average annual of one due diligence review
event is assumed to occur for each affected generator facility, at an
estimated average unit cost of $1,761 (2007$) per generator facility
(i.e., $1,661 labor + $100 report).  However, because of the fact that
industrial companies often enter into multi-year contracts and business
relationships with their suppliers and vendors, this unit cost
assumption may be over-estimated in this RIA based on the annually
recurring assumption per generator.  In addition to initial audits,
companies often perform repeat audits on a regular schedule.  Although
the exact period of time between audits can vary depending on factors
such as the nature and complexity of the vendor’s operations, the
relationship between the two companies, or the generator’s access to
audits performed by trade groups or consortiums, re-audits are usually
performed every one to five years.  The midpoint of this re-audit
frequency range is every 3-years, suggesting that this RIA’s annual
re-audit assumption over-estimates the average annual unit cost per
generator by 300% (i.e., (3-years)/(1-year)).

	On the other hand, data collected by OSW from organizations which offer
environmental facility auditing services suggest that the per-event
average unit cost could be higher than the $1,661/event unit cost
estimate of this RIA, ranging between $2,000 to $8,000 per due diligence
event.  Applying the midpoint annual re-audit frequency of 3-years per
generator, to the $2,000 to $8,000 per event unit cost range, provides
an average annualized unit cost range of $670 to $2,670 per year per
generator.  The midpoint of this range is $1,670 per year per generator,
which suggests that the $1,661/year per generator unit cost estimate
developed and applied in this RIA is a reasonable assumption.

C12.	Export of Materials for Recycling Requires Notice & Consent &
Annual Reporting

Costs incurred by generator to notify foreign recycling facility of the
requirements of the DSW exclusions.  This RIA does not estimate the
annual fraction (percentage) of affected hazardous secondary materials
which may be exported for recycling.  However, this is a baseline RCRA
Subtitle C requirement (40 CFR 262.53 & 262.56) so no incremental cost
impact is expected.

Appendix D

Unit Costs for Industrial Disposal & Industrial Recycling

This appendix summarizes methods for estimating several categories of
unit costs:  Industrial disposal, onsite and offsite industrial
recycling, managing industrial recycling residuals, and, finally,
managing and generation of recycling residual waste.

D1.	Industrial Disposal Unit Costs

Unit costs for the year 2005 were reported in RACER 2005 cost estimating
software (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost
estimating system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm)
for RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste commercial landfill disposal costs. 
These unit costs were inflated from 2005 to 2007 dollars using the GDP
Price Deflator from January 2008 (1.059):

The cost reported in ECHOS was inflated to $223 per ton for bulk
hazardous waste with stabilization (2007$).

RCRA Subtitle D non-hazardous waste commercial landfill costs were
estimated using the National Solid Wastes Management Association 2004
annual survey.The US national average tipping fee for non-hazardous
disposal was reported as $37 per ton in bulk quantities inflated to 2007
dollars.

Earl Finnder of the US Filter Company estimated that electroplaters pay
approximately $260 to $300 per ton for Subtitle C landfill disposal.

The RACER 2005 unit cost was used as an average disposal cost for
hazardous waste.  The RACER 2005 disposal cost for hazardous is
presented as a 30-city average of US major cities.  The landfill
disposal costs assumed under baseline are presented in Exhibit D1 below.
 A minimum charge for hazardous waste disposal is estimated as half a
full load (nine tons) at $2,004.  No minimum charge is assumed for the
disposal of waste in RCRA Subtitle D landfills as there is no regulation
of non-hazardous waste storage times; therefore, each non-hazardous
waste load will be a full 18-ton load (see Exhibit D1 for unit costs). 
The cost estimates for landfill management are overstated, particularly
for smaller generators, because other forms of hazardous waste are
usually generated by a single facility.  These wastes may be shipped
with the reclaimable waste to the landfill in the same truck if the
wastes are compatible, resulting in lower per-unit transportation costs
due to a generator’s ability to take advantage of economies-of-scale
and avoid incurring the minimum landfill charge on multiple loads.



Exhibit D1

RCRA Subtitle C & Subtitle D Landfill Unit Costs (2007$)



Cost Element 	

($/ton)



Subtitle C Landfill with Stabilization 1	

$223/ton ($2,004 minimum charge)



Subtitle D Landfill 2	

$37/ton



1 Costs inflated from 2005 dollars to 2007 dollars.

2 Costs inflated from 2004 dollars to 2007 dollars.



Transportation Costs

Exhibit D2 below presents estimates of hazardous waste transportation
costs (excluding manifesting costs which are estimated separately) based
on unit costs reported in RACER 2005 cost estimating software for van
trailers and tanker trucks (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering
Requirements cost estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm).  These unit costs
were inflated from 2005 to 2007 dollars using the GDP Price Deflator
from January 2008 (1.059).  Costs are based on distance and maximum
truck load size of 18 tons for van trailers and 5,000 gallons for tanker
trucks.  A minimum of four loads per year is assumed based on the
maximum accumulation period of 90 days for hazardous waste landfill
disposal and 180 days for recycling based on accumulation time
regulations.  Otherwise, the number of loads per year is calculated by
dividing the total annual generation quantity by the assumed maximum
truck load size of 18 tons.  The RACER 2005 shipment fee of $1,000
(2007$) is used to determine transportation unit costs below 200 miles
for hazardous waste.  For example, the transportation cost for shipping
waste 100 miles is calculated by dividing the minimum shipment fee by
100 miles ($1,000/100 miles = $10.00/mile).  Shipping distances vary
when shipping to Subtitle C landfills (338 mile average) compared to
recycling facilities (521 mile average).  The distances presented
reflect estimates for shipments of F006 wastes from the USEPA December
2001 draft report, Evaluation of Cost and Economic Impacts of F006
Recycling Rulemaking Options, for landfill and metals recovery
facilities as a proxy for the transportation distances within the same
industry (4-digit NAICS code) and residual disposal.

	Non-hazardous waste transportation costs (excluding manifesting costs)
also were estimated based on bulk hazardous waste transportation cost
reported in RACER 2005.  Costs are based on distance and maximum load
size of 18 tons.  Due to the relatively close transportation distances
estimated for RCRA Subtitle D landfills, a unit cost of $3.30 per mile
($0.183 per ton-mile) was used.  The transportation cost is estimated to
be less than the hazardous transportation unit cost due to the regularly
scheduled, full 18-ton, bulk non-hazardous waste shipments.  For
non-hazardous waste and post-rule recycling, no minimum number of loads
is assumed.  The number of shipments per year is calculated by dividing
the total annual generation quantity by the assumed maximum truck load
size of 18 tons.

Exhibit D2

Waste Transportation Unit Costs (2007$)



Cost Element	

Baseline

	

Van Trailer	

Tanker Truck



Loading/Unloading

Hazardous Waste Minimum Charge

Hazardous Waste Shipping

       200-299 miles

       300-399 miles

       400-499 miles

       500-599 miles

       600-699 miles

       700-799 miles

       800-899 miles

       900-999 miles

       1,000+ miles

Non-Hazardous Waste	

$37.89/ton

$1,063/shipment

$4.06/mile

$3.76/mile

$3.39/mile

$3.21/mile

$3.16/mile

$3.03/mile

$3.03/mile

$3.31/mile

$3.17/mile

$3.30/mile	

$50.20/ton

$1,000/shipment

$3.77/mile

$3.26/mile

$3.31/mile

$3.40/mile

$3.21/mile

$3.13/mile

$3.09/mile

$3.08/mile

$3.04/mile

POTW discharge



Weighted transportation costs are presented in Exhibits D3 and D4:

Transport to Subtitle C landfills:	The weighted average transportation
unit cost to Subtitle C landfill is $6.34/mile and the weighted average
distance is 338 miles.

Transport to solvent recycling:		The weighted average transportation
unit cost to a solvent recovery facility is $10.03/mile and the weighted
average distance is 521 miles.

Transport to Subtitle D landfills:	The assumed average transportation
unit cost to a Subtitle D landfill is $3.30/mile and an average distance
of 50 miles.

Transport to Fuel blending:		The assumed average transportation unit
cost to a fuel blending facility is $4.24/mile and an average distance
of 577 miles.

Transport to acid recovery:		The assumed average transportation unit
cost to an acid recovery/acid neutralization facility is $4.10/mile and
an average distance of 405 miles.

Transport to metals recycling:		The estimates for metals recovery
distances from facilities identified in the USEPA report “Evaluation
of Cost and Economic Impacts of F006 Recycling Rulemaking Options”
from December 2001 were used to model recycling and RCRA Subtitle C
landfill distances.

Transportation distances for fuel blending, and acid recovery/acid
neutralization were determined after review of 1999 Biennial Report data
of facilities shipping the wastes and the receiving facilities.  A
distribution for shipping was generated using potential transportation
ranges of 250, 350, 450, 550, 650, 750, 850, 950, and 1050 miles:

For waste streams with facilities tending to ship within-state the
transportation distribution was skewed to the 250 and 350 mile range.

For waste streams with facilities tending to ship out-of-state the
transportation distribution was skewed to the 450 and 650 mile range.

An average distance of 1,000 miles for incineration managed waste
streams was estimated due to the limited number of facilities available
providing the service.  Based on a review of the 1999 Biennial Report
data, no incineration managed waste streams were shipped within state.

