Non-halogenated Solvents[2]
                                      15%
D007
Chromium
                                      14%
D008
Lead
                                      12%
F005
Non-halogenated Solvents[3]
                                      10%
D011
Silver
                                      8%
D003
Reactive Waste
                                      7%
D006
Cadmium
                                      7%
D009
Mercury
                                      6%
D005
Barium
                                      6%
D018
Benzene
                                      6%
F002
Halogenated Solvents[4]
                                      6%
TOTAL ABOVE LISTED WASTE CODES[5]
                                      90%
Notes:
 The 2013 BR database contains 275,081 waste stream records for LQGs. Waste streams may be comprised of multiple waste codes; therefore rows do not add up to 100 percent.
 F003 wastes include: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol.
 F005 wastes include: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane.
 F002 wastes include: tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
 At least one of the waste codes above appear in 90 percent of all waste streams; the remaining 10 percent of waste streams do not contain any of these waste codes.

2.3.2 SQG Hazardous Waste Generation
Due to the limited information in the BR database for non-LQG facilities, this RIA does not rely solely on the BR data to characterize hazardous waste generation for SQGs.  Instead, for SQGs, this RIA relies on the limited data available in the BR database supplemented by facility-level data provided by Maine and Washington.  The data provided by Maine and Washington represent the most complete set of state data for SQG facilities.
The BR data alone are insufficient for estimating SQG hazardous waste quantities because most states do not require SQGs to submit waste generation data to EPA.  For example, no SQG data are available for eight states, including Mississippi, which is one of the largest states in terms of hazardous waste generation among LQGs.  In addition, there are reporting discrepancies in the BR data regarding generator status and hazardous waste quantities.  Based on the hazardous waste generation thresholds, facilities must generate greater than 100 kg and less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month (or between 1.3 and 13.2 tons per year) and also generate less than or equal to 1 kg of acute hazardous waste in a calendar month to be considered an SQG.  However, a number of facilities identified as SQGs in the BR data have generation quantities that exceed these thresholds.
EXHIBIT 2-9 PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF THE BR, MAINE, AND WASHINGTON DATA ON HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION FOR SQG FACILITIES.  THE EXHIBIT EXCLUDES FACILITIES THAT ARE REPORTED TO BE SQGS, BUT THAT EXCEED THE RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION THRESHOLDS.  MAINE AND WASHINGTON DATA ARE ALSO EXCLUDED FROM THE BR DATA TO AVOID DOUBLE-COUNTING.  IN TOTAL, THESE DATA REPRESENT 2,625 FACILITIES GENERATING, ON AVERAGE, APPROXIMATELY 2.2 TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PER FACILITY PER YEAR.  RECOGNIZING THE UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AVERAGE VALUE, EXHIBIT 2-9 ALSO REPORTS THE MEDIAN VALUE OF 1.3 TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PER FACILITY PER YEAR.  THE DATA SUGGEST THAT SQG FACILITIES MANAGE, ON AVERAGE, 7.3 waste streams per facility per year (the median number of waste streams is six).
EXHIBIT 2-9:  SQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED
                                  Data Source
                                      [A]
                   Number of Facilities with Generation Data
                                      [B]
                    Total Hazardous Waste Generated (Tons)
                                      [C]
                    Hazardous Waste Generated Per Facility
                                    (Tons)
                                    [D=C/B]
                 Average Number of Waste Streams Per Facility
                                      [E]
2013 BR Data[1] (excluding ME and WA)
                                                                          1,749
                                                                          4,114
                                                                            2.4
                                                                            7.9
Maine DEP[2]
                                                                            317
                                                                            461
                                                                            1.5
                                                                            6.7
Washington DOE[3]
                                                                            559
                                                                          1,183
                                                                            2.1
                                                                            5.8
TOTAL
                                                                          2,625
                                                                          5,757
                                                                           2.2
                                                                  (Median: 1.3)
                                                                           7.3
                                                                   (Median: 6)
Notes:
 Data based on analysis of 2013 BR database. BR data exclude facilities that are reported to be SQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine and Washington data are also excluded to avoid double-counting.
 State data provided via email communication with Cherie Plummer, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, on October 26, 2012. Maine did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. However, the BR data contain records for 9 SQGs in Maine that generated an average of 6.7 waste streams per facility per year.
 State data provided via email communication with Jean Newman, Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) on November 8, 2012.

2.3.3 VSQG Hazardous Waste Generation
To estimate hazardous waste generation for VSQGs, this RIA relies on the limited information available in the BR data supplemented by facility-level information provided by Maine, New Jersey, and Washington.  As with SQGs, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation quantities of VSQGs.  Based on the hazardous waste generator status thresholds, facilities must generate less than or equal to 100 kg of hazardous waste per month (or less than 1.3 tons per year) and less than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste per month to be considered a VSQG.  Therefore, this analysis excludes facilities in the BR data that are reported to be VSQGs, but exceed these thresholds.
Exhibit 2-10 provides a summary of hazardous waste generation for VSQG facilities.  The BR data exclude facilities that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste thresholds as well as data for Maine, New Jersey, and Washington to avoid double-counting.  In total, these data represent 4,023 facilities generating, on average, approximately 0.25 tons of hazardous waste per facility per year.  The median value is 0.13 tons of hazardous waste per facility per year.  VSQG facilities generated an average of approximately 5.6 waste streams per facility per year (the median number of waste streams is five).
EXHIBIT 2-10:  VSQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED
                                  Data Source
                                      [A]
                   Number of Facilities with Generation Data
                                      [B]
                    Total Hazardous Waste Generated (Tons)
                                      [C]
                    Hazardous Waste Generated Per Facility
                                    (Tons)
                                    [D=C/B]
                 Average Number of Waste Streams Per Facility
                                      [E]
2013 BR Data[1] (excluding ME, NJ, and WA)
                                                                          1,769
                                                                            308
                                                                           0.17
                                                                            7.1
Maine DEP[2]
                                                                            917
                                                                            161
                                                                           0.18
                                                                            4.7
New Jersey DEP[3]
                                                                          1,210
                                                                            498
                                                                           0.41
                                                                            4.4
Washington DOE
                                                                            127
                                                                             42
                                                                           0.33
                                                                            2.6
TOTAL
                                                                          4,023
                                                                          1,009
                                                                          0.25
                                                                 (Median: 0.13)
                                                                           5.6
                                                                    (Median: 5)
Notes:
 Data based on analysis of 2013 BR database. BR data exclude facilities that are reported to be VSQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine, New Jersey, and Washington data are also excluded to avoid double-counting.
 State data provided via email communication with Cherie Plummer, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, on October 26, 2012. Maine did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. However, the BR data contain records for 3 VSQGs in Maine that generated an average of 4.7 waste streams per facility.
 State data provided via email communication with Mike Hastry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, on October 19, 2012.
 State data provided via email communication with Jean Newman, Washington Department of Ecology on November 8, 2012.

2.3.4 Aggregate Generation of Hazardous Waste Among Facilities Potentially Affected by the Rule
Exhibit 2-11 reports the aggregate hazardous waste generation of facilities potentially affected by the final rulemaking.  The regulatory universe includes between 424,099 and 676,890 facilities; however, not all are affected by the final rule.  For example, many VSQGs will only be affected if they voluntarily take advantage of the regulatory flexibility (e.g., intra-organizational transfers and episodic generation) provided by the rule.  Due to uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation of SQGs and VSQGs, this RIA bounds estimates of these generation quantities using the median value reported above to characterize the low-end estimate and the mean (also reported above) to characterize the high-end estimate.  Using this approach, facilities in the affected universe, in aggregate, generate between 35.2 and 35.4 million tons of hazardous waste per year.  While there is uncertainty about the actual number of SQG and VSQG facilities as well as their hazardous waste generation, the vast majority of hazardous waste (approximately 99 percent) is generated by LQGs.  Therefore, in terms of volume, the difference between the low-end and high-end scenarios is approximately 178,000 tons of hazardous waste or less than 1 percent of all hazardous waste managed by facilities in the affected universe.
EXHIBIT 2-11:  AGGREGATE ANNUAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY GENERATOR STATUS (TONS)
                                   SCENARIO
                                      [A]
                                     LQGs
                                     SQGs
                                     VSQGs
                                     TOTAL

                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[B]
                   TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED(TONS)[C]
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[D]
                   TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED(TONS)[E]
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[F]
                   TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED(TONS)[G]
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[H]
                   TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED(TONS)[I]
Low-end Estimate
                                    20,771
                                  35,151,000
                                    49,887
                                    66,000
                                    353,441
                                    46,000
                                    424,099
                                  35,263,000
High-end Estimate

