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

Mark Eads, Economist ( 703 308 8615)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

! Hazardous waste transporters ( n = 414 establishments)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( Parentheses Indicate Net Cost Savings)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B Revisions to manifest form printing &

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Unit Requirements, & RCRA Part B Permit Application &

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

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

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

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

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

! Information collection burden to Federally owned individuals and facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

! Modified Option A2:

Importing TSDFs mail import manifest copies to EPAOECA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

! Retain the:

  state generator ID number datafield ( formerly block B)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

! USEPA will design a manifest registry websit to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modifications of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System  Proposed Rule";

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( b) ** Source of manifest estimates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( a) Industrial classification code systems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( b) Industry identity sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Annual Quantity Shipped in 2001*

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

million tons/ year) Cumulative %

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

( tons) 2001 LQG Average Per Week**

Tons Full Truckload equivalents***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LQGs +

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

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

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

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

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

( TSDFs + LQGs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

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

Lower bound If 2.433 million*

manifests/ year Upper bound If 5.090 million**

manifests/ year Lower bound If 2.433 million*

manifests/ year Upper bound If 5.090 million*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( a) Source of manifest counts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

states= 100%@$ 1.1million/ system.

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

127 1, 1991.

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

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

Data sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wastestreams and destination states.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Incremental Change = ( 114,300)

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( d) *** Hours per manifest from:

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

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

( e) **** Cost per manifest from:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

avg $ 58 per applicant)*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 States:

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

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

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

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