Exhibit D3

Weighted Average Transportation Unit Costs to Subtitle C Landfills for
SIC 3471 Generators (2007$)

Percentile

(%)	Distance to Landfill or Stabilization for Top 95% of Waste Shipped

(miles, n = 75)	Average Distance per 10th Percentile

(miles)	Weighted Distance to Subtitle C Landfill (miles)	Unit Cost

($/mile)	Weighted Unit Price ($/mile)

0	38	---	---	---	---

10	129	83.5	8.35	$13.48	$1.35

20	147	138	13.8	$8.16	$0.82

30	166	156.5	15.65	$7.19	$0.72

40	175	170.5	17.05	$6.60	$0.66

50	234	204.5	20.45	$5.50	$0.55

60	283	258.5	25.85	$4.98	$0.50

70	348	315.5	31.55	$4.52	$0.45

80	434	391	39.1	$4.37	$0.44

90	636	535	53.5	$3.65	$0.37

100	1627	1,131.5	113.15	$3.38	$0.34

Total =

338.45

$6.34



Exhibit D4

Weighted Average Transportation Unit Costs to Metals Recovery (Secondary
Smelting) for SIC 3471 Generators1  (2007$)

Percentile

(%)	Distance to Metals Recovery Facilities for Top 95% of Waste Shipped

(miles, n = 51)	Average Distance per 10th Percentile

(miles)	Weighted Distance to Metals Recovery

(miles)	Unit Cost

($/mile)	Weighted Unit Price ($/mile)

0	7	---	---	---	---

10	32	19.5	1.95	$56.78	$5.68

20	193	112.5	11.25	$9.84	$0.98

30	231	212	21.2	$5.22	$0.52

40	329	280	28.0	$4.35	$0.43

50	372	350.5	35.05	$4.23	$0.42

60	481	427	42.7	$3.91	$0.39

70	567	524	52.4	$3.69	$0.37

80	846	706.5	70.65	$3.43	$0.34

90	1,253	1,049.5	104.95	$3.20	$0.32

100	1,802	1,527.5	152.75	$3.13	$0.31

Total =

520.9

$10.03

1 These values were used as a proxy for metals recovery distances and
transportation unit costs.



Waste Characterization Testing

Ongoing characterization of hazardous waste and recycled materials is
estimated to include sampling labor burden and waste characterization
analytical costs.  The sampling is estimated to require a labor burden
of 2 hours of field technician labor.  The analytical costs were
estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software at a cost of $284
per sample (2007$).  One sample is collected for each waste or recycled
materials load for a total cost of $346 (2007$).  Note: RACER = Remedial
Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm.D2.	Offsite
Industrial Recycling Unit Costs

Offsite Metal Recycling

Recycling cost estimates were taken from a previous USEPA rulemaking
titled Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Rule for a 180-Day
Accumulation Time for F006 Wastewater Treatment Sludges, 12 Jan 2000;
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/f006/s0001.pdf.  In that RIA
recycling costs for recovering metals from F006 wastewater treatment
sludges were estimated from 1993 cost data provided in Exhibit 7-1 of
Cushnie, George C., CAI Engineering, "Pollution Prevention and Control
Technology for Plating Operations," prepared for NCMS/NAMF.

	Exhibit D12 below presents the estimate from the above report for the
metal recycling unit costs being paid by F006 sludge generators. 
Transportation costs were subtracted from the estimated recycling costs.
 1997 unit transportation prices reported in Environmental Cost Handling
Options and Solutions (ECHOS), Environmental Remediation Cost Data-Unit
Price, 4th Annual Edition, published by R.S. Means and Delta
Technologies Group, Inc., 1998, were used to estimate transportation
costs in that analysis.  Differences in average unit recycling costs in
Exhibit D12 are the result of variability in the amount various
recyclers charge generators.  A major factor contributing to the
differences in recycling costs is metal content (i.e., concentration and
type of metals present in the waste).  The generally lower costs for the
small facilities that recover metals may be due to the fact that these
facilities tend to generate single-metal wastes which are more amenable
to recycling.

	In OSW’s F006 180-Day Accumulation Final Rule 2000 RIA
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/f006/s0001.pdf), an average
unit recycling cost of $0.20/lb was assumed as an upper-end typical
price charged by a metals recovery facility based on the 1993 data
provided in Cushnie.  One recycler that was contacted provided an
average 1998 price of approximately $0.10/lb. For that analysis, impacts
are evaluated based on average recycling prices ranging from $0.10/lb to
$0.20/lb ($200/ton to $400/ton).  In some cases, when the metal value is
very high, the charges can be somewhat lower.  Minimum charges are at
least sometimes avoided when the recycler actually picks up the F006
electroplating wastewater treatment sludge directly from the generator. 
For purposes of this rule making, a unit cost of $345 per ton (2007$) is
assumed for commercial metals recovery.  This value is the mid-point of
the estimated range of $200/ton to $400/ton range inflated from 2002$ to
2007$.  The commercial unit cost is assumed to include all capital and
annual expenditures necessary for the metals recovery system.  Metal
salvage value was considered separate from the recycling unit cost.

	No minimum charge is assumed for transfers of bulk shipments within the
same company.  It is assumed that transfers are typically occurring
within the same parent company and that they would not charge a minimum
fee, unlike a commercial metal recovery facility.  A commercial offsite
metal recovery facility will have a minimum charge of approximately half
of a full load (nine tons) for accepting small waste quantities for
recycling.  The minimum charge is estimated to be $3,101 (9 tons x
$345/ton).  The minimum charge equates to $0.17/lb for a 9-ton load,
$0.52 per pound for a 3-ton load, and $1.55 per pound for a 1-ton load
which are in the range of values reported by F006 recyclers in Exhibit
D12 if the unit costs are inflated from 1993$ to 2007$.  A minimum
recycling charge is applied in the cost estimate if the generator ships
less than 9 tons per truck load to the recycling facility at the end of
its accumulation time period.  Changes in generator status pre- and
post-rule will allow longer accumulation time periods resulting in
larger truck loads and fewer minimum charges.  Shipments above 9 tons
are charged $345/ton.

Exhibit D12

Estimated Offsite Metals Recycling Costs (1993$)

Generator Type* & Waste Shipment Average Size	No. of unit cost data
points	Average truckload size (tons/load)	Transport

average unit cost	Offsite Recycling

average unit cost



	($/lb)	($/ton)	($/lb)	($/ton)

Small LQG - small shipment

(<13.2 tons/year)	31	1 ton	$0.49	$980	$0.02	$40

Small LQG - large shipment

(13.2 to <60 tons/year)	36	3 tons	$0.11	$220	$0.20	$400

Large LQG shipment

(60 tons/year or greater)	20	9 tons	$0.06	$120	$0.17	$340

Average of three shipment size categories =	(1+3+9)/3 =

4.3 tons	$0.15	$300	$0.22	$440

Explanatory Notes:

* Assumes all facilities are LQGs and ship 4 times per year.  This data
may include SQGs which ship at a maximum of 2 times per year.  If these
facilities are SQGs, the average transport unit cost is $0.25/lb and
average recycling unit cost is $0.26/lb  Assumptions:

Step 1:	Used 1993 cost data provided in Exhibit 7-1 of Cushnie, George
C., CAI Engineering, "Pollution Prevention and Control Technology for
Plating Operations," prepared for NCMS/NAMF.

Step 2:	Eliminated seven data records from Cushnie that do not provide
either shipping distance, quantity shipped, or unit cost.  Based on
inspection, four records eliminated as statistical outliers.

Step 3:	Assumed the following distances:  

Category < 500 miles = 250 miles, 

Category 500 to 1,000 miles = 750 miles, 

Category 1,000 to 1,500 miles = 1,250 miles, 

Category 1,500 to 2,000 miles = 1,750 miles, and 

Category 2,000 to 2,500 miles = 2,250 miles.

Step 4:	Assumed LQG and 90-day storage if > 26,400 lbs generated
annually.

Step 5:	Assumed a full shipment size of 15 tons based upon USEPA’s
Common Sense Initiative report.

Step 6:	Assumed minimum of 4 shipments/year (i.e., 90-day storage limit)
for LQGs.

Step 7:	Used 1998 ECHOS transportation unit price estimates ($/mile) for
van trailer transportation of hazardous waste.  Assume transportation
prices have not changed significantly since 1993 given that increased
labor costs are likely being balanced by historically low fuel costs.

Step 8:	Used 1998 ECHOS minimum charge for van trailer transportation of
small hazardous waste loads of $732 per shipment as a minimum cost. 
Assumed $2.64/each super-sack for loading on to the truck.  Assumed
transportation prices have not changed significantly since 1993 given
that increased labor costs are likely being balanced by historically low
fuel costs.



Offsite Solvent Recycling (Distillation) Costs

Commercial offsite solvent recovery costs were developed using US Army
Corp of Engineers Public Works Technical Bulletin 200-01-04, 19 Aug 1999
(USACE Tech Bulletin).  Recycling costs include handling and
transportation of the solvent waste stream.  The cost estimate is a
service contract with one recycling facility for annual management of
1,000 gallons at a cost of $4.23 per gallon ($976/ton, 2007$).

	No minimum charge is assumed for transfers of bulk shipments within the
same company.  It is assumed that transfers are typically occurring
within the same parent company and that they would not charge a minimum
fee, unlike a commercial metal recovery facility.  A commercial offsite
solvent recovery facility will have a minimum charge of approximately
half of a full load (2,500 gallons or 10.425 tons) for accepting small
waste quantities for recovery.  The minimum charge is estimated to be
$10,171 (10.425 tons x $975.65/ton).  A minimum recycling charge is
applied in the cost estimate if the generator ships less than 10.425
tons per truck load to the recycling facility at the end of its
accumulation time period.  Changes in generator status pre- and
post-rule will allow longer accumulation time periods resulting in
larger truck loads and fewer minimum charges.  Shipments above 10.425
tons are charged $976 per ton.

Offsite Acid Recycling Costs (Used in this RIA as Proxy for Other Types
of Recycling)

Other recycling includes a mixture of waste forms.  In 2003, the
predominant waste forms recycled include very dilute aqueous waste
(W101), spent concentrated acid (W103), other organic liquid (W219),
contaminated soil (W301), batteries, battery parts, cores, casings
(W309), and other sludges from wastewater treatment or air pollution
control (W504).  The largest quantity waste form is other organic liquid
(W219) which is dominated by one waste stream that involves a
“catoxid” reactor system that converts miscellaneous organic liquids
into hydrochloric acid to be used in making ethylene dichloride.  The
second largest quantity waste form are very dilute aqueous waste (W101)
which primarily involves the recycling of water at wood preserving
plants.  The remaining four waste forms are reported in relatively equal
quantities.  Acid regeneration is used as a proxy for the cost of other
recycling category given spent concentrated acid (W103) is a predominant
waste form and that most of the largest quantity waste form (W219)
involves the generation of hydrochloric acid.