                                    64,310
                                    141,000
                                    591,809
                                    148,000
                                    676,890
                                  35,441,000
Notes:
 For SQGs, the low-end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 1.32 tons/year of hazardous waste. The high-end estimate assumes that SQGs generate, on average, approximately 2.19 tons/year of hazardous waste.
 For VSQGs, the low-end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 0.13 tons/year of hazardous waste. The high-end estimate assumes that VSQGs generate, on average, approximately 0.25 tons/year of hazardous waste.
2.4 Management of Hazardous Waste
This section describes the management of hazardous waste by facilities in the affected universe.  This RIA uses the 2013 BR database to identify the primary management methods for hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs.  The BR instructions allow facilities to report a number of different management methods, both on-site and off-site.  This RIA summarizes the frequency of 12 categories of on-site and off-site management methods (these are listed in Exhibit 2-12) as reported in the 2013 BR database.
Exhibit 2-12 reports the primary on-site and off-site management methods for LQGs and SQGs.  Overall, LQGs manage approximately 69 percent of their hazardous waste (by weight) on-site and 31 percent off-site.  The primary on-site management methods for LQGs include: deep well or underground injection (58 percent of all waste); biological, chemical, or physical treatment (3 percent); and reclamation and recovery (3 percent).  The primary off-site management methods for LQGs include: reclamation and recovery (19 percent of all waste); landfill or surface impoundment (5 percent); and deep well or underground injection (2 percent).  However, the disproportionate share of deep well or underground injection is almost entirely attributable to the largest five industries in terms of overall hazardous waste generation: chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325); petroleum and coal products manufacturing (NAICS 324); waste management and remediation services (NAICS 562); primary metal manufacturing (NAICS 331); and mining (NAICS 212).  Excluding these industries, less than 1.0 percent of LQG hazardous waste is managed through onsite deep well or underground injection.  This also implies that, excluding these five industries, only 24 percent of hazardous waste generated by LQGs is managed on-site -- with roughly half of that, or 13 percent of overall hazardous waste, discharged to a sewer/publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).  The remaining 76 percent of hazardous waste is managed off-site, including 37 percent managed off-site for reclamation and recovery, 9 percent sent to a landfill or surface impoundment, 9 percent transferred off-site with no treatment or recovery, and the remaining 21 percent managed through other off-site methods.
Overall, SQG facilities manage approximately 80 percent of their hazardous waste off-site and 20 percent on-site.  The primary off-site management methods for SQGs include: stabilization prior to land disposal at another site (36 percent); transfer off-site with no treatment or recovery (12 percent); and landfill or surface impoundment (10 percent).  The primary on-site management method for SQGs is sewering (19 percent of overall waste).
One source of uncertainty is that, in some cases, LQGs and SQGs that reported to EPA inadvertently submitted identical Waste Generation Management (GM) Forms for off-site and on-site waste management, thereby double-counting the amount of hazardous waste they generate.  It is not possible to determine whether these wastes were managed on-site or off-site.  Because this occurs infrequently and the associated waste quantities are generally small, this RIA includes these wastes in both estimates of waste managed on-site and off-site.  In addition, for a small number of facilities, the waste quantities generated and the waste quantities managed (both on-site and off-site) did not match.  This may be attributable to reporting error or changes in reporting methods.  As this discrepancy accounts for a very small proportion of all hazardous waste generated, no attempt was made to correct for it.
EXHIBIT 2-12:  PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY MANAGEMENT METHOD (BY WEIGHT)[1]
                               MANAGEMENT METHOD
                                      [A]
                                  LQGs (ALL)
                                     LQGs
                (EX-5 LARGEST GENERATING INDUSTRIES)SQGs (ALL)
                                    ON-SITE
                                     [B]
                                 OFF-SITE [C]
                                    ON-SITE
                                     [D]
                                 OFF-SITE [E]
                                    ON-SITE
                                     [F]
                                 OFF-SITE [G]
Reclamation and Recovery
                                      3%
                                      19%
                                      4%
                                      37%
                                      0%
                                      8%
Incineration
                                      1%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      4%
                                      0%
                                      4%
Biological, Chemical, or Physical Treatment
                                      3%
                                      1%
                                      3%
                                      4%
                                      0%
                                      3%
Stabilization Prior to Land Disposal at Another Site
                                      0%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      8%
                                      0%
                                      36%
Neutralization Only
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      2%
Evaporation
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Other Treatment (excluding Onsite Disposal)
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Land Treatment or Application
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      2%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      1%
Landfill or Surface Impoundment
                                      1%
                                      5%
                                      0%
                                      9%
                                      0%
                                      10%
Deepwell or Underground Injection
                                      58%
                                      2%
                                      1%
                                      4%
                                      0%
                                      3%
Discharge to Sewer/POTW or NPDES
                                      2%
                                      0%
                                      13%
                                      1%
                                      19%
                                      0%
Transfer Off-site with no Treatment or Recovery
                                      0%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      9%
                                      0%
                                      12%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL WASTE
                                      69%
                                      31%
                                      24%
                                      76%
                                      20%
                                      80%
Notes:
 Note that Columns B and C (and Columns D and E) are additive and sum to 100 percent for LQGs. Similarly, Columns F and G are additive and sum to 100 percent for SQGs.
 Excluding the five largest industries in terms of overall hazardous waste generation (NAICS 324, 325, 562, 331, and 212) -- which account for the vast majority of on-site deepwell or underground injection -- the primary management methods for other LQGs more closely mirror those for SQGs. The subset of LQGs shown in Columns D and E, excluding the five industries noted above, accounts for 80 percent of LQGs, but only 5 percent of the overall hazardous waste managed by all LQGs.

CHAPTER 3  |  Assessment of Costs
3.1 Introduction
This chapter assesses the costs of managing hazardous waste under the provisions set forth in the final Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, which are outlined in Chapter 1.  This chapter begins by outlining EPA's approach for addressing several uncertainties related to the rule's cost impacts by estimating these costs as a range.  Following this discussion, the chapter presents a detailed description of the methodology for the cost analysis.  This includes a discussion of EPA's approach for estimating costs based on the limited facility-level data summarized in Chapter 2 and identification of the requirements likely to have the most significant impact on costs.  This chapter then presents the total annualized costs under the final rule, and concludes with a discussion of the analytic limitations associated with the cost analysis.
3.2 Estimating Costs as a Range
To address uncertainties regarding the number of facilities in the regulated universe, the amount of hazardous waste that they generate, and several of the cost-related inputs presented later in this chapter, this RIA presents both low-impact and high-impact estimates of the costs associated with the final rule.  The low-impact cost estimates presented in this chapter reflect the low-end estimates presented in Chapter 2 regarding (1) the number of facilities in the regulated universe, (2) the number of waste streams per facility, and (3) the annual generation of hazardous waste among regulated facilities.  The low-impact estimates also reflect the low-end assumptions regarding any cost-related inputs for which a range of data inputs was available, such as the number of labor hours required for compliance activities.  Similarly, the high-impact cost estimates developed in this chapter reflect the high-end estimates for these variables.  Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the low- and high-end assumptions regarding the number of facilities, the number of waste streams per facility, and the per-facility generation of hazardous waste.  The distinctions between the low- and high-end values for these variables are as follows:
      NUMBER OF FACILITIES:  For SQGs, the low-end estimate reflects the number of SQGs identified on the Biennial Report WR form in 2013, whereas the high-end estimate reflects SQGs identified on the WR form for any of the years 2009, 2011, or 2013.  A more detailed discussion on these estimates can be found in Chapter 2.  For VSQGs, the low-end estimate reflects the lowest value calculated among the VSQG-to-SQG and VSQG-to-LQG ratios presented in Chapter 2, whereas the high-end estimate reflects the highest value.  The estimated number of LQGs is derived from the 2013 BR database and is the same for both the low-end and high-end scenario.
      Number of waste streams per facility:  Low-end values represent the median number of waste streams reported by generators to EPA or relevant state authorities in the most recent reporting cycle, as presented in Chapter 2.  The high-end values represent the mean number of waste streams in the most recent reporting cycle, which is slightly higher.
      EXHIBIT 3-1:  BASELINE HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION ESTIMATES
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                               LOW-END ESTIMATE
                               HIGH-END ESTIMATE
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[B]
         MEDIAN HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY GENERATED PER FACILITY(TONS)
                                      [C]
           MEDIAN NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY[D]
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[E]
          MEAN HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY GENERATED PER FACILITY(TONS)
                                      [F]
            MEAN NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY[G]
                                      LQG
                                    20,771
                                     7.58
                                       6
                                    20,771
                                   1,692.33
                                      13
                                      SQG
                                    49,887
                                     1.32
                                       6
                                    64,310
                                     2.19
                                       7
                                     VSQG
                                    353,441
                                     0.13
                                       5
                                    591,809
                                     0.25
                                       6
Notes:
 Hazardous waste generation mean and median quantities are derived from the following sources. For LQGs: 2013 BR data; for SQGs: limited 2013 BR data combined with data provided by the States of Maine and Washington; for VSQGs: limited 2013 BR data combined with data provided by the States of Maine, New Jersey, and Washington.
 The median and mean number of waste streams is derived from the following sources. For LQGs: 2013 BR data; for SQGs and VSQGs: limited 2013 BR data combined with data provided by the State of Washington. Maine and New Jersey provided data on waste quantities for SQGs and VSQGs, but did not report information on the number of waste streams managed. Information for these states was collected from the 2013 BR data.