	Commercial offsite acid recovery costs were estimated using Pilot of
the Pollution Prevention Technology Application Analysis Template
Utilizing Acid Recovery System prepared by Zero Discharge Technologies,
Inc for the USEPA Region 1, October 1999.  Commercial offsite acid
recovery was estimated using the system capital cost and operation and
maintenance costs curves with an additional 30% for commercial profit. 
A capital cost of roughly $17,500 to $31,800 for recycling systems sized
at 20 and 65 gallons per day (gpd) were utilized for this estimate
(1999$).  A factor of 1.5 was assumed to cover installation and startup
costs for the systems.  An annual expenditure of $639 for operation and
$1,418 for repair and maintenance was estimated per system, respectively
(1999$).  Each system was assumed to operate with a through-put of 25 to
160 tons of acid recoverable waste per year.  Larger systems are
composed of multiple units in 20 and 65 gallon increments.  Smaller
systems would be composed of a 20 gallon unit, with reduced operational
period (see Exhibit D13 for cost equations).  Capital costs were
annualized using a 10-year life for the equipment at a 15% discount
rate.  Costs are assumed to be the same for recycling at offsite
(“sister”) facilities owned by the same company within the same
industry.

	A range of facility sizes for offsite recycling operations was
estimated using 1999 Biennial Report data.  Acid recovery facilities
were identified using the offsite USEPA ID (receiver) of waste streams
with the reported management system of acid recovery (M031).  The
average acid recovery facility size used is 250 tons per year.  A
facility size of 250 tons per year is estimated to have an unit acid
recovery cost of $180 per ton (2007$).  Unit costs for facilities sized
above 250 tons per year begin to reach asymptotic limits, with a minimum
unit cost for acid recovery of approximately $163 tons per year. 
Commercial offsite recovery unit costs do not include transportation and
handling.

	No minimum charge is assumed for transfers of bulk shipments within the
company.  It is assumed that transfers are typically occurring within
the same parent company and that they would not charge a minimum fee,
unlike a commercial metal recovery facility.  A commercial offsite acid
recovery facility will have a minimum charge of approximately 50% a full
load (2,500 gallons or 10.425 tons) for accepting small waste quantities
of waste for recycling.  The minimum charge is estimated to be $1,879
(10.425 tons x $180.25/ton).  A minimum recycling charge is applied in
the cost estimate if the generator ships less than 10.425 tons per truck
load to the recycling facility at the end of its accumulation time
period.  Changes in generator status pre- and post-rule will allow
longer accumulation time periods resulting in larger truck loads and
fewer minimum charges.  Shipments above 10.425 tons are charged $180 per
ton.

Exhibit D13

Estimated Acid Regeneration Offsite Recycling Costs (2007$)

Cost Element 1	Annual Expenditure ($/ton)

Capital Expenditure (Annualized)2	($136.87* (Recycled Waste Quantity) +
$3,105) * 1.30

Operation & Maintenance	($21.33* (Recycled Waste Quantity) + $1,810) *
1.30

1 Costs inflated from 1999$ to 2005$.

2 Costs annualized over 10 years at 15% discount rate using a CRF of
0.19925.



D3.	Unit Costs for Managing Industrial Recycling Residuals

Following most recycling processes, residuals may remain in the
equipment or may be generated as a by-product or co-product that require
disposal via landfilling, incineration, or other disposal method.  These
wastes face handling and characterization costs as well.  These costs
are typically paid by the generators of the residuals, but in the case
of commercial recyclers, the cost for recycling residual management may
be passed-on to their customers who initially generated the waste being
recycled by the commercial recycler.



Landfill Costs

Exhibit D14 summarizes four different unit costs applied in the
breakeven test for estimating disposed waste and residual landfill costs
pre- and post-rule:

Subtitle C landfill with stabilization unit cost has been developed to
estimate management of disposed electroplating wastewater treatment
sludge (F006), spent petroleum refining catalyst (K171 and K172),
lead-bearing materials, and metal recovery residuals.  Unit costs for
2005 were reported in RACER 2005 cost estimating software (RACER =
Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm) for RCRA Subtitle
C commercial landfill disposal costs.  The cost reported in RACER was
$210 per ton for bulk hazardous waste with stabilization (2005$).  The
unit cost was inflated to $223 per ton (2007$) using the GDP Price
Deflator January 2008.  Because the above-mentioned wastes contain
metals, stabilization of these metals is included for meeting land
disposal restriction treatment standards.  The RACER 2005 unit cost was
used as an average disposal cost for hazardous waste.  The RACER 2005
disposal cost for hazardous is presented as a 30 city average of major
cities across the United States.  The landfill disposal costs assumed
under baseline are presented below.  A minimum charge for hazardous
waste disposal is estimated as half a full load (i.e., nine tons = half
load) totaling $2,004 (2007$).

Subtitle D landfill unit cost is used to estimate the disposal cost of
non-hazardous residuals from recovery processes.  RCRA Subtitle D non
hazardous commercial landfill costs were estimated using the National
Solid Wastes Management Association 2004 annual survey.  The national
average tipping fee for non-hazardous disposal was $35 per ton in bulk
quantities ($37 per ton inflated to 2007$).  No minimum charge is
assumed for the disposal of waste in Subtitle D landfills as there is no
regulation of non-hazardous waste storage times; therefore, each
non-hazardous waste load will be a full 18-ton load.

Specialized stabilization technology (Super Detox) by Envirosource is
used for baseline management of electric arc emission control dust
(K061).  USEPA granted a multi-site delisting of this technology in
1995.  Electric arc furnace emission control dust (EAF) K061 waste is
disposed by Envirosource using a stabilization technology called Super
Detox®.  Estimates for disposal of EAF range from $100 to $175 (1999$)
to $150 to $200 (2002$) per ton.  A disposal cost of $150 per ton was
selected based on these numbers and inflated to 2007 dollars ($183 per
ton) from 1999 dollars for this estimate.

Acid hazardous waste landfill unit cost was developed for disposal of
residuals from acid recovery processes.  Acid recovery residual costs
were assumed to be disposed at a hazardous waste landfill.  Unit costs
for off-site residual disposal were estimated using RACER 2005 cost
estimating software.  RACER 2005 lists costs for disposing of acidic
liquid wastes at $1.50 per gallon (2005$).  The residuals density was
assumed to be 1 ton per cubic yard, for a unit cost of $381 per ton
(2007$) using the GDP Price Deflator from January 2008.  A minimum
charge of half a load is assumed for acid liquid waste disposal,
totaling $3,971 (2007$).

Exhibit D14

Recycling Residuals Disposal:

RCRA Subtitle C and Subtitle D Landfill Unit Costs (2007$)

Cost Element1	($/ton)

Subtitle C Landfill with Stabilization 	$223/ton

$2,004 minimum charge

Subtitle D Landfill	$37/ton

EAF Disposal (Super Detox®)	$183/ton

Acid Disposal	$381/ton

$3,971 minimum charge

1  Costs inflated from 1999 dollars to 2007 dollars for EAF disposal and
from 2005 to 2007 dollars for all other costs.



Fuel Blending/Energy Recovery and Incineration

Fuel Blending/Energy Recovery was assumed as the management method for
residuals generated from solvent recovery processes and for the disposal
of organic liquid wastes.  These wastes are assumed to energetic and
have a minimum 4,000 BTU energy value, which would provide for a self
sufficient burn and require less additive fuel for incineration. 
Energetic incineration costs were estimated using RACER 2005 unit costs
(RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements cost estimating
system: http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm) for
incineration of wastes with thermal energy values greater than 2,000 BTU
and the Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of
the Hazardous waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, USEPA OSW,
July 1999.  The reported costs were averaged for an estimated unit cost
of $225 per ton ($2007).  A minimum charge of half a 5,000 gallon tanker
truck or 10.42 ton disposal load was assumed for disposal by
incineration.  The minimum charge is estimated as $2,352 ($2007).  An
incineration unit cost of $571per ton is assumed for bulk materials such
as spent activated carbon.

Waste Shipment Loading/Handling Cost

Cost for loading/handling waste streams and residuals disposed offsite
were estimated based on unit costs reported in the RACER 2005 cost
estimating software (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering
Requirements cost estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm).  Three
waste/residual streams are assumed; solids, sludges, and liquids. 
Solids, such as electric arc furnace dust, can be loaded with front end
loaders into roll-off bins.  Sludges, such as solvent recovery
distillation bottoms, are contained in 55 gallon drums for handling. 
Liquids, such as acid recovery residuals, condensed acids with other
impurities, are pumpable and stored in tanks and containers prior to
loading into a tanker truck.  Solid waste, sludge waste, and liquid
waste loading/handling unit costs are estimated to be $0.47 per ton,
$37.89 per ton, and $50.20 per ton, respectively.

Initial Waste Characterization & Waste Shipment Characterization Costs

Initial characterization: An initial physical and chemical
characterization cost is incurred once for each hazardous waste or
recovered waste.  Generators may no longer incur this cost under the DSW
rule exclusions.  This cost element consists of two sub-elements:

The initial characterization includes a cost of $1,417 for an average 20
hours of staff engineer employee time to collect, prepare, and submit an
average of three analytical samples (i.e., (20 hours) x ($70.83/hour)). 
The estimated labor hours are from “Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 0820.10: Hazardous Waste
Generator Standards”, January 2008.

Average analytical cost of $852/facility for analysis of three samples
(i.e., ($284/sample) x (3 samples)); source: RACER 2005 unit costs
inflated to 2007 dollars (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering
Requirements cost estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm).

The generator per-facility per-waste stream average unit cost annualized
over 3 years at 15% CRF is estimated at $1,056 ($2007) per waste stream.

Shipment characterization:  Waste characterization costs are also
assumed for all recovery or hazardous waste disposal shipments.  As the
number of shipments decrease with longer accumulation times provided by
the DSW exclusions, waste characterization costs may be expected to
decrease.  This cost element consists of two sub-elements based upon
RACER 2005 software:

Average cost of $62 per waste shipment for two hours process technician
labor burden per-shipment to collect, prepare, and submit the analytical
sample (i.e., (2.0 hours) x ($31.41/hour) ($2007).

Average analytical cost of $284 for analysis of each waste stream for
disposal purposes (e.g., TCLPs, BTU values, or other regulated
constituents).

Total cost per shipment for waste characterization is estimated as $346
($2007).

D4.	Methodology for Estimating Industrial Recycling Residual Waste
Generation & Management

This section presents the methodology used to estimate metal, solvent,
and acid recycling waste residual generation quantities and disposal
management practices and recovered product quantities.  It was developed
using 1999 Biennial Report data for the 2003 DSW proposed rule.  Records
in the 1999 Biennial Report for generators reporting waste management
with system types M013 (secondary smelting), M021
(fractionation/distillation), and M031 (acid regeneration) were
reviewed.  Due to the limited number of facilities reporting wastes
managed with system types M013 and M031, all such facilities were
reviewed.  Facilities reporting management by system type M021 were
divided into five groups.  The five groups of facilities are
approximately equal in number with one group containing the smallest
generators based on quantity of waste managed by system type M021, the
next group containing the next smallest generators, and so on. The data
are divided into five groups based on quantity of waste managed to try
and capture any variation in residual generation and management based on
generator size.  Six facilities were randomly selected from each group. 
The groups were divided as follows:

<1.1 tons/year managed

1.1 to 5 tons/year managed

5 to 13.5 tons/year managed

13.5 to 55 tons/year managed

>55 tons/year managed

Exhibit D15 below presents the data results.  The following assumptions
were made regarding the waste recycling processes:

Recycling systems for acid and solvents are closed loop.  That is no
losses from spillage or waste are assumed.  This is a simplification of
the actual process as many processes may include settlement tanks or
other open-air sections that may allow evaporation or spillage.

All ineffective products are removed with the process residuals.  An
effectiveness factor or assay value is included to estimate the
“purity” of the recovered solvent, acid, or metal.

Metals:	For the metals recovery process, 32% of the waste quantity
processed by the metals recovery unit is assumed to be waste residual. 
20% of the waste stream is assumed recovered metal in higher quality
wastes and 5% in lower quality disposed wastes.  The remaining 48% or
63% (for lower quality disposed wastes) of the waste stream mass is
assumed to be components that are volatilized (e.g., water vapor) in the
recycling process.

Solvents:	Mass is assumed to be balanced in the solvent recovery
process.  No additives or precipitants are assumed into the process, or
the change in product/residual mass in comparison to the total mass is
minor.  For the solvent recovery process, 33% of the waste quantity
processed by the recycling unit is assumed to be waste residual.  The
remaining 67% of the waste stream is assumed recovered solvent.

Acids/other:	Mass is assumed to be balanced in the acid recovery
process.  No additives or precipitants are assumed into the process, or
the change in product/residual mass in comparison to the total mass is
minor.  For the acid recovery process, 26% of the waste quantity
processed by the recycling unit is assumed to be waste residual.  The
remaining 74% of the waste stream is assumed recovered acid.



Exhibit D15

Estimate of Hazardous Waste Recycling Residuals as Percentage of Waste
Recycled



Statistical Measures	H010 Metal Recycling	H020 Solvent Recycling	H039
Other recycling



1. No. Data Points	7	

23	

18



2. Range of Percentages	0.42% to 84%	

0.46% to 140%	

0% to 105%



3. Average Percentage (applied in this RIA for impact estimation)	32%	

33%	

26%



4. Standard Deviation	+/-33.92%	

+/-32.13%	

+/-31.92%



Metal recovery:	Total of 19 facilities reporting wastes managed by
secondary smelting (M013).  A total of seven facilities were used in the
percent residual calculation.  Residual waste streams could not be
identified for the remaining facilities.  The management system type
reported for the residuals identified for secondary smelting (M013)
system processes are:

M061 (fuel blending),

M111 (cementitious stabilization)

M112 (other stabilization)

M119 (stabilization - type unknown), and

M132 (landfill).

Five of seven waste generating facilities managed their secondary
smelting residuals by stabilization (M111, M112, and M119).  The likely
final deposition of the stabilized wastes are in a RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste landfill.

Solvent recovery:	Residuals generated by fractionation/distillation
(M021) system processes were reported managed by the following system
types:

M042 (incineration - sludges)

M051 (energy recovery - liquids)

M061 (fuel blending), and

M081 (biological treatment).

A total of 28 facilities were reviewed, of which five facility residual
waste streams could not be identified.  Fuel blending (M061) was
reported by 17 of 22 facilities for management of fraction/distillation
(M021) residuals.  An additional three facilities managed
fractionation/distillation residuals by other co-burning or incineration
systems (M042 and M051).  The likely final disposition of
fractionation/distillation residuals is energy recovery.

Acid recovery:		Residuals generated by acid regeneration (M031) system
processes were assumed to be similar in form to the spent acid waste
stream.  That is, the contaminants (generally metals) were concentrated
in a smaller portion of the waste stream for management.  The disposal
quantities of these residuals were identified by their description and
management system type.  A total of 23 facilities were reviewed, of
which five facility residual waste streams could not be identified. 
Residuals were reported managed by:

M039 (other recovery - type unknown)

M042 (incineration - sludges)

M043 (incineration - solids)

M051 (energy recovery - liquids)

M077 (chemical precipitation)

M104 (solvent extraction)

M109 (sludge treatment - type unknown)

M121 (neutralization only)

M134 (deepwell/underground injection), and

M136 (NPDES discharge to surface water).

Chemical precipitation (M077) was reported by seven of eighteen
facilities for management of acid regeneration residuals.  One
additional facility reported management by neutralization only, which is
similar to chemical precipitation.

Unit Costs for Managing Recycling Residuals

In the cost estimates, metal recovery residuals are assumed to be
managed by stabilization and disposed in RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
landfills.  Solvent residuals are assumed to be managed by energy
recovery.  Acid recovery residuals are assumed to be managed by chemical
precipitation.  Cost assumptions for management of acid recovery
residuals include stabilization and landfill disposal of precipitates
and sewer discharge of neutralized wastewater.

	If recycled materials are no longer hazardous, they no longer carry the
label of being a listed waste, if applicable.  Residuals from the
recycling of listed wastes will no longer be considered
“derived-from” wastes and no longer regulated under RCRA 40 CFR
261.3(c)(2)(I).  A condition of the DSW final rule exclusions is the
“listed” waste definition will no longer be attached to residuals
and management depends upon if the waste is characteristically hazardous
only.  To estimate the implementation impacts (i.e., cost savings) from
not regulating residuals derived from recyclable materials as hazardous
unit costs are needed for residual hazardous disposal (hazardous
landfill, fuel blending, and acid precipitation/ dewatering/
stabilization/ landfill) and residual nonhazardous disposal
(nonhazardous landfill, fuel blending, and acid precipitation/
dewatering/ stabilization/ landfill).  In addition, estimates for the
amount of residuals generated and the fraction that is
characteristically hazardous or “listed” hazardous are needed. 
Landfill unit cost estimates are presented earlier in this chapter.

Recycling:	Offsite recycling fees already include the cost of residual
management.  Residual management costs only are needed for estimating
the full cost of onsite recycling.  For facilities currently recycling
waste, the  estimated incremental cost savings from larger residual
hazardous waste disposal shipments resulting from longer accumulation
times and residuals being defined as nonhazardous is calculated within
the cost analysis using nonhazardous disposal costs and calculated
reductions in the number of shipments/loads per year..

Fuel Blending:	Fuel blending was assumed as the disposal method for
solvents and solvent still bottoms.  Fuel blending costs were estimated
using RACER 2005 unit costs (RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering
Requirements cost estimating system:
http://talpart.earthtech.com/racer_documentation.htm) for incineration
of wastes with thermal energy values greater than 2000 BTU and the
Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, & Other Impacts of the
Hazardous waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, USEPA OSW, July
1999.  The reported costs were averaged for an estimated unit cost of
$225 per ton ($2007).  A minimum charge of half a disposal load was
assumed for disposal by fuel blending.  The minimum charge is estimated
as $2,352 ($2007).

Acid Precipitation/Dewatering/Stabilization/Landfill:	Disposal of acid
liquids costs were estimated using RACER 2005 cost estimating software. 
Mineral acids disposal was used as a proxy for acid waste disposal, with
stabilization, at a landfill.  The cost is estimated as $378 per ton
($2007).

Residual Characteristics:  Residuals generation from metals recovery was
estimated using 1999 Biennial Report data.  Waste streams at selected
recycling facilities were reviewed by comments, disposal system type,
and origin to determine the likely waste streams generated from the
recycling operations.

Metals:		Approximately 32% of the metals recovery mass was identified as
residuals in the Biennial Report data.  The recovered metals are assumed
to be 20% of the mass for waste streams currently recycled and 5% of the
mass for waste streams currently disposed.  The remaining mass fraction
is volatilized out the stack in the smelting process.  The hazardous
fraction of the residuals were determined by reviewing the waste codes
for the waste streams reporting metals reclamation.  Waste streams
reporting characteristic codes were assumed to have residuals that would
be characteristically hazardous waste.  95% of the metals recovery
residual waste volume and frequency of waste streams are estimated to be
characteristically hazardous with the remaining 5% containing listed
hazardous wastes which are assumed in this RIA to become non-hazardous
post-rule.

Solvents:	33% of solvent recovery mass was identified as residuals and
67% as recovered solvent in the Biennial Report data.  For currently
disposed organic liquids the residual fraction was doubled to 66% to
reflect a lower percentage of potential solvent quantity for recovery. 
The hazardous fraction of the residuals was determined by reviewing the
waste codes for the waste streams reporting solvent recycling.  Waste
streams reporting characteristic codes were assumed to have residuals
that would be characteristically hazardous waste.  For solvent
recycling, approximately 85% of the residual waste volume is estimated
to be characteristically hazardous with the remaining 15% containing
listed hazardous wastes which are assumed in this RIA to become
non-hazardous post-rule.