      Annual hazardous waste generation per facility:  Similar to the number of waste streams, the low-end generation values reflect the median values derived from the BR or state data, and the high-end values reflect the mean values estimated from these data sources.
3.3 Cost Methodology
This section presents the methods employed in this RIA to assess the cost impacts of the final rule.  To begin, this section outlines the key assumptions reflected in several components of the cost analysis.  Following this discussion, the chapter provides a detailed accounting of the unit costs associated with each provision of the final rule.  For each provision, this section describes differences in requirements between the baseline and the final rule.  While the majority of the requirements are mandatory, three provisions of the rule are intended to provide greater flexibility to certain classes of hazardous waste generators and are thus voluntary (intra-organizational transfers, episodic generation, and special requirements for ignitable and reactive waste).  This section first reports the costs associated with the mandatory provisions of the rule and then reports costs for the voluntary provisions.  In this section, costs are annualized over a 20-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.  In the results section at the end of this chapter, total costs are also reported on an undiscounted basis and using a 3 percent discount rate.
3.3.1 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
The assessment of costs presented in this chapter relies upon several assumptions that influence the estimated costs of managing hazardous waste under the final rule.  Some of these assumptions affect several components of the analysis.  These include assumptions regarding (1) hourly labor costs that determine the costs associated with the various provisions of the rule and (2) the discount rate.  These assumptions are outlined in detail below.
Hourly Labor Costs
MANY OF THE UNIT COSTS PRESENTED IN THIS CHAPTER REFLECT THE TIME REQUIRED OF MANAGERS, TECHNICIANS, ATTORNEYS, AND OTHER STAFF FOR VARIOUS HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES and are estimated as a function of the hourly labor costs associated with various professional and clerical positions.  Exhibit 3-2 reports the fully loaded labor costs on a per-hour basis for facility staff, including lawyers and office clerks, who will likely implement the requirements associated with the final rule.  The hourly costs presented in the exhibit reflect unloaded hourly wages reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) based on a full time employee working 40 hours a week multiplied by a loaded wage rate factor of 1.4825.  This represents the sum of two cost factors: (1) a fringe benefits (e.g., insurance, disability income protection, retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation, etc.) rate of 0.3625 and (2) an overhead rate of 0.12.
EXHIBIT 3-2:  HOURLY LABOR COSTS ($2015)
                            BLS OCCUPATION CATEOGRY
                     MEAN LOADED HOURLY LABOR COSTMANAGERS
                                    $86.15
Technicians
                                    $42.41
Software Developers and Programmers
                                    $70.04
Office Clerks, General
                                    $22.66
Lawyers
                                    $98.11
Source:
 Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2014, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 on February 18, 2016.
 Inflation factor based on December 2015 cost index using Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index Historical Listing Current-dollar March 2001  -  December 2015, Table 1: Employment Cost Index for Total Compensation, by Occupational Group and Industry (Seasonally Adjusted), accessed at http://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf on February 18, 2016.
 Loaded wage rates calculated using fringe benefit and overhead cost factors from Figure C1 of the May 29, 2003 OMB Circular A-76: Performance of Commercial Activities, accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a076_a76_incl_tech_correction on February 18, 2016.
Discount Rates
This RIA presents the cost impacts of the rule in present value and annualized terms based on discount rates of 3 and 7 percent over a 20-year forecast period.  The present value represents the value today of a future stream of payments in nominal or real dollar terms.  That is, it is the sum of a series of future cash flows expressed in today's dollars.  Translation of future costs to present value terms requires the following: (a) projected future costs; and (b) the specific years in which these impacts are expected to be incurred.  With these data, the present value of the future stream of impacts (PVc) from year t1 to T is measured in 2015 dollars according to the following standard formula:

where Ct is the cost of each management activity in year t and r is the discount rate.
As indicated above, this RIA also expresses cost impacts for each hazardous waste management activity as annualized values.  Annualized values are calculated to provide a comparison of impacts across activities with varying time components and forecast periods.  Annualized future impacts (APVc) are calculated according to the following standard formula:

where N is the number of years in the forecast period.
Other Assumptions
The hazardous waste generation quantities reported above in Exhibit 3-1 inform several baseline waste management assumptions in this RIA.  Specifically, this RIA relies on the mean and median per facility generation quantities to develop estimates of the number of storage containers used by hazardous waste generators.  Generally, these facilities are assumed to accumulate hazardous waste in 55-gallon drums, which are stored and eventually transported to disposal sites once filled.  This RIA assumes that facilities need to maintain a sufficient number of drums to manage all of their hazardous waste, whether it is managed on-site or off-site.  This RIA assumes that a filled 55-gallon drum holds between 140 and 275 pounds of waste (an average of 207.5 pounds) in solid form or between 250 and 400 pounds of waste in liquid or sludge form (an average of 325 pounds).  Based on 2013 BR data, approximately 90 percent of all hazardous waste managed is in liquid or sludge form and 10 percent is in solid form.  Therefore, this RIA assumes that the average 55-gallon drum holds approximately 313 pounds of hazardous waste, which represents the weighted average of the liquid/sludge and solid values presented above.  With respect to transportation, this RIA assumes that a standard 18-wheeler trailer can carry up to eighty 55-gallon drums.
Based on the waste generation values in Exhibit 3-1, this RIA's drum capacity assumption of 313 pounds per drum implies that a typical VSQG manages five to six partially-filled 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste per year, while a typical SQG manages between approximately 9 and 15 drums per year.   To estimate the number of drums used by LQGs, this RIA applies the 313-pound-per-drum figure to the median LQG generation value from Exhibit 3-1.   Based on this value, the typical LQG manages approximately 49 drums per year.  The median generation value for LQGs is likely to be more representative than the mean because the latter is skewed by a limited number of larger facilities, which are more likely to use storage tanks than drums.
3.3.2 RE-NOTIFICATION
Under the final rule, LQGs are required to re-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year and SQGs are required to re-notify every four years.  LQGs are already required to re-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generator status through the BR.  Therefore, this requirement only represents an incremental cost for SQGs.  However, 12 states and the District of Colombia already require SQGs to re-notify.  There are approximately 6,300 to 7,900 SQGs in states that currently require SQG re-notification; thus, the final rule will impact between approximately 43,600 and 56,400 SQGs in states that do not currently require re-notification.
Specifically, for each re-notification, a facility will need to review its previous notification and either make changes, if necessary, or confirm that the information remains accurate.  EPA estimates that the initial cost of notification is approximately $47.98 per facility and the cost of re-notification is approximately $34.05 (in 2015 dollars).  Because facilities that must record changes in their re-notification form may require additional time to collect this information, this RIA assumes that these facilities are likely to incur costs similar to the initial notification, while facilities that need only confirm that the previous information is still accurate are likely to incur typical re-notification costs.
To estimate the number of facilities that may take additional time to complete the re-notification, EPA analyzed BR data for approximately 18,450 facilities that submitted multiple BR records between 2003 and 2011 to assess whether those facilities reported changes in their general facility information between reporting periods.  These include changes to a facility's: (1) physical location; (2) mailing address; (3) emergency contact information; (4) ownership; and (5) generator status.
Identifying changes between reporting years is complicated by the fact that facilities may report the same information differently each year.  Thus, the most significant challenge in identifying actual information changes is eliminating false mismatches, which occur as a result of: misspellings, typos, abbreviations, acronyms, nicknames, titles, prefixes, suffixes, and word order.  These false mismatches may account for the majority of changes in physical location and mailing address, which tend to occur less frequently than changes in contact information.  Address mismatches are particularly challenging because zip codes may change while street addresses do not, and generators may alternate between listing adjoining or enveloping towns/cities/metro-areas/counties in different reporting years.  For example, a facility may list its location as Phoenix one year, but in Glendale (a Phoenix suburb) the next. Considering these and other irregularities in the reporting of facility information in the BR, this RIA uses the following approach to identify changes between reporting years:
 For contact and owner names, remove titles, prefixes, and suffixes to more easily identify actual matches.
 Use a computer algorithm to calculate the "Levenshtein distance" between any two entries for a generator. Then eliminate matches where the Levenshtein distance is less than four or where less than 30 percent of the text characters change from one year to the next, because these are highly likely to be identical entries, but for typos, misspellings, etc.
 For contact and owner names, eliminate mismatches where the last name does not change but the first name (or remaining part of the name) is a variation on another entry. For example, "Bill Rogers" and "William Rogers" or "EI Dupont", "EI Dupont De Nemours", and "E I Dupont De Nemours & Co."
 Use a search and replace algorithm to clean the data of common typos or abbreviations, for example changing "PHX, ARIZONA" to "PHOENIX, ARIZONA."
 Finally, review any remaining changes between reporting years manually to identify and remove the remaining false mismatches.
This methodology attempts to remove false mismatches that appear to be changes but are likely due to input error or inconsistent reporting methods over time.  For all of the information changes identified, a manual check of the records was performed to ensure the accuracy of the results.  However, this methodology is limited by the sheer volume of data and limitless possibilities for variation in user data entry.  For contact and owner names, a limitation of this approach is that name changes that may occur due to marriage or divorce (i.e., an individual's surname changes while their first name does not) are not easily verified.  These types of name-changes occur for a non-trivial percentage of facilities (approximately 200 per year, or five percent of all name changes in the BR data).  Another limitation of this approach is that many facilities submitted BR records in only one year, making it impossible to identify potential changes for these facilities.
Based on this approach, this RIA estimates that approximately 35.2 percent of facilities had at least one change in their general facility information between biennial reporting periods, with the most common reason being a change in the primary contact name or a change in ownership.  Exhibit 3-3 reports the percentage of facilities that reported changes in their generator information to EPA across multiple BR reporting periods.
Based on the 2003-2011 BR data, over a four year period approximately 42 percent of SQGs will have no change in their general facility information and will incur standard re-notification costs every four years, while the remaining 58 percent of SQGs may require additional time to report changes in generator information as part of their re-notification.  Therefore, the average per facility cost of re-notification is approximately $42.13 every four years.  This represents an incremental cost for SQGs in states that do not currently require re-notification, but this cost is already incurred by LQGs and a subset of SQGs in states with reporting requirements in the baseline.
EXHIBIT 3-3:  PERCENTAGE OF FACILTIES REPORTING A CHANGE IN THEIR GENERATOR INFORMATION TO EPA (ON A BIENNIAL BASIS)REASON FOR reporting Change in Generator Information
                           Percentage of Facilities
Physical Location Change
                                     0.05%
Mailing Address Change
                                     3.9%
Emergency Contact Name Change
                                     33.0%
Owner Change
                                     8.2%
Generator Status Change
                                     4.7%
At Least One Change for Any Reason
                                   35.2%[2]
Notes:
 Source: EPA's BR database records from 2003 to 2011.
 This value is less than the sum of the values associated with individual reasons for reporting a change in generator information because some facilities may have multiple reasons for reporting a change.