Acids:		26% of the acid regeneration mass was identified as residuals
and 74% as recovered acid in the Biennial Report data.  The hazardous
fractions of the residuals were determined by reviewing the waste codes
for the waste streams reporting acid regeneration.  Waste streams
reporting characteristic codes were assumed to have residuals that would
be characteristically hazardous waste.  For acid regeneration,
approximately 75% of the residual waste volume is estimated to be
characteristically hazardous with the remaining 25% containing listed
hazardous wastes which are assumed in this RIA to become non-hazardous
post-rule.

Appendix E

Data for Estimating State Government Hazardous Waste Fee Revenues

Exhibit E1 below displays the state government hazardous waste
generation taxes and fees identified in this RIA for industrial
hazardous waste generator facilities in 31 states.  The two primary data
references consulted for this RIA did not contain sufficient data,
without further analysis outside the scope of this RIA, for eight states
(DE, IL, NE, NV, NY, OH, TX, WV) to determine if “recovery” is
included under their regulatory definition of “treatment.”  For only
one of the 31 states for which there are fee data (CO) an annual
operating fee is charged to hazardous waste TSDFs, but this RIA simply
assumes this fee is passed on to the generator and includes it with the
generator fee impact estimate.  In the typical preferred management
hierarchy of reuse, recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal,
these states may not tax or assess fees on preferential forms of
management.

Exhibit E1

State Government Hazardous Waste Taxes & Fees

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L

State	Non-size Specific Tax or Fee	Tax or Fee	Size-specific Taxes and
Fees*



	Description	LQG

>2,000 tons/yr	LQG

1,000 - 2,000 tons/yr	LQG

500 - 1,000 tons/yr	LQG

250 - 500 tons/yr	LQG

50 - 250 tons/yr	LQG

13.2 50 tons/yr	SQG

1.3 - 13.2 tons/yr	CESQG

< 1.3 tons/yr

1	AL	NA=Not available	NA









	2	AK	None	$0









	3	AZ	Generators of waste that retain the waste onsite for disposal or
who ship it offsite to a facility owned or operated by that generator
$4.00/ton









	4	AR

	Monitoring/inspection fees	$500/yr	$500/yr	$500/yr	$500/yr	$500/yr
$500/yr	$150/yr	$0/yr

5	CA

	Generator fee & generator waste reporting surcharge	$71,432/yr
$53,573/yr	$35,717/yr	$17,858/yr	$3,572/yr	$1,429/yr	$177/yr	$0/yr

6	CO	Haz waste TSDF annual operating fee (assumed offsite passed on to
generator): Class III (resource recovery)	$2.50/ton









	7	CT	Haz waste generator tax	$9.59/ton









	8	DC	NA	NA









	9	DE	Fee for offsite treatment.  Unclear if treatment equals recovery
in this state ($16/ton)	Further Analysis Needed









	10	FL	NA	NA









	11	GA

	Haz waste mgt fee	$1/ton	$1/ton	$1/ton	$1/ton	$1/ton	$1/ton	$100/yr
$0/yr

12	HI	NA	NA









	13	ID	Haz waste fee	$30.00/ton









	14	IL	Fee for on- or offsite treatment.  Unclear if treatment equals
recovery in this state ($7.19/ton)	Further Analysis Needed









	15	IN	NA	NA









	16	IA	NA	NA









	17	KS

	Generator annual monitoring fee	$5,000/yr	$5,000/yr	$5,000/yr	$1,000/yr
$1,000/yr	$500/yr	$500/yr	$100/yr

18	KY	Generator haz waste fee	$2.00/ton (onsite)

$4.00/ton

(offsite)









	19	LA	NA	NA









	20	ME	Offsite handling fee (assume handling = recovery)	$30.00/ton









	21	MD	NA	NA









	22	MA	NA	NA









	23	MI	NA	NA









	24	MN

	Quantity fee and tax & statewide program fee	$3,290/yr	$3,290/yr
$3,290/yr	$3,290/yr	$13.50/ton	$52.20/ton	$115.41/

ton	$274.72/

ton

25	MS

	Pollution prevention fee for generators	$2,500/yr	$2,500/yr	$1,500/yr
$1,500/yr	$1,500/yr	$500/yr	$250/yr	$250/yr

26	MO	Haz waste fee. For category tax, unclear if treatment equals
recovery in this state [$0.7/ton + $20/yr]	$1.00/ton









	27	MT	Generator fee.  Did not have “Class” definition.  Assume
middle class/fee.	$600.00/yr









	28	NE	TSDF fee.  Unclear if treatment equals recovery in this state
($1.92/ton)	Further Analysis Needed



	

	

	

	

	

	

	



29	NV	Offsite treatment fee.  Unclear if treatment equals recovery in
this state ($40.20/ton)	Further Analysis Needed



	

	

	

	

	

	

	



30	NH

	Haz waste fee	$60/ton	$60/ton	$60/ton	$60/ton	$60/ton	$60/ton	$60/ton
$0/ton

31	NJ	Manifest processing fee (assumed 18 tons shipped per manifest)
$0.50/ton	Haz waste generator biennial reporting fee & inspection &
compliance review fee	$2,981/yr	$2,981/yr	$2,981/yr	$2,981/yr	$2,681/yr
$2,428/yr	$651/yr	$67/yr

32	NM

	Generation fee & business fee	$20/ton

$2,500/yr	$20/ton

$2,500/yr	$20/ton

$2,500/yr	$20/ton

$2,500/yr	$20/ton

$2,500/yr	$20/ton

$2,500/yr	$250/yr

$200/yr	$100/yr

$0/yr

33	NY	Special assessment on offsite generation, treatment or disposal. 
Unclear if treatment equals recovery in this state ($16/ton)	Further
Analysis Needed	Haz waste program fees for generators	$40,000/yr
$40,000/yr	$20,000/yr	$6,000/yr	$6,000/yr	$1,000/yr	$0/yr	$0/yr

34	NC

	Generator fee	$0.50/ton	$0.50/ton	$0.50/ton	$0.50/ton	$0.50/ton
$0.50/ton	$25/yr	$0/yr

35	ND	None	$0









	36	OH	Haz waste treatment & disposal fee.  Unclear if treatment equals
recovery in this state ($24/ton)	Further Analysis Needed









	37	OK	Annual fee for offsite recycling	$4.00/ton	Generator fee	$100/yr
$100/yr	$100/yr	$100/yr	$100/yr	$100/yr	$25/yr	$0/yr

38	OR	Annual haz waste generation fee	$45.00/ton	Annual activity
verification fee	$525/yr	$525/yr	$525/yr	$525/yr	$525/yr	$525/yr	$300/yr
$0/yr

39	PA	NA	NA









	40	RI	NA	NA









	41	SC	Annual haz waste fee. Annual non-haz waste fee	$34.00/ton

$13.70/ton









	42	SD	NA	NA









	43	TN

	Annual generator fee	$900/yr	$900/yr	$900/yr	$900/yr	$900/yr	$900/yr
$550/yr	$0/yr

44	TX	Facility fee.  Unclear if treatment equals recovery in this state
($4.80/ton)	Further Analysis Needed	Generation fee	$2/ton	$2/ton	$2/ton
$2/ton	$2/ton	$100/yr	$100/yr	$0/yr

45	UT	Haz waste generation fees	$28.00/ton









	46	VT	NA	NA









	47	VA	NA	NA









	48	WA	Haz waste education fee	$35.00/yr









	49	WV	Generator fee.  Unclear if treatment equals recovery in state
Further Analysis Needed









	50	WI	Tonnage fee & manifest fee (assume 18 tons shipped per manifest)
$0.26/ton









	51	WY	NA	NA









	Explanatory Notes:

NA = Data not available.

* The 8 generator size (tons/year) categories do not fit all states. 
For this RIA, taxes/fees for states with different size categories are
approximated to the 8 categories.

Sources of state government hazardous waste fee/tax data:

US Army Corps of Engineers “Treatment, Storage & Disposal Facilities
for Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste”, HTRW Center of Expertise
Information - TDSF, Section 8.2,
http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/library/pubs/tsdf/sec8-2/sec8-2.
html, 11 Sept 2002.

MN data from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Small & Large Quantity
Generator License Fees & Generator (Superfund) Tax, Waste/Hazardous
Waste #1.03b, March 2002.



 Concerning peer review of RIAs, USEPA’s 2006 peer review guidance
states “Generally, if a RIA applies accepted, previously peer-reviewed
methods in a straightforward manner, it would not undergo an additional
peer review.  RIAs prepared to support “major” or ”economically
significant” regulations typically do not utilize innovative or
untried economic methods.  It is unnecessary to conduct peer reviews of
straightforward applications or transfers of accepted, previously
peer-reviewed economic methods or analyses.  The procedures used to
transfer or adapt an economic work product are generally established by
separate economic guidance documents which have be peer reviewed. 
Therefore, RIAs that are developed using these procedures do not
normally undergo an additional peer review, even those prepared in
support of “major” and “economically significant” rules.” 
Source: Section 2.2.6 (page 35) of USEPA Science Policy Council, “Peer
Review Handbook”, 3rd Edition, document ID nr. EPA/100/B-06/002, May
2006,
http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/Peer%20Review%20HandbookMay06.pdf.

 Concerning public review, USEPA’s 2006 peer review guidance states
“Peer review and public comment are not the same. Public comment
solicited from the general public through the Federal Register or by
other means is often required by the Administrative Procedure Act, other
relevant statutes or both. Public comment may also be solicited for
policy purposes.  The Agency takes public comment on some strictly
scientific products and almost all regulatory decisions. Public
commenters usually include a broad array of people with an interest in
the technical analysis or the regulatory decision; some are scientific
experts (who may provide some peer input), some are experts in other
areas, and some are interested non-experts.  The critical distinction is
that public comment does not necessarily draw the kind of independent,
expert information and in-depth analyses expected from the peer review
process.  Public comment is open to all issues, whereas the peer review
process is limited to consideration of specified technical issues. 
While it may be an important component of EPA’s decision making
process, public comment does not substitute for peer review.”  Source:
ibid, section 1.2.8 (page 14).

 Skewness = Skewness is a measure of data symmetry, or more precisely,
the lack of symmetry.  A distribution, or data set, is symmetric if it
looks the same to the left and right of the center point of the data
range.  Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
“Section 1.3.5.11. Measures of Skewness and Kurtosis”  in the
Engineering Statistics Handbook at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35b.htm" 
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35b.htm 

	According to the “National Analysis” summary statistics presented
in each biennial data year issue (i.e., 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999,
2001, 2003, 2005) of OSW’s RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm),
the universes of RCRA-regulated  hazardous waste (a) generators, (b)
managers, (c) shippers, and (d) receivers are skewed according to three
complementary numerical indicators of skewness based on annual tonnage
hazardous waste generated in each data year (illustrative percentages
below based on 2005 data year universe of 38.347 million tons generated
by 16,191 LQG generator facilities in around 600 NAICS 4-digit generator
industries in 56 US states/tribes/territories):

Facility skewness:  Top-1 facility generated 11%; top-5 facilities
generated 30% .

Industry skewness:  Top-1 industry (NAICS 3251: Basic Chemical Mfg)
generated 55% ; top-5 industries generated 81% .

State location skewness:  Top-1 state (TX) generated 40% ; top-5 states
(TX, LA, OH, MS, IL) generated 67% .

  Since its enactment in 1980, the RFA has required every Federal agency
to prepare “regulatory flexibility analyses” for any public
notice-and-comment regulation (i.e., proposed rule) it issues, unless
the agency certifies that the proposed rule “will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities” (i.e., SISNOSE) subject to the terms and conditions of the
rule.  The 1996 SBREFA amendment to the RFA strengthened the RFA’s
analytical and procedural requirements.  For additional information
about RFA/SBREFA see: http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa

 RIS = EPA Publication Number: 530-R-92-021.  This document is not
currently available in electronic format.  RCRA Online Number: 50309. 
Title: “RCRA Implementation Study Update: The Definition of Solid
Waste”, 15 July 1992; Description: Reexamines the EPA definition of
solid waste in an attempt to clarify EPA's RCRA mandate. Explores
resource recovery, recycling regulations, and implementation issues, and
presents a plan for change. Summarizes meetings held to solicit
industry, interest group, and other government branch input on the
definition of solid waste and hazardous waste recycling regulations
(source:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/ea6e50dc6214725285256bf00063269d/1a
b72d5921fa644c85256a7e00762b62!OpenDocument).

 Pages 61562 to 61563 of the Federal Register announcement for OSW’s
28 Oct 2003 proposed revisions to the RCRA “Definition of Solid
Waste” provide a synopsis of the following seven 1987-2000 series of
DC Circuit Court decisions:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr-rule/abr-rule.pdf

1987: American Mining Congress v. USEPA (“AMC I”)

1990: American Petroleum Institute v. USEPA (“API I”)

1990: American Mining Congress v. USEPA (“AMC II”)

1993: US v. ILCO

1994: Owen Electric Steel Co. v. USEPA

2000: American Petroleum Institute v. USEPA (“API II”)

2000: Association of Battery Recyclers v. USEPA (“ABR”)

 OSW’s long-term “vision” of the future of the RCRA waste
management program is discussed in the document “Beyond RCRA:
Prospects for Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020,” which
is available on USEPA’s website at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/vision.htm

 OSW’s 27 June 2003 economic analysis in support of the October 2003
DSW proposed rule is available to the public as document number
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0002 (274 pages) at http://www.regulations.gov.

 OSW’s “Definition of Solid Waste” (DSW) October 2003 proposed
rule website: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr.htm

 For background information about USEPA’s RCRA solid and hazardous
waste regulations as they pertain to industrial recycling, see: (a)
USEPA Office of Solid Waste, “Introduction to: Definition of Solid
Waste and Hazardous Waste Recycling (40 CFR §§261.2 and 261.9)”, Oct
2001, EPA530-K-02-007I, 23 pages;
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/training/defsw.pdf, and/or (b)
USEPA’s webpage about RCRA hazardous waste recycling at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/hazrecyc.htm

 The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC; 2002-0031-0548) commented
that the 2007 DW RIA “[O]nce again simply assumes without supporting
facts that the [DSW final rule] will not affect energy recovery from
hazardous wastes in cement kilns and does not adequately analyze the
degree to which the rule will adversely affect this desirable
practice…  EPA has ignored or underestimated the extent to which the
proposed rule would encourage energy-bearing hazardous secondary
materials to move away from energy recovery in cement kilns and towards
other less-regulated forms of recycling.”  However, there is not
apparently an industry-wide consensus that the DSW final rule may be
expected to have an adverse impact, as evidenced by two commentors (ETC
& SOCMA) on our prior 2003 and 2007 RIAs who offered the following
contrary statements of why it is reasonable to expect a negligible
impact in relation to the physical/chemical characteristics of hazardous
wastes managed by energy recovery:

The Environmental Technology Council (ETC, ID nr. 2002-0021-0119) who
claimed to be “speaking from direct experience in the industry in
managing [hazardous] wastes on a daily basis for over 20 years”:
“There is no reason to believe that generators will be encouraged to
shift the management practices for [hazardous wastes managed by energy
recovery].  The aqueous inorganic treatment already realizes RCRA
exemptions associated with the wastewater treatment exemptions.  In
addition, wastewater streams are often dilute and do not contain
significant quantities of recoverable constituents.  It is therefore
doubtful that any of this volume will go to [materials] recovery. 
Likewise, the volumes currently managed by energy recovery are being
done so at a savings and also as a recycling practice.  Many states and
TRI view energy recovery as recycling.  There will be little incentive
for generators to switch their management practices and invest capital
in alternate recovery processes for these streams.  In addition, other
than the BTU value, these wastes contain few components that have
[materials] recovery value, which is why they are managed by energy
recovery or fuel blending currently, as opposed to solvent recovery. 
The average solids content of fuel-blended waste is about 30%, and many
cement kilns are feeding other higher-solids content waste through pails
or coal injection systems.  In addition, many fuel-blended streams have
substantial water content and other organic liquid components that form
azeotropes and are not amenable to solvent recovery.  At most, 50,000
tons of this [current energy recovery] volume might be routed to other
[materials] recovery, but even this is doubtful.” 

The Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA, ID nr.
2002-0031-0471.2) claimed that “Smaller businesses have little
leverage with or access to the larger reclamation facilities. 
Frequently, smaller volume waste streams must be incinerated because
commercial reclamation facilities prefer to handle high volumes …
Overall, the cleaner a waste solvent is the more value it has either for
subsequent use and application as a solvent or for energy recovery. 
Thus, the ability of a toll contractor to use existing equipment to
reclaim even smaller volumes of solvents from toll manufacturing
operations is economically a meaningful option to pursue.  Relatively
cleaner [waste] solvents also typically have a higher BTU value and
hence can have greater value for energy recovery.”

  USEPA Office of Solid Waste, Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis
Division (EMRAD), “RCRA Hazardous Waste Delisting: The First 20 Years
(Program Evaluation)”, prepared by Abt Associates and Glenn Farber
(EMRAD Regulatory Impact Analyst), June 2002, 32 pages;
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/delist

 SQGs:  The exclusion of SQGs from this analysis reflects the RCRA
exclusion of SQGs from reporting to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial
Report.  Consequently, USEPA does not collect regularly updated data on
RCRA waste volumes generated by SQGs.  Omission of explicit data on SQGs
does not necessarily mean that this analysis excludes small and medium
size companies for the following  reasons:

Not all SQGs necessarily represent small or medium size companies, and
not all LQGs represent large companies, based on either (a) company
employee count or (b) company annual sales revenues, two alternative
measures used by the Small Business Administration to define “small
business” (http://www.sba.gov/size).

Furthermore, many SQGs are not in the same industries and markets with
LQGs; for example, the top-5 largest LQG industries in 2003 based on
annual tons waste generated are (1) NAICS 3251 Basic Chemical Mfg, (2)
NAICS 3241 Petroleum & Coal Products Mfg, (3) NAICS Waste Treatment &
Disposal, (4) NAICS 3252 Resin, Synthetic Rubber, Synthetic Fibers &
Filaments Mfg, and (5) NAICS 3311 Iron & Steel Mills & Ferroalloy Mfg,
all of which are capital-intensive industries predominantly populated
with relatively larger size companies (source: Exhibit 1.9 at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/national03.pdf).  In
contrast, SQGs are predominantly in different industries; for example,
the top-5 SQG industries in aggregate constituting 98.3% SQGs and only
1.7% LQGs are (1) NAICS 8111 Automotive Repair & Maintenance, (2) NAICS
3231 Printing & Related Support Activities, (3) NAICS 332 Fabricated
Metal Product Mfg , (4) NAICS 4411 Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers, and
(5) NAICS 5111 Print Publishing Industries, based on estimated
establishment counts in OSW’s July 2003 economic impact analysis for
the RCRA spent solvent industrial wipes proposed rule (see page 90 of
document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0004-0004 at
http://www.regulations.gov).

Although there is not necessarily a high degree of correlation in any
single industry between RCRA regulatory status (i.e., LQG, SQG, CESQG)
and facility size measured by employee count or annual revenues,
comparison of respective RCRA biennial hazardous waste generation
volumes (i.e., tons per year) indicate that SQGs are probably much
smaller in average size than LQGs.  Consequently, most SQGs send their
wastes offsite for treatment, disposal or recycling by commercial
hazardous waste management facilities because they lack economy-of-scale
to manage the wastes themselves, and for other business reasons.  Based
on 1997 data (source: Steven Brown, Margaret James & Gary Light, ICF
Consulting, “SQG Up-Date” 31 July 2000 memorandum to Peggy Vyas,
OSW), there are about 114,000 SQGs which generate a total of between
600,000 to 930,000 tons/year of RCRA hazardous waste, which represents
an average SQG waste size of 5.3 to 8.2 tons/year.  As an example, if
this average SQG volume consisted of spent solvents, it would be
equivalent to 24 to 37 barrels per year, or 2 to 3 barrels per month (@8
lbs/gallon and @55 gallons/barrel).  Compared to the 17,700 LQGs which
generate 30,176,000 tons for an average LQG waste size of 1,705
tons/year (as of 2003) --- which represents 7,750 barrels per year or
646 barrels per month of spent solvent as an example waste material ---
SQGs are only 0.3% to 0.5% the size of an average LQG.  OSW does not
expect SQGs will experience an adverse disproportional effect of the DSW
final rule if SQGs lack economy-of-scale to justify capital investment
in new generator controlled  recycling operations, because SQGs are
alternatively eligible for DSW offsite transfer recycling exclusion
(i.e., Exclusion 2 in this RIA).