Exhibit 3-4 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of re-notification under this provision of the rule by facility type.  All of the SQG costs are incurred every four years, starting in the first year after the promulgation of the final rule.
EXHIBIT 3-4:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR RE-NOTIFICATION ($2015 ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNAULIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
SQG
                                    43,604
                                     $0.00
                                   $11.63[a]
                                      $0
                                   $507,000
                                   $507,000
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    43,604
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $507,000
                                   $507,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
SQG
                                    56,390
                                     $0.00
                                   $11.63[a]
                                      $0
                                   $656,000
                                   $656,000
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    56,390
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $656,000
                                   $656,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
 This figure represents the annualized cost of re-notification (a weighted average of $34.05 for standard re-notification and $47.98 for re-notification with data modifications -- see the main text for details on the weighting).  Approximately 42 percent of facilities are assumed to have standard re-notification costs, while 58 percent of facilities are assumed to have at least one reason for modification to their re-notification submission.  Applying these values as weights yields a weighted average cost of $42.13 incurred every four years, or $11.63 on an annualized basis.

3.3.3 LABELING/MARKING
Current RCRA regulations require that LQGs and SQGs label containers and tanks with the words "Hazardous Waste."  The final rule would expand this policy to require facilities to provide container and tank labeling, including: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste" and (2) an indication of the hazards of a container's contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristics).  Similarly, EPA is also requiring that SQGs and LQGs mark areas near containment buildings with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste" and (2) an indication of the associated hazards. This represents an incremental cost for all LQGs and SQGs. The final rule does not change the labeling requirements for hazardous waste accumulated on drip pads.
This RIA assumes that LQGs generally use a computerized labeling system or rely on an environmental services company to maintain a labeling/tracking database.  Furthermore, it is assumed that all of the necessary information to be included on the label is already maintained in a database in the baseline and that the current labels used by LQGs are large enough to fit the additional information that must be included on labels under the final rule.  Therefore, the one-time programming and testing costs to accommodate the new enhanced label format for containers, tanks, and areas near containment buildings which requires 10 hours of a programmer's time, represents the only cost for LQGs that choose to reprogram their computerized labeling system.  Using the hourly labor costs for programmers as presented in Exhibit 3-2, this represents an initial one-time cost of approximately $700 per LQG to modify existing labels with the additional data element.  After incurring this initial cost, LQGs will realize no additional costs in subsequent years.
Furthermore, this RIA assumes that LQGs can use Department of Transportation (DOT) labels to comply with the requirement to provide labeling that indicates the hazards of a container's contents.  EPA estimates that LQGs that (1) manage their waste off-site and (2) have few, predictable waste streams are likely to take advantage of this option.  LQGs transporting waste off-site must already apply DOT labels to their containers.  These facilities either apply the labels before shipment or rely on a transporter service to apply the labels before shipment.  LQGs that currently label their waste when it is ready for shipment or rely on a transporter service to apply the labels before shipment will now have to apply labels at the point of generation.  This would not represent an additional cost beyond what is represented in the baseline.  In some instances, when LQGs apply DOT labels at the point of generation rather than relying on a transporter service, it would shift the cost from transporter services to LQGs.  LQGs that currently rely on a transporter service to apply DOT labels to containers would likely apply their own DOT labels to their waste at the point of generation when they have few, predictable waste streams and would not need to rely on the specialized knowledge of the transporter service.  LQGs with many unpredictable waste streams are more likely to continue to rely on the transporter service to apply DOT labels and are likely to invest in updating their computerized labeling systems (as outlined above) to comply with the requirement to provide labeling that indicates the hazards of the content.
This RIA assumes that LQGs with 6 waste streams (the median number of waste streams for LQGs) or less that ship all of their waste off-site would use DOT labels to comply with the requirement to provide labeling that indicates the hazards of the container's content.  Based on the 2013 BR database, 10,483 LQGs have 6 waste streams or less and ship all of their waste off-site (approximately half of the LQG universe).  Therefore, EPA estimates that 10,483 LQGs rely on DOT labeling to comply with the labeling requirements under the final rule.  The remaining 10,288 LQGs are assumed to upgrade their computerized labeling system to comply with the labeling requirements.
In contrast, this RIA assumes that SQGs rely on a manual process rather than an automated system to label their containers.  EPA estimates that it takes about 0.25 hours (or 15 minutes) of a technician's time to apply labels to containers in a primary storage area.  Based on label price information for two label suppliers this RIA estimates that the average cost of a simple label containing the words "Hazardous Waste" with a blank space to indicate the hazards of a container's contents is approximately $0.06 per label.  These costs are already incurred in the baseline.  Additionally, EPA assumes it takes about 0.08 hours (or 5 minutes) of a technician's time per container to write additional information on the label indicating the hazards of the container's contents, which represents an incremental cost of approximately $3.52 per container.
This cost would be applied to containers in SQGs' primary accumulation areas, as well as their satellite accumulation areas (SAAs).  As indicated in the assumptions section above, EPA estimates that SQGs use 9 to 15 containers in their primary accumulation areas each year.  The number of containers in SQGs' SAAs (that are not simply moved to primary accumulation areas), however, is highly uncertain and likely to vary significantly across facilities.  In the absence of information on the number of containers in SAAs, this RIA assumes that the number is approximately half that in primary accumulation areas (or approximately 4 to 7 containers).  Based on this assumption, the cost per container for SQGs is applied to 13 to 22 containers per SQG.  With a cost of $3.52 per container, this translates to additional labeling costs of $46 to $77 per SQG each year.  The requirements for SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containment buildings or tanks are slightly different in that these generators will use their inventory logs to comply with the labeling/marking provision.  This RIA assumes that the costs for these generators are similar to the costs for SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containers -- approximately $46 to $77 per SQG per year.  Unlike the system upgrade costs presented above for LQGs, the labeling/marking costs for SQGs represent an annual recurring cost incurred by SQGs.
EXHIBIT 3-5 REPORTS THE UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COSTS OF LABELING/MARKING CONTAINERS BY FACILITY TYPE.  COSTS ARE ALSO BROKEN OUT BY ONE-TIME COSTS (I.E., FIRST YEAR ONLY) AND RECURRING COSTS (I.E., ANNUAL COSTS).
EXHIBIT 3-5:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR LABELING/MARKING ($2015 ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    10,288
                                   $61.79[a]
                                     $0.00
                                   $636,000
                                      $0
                                   $636,000
SQG
                                    49,887
                                     $0.00
                                   $45.73[b]
                                      $0
                                  $2,280,000
                                  $2,280,000
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    60,175
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                   $636,000
                                  $2,280,000
                                  $2,920,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    10,288
                                   $61.79[a]
                                     $0.00
                                   $636,000
                                      $0
                                   $636,000
SQG
                                    64,310
                                     $0.00
                                   $77.39[c]
                                      $0
                                  $4,980,000
                                  $4,980,000
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    74,598
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                   $636,000
                                  $4,980,000
                                  $5,610,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
 This figure represents a first-year labor cost of $700.39 ($61.79 on an annualized basis) for 10 hours of a programmer's time.
 This figure represents an additional labor cost of $3.52 (five minutes of a technician's time) per 55-gallon drum. This RIA assumes that SQGs manage an average of 13 drums per year in the low impact scenario. The annualized cost of $45.73 per facility is split between labeling in primary accumulation areas ($30.49 per facility) and satellite accumulation areas ($15.24 per facility). Thus, the total annualized cost for SQGs of approximately $2.3 million is divided between primary accumulation areas ($1.5 million) and SAAs ($0.8 million).
 This figure represents an additional labor cost of $3.52 (five minutes of a technician's time) per 55-gallon drum. This RIA assumes that SQGs manage an average of 22 drums per year in the high impact scenario. The annualized cost of $77.39 per facility is split between labeling in primary accumulation areas ($51.59 per facility) and satellite accumulation areas ($25.80 per facility). Thus, the total annualized cost for SQGs of approximately $5.0 million is divided between primary accumulation areas ($3.3 million) and SAAs ($1.7 million).

3.3.4 CLOSURE
Under existing regulations, LQGs must comply with general closure provisions, which require removing and decontaminating all contaminated equipment, structures, and soil to minimize the need for further maintenance and prevent post-closure release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment.  LQGs storing or treating waste in tanks, drip pads, and containment buildings are also subject to closure requirements specific to these types of units.  No such unit-specific requirements exist, however, for CAAs.  In addition, LQGs are not currently subject to closure notification or financial assurance requirements.  The closure requirements for SQGs are less stringent than for LQGs in that SQGs are only subject to certain requirements for accumulating hazardous waste in tanks, while there are no specific requirements for SQGs managing hazardous waste in containers.  There are no closure requirements for VSQGs.
The final rule will strengthen the closure requirements for LQGs.  Specifically, the rule stipulates that if an LQG cannot demonstrate that any contaminated soils in a CAA can be practicably removed or decontaminated, then the LQG must close the waste accumulation unit and perform post-closure care in accordance with the closure and post-closure care requirements that apply to landfills (§ 265.310).  In addition, EPA is requiring LQGs to notify EPA or their authorized state agency at least 30 days prior to closure.  EPA is also requiring that such generators subsequently notify within 90 days after closure that they have either clean closed or, if they cannot clean close, that they have closed as a landfill.
The costs of this provision depend on four factors.  First, for all LQGs that close, the costs depend on the cost of notifying EPA of a closure.  Then, for LQGs that close CAAs and cannot demonstrate that contaminated soils in these areas can be practicably removed or decontaminated, the costs also depend on (1) the average number of LQGs with CAAs that close annually, (2) the percentage of these facilities that will be required to close as a landfill, and (3) the per-facility cost of closing as a landfill.  This RIA's approach for estimating these items is as follows:
Cost of Notifying EPA of a Closure:  All LQGs that close will incur costs associated with the final rule's notification requirements for LQGs.  Consistent with the unit costs presented above for re-notification, the cost per notification is estimated to be $47.98 per facility.  For the two closure notification requirements (one 30 days prior to notification and another no later than 90 days following closure), this cost is $95.97 per LQG closure.
Average number of LQG closures per year:  Because EPA does not currently require notification for LQG closures at the unit or facility level, comprehensive data on the number of closures occurring each year are not available.  EPA contacted several states to determine if any possess data on LQG closures, and the only state in possession of such data was Connecticut.  Although Connecticut does not currently require facilities to submit notification of closure, the state maintains data on changes in generator status dating back to 1996 that were used to estimate the number of closures. A status change is documented when a hazardous waste generator with an EPA ID number informs the State that it is changing its generator status, for example, from LQG to SQG or SQG to VSQG.  A change from any generator status non-handler is considered a closure.  For closures, Connecticut requires hazardous waste generators to confirm on a status change application form that they closed any storage areas that they ceased using in accordance with the state closure requirements.
In addition to tracking LQG generator status changes, Connecticut also documented the number of SQGs that changed their generator status to VSQG and the number of SQGs and VSQGs that changed their generator status to non-handler.  Virtually all of the VSQGs that have EPA ID numbers were formerly LQGs or SQGs.  Exhibit 3-6 reports the number of generator status changes and closures in Connecticut between 1996 and 2012.  Over this time period, Connecticut had a total generator universe of approximately 400 LQGs, 1,700 SQGs, and 2,800 VSQGs.
EXHIBIT 3-6:  CONNECTICUT HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR STATUS CHANGES AND CLOSURES FROM 1996 TO 2012
                                Original Status
                                 Ending Status
                           Number of Status Changes
LQG
SQG
                                      199
LQG
VSQG
                                      87
LQG
Non-Handler
                                      152
SQG
VSQG
                                      141
SQG
Non-Handler
                                      231
VSQG
Non-Handler
                                      29
TOTAL GENERATOR STATUS CHANGES
                                      839
TOTAL CLOSURES
                                      412
AVERAGE CLOSURES PER YEAR (all generators)
                                     24.2
AVERAGE LQG CLOSURES PER YEAR
                                      8.9

As shown in the exhibit, Connecticut had 152 LQG closures (approximately 9 per year) between 1996 and 2012.  This represents an annual LQG closure rate of approximately 2.2 percent.  Applying this to the 20,771 LQGs in the regulated universe, this RIA estimates there are approximately 464 LQG closures annually.  One limitation is that data are only available at the facility-level, not at the unit level.  Therefore, EPA cannot reliably estimate how many LQGs would be required to document individual waste accumulation unit closures without closing the facility.
Percent of LQGs Closing as a Landfill:  As noted above, the requirement for closing an LQG as a landfill (i.e., with contamination in place) will apply only to LQGs that are unable to remove or decontaminate contaminated soils from their accumulation areas.  Data on the number of closures that meet this criterion are unavailable.  In addition, enforcement personnel contacted in state agencies that implement RCRA are unaware of any LQGs that closed without decontaminating their accumulation areas and suspect that such an occurrence is rare.  Based on this input and the lack of data on closure with contamination in place, this RIA assumes that between zero and one percent of LQGs close with contamination in place in their accumulation areas.   Applying this range to the estimated 464 LQG closures per year, this RIA estimates between zero and five LQGs close as a landfill each year under the final rule.
Additional Costs of Closing as a Landfill:  The additional cost of an LQG closing its CAA as a landfill is uncertain, as EPA is unaware of any documented cases of LQGs closing with contamination remaining in their CAA.  For the purposes of estimating these costs, this RIA assumes that an LQG needs to demolish its concrete floor and stabilize it for disposal, install a new concrete floor, and conduct groundwater monitoring near the facility.  EPA estimated each of these costs using 2010 Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements (RACER) software as follows:
Demolition of Concrete Floor: The estimated cost of demolishing concrete flooring is approximately $829 per facility.
Floor Disposal: The estimated cost of floor disposal, including transportation, is approximately $2,734 per facility.
New Concrete Floor: The estimated cost of laying a new concrete floor is approximately $3,365 per facility.
Groundwater Monitoring (installation): For each LQG closing as a landfill, this RIA assumes that three monitoring wells would be drilled near each facility: two downslope and one in the immediate vicinity of the facility.  The cost of drilling monitoring wells varies, based largely on well depth.  Under the conservative assumption that a deep well would be necessary for each site, this RIA applies an installation cost of approximately $16,960 per well, plus professional labor management costs of approximately $10,227 and design costs of approximately $2,312, which translates to total well installation costs of $63,421 per LQG closing as a landfill.
Groundwater Monitoring (sampling): Sampling of the three wells drilled near each site is assumed to occur semi-annually, the minimum required under RCRA.  The cost per semi-annual sampling for all three wells combined is an estimated $17,752 per year.  However, the first year sampling costs are estimated to be higher due to the initial design and development of the monitoring systems and the benchmark establishment of recordkeeping and other requirements.  Therefore, the increased cost of first year sampling is estimated to be $28,035 in addition to the regular annual sampling cost of $17,752.  As required under RCRA, monitoring is expected to continue for 30 years after closure.  To capture this recurring cost, this RIA estimates the present value of monitoring for each LQG closing as a landfill.  This value is approximately $386,000 using a 3 percent discount rate and $264,000 using a 7 percent discount rate.
Combining these various cost elements for LQGs closing as a landfill, this RIA estimates the net present value of the closure and post-closure monitoring costs to be $334,089 (using a seven percent discount rate) for every LQG that closes as a landfill.
Exhibit 3-7 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of closure, including costs associated with the failure to clean close, by facility type.  While closure notification and most closure activities -- with the exception of groundwater monitoring -- are one-time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs of the final rule because a percentage of the LQG universe is expected to close each year.
EXHIBIT 3-7:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR CLOSURE ($2015 ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                    [B][a]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    464 (0)
                                     $0.00
                                   $95.97[b]
                                      $0
                                    $44,500
                                    $44,500
SQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    464 (0)
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                    $44,500
                                    $44,500
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                    [B][a]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    464 (5)
                                     $0.00
                                   $3,696[c]
                                      $0
                                  $1,710,000
                                  $1,710,000
SQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    464 (5)
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                  $1,710,000
                                  $1,710,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
 This RIA assumes 464 LQGs close each year. The values in parentheses in this column represent the estimated number of LQGs that cannot clean close.  The low impact scenario assumes that zero facilities fail to clean close, while the high impact scenario assumes that five facilities fail to clean close each year.
 This figure reflects the cost of writing and submitting two closure notifications ($47.98 each) per facility to a Regional Administrator (30-days prior to closure and within 90 days following closure).
 This figure reflects multiple costs, including two closure notifications per facility (as described in note b above), and is reported as a weighted average across all affected facilities -- including those that are able to clean close and those that are not. For facilities that fail to clean close, it includes the following costs: (1) concrete floor demolition, $829; (2) floor stabilization and disposal, $2,734; (3) laying a new concrete floor, $3,365; (4) installation of three groundwater monitoring wells, $63,421 = $10,227 labor + $2,312 design + $16,960 installation per well x 3 wells; and (5) the present discounted value of groundwater monitoring for 30 years, $263,741.  Based on these values, the cost per facility that clean closes is $95.97 and the cost per facility that does not clean close is $334,185.  Therefore, the total annualized costs are calculated as follows: (464 x $95.97) + (5 x $334,185) = $1,714,976, which translates to an average per facility cost of approximately $3,696.