 According to USEPA’s Biennial Report website (as of March 2008), the
2007 Biennial Report data will not be published on the internet until
December 2008:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm

 In its comments to the Docket on OSW’s 26 March 2007 DSW re-proposal
(comment ID nr. 2002-0031-0548), the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
(CKRC) specifically requested that OSW analyze “the degree to which
the [DSW revisions final] rule will adversely affect this desirable
practice [of energy recovery from hazardous wastes in cement kilns]”
and .”would encourage energy-bearing hazardous secondary materials to
move away from energy recovery in cement kilns and towards other
less-regulated forms of recycling.”

  The RCRA hazardous waste program ICRs from which unit costs are
applied in this RIA are ICR 2106.01, ICR 801, ICR 820, ICR 976, ICR
1189.14, ICR 1572, and ICR 1573.  USEPA ICRs are available from OMB’s
Federal agency ICR inventory at:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain

 Although OSW did not independently evaluate their claims, five public
commentors on OSW’s 2003 and 2007 DSW RIAs challenged the
reasonableness of assuming that hazardous waste generators may invest in
onsite recycling.  Four of the five commentors are industrial
associations and companies which represent a large fraction of the
industries which may be most affected by the DSW final rule: (a)
American Chemical Council commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0093, (b) IPC
Association of Connecting Electronics Industries commentor ID nr.
2002-0031-0112, (c) International Metals Reclamation Company Inc
commentor ID nr. 2002-0031-0178, and d) PPG Industries Inc commentor ID
nr. 2002-0031-0203.  They indicated that a baseline disposal switchover
to future onsite recycling scenario is not reasonable because (a)
facilities within a single NAICS code industry are unlikely to be able
to recycle them at all if they cannot recycle them in already
DSW-excluded closed loop processes, and because of the unavailability of
(b) investment capital, (c) industrial facility space, (d) technical
expertise, and (e) skilled labor business constraints for some
individual industrials facilities, and because (e) it is more likely
that a company in another industry will have the required
economies-of-scale expertise and infrastructure to reclaim significant
quantities of secondary materials from a different industry, for
example, no chemical plant is likely to build a metal processing,
beneficiation or smelting operation to address its secondary
metal-bearing material flows (comments are available at
http://www.regulations.gov according to their commentor ID numbers for
docket nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031).

 For example, a manufacturer of optical photoconductors in Chesapeake VA
reportedly in the late 1990s shifted its offsite disposal (at offsite
cement kilns for energy recovery incineration destruction) of spent
tetrahydrofuran (THF) solvent – “highly unstable and explosive,
forming peroxides in the presence of oxygen” --- to onsite recycling
via a distillation-based technique that recovers the spent THF solvent
for onsite reuse.  Source: “Safe Recovery of a Hazardous Solvent”,
Chemical Engineering, Oct 2001, p.95,
http://www.che.com/articles/2001/EngKirk/EngKirk10012001_04.html.

 Source: USEPA Office of Chief Financial Officer,
http://www.epa.gov/cfo/futures/env_scen.htm.

 See pages 55 to 56 of ETC’s 25 Feb 2004 comments on OSW’s 2003 DSW
proposed rule at: http://www.etc.org/ETC_Detailed_Comments.pdf

 Additional background information about the US cement manufacturing
industry and its energy consumption is available at:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/industry/Cement_Energy_Guide.pdf,
LBNL-54036, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy
Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for Cement Making, An Energy Star
Guide for Energy and Plant Managers, Ernst Worrell & Christina Galitsky,
Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Sponsored by the USEPA, Jan
2004.

 Page 139 of USEPA’s  “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses”
(report no. EPA-240-R-00-003, Sept 2000; ), provides a descriptive
distinction and definitions of “distributional effects” and “real
resource effects”.
(http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/G
uidelines.pdf).

 In addition to hazardous waste spent solvents, there are reportedly at
least 10 other categories of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes and
industrial by-product or secondary materials which are also used as
fuels by cement manufacturing plants (Source: William Gabbard & David
Gossman, “Hazardous Waste Fuels and the Cement Kilns”, ASTM
Standardization News, Sept 1990):

Industrial and commercial paint solids/residues & blended paint wastes

Solvent recycling residues (i.e., process still bottoms, distillation
cuts/fractions and residues such as oils & resins)

Metal working and machining spent lubricants, spent coolants, spent
cutting fluids

Used oil

Petroleum refining residues

Industrial wastewater treatment plant sludge (aka “filter cake”)

Wood chips

Used tires

Agricultural wastes such as rice hulls

Low organic level aqueous streams if matched with high Btu waste oils

 Sulfuric acid is a non-discretionary by-product of smelter SO2 recovery
in metallic ore (sulfides) roasting in the production of copper, nickel,
lead, zinc, molybdenum and gold.  Approximately 10%of the US sulfuric
acid market is supplied by smelter acid, the remainder coming from
virgin acid production (via elemental sulfur burning, acid sludge
burning and stack gas desulfurization).  As of 1999, the following 14
metallic ore smelters had a sulfuric acid by-product production capacity
of 4.765 million short-tons per year: 1. Asarco, East Helena MT, 2.
Asarco, El Passo TX, 3. Asarco, Hayden AZ, 4. Big River Zinc, Sauget IL,
5. Chino Mines, Hurley NM, 6. Climax Molybdenum, Ft. Madison IA, 7. Doe
Run, Herculaneum MO, 8. Kennecott Utah Copper, Magna UT, 9. Langeloth
Metallurgical, 10. Langeloth PA, 11. Newmont Gold, Carlin NV, 12.
Pasminco, Clarkesville TN, 13. Phelps Dodge Miami, Claypool AZ, 14. Zinc
Corp, Monaca PA.  Source: “Chemical Profiles,” Chemical Market
Reporter, publication of the Schnell Publishing Company at:
http://www.the-innovation-group.com/ChemProfiles/Sulfuric%20Acid%20(smel
ter).htm

 Source: Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Circular A-4: Regulatory
Analysis, 17 Sept 2003, p.26;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.

 USEPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI), “Guidelines for
Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity
of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency”,
EPA/260R-02-008, Oct 2002,
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/EPA_InfoQuali
tyGuidelines.pdf

 Source: OSW, “An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with
Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials”, 11 Jan 2007, Docket
document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0355 available at
http://www.regulations.gov and at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/dsw/abr.htm.  OSW conducted the
2007 recycling damage study in response to public commentors on the 2003
DSW proposed rule.  OSW summarized the recycling damage case study
findings in the 2007 DSW supplemental proposal (Federal Register,
Vol.72, No.57, 26 March 2007, pp.14180-14182), and provided the study
report and its appendices as background documents to the March 2007 DSW
supplemental proposal.

 Source: Figure 4-1: Injury and Fatality Rates in US Coal Mines,
1931-1996 (p. 23)  in “Productivity Change in US Coal Mining”, Joel
Darmstadter, Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 97-40, July
1997: http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-97-40.pdf.

  http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm

 Source: USEPA Fall 2007 Regulatory Plan and Semiannual Regulatory
Agenda: Part Two - Regulatory Agenda; the 31 OSWER actions are listed on
pages 14 & 15; 
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/documents/regagendabook-fall07-pt2.pdf.  The
15 RCRA-related actions in the Fall 2007 regulatory agenda consist of:

Revisions to LDR standards for K171/K172 wastes; changes to encourage
recycling of K171/K172

Revisions to RCRA financial test criteria

Revisions to export requirements for hazardous wastes destined for
recovery in OECD countries and for spent lead-acid batteries

Addition of hazardous pharmaceutical wastes to the universal waste
program

RCRA incentives for Performance Track members

Standards for Subtitle D management of utility coal combustion wastes

RCRA smarter waste reporting (formerly Reduction of RCRA reporting and
recordkeeping burden, Phase II)

Exclusion for residues from petroleum refineries recycled in
gasification units

Regulation of solvent-contaminated rags and wipers

Management of cement kiln dust

Revisions to F019 listing to exclude wastewater treatment sludges from
the chemical conversion coating of aluminum automobile bodies

Revisions to the definition of solid waste

Expanding the RCRA comparable fuels exclusion

Standards and procedures for electronic hazardous waste manifests

Streamlining hazardous waste management in academic laboratories

 Source: AACE International Recommended Practice No. 17R-97 “Cost
Estimate Classification System” , 12 Aug 1997, and Recommended
Practice No. 18R-97 “Cost Estimate Classification System – As
Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process
Industries”, 15 June 1998; http://www.aacei.org/technical/rp.shtml.

 ANSI = American National Standards Institute.  ANSI standard Z94.0 was
originally published in 1972, then revised as Z94-1983 in 1983, revised
as Z94.0-1989 in 1990, and revised again as Z94.2 in 1998.  The ANSI
Z94.2 standard is one element of the set of 17 standards (i.e., Z94.1 to
Z94.17) are for the field of industrial engineering, which is concerned
with the design, improvement, and installation of integrated systems of
people, materials, information, equipment, and energy.   Industrial
engineering draws upon specialized knowledge and skill in the
mathematical, physical, and social sciences, together with the
principles and methods of engineering analysis and design, to specify,
predict and evaluate the results obtained from such systems.  Additional
background information about ANSI Z94 standards is available from the
Institute for Industrial Engineers at:
http://www.iienet2.org/Details.aspx?id=2644.