3.3.5 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS
Under the existing RCRA requirements for prevention, preparedness, and emergency response, LQGs must prepare a contingency plan, attempt to coordinate with local response agencies, and update the plan as needed.  In addition, under the existing requirements SQGs must coordinate with local emergency response authorities.  Under the final rule, LQGs and SQGs must maintain records documenting these arrangements with local emergency responders, or if no arrangement exists, that attempts were made to set up this arrangement.  Currently, EPA estimates that 10 percent of facilities have failed to make arrangements with local emergency responders.  If these facilities document in their operating record that they attempted to make arrangements with state or local authorities, they will be in compliance under the final rule.
Requirements for Existing LQGs and SQGs.  In the first year after the promulgation of the final rule, LQGs and SQGs that do not have arrangements with local emergency responders will have to document their previous attempt to make arrangements.  EPA estimates it takes about 30 minutes (or 0.5 hours) of administrative time for an LQG to re-submit a contingency plan or an SQG to provide information about their facility to local emergency management authorities if they attempt to make arrangements when they have previously been unable to do so.  EPA also estimates it takes all LQGs and SQGs about 6 minutes (or 0.1 hours) of administrative time to document active arrangements with local emergency responders.  Therefore, the average one-time labor cost for a facility without existing arrangements is $13.60 and the average labor cost for a facility with existing arrangements is $2.27.
After the promulgation of the final rule, any LQG that has to update their contingency plan is be required to develop and submit a quick reference guide to their contingency plan to emergency management authorities.  Under existing regulations, any of the following circumstances require an LQG to update their contingency plan:
 Any revision to the applicable regulations following the promulgation of the rule;
 The list of emergency coordinators changes;
 The facility changes its design, operations, or maintenance in a way that necessitates a change in emergency response;
 The facility list of emergency equipment changes; or
 The existing contingency plan fails during an emergency.
There is uncertainty associated with the frequency of events that require an LQG to update their contingency plan as well as the number of potentially affected generators.  Furthermore, only a subset of LQGs will be required to update their contingency plans for facility-specific reasons.  EPA estimates that the most common is a change in the emergency coordinator(s).  Based on an analysis of BR reporting, approximately 33 percent of facilities reported a change in their emergency contact(s) between reporting periods (every two years).  Therefore, EPA estimates that approximately 16.5 percent of LQGs, on average, will be required to update their contingency plans each year following the promulgation of the rule.  The frequency of additional events that necessitate a change in a facility's contingency plan is unknown.  A subset of LQGs may have multiple reasons to update their contingency plans and is already included in the 16.5 percent.  Based on this analysis, 3,427 LQGs (of 20,771 total LQGs) will have to update their contingency plan and submit a quick reference guide each year.
The cost to prepare a stand-alone quick reference guide is estimated as a range.  For the high end of the range, EPA estimates that the cost of developing the quick reference guide is similar to the annual cost to review and update a facility's contingency plan.  EPA assumes it takes approximately 1.5 hours of a technician's time and 1.5 hours of an office clerk's time to perform these activities and 0.5 hours of administrative time to submit the plan to emergency management authorities.  Based on the labor cost values in Exhibit 3-2, these labor hour estimates translate to a cost of approximately $97 per facility to write the guide and a cost of $11.33 to submit it.  For the low end cost estimate, this RIA assumes that LQGs will use the template that EPA released with the final rule to copy and paste information from their more detailed contingency plan.  This process is assumed to reduce the time burden from three hours to two hours (with the cost split between a technician and an office clerk), which reduces the cost to write the guide to approximately $65.  Thus, the total estimated cost of preparing a quick reference guide ranges from $78 to $111 per LQG, including recordkeeping costs of $2.27 or approximately six minutes of administrative time for maintaining documentation of these arrangements.
Requirements for New LQGs.  In addition, the final rule will require all new LQGs to submit a quick reference guide to their contingency plan to emergency management authorities to improve the ability of emergency response teams to respond to an emergency.  As described above in the requirements for existing LQGs, the total cost of preparing a quick reference guide represents an initial one-time cost for each new LQG ranging from $78 to $111 per facility.
This RIA estimates the annual number of new LQGs using EPA's RCRAInfo database to identify facilities that: (1) submitted an initial RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form as an LQG to obtain an EPA ID number; (2) submitted a subsequent RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form to change a facility's generator status from VSQG or SQG to LQG; or (3) submitted a BR Hazardous Waste Report Form to change a facility's generator status from VSQG or SQG to LQG.  Using data from 2000 to 2013, EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,350 new facilities entering into the LQG universe every year.[,]
Requirements for New SQGs.  Under the final rule, new SQGs will have to document their arrangements with emergency management authorities -- or document their attempt to make these arrangements -- and will incur one-time costs similar to facilities with existing arrangements.  New facilities entering into the SQG universe are already required to attempt to make arrangements with local emergency responders; therefore, they will not incur additional costs relative to the baseline beyond documenting these arrangements.  SQGs will not be required to develop a separate quick reference guide.
To estimate the number of new SQGs per year, this RIA applies a similar approach as described above for estimating the number of new LQGs.  Specifically, this RIA estimates the annual number of new SQGs based on initial notifications and changes in generator status from VSQG to SQG as reported in RCRAInfo.  EPA estimates that approximately 2,610 new facilities enter into the SQG universe each year.
Exhibit 3-8 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs for this provision of the rule by facility type.  The exhibit reports one-time costs for existing facilities and recurring costs for the segment of the regulated universe consisting of new LQGs and SQGs each year.  While emergency response preparedness costs are one-time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs because a percentage of the regulated universe is comprised of new facilities entering into the LQG and SQG universe each year.
EXHIBIT 3-8:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS ($2015 ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS[a]
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS[b]
                                      [C]
                              RECURRING COSTS[c]
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                20,771 (5,780)
                                     $0.30
                                   $78.47[d]
                                    $6,230
                                   $454,000
                                   $460,000
SQG
                                49,887 (2,610)
                                     $0.30
                                     $2.27
                                    $15,000
                                    $5,910
                                    $20,900
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                70,658 (8,390)
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                    $21,200
                                   $459,000
                                   $481,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
            NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS[a]
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                               ONE-TIME COSTS[b]
                                      [C]
                              RECURRING COSTS[c]
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                20,771 (5,780)
                                     $0.30
                                  $110.90[e]
                                    $6,230
                                   $641,000
                                   $647,000
SQG
                                64,310 (2,610)
                                     $0.30
                                     $2.27
                                    $19,300
                                    $5,910
                                    $25,200
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                85,081 (8,390)
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                    $25,500
                                   $647,000
                                   $672,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
 The first value in Column B represents the estimated number of existing facilities that will have to document their arrangements with emergency responders in the first year after the rule's implementation. The value in parentheses represents the estimated number of facilities that will have to submit a quick reference guide (new LQGs and existing LQGs with changes to their contingency plan) or information about their facility (new SQGs) to emergency management authorities each year.
 The one-time costs represent a weighted-average first-year cost of $2.27 for 90 percent of LQGs and SQGs with existing arrangements and $13.60 for 10 percent LQGs and SQGs without existing arrangements. Thus, the weighted-average one-time cost is $3.40 per facility ($0.30 on an annualized basis).
 The recurring costs for LQGs vary by scenario and are described in detail below. The recurring costs for SQGs are identical to the first-year costs for facilities with existing arrangements with emergency responders. These costs are reported on a recurring basis because a percentage of the regulated universe is comprised of new facilities entering into the SQG universe each year.
 The low impact scenario assumes it takes 1 hour of a technician's time and 1 hour of an office clerk's time to prepare a quick reference guide, plus 30 minutes of administrative time to submit it to the local emergency management authority. It also assumes it takes six minutes of administrative time to document active arrangements. Thus, the total estimated cost is $78.47 per LQG.
 The high impact scenario assumes it takes 1.5 hours of a technician's time and 1.5 hours of an office clerk's time to prepare a quick reference guide, plus 30 minutes of administrative time to submit it to the local emergency management authority. It also assumes it takes six minutes of administrative time to document active arrangements. Thus, the total estimated cost is $110.90 per LQG.
3.3.6 TRANSFER FACILTIY REQUIREMENTS
Transporters that store manifested shipments of hazardous waste in containers at a transfer facility for a period of ten days or less are not subject to the regulation under parts 264, 265, 267, 268, and 270.  However, the final rule will change the labeling/marking requirements for transporters using a transfer facility when consolidating the contents of two or more containers with the same hazardous waste into a new container or when combining and consolidating two different hazardous wastes that are compatible with each other.  In this case, the transporter must label all containers with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste" and (2) the applicable EPA hazardous waste codes.
While this provision will require transporters to label bulk/mixed wastes, the final rule's labeling/marking requirements, as outlined above, will assure that all hazardous wastes that transporters receive from SQGs and LQGs meet these labeling requirements.  Thus, transporters will only incur additional costs under this provision for consolidating waste received from VSQGs, which are not otherwise required to comply with the labeling/marking provision of the final rule.  Furthermore, EPA estimates that the vast majority of hazardous waste containers held at transfer facilities for ten days or less are simply held temporarily and then shipped out.
Based on the above, the costs that transporters will incur depend on the number of VSQGs that send their waste to transfer facilities, the number of containers that are consolidated, and the labeling costs associated with bulk/mixed wastes.  As an initial step in estimating the number of VSQGs in the regulated universe that send their hazardous waste to transfer facilities, this RIA assumes that the VSQGs engaged in this practice will include a subset of (1) those VSQGs located in states that do not allow VSQGs to manage their hazardous waste as MSW and (2) those VSQGs located in other states (i.e., states that allow VSQGs to dispose of hazardous waste in MSW landfills), but that choose to manage their hazardous waste at a permitted TSDF.  Industry and state agency data suggest that 32 states and the District of Columbia currently allow VSQGs to manage their hazardous waste through MSW landfill disposal.  These states are estimated to account for between 157,000 and 294,000 VSQGs.  This RIA assumes that 10 percent of these VSQGs manage their hazardous waste at a TSDF.  In the remaining states that have landfill bans, which account for between 196,000 and 297,000 VSQGs, this RIA assumes that all VSQGs send their waste to a TSDF, bringing the total number of VSQGs managing their hazardous waste at a TSDF to 212,000 to 327,000 facilities.  Of these VSQGs, this RIA estimates that approximately 12 percent send their hazardous waste to a transfer facility, consistent with the percentage of SQGs in the 2013 BR database that send their waste to such a facility.  In the absence of data specific to VSQGs, the SQG percentage is assumed to apply to VSQGs as well.  Based on this assumption, an estimated 25,000 to 39,000 VSQGs send their hazardous waste to a transfer facility each year.
EPA estimates that there are 264 transfer facilities nationwide.  These facilities are a subset of generators in the regulated universe because they may consolidate hazardous waste and are therefore subject to the same requirements as generators.  According to 2013 BR data, the vast majority of these facilities (approximately 97 percent) are LQGs.  Furthermore, EPA estimates that transfer facilities that self-identified as SQGs or VSQGs, are in fact LQGs based on the amount of hazardous waste they generate each year.  Specifically, the waste generation quantities reported for each of these facilities exceeds the upper limit for an SQG.
The transfer facility costs associated with complying with the requirements for new consolidated wastes from LQGs and SQGs are already incurred in the baseline.  Therefore, the only incremental cost of complying with the final rule is the labeling of bulk/mixed hazardous waste received from VSQGs.  Based on the number of VSQGs and the number of transfer facilities in the regulated universe, each transfer facility is assumed to manage waste for between 96 and 149 VSQGs each year, on average.  And each VSQG is estimated to generate between 5 and 6 containers of hazardous waste each year, for a total of between 482 and 892 containers per transfer facility per year.  EPA estimates that only 1 percent of these containers will be consolidated -- or between 5 and 9 containers per transfer facility per year.
The cost of labeling bulk/mixed hazardous waste received from VSQGs is estimated to be $3.52 per container, which reflects five minutes of a technician's time to write the required information on each container.  VSQGs are already required to apply simple labels with the words "hazardous waste" to all containers sent to a TSDF in the baseline.  The costs of this provision represent labeling costs above and beyond those incurred in the baseline.
Exhibit 3-9 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of enhanced labeling under the transfer facility requirements of the final rule by facility type.  The estimated cost per transfer facility to comply with the additional marking and labeling requirements ranges from $17 to $31 per year.
EXHIBIT 3-9:  ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR TRANSFER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ($2015 ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                              RECURRING COSTS[a]
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                      264
                                     $0.00
                                      $17
                                      $0
                                    $4,470
                                    $4,470
SQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                      $17
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                      $17
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                      264
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                    $4,470
                                    $4,470
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                              RECURRING COSTS[a]
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                      264
                                     $0.00
                                      $31
                                      $0
                                    $8,280
                                    $8,280
SQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                      $31
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
VSQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                      $31
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                      264
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                    $8,280
                                    $8,280
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
 This figure represents the cost of labeling containers of bulk/mixed waste, which reflects 5 minutes of a technician's time to write the required information on each container.
3.3.7 BR REQUIREMENTS
The final rule makes a clarifying change to the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs.  Specifically, it requires LQGs to report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting year, not just quantities for the month(s) during which they were LQGs.  Existing regulation is unclear on this issue and a limited number of states currently require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated for only those months that they were LQGs.
Report all waste generated for the year and not just the months that a facility is an LQG.  As noted above, EPA is requiring that facilities qualifying for LQG status for part of the year report their waste generation for the full year.  Anecdotal accounts suggest that LQGs in some states complete biennial reports only for the months during which they cross the LQG threshold during the year.  In addition, in a survey of 26 states, three states reported that they did not require one-time or short-term LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste they generate for the entire calendar year.   Idaho and West Virginia reported that they required these facilities to report the amount of hazardous waste they generated only for the months they were LQGs.  South Carolina reported that it required facilities to report the amount of hazardous waste they generated for the remainder of the calendar year after they exceeded the monthly LQG generation threshold.  EPA is unaware of any other states in which this reporting gap exists.
Limited information is available on episodic generation in Idaho, South Carolina, and West Virginia.  In these three states there are 553 LQGs, between 1,100 and 1,116 SQGs, and between 9,423 and 17,333 VSQGs.  For the 553 LQGs, the costs of the rule are estimated as a range.  The low end of the range assumes that these facilities report for two months of the year in the baseline and that their baseline reporting covers all of their waste streams, but underreports generation for those waste streams.  Therefore, for the low scenario, the cost for these facilities is the cost to gather additional information on the existing waste streams.  This cost is estimated to be $21 per facility.  The high end assumes that the number of waste streams that these facilities report in the baseline covers two months of the year and that this temporal coverage is proportional to the number of waste streams reported in the baseline.  Thus, if the mean number of waste streams generated by LQGs is 13, this RIA assumes that 3 are reported in the baseline and 10 are newly reported under the rule, at a cost of $21.02 per waste stream.
This requirement of the rule will also affect VSQGs and SQGs that become LQGs in these three states.  Data from EPA's RCRAInfo database suggest that nationwide 1.4 to 1.8 percent of SQGs and 0.1 to 0.2 percent of VSQGs each year notify EPA of a change in their generator status to LQG (i.e., submitting BR records as an LQG when they were previously an VSQG or SQG).  Applying this to the number of SQGs and VSQGs in West Virginia, Idaho, and South Carolina, this RIA estimates that the three states combined are home to 14 to 19 SQG episodic generators and 7 to 22 VSQG episodic generators.  This RIA conservatively assumes that all these episodic generators have just one month-long episodic event each year that exceeds the monthly LQG generation threshold.  Furthermore, these facilities are assumed to submit BR reports for one to two waste streams in the baseline (1/12 of the baseline values of 6 and 13 for LQGs).  Therefore, the cost of BR reporting for SQGs and VSQGs that are episodic generators in these states is the time and materials to prepare an additional GM form for each of the unreported waste streams, between 5 and 11 per facility -- approximately $105 to $231 per facility per reporting year.
Exhibit 3-10 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of BR reporting under the final rule by facility type.  All of the reported costs are incurred on a biennial basis in even-numbered years.  Therefore, there are no one-time costs associated with this provision of the rule.
EXHIBIT 3-10:  ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR BR REQUIREMENTS ($2015 ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                      553
                                     $0.00
                                   $11.02[a]
                                      $0
                                    $6,100
                                    $6,100
SQG
                                      14
                                     $0.00
                                   $54.33[b]
                                      $0
                                     $761
                                     $761
VSQG
                                       7
                                     $0.00
                                   $54.33[b]
                                      $0
                                     $380
                                     $380
TOTAL
                                      574
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                    $7,240
                                    $7,240
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                      553
                                     $0.00
                                    $119.67
                                      $0
                                    $66,200
                                    $66,200
SQG
                                      19
                                     $0.00
                                  $119.52[b]
                                      $0
                                    $2,270
                                    $2,270
VSQG
                                      22
                                     $0.00
                                  $119.52[b]
                                      $0
                                    $2,630
                                    $2,630
TOTAL
                                      594
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                    $71,100
                                    $71,100
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
 This figure represents data collection labor costs totaling $21.33 per facility on a biennial basis in even numbered years ($11.02 on an annualized basis) for 533 LQGs in states that require short-term LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste they generate only for the months they are LQGs. In addition, the high-end estimate assumes that 10 additional GM forms must be submitted at an average cost of $21.02 per GM form ($10.87 on an annualized basis).
 This figure represents a labor cost of $21.02 per GM form ($10.87 on an annualized basis) x 5 additional GM forms per SQG and VSQG in the low impact scenario (or 11 additional GM forms in the high impact scenario). These costs are incurred on a biennial basis in even-numbered years.

3.3.8 BR REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING FACILITIES
The final rule requires recyclers of hazardous waste who do not store before recycling to submit a biennial report to EPA.  Under the existing regulations in 40 CFR 261.6, which identifies the requirements for recyclable materials, certain classes of recycling facilities are exempt from the BR reporting requirements so long as they are not required to be permitted as a TSDF.  The final rulemaking adds the BR requirement to 40 CFR 261.6 (c) (2).  However, many recycling facilities currently submit biennial reports to EPA under 40 CFR 265.75 because they are TSDFs or are otherwise considered to be LQGs and thus are subject to 40 CFR 262, which identifies the standards applicable to generators of hazardous waste.  In addition, EPA estimates that there are between 10 and 20 recycling facilities currently subject to CFR 261 that would have to submit a BR under the final rule.
The fixed costs of preparing a biennial report by the affected recycling facilities include the time to read the instructions, complete the site ID form, submit the report to EPA or State authorities, and maintain a copy of the report for three years.  EPA estimates that the cost of these activities is approximately $286 per facility.  Additionally, the variable cost of completing a GM form for each waste stream included in the BR submission is $21.02. EPA estimates that, similar to LQGs, these recycling facilities manage between six (the median) and thirteen (the mean) waste streams per year. Exhibit 3-11 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of BR reporting requirements for recycling facilities under the final rule.
EXHIBIT 3-11:  ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR BR REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING FACILITIES ($2015 ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

Recycling Facility
                                      10
                                     $0.00
                                  $212.83[a]
                                      $0
                                    $2,130
                                    $2,130
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

Recycling Facility
                                      20
                                     $0.00
                                  $288.89[b]
                                      $0
                                    $5,780
                                    $5,780
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
 This figure represents data collection labor costs totaling $286 per facility plus an average cost of $21.02 per GM form x 6 GM forms per facility on a biennial basis in even numbered years for a total cost of $411.74 ($212.83 on an annualized basis) for the low-impact estimate.
 This figure represents data collection labor costs totaling $286 per facility plus an average cost of $21.02 per GM form x 13 GM forms per facility on a biennial basis in even numbered years for a total cost of $558.88 ($288.89 on an annualized basis) for the high-impact estimate.