 Since 2003, the US dollar price of copper has increased fivefold, for
zinc fourfold, and for lead sevenfold. Source:  “Growth in Base Metal
Prices Set to Continue”, Gill Montia, Metal Markets, Brite Media, 23
July 2007;
http://www.metalmarkets.org.uk/2007/07/23/growth-in-base-metal-prices-se
t-to-continue/

 Establishment and Firm Size: 2002 Economic Census: Administrative and
Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services Subject Series,
Nov 2005, report nr. EC02-56SS-SZ:
http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0256ssszt.pdf

 An October 1998 report “National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey:
Summary Report” which summarizes the survey methodology and data
findings for OSW’s 1996 National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey
(NWHCS) is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/pdf/summary.pdf.

 Additional summary information and data for the 1993 RCRA Biennial
Report are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br93.htm

 Source: page 21 of “Draft Documentation for the Data Files for the
National Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey”, prepared by Westat,
Inc., 30 March 1998 at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/hwirwste/pdf/datadoc5.pdf

  Note that onsite recovery cost estimates are not needed to estimate
implementation impacts for currently regulated hazardous waste recycling
that becomes exempt.  Onsite recovery cost estimates are presented in
another chapter because they are needed to conduct a “breakeven
test” to determine which facilities may construct new recovery units
onsite under the DSW final rule exclusions.

  UCC = OSW’s 30 Sept 2000 “Unit Cost Compendium” (121 pages) is
available to the public as document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0429 at
the Federal government docket website: http://www.regulations.gov.

  Firstar report is quoted to DPRA Inc at $95 (09/01/2005).  EDR report
quoted to DPRA Inc at $105 (09/01/2005).

 Source: page 15 of OSW’s study “An Assessment of Good Current
Practices For Recycling Of Hazardous Secondary Materials”, 22 Nov 2006
(http://www.regulations.gov).

摧沽H

摧ԉh

'

+

-

O

m

r

w

¥

¦

h~

'

-

?

C

D

P

‰

‹

Œ

Æ

Ç

È

Û

ó

ô

摧冔â

h~

 h¢

h5

hä#

gd

h

h

h5

kd

”ÿùU

U

hî<

U

kdÞ

í欀㱤

hÃ

kd

hî

h*

hî

hÃ

hÃ

hŸ

h*

h7#

h*

hŸ

萏Ũ␱㜁Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ葞Ũ摧⌷

h*

h*

h7#

hŸ

h7#

h7#

h7#

萏Ũ␱㜁Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ葞Ũ摧⌷

h

਀&䘋)␱㜁Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ摧䪒

h

h

h

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

gd

-

.

J

z

œ

Ÿ

½

×

h

㸆

-

"

<

=

O

_

o

p

r

†

#

>

O

o

p

r

摧ࣟÜ

h7#

摧㩎¹

摧ᄺD

h`

h‚'

 h‚'

h‚'

h‚'

h‚'

摧䞅z

萏Ø葞Ø摧➂

 h‚'

hs

hs

 h‚'

 h‚'

 h‚'

h‚'

hs

 h‚'

hs

摧⏾

摧ᄺD

h7#

摧䦖ú

h|

h|

h`

摧嵰z

h|

옍#

옍#

摧婕m#਀&䘋	옍#

hf

hf

hf

@

gdf

@

hf

hf

hf

hf

hf

hf

hf

	ˆÿ˜

愀Ĥ摧⛢

	ˆÿ˜

愀Ĥ摧⛢

"̀Ĥ옍)

$

@

@

hf

hf

愀Ĥ摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

 ȇ

윇

"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ȥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ȥ옍)

옍#

ô

kd

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ࠀ

kd;

ô

ô

kd%

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

Ā

ô

ô

옍)

ô

@

ÿ

咊Ā

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

kd

‰-‘%‹++1

‰-‘%‹++1

‰-‘%‹++1

‰-‘%‹++1

‰-‘%‹++1

‰-‘%‹++1

‰-‘%‹++1

!

'

/

5

„

…

’

“

”

³

´

Á

Â

Ä

옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

-

 

(

*

,

.

6

7

<

O

d

•

Ã

晆ྕ"̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ĥ摧ᦓÌ*̀Ĥ옍)

ĀÄ

Å

Æ

Ú

î

ö

晆ᘣ"̀Ĥ옍)

 

!

#

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ȥ摧ᦓÌ᐀#

+

3

5

7

=

C

D

F

I

V

Z

^

e

l

n

p

t

x

y

{

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ȥ摧ᦓÌ᐀{

~

Œ

–

œ

£

¥

©

¯

µ

¶

¸

»

É

Ï

Ú

ä

ï

ó

ý

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧ᦓÌ"̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ȥ摧ᦓÌ"̀Ȥ옍)

옍)

옍)

摧ᾁà܀

$

kd

옍)

옍)

Ffû

옍)

@

愀Ĥ摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ȥ摧⦿fጀ

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ȥ옍)

摧⦿f"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ĥ摧䙗Ý"̀Ȥ옍)

愀Ĥ摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

Ā

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

摧Ⅳæ"̀Ĥ옍)

愀Ȥ摧Ⅳæ"̀Ȥ옍)

Æ

옍)

hß

`	\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

h

h

h

h

h

	

 hò

hò

愀Ĥ摧Ńá

hò

 hò

hò

hò

hò

-

hò

hò

愀Ĥ摧ᖭP

7

8

²

³

Ò

Ô

t

u

Ž

Ñ

Ò

à

á

±

s

t

v

¬

°

°

Ã

Ò

á

ò

$

$

$

$

$

h‰

摧߰

愀Ĥ摧ദÁ

gd&

gd&

gd&

gd&

gd&

愀Ĥ摧╙³

摧⹰V

摧ᐪ 

@

옍)

$

@

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

@

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

@

옍)

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

ࠀ

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

Ԁ

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

š

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

$

@

$

@

摧傀

摧㓽yᔀ

ho

hn

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

$

@

@

옍)

'

F

hû

hó

hó

  hó

hó

hó

h

  hó

hó

hó

hV`

hV`

$

h¤

摧࢙²

h¤

h¤

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

”ÿD

萎ː萏ː葝ː葞ː摧懻º

摧懻º

”ÿD

h¤

萎ː萏ː葝ː葞ː摧࢙²

 

 

 

ꀆ

 

$

 

혈\鐄锊ꜘἤ4愆

ꀆ

摧࢙²

䀀द摧̫A

愀Ĥ摧╙³

摧╙³

ˆÿœY

ˆÿœY

摧̫A

摧柫Y

摧̫A



<

A

I

J

N

y

~

†

h

	@

	š

	

 

 

 

Ā 

 

&

*

0

3

9

D

Q

Q

R

ĀR

T

Y

]

c

g

m

p

v

†

‡

Ž

•

˜

™

ž

Ÿ

¢

£

¨

©

«

¬

±

²

Ä

Æ

È

Ê

Ù

Û

Þ

ß

ä

ø

Ž

ĀŽ

•

™

Ÿ

£

©

¬

²

½

É

É

Ê

ĀÊ

Û

ß

å

æ

ø

$

%

Á

Æ

Æ



¿

h

愀Ĥ摧䇀

h

h

	

	ô

Ö

Ö

Ö

Ö

Ö

$

Æ

Æ

␱㜁Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ摧̫A

@

@

@

@

@

$

@

@

摧䛚m

¢

¢

¢

¢

¢

¢

¢

¢

¢

h

h‚'

h‚'

h‚'

摧搋ó

h

h‚'

h],

h],

h],

h×

h],

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

舆

h¦

舆

hü

hü

hü

hü

©

¬

'

=

J

਀&䘋␱㜁Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ摧ᗜ ᰀJ

T

`

l

x

†



³

Ö

å

ó



&

L

਀&䘋␱㜁Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ摧ᗜ ᨀL

r

„

”

¡

¼

Ð

Þ

ú

h¦

h¦

ç

ç

ç

ç

ç

ç

*

摧㤖3

摧㤖3

਀&䘋

摧㤖3

摧取Z

摧ኣÇ

š

š

$

$

kdq

	Ö

摧㤖3

¾ ¿*`	j

愀Ĥ摧ኣÇ

㜀Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ摧㤖3

/

0

㜀Ĥ␸䠁Ĥ摧㤖3

摧㤖3

옍

摧㤖31਀&䘋	옍

옍

Æ

옍

옍

Æ

‰

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

Æ

‰

Æ

Æ

^„@

F

Æ

F

Æ

„ˆ

^„ˆ

F

Æ

„ˆ

^„ˆ

Æ

„@

^„@

F

Æ

Æ

„@

^„@

F

Æ

„ˆ

^„ˆ

|

摧⇢f

摧➂

 2005 tip fee survey (2004 data) National Average.

  Telephone communication with Mr. Earl Finnder, US Filter, October
2001.

  USEPA’s Common Sense Initiative Report indicates 15 tons-per-truck
load size and ECHOS 2001 indicates a maximum truck load size of 18 tons.
 RACER indicates a tanker truck capacity of 5,000 gallons.

  The estimates of average recycling costs were confirmed by industry
contacts (Jarvis, 1999, Personal Communication, Eritech, North Carolina;
Anonymous, 1999, Personal Communication, Sun-Glo Pating, Florida ).

  Shields, 1999, Personal Communication, American Nickeloid, Illinois.

  Jarvis, 1999, Personal Communication, Eritech, North Carolina; and
Anonymous, 1999, Personal Communication, Dearborn Brass, Texas.

   National Solid Wastes Management Association http://www..nswma.org,
2005 tip fee survey (2004 data) National Average, inflated to 2005$
using the CPI factor 1.026.

 Bagsarian, Tom Ed. “Cashing in on steelmaking byproducts”, New
Steel March 1999,  http://www.newsteel.com/features/NS9903f2.htm

  MR3 Systems Inc., http://www.mr3systems.com

 Bulk contaminated soil unit cost from:
http://www.etc.org/costsurvey8.cfm (inflated from 2004$ to 2007$).

 PAGE  130 