3.3.9 PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF RESTRICTED WASTE FOR TSDFs
Consistent with the marking and labeling requirements for SQGs and LQGs, EPA is requiring that TSDFs mark containers holding hazardous waste with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste" and (2) an indication of the hazards of a container's contents.  Under existing regulations, TSDFs must already mark containers holding hazardous waste with a description of the contents of the container.
Wastes subject to the requirements of this provision will likely be in compliance due to the labeling/marking and transfer facility requirements outlined above.  This RIA therefore estimates no additional costs for this provision.
3.3.10 DRIP PAD AND CONTAINMENT BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
Under the existing regulations, EPA has consistently interpreted the requirements for LQGs subject to 40 CFR Part 265 Subparts W and DD to also apply to SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less without a permit or interim status.  Although there are no explicit requirements for SQGs, EPA intended for SQGs to comply with all of the LQG conditions for an exemption associated with the accumulation of hazardous waste, as well as any associated independent requirements for LQGs or else obtain a Part B permit for their drip pads or containment buildings.  While SQGs may normally accumulate hazardous waste in primary accumulation areas or SAAs for 180 days, the maximum generator accumulation time period for drip pads or containment buildings is 90 days.  The current regulations also imply that generators using drip pads or containment buildings must comply with the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, emergency response preparedness, and biennial reporting.  In contrast, if an SQG accumulates hazardous waste in containers, it can comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs, including accumulation of hazardous waste for up to 180 days.
Under the final rule, EPA believes a more effective and efficient approach is to require SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containment buildings to comply with the LQG 90-day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180-day accumulation limit) and SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads to comply with the 180-day accumulation limit, but to otherwise comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs.  Only hazardous waste that is accumulated in containment buildings must be managed in compliance with the LQG accumulation limits.
EPA estimates that there are 12 SQGs and 22 LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containment buildings.  EPA also estimates that there are 295 SQGs and 95 LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads.  Under the final rule, LQGs and SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containment buildings must comply with the labeling requirements described in the previous section on labeling/marking.  The costs associated with this requirement are reported above and are not repeated here to avoid double-counting.
Under the existing technical requirements for drip pads (40 CFR 265.444) and containment buildings (40 CFR 265.1101), LQGs and SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings are required to conduct weekly inspections and, in the case of containment buildings, document the results in their operating record.  In situations when a release from a drip pad or a containment building occurs, generators are required to notify their authorized state within 24 hours after discovery.  Thus, there are no incremental costs associated with the inspection documentation requirements under the final rule as these requirements already exist under current regulations.  Furthermore, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings will realize a net cost savings, as described in the discussion of benefits in Chapter 4.
3.3.11 INTRA-ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFERS (VOLUNTARY)
To afford greater flexibility to VSQGs, the final rule will allow VSQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same person, provided that both the VSQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions.  The VSQG conditions are as follows:
       A participating VSQG must label containers with the words "VSQG Hazardous Waste" and an indication of the hazards of a container's contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).
       VSQGs must comply with all applicable DOT regulations when sending their hazardous waste to an LQG.
The final conditions for LQGs receiving hazardous waste from one or more VSQGs under the same organizational structure include the following:
       LQGs must submit a notification to EPA or their authorized state identifying the names, addresses, and contact information for the VSQGs that will be transferring hazardous waste to the LQG.
       LQGs must maintain records of all hazardous waste received from VSQGs that include the name, address, and contact information for each VSQG, as well as information on the quantity of each waste shipment received.
       LQGs mark shipments from VSQGs with the date the hazardous waste was received from the VSQG.
       LQGs will be required to manage all incoming VSQG hazardous waste in compliance with the regulations applicable to their LQG status.
       Hazardous waste received from VSQGs needs to be included in the receiving LQG's BR submissions.
Estimating the costs associated with this portion of the final rule requires information on (1) the number of VSQGs that may consolidate to an LQG and the number of LQGs that may receive VSQG waste, (2) the per facility costs for affected VSQGs, and (3) the per facility costs for LQGs receiving VSQG waste.
Number of VSQGs and LQGs opting for this rule provision: The number of entities that may take advantage of the flexibility provided by this portion of the final rule is uncertain.  The sources of this uncertainty include the lack of information indicating the extent to which eligible facilities will take advantage of this rule provision and the limited data available on the number of VSQGs that are eligible (i.e., are owned by organizations that also own at least one LQG).  With respect to the former, the VSQGs that take advantage of this rule provision may be split into two groups:
 VSQGs in states that allow MSW landfill disposal of VSQG hazardous waste but send their hazardous waste to a permitted TSDF: As indicated in the discussion regarding the final rule's transfer facility provision, industry and state data suggest that 32 states and the District of Columbia currently allow VSQGs to manage their hazardous waste through MSW landfill disposal.  Facilities in these states are estimated to account for between 45 and 50 percent of the potentially affected universe of VSQGs, or between 157,000 and 294,000 VSQGs.  This RIA assumes that 90 percent of the VSQGs in these states dispose of their hazardous waste as MSW and that 10 percent send their hazardous waste to a permitted TSDF.  The VSQG facilities that dispose of their hazardous waste in MSW landfills are assumed to continue to manage their hazardous waste as MSW (and not consolidate their waste through LQGs owned by the same organization) because of the relatively low cost of this disposal option.  Of the remaining 15,700 to 29,400 VSQGs that are located in states that allow the MSW landfill disposal of VSQG hazardous waste, but choose to send their waste to a TSDF, this RIA assumes that VSQGs owned by organizations that also own LQGs consolidate their waste to an LQG.
 VSQGs in states that prohibit MSW landfill disposal of VSQG hazardous waste: In states that prohibit the MSW landfill disposal of VSQG hazardous waste, all VSQGs owned by organizations that also own one or more LQGs are assumed to consolidate their VSQG hazardous waste to an LQG.  These states account for an estimated 196,000 to 297,000 VSQGs.
Combined, these two groups represent between 212,000 and 327,000 VSQGs.
To estimate the percentage of VSQGs owned by companies that also own at least one LQG, this RIA relies on facility-level data collected from Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin.  Each of these states provided the name, address, and generator status of active hazardous waste generators within their borders, but lacked information on the ownership structure of facilities.  Absent this ownership information, a matching algorithm based on facility names was used to identify the ultimate owner.  First, generators in each state that had the same organization name were identified.  Then, organizations owning multiple generators (including at least one VSQG facility and one LQG facility) within the same state were identified.  For bordering states (i.e., Maine-Massachusetts-New Hampshire), facilities located in adjacent states were also included in the analysis.  Three of the states analyzed (Florida, New Hampshire, and Oregon) allow VSQGs to dispose of waste in MSW landfills.  For these states, 90 percent of all VSQGs are assumed to use MSW disposal and 10 percent are assumed to send waste to a TSDF.  For the other three states, all VSQGs are assumed to send waste to a TSDF.  Furthermore, for all states, VSQGs that are part of a larger organization are assumed to manage their waste at a TSDF.  Finally, we divide the number of VSQGs that are part of a larger organization that could potentially consolidate waste by the number of VSQGs that send waste to a TSDF in the baseline.  This RIA then applies this percentage to the total number of VSQGs nationwide that send waste to a TSDF.
The limitations of this approach are: (1) some states did not have information on the generator status of all facilities (e.g., Massachusetts only reported generator status for approximately 80 percent of facilities); (2) facility names do not necessarily identify the ultimate owner, therefore it is difficult to determine whether generators are owned by the same organization; and (3) the states used to estimate the percentage of VSQGs that could consolidate their waste may not be representative of other states in the U.S.
Based on this review of the state data, an estimated 9.7 percent of VSQGs that manage their waste at TSDFs are part of an organization that owns multiple generators (including at least one LQG) in the same state or a bordering state.  Similarly, LQGs that are part of an organization that owns multiple generators (including at least one VSQG) in the same or a bordering state -- and could potentially serve as a consolidation facility -- account for approximately 33.7 percent of all LQGs.  Therefore, this RIA estimates that between 20,569 and 31,738 VSQGs could potentially manage their waste through consolidation with an LQG facility under the control of the same person and approximately 3,537 LQGs could potentially act as consolidators.  Thus, on average, each LQG could potentially consolidate waste for between approximately 6 and 9 VSQGs.  The facility-level costs of intra-organizational consolidation are described below.
VSQG costs per facility:  Under the requirements of the rule, VSQGs will incur two specific costs if they send their hazardous waste to an LQG owned by the same organization: (1) costs associated with labeling their containers consistent with the requirements outlined above and (2) costs related to transporting their hazardous waste to an LQG.  VSQGs are required to apply simple labels with the words "hazardous waste" to all containers sent to a TSDF in the baseline.  The labeling costs described above represent the incremental cost above and beyond the current RCRA requirements for VSQGs in the baseline.  Based on the average quantity of waste and number of waste streams per VSQG presented in Chapter 2 this RIA estimates that the average VSQG generates between five and six partially-filled 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste per year.  Consistent with the VSQG labeling costs presented above for the final rule's transfer facility provision, the cost of labeling each drum in compliance with the rule's requirements is approximately $3.52, or five minutes of a technician's time per drum to write by hand the hazards of a container.  Combined, these tally to labeling costs of between $17.59 and $21.11 per VSQG.
With respect to the cost of transporting hazardous waste to an LQG, VSQGs are assumed to comply with all existing DOT regulations.  This RIA assumes that large organizations will rely on an existing fleet of hazmat trucks to transport waste from a VSQG to an LQG or rely on a hazardous waste transporter within their own delivery network.  These trucks are already required to comply with all DOT regulations.  Furthermore, VSQGs that currently send their waste to a TSDF will likely incur similar transportation costs to send that waste to an LQG consolidation facility if they used another authorized carrier.  Therefore, the transportation costs for a VSQG will be similar to the baseline, i.e., there are zero incremental transportation costs.
LQG costs per facility:  LQGs that receive waste from VSQGs owned by the same organization will incur costs associated with notifying EPA of the transfer, marking the date that waste is received from a VSQG, maintaining records of the waste received, and including the waste received from VSQGs in their BR submission.
The additional burden for LQGs to notify EPA or a state authority of intra-organizational consolidation is assumed to be a one-time cost of $47.58 per LQG facility, consistent with the cost of a generator notifying EPA of its own generation activity.  To estimate the costs associated with marking the date that VSQG-generated waste is received by an LQG, this RIA assumes it takes two minutes of a technician's time per shipment to mark the shipments received from VSQGs, which translates to $8.18 to $12.63 per LQG receiving VSQG waste (based on the range of 6 to 9 VSQGs consolidating to an LQG).  Similarly, this RIA assumes that it requires approximately six minutes of a technician's time to maintain records of all waste received, which represents a cost of $4.22 per LQG.
To estimate the costs associated with LQGs reporting the additional waste from VSQGs in their BR submissions, this RIA assumes that each additional waste stream received from VSQGs will require one additional GM form, at an estimated cost of $21.02 per form.  Based on a range of five to six waste streams per VSQG (see Exhibit 3-1), this translates to additional BR reporting costs of $105.10 to $126.12 per VSQG from which an LQG receives hazardous waste (on a biennial basis).  This RIA conservatively assumes that there is no duplication of waste streams between VSQGs owned by the same company and/or between VSQGs and the LQG that is consolidating the waste, and that similar waste streams are not combined.  As noted above, each eligible LQG is estimated to receive hazardous waste from 6 to 9 VSQGs.
Combined, these requirements for LQGs -- notification, marking shipments from VSQGs with the date received, maintaining records of waste received, and BR reporting -- result in annualized costs of approximately $349 to $635 per facility (using a seven percent discount rate) for eligible LQGs.
Total cost of intra-organizational transfers: Exhibit 3-11 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of VSQG consolidation under this voluntary provision of the final rule.  Costs are also broken out by one-time and recurring costs (e.g., annual and biennial costs).
The intra-organizational transfer provision of the final rule may also result in cost savings for some entities.  Specifically, the potential cost savings may include a lower average cost of hazardous waste disposal.  These cost savings, and other benefits of the rule, are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 of this RIA.
EXHIBIT 3-12:  ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR INTRA-ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFERS ($2015 ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]