Allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization may result in a net cost savings from reduced management costs (1) at the establishment-level for individual CESQG facilities and (2) at the firm-level for organizations that manage multiple facilities that could potentially consolidate their hazardous waste.  At the establishment-level, CESQGs would no longer directly incur disposal costs and would only incur costs of transportation to an LQG facility either using the organizations' existing fleet of hazmat vehicles or a hazardous waste transporter within their own delivery network.  At the firm-level, organizations would realize cost-savings associated with managing waste quantities in bulk.  Specifically, industry sources estimate that stand-alone CESQG facilities incur an average cost premium of approximately 10 percent to dispose of their hazardous waste relative to LQGs.  Organizations consolidating CESQG waste to LQGs may also realize a transportation cost savings due to the higher transport costs typically incurred by CESQGs on a per-ton basis compared to LQGs (see below).
The net transportation cost savings associated with consolidating CESQG waste to LQGs owned by the same organization reflect two specific factors.  First, while CESQGs typically manage their waste off-site, LQGs manage much more of their hazardous waste on-site (83.9 percent according to the 2011 BR data) and therefore, on average, incur lower transportation costs than CESQGs.  Second, the incremental cost for an LQG to ship more waste off-site includes only the variable cost of transporting the additional waste (on a per drum basis), since the fixed costs of transportation (e.g., hiring a truck) are already incurred in the baseline, while the incremental cost for a CESQG to manage waste off-site includes both fixed and variable costs.
Considering both of these factors, this EA estimates the net transportation cost savings per CESQG consolidated as the difference between the transportation costs associated with a CESQG's waste in the baseline and the transportation costs associated with that waste once consolidated.  These transportation costs include a fixed-cost of $44.98 per shipment, plus variable transportation costs of $31.84 per drum.  Based on the assumption stated in Chapter 3 that the average CESQG ships two to four 55-gallon drums per year, this translates to avoided transportation costs of $109 to $172 per CESQG.  Once the CESQG's waste is transferred to an LQG, the cost of transporting it to a TSDF includes each of the costs outlined above except for the fixed cost of $44.98 per shipment, because the waste from the consolidated CESQG would likely be added to an existing shipment.  Thus, when an LQG ships the CESQG waste off-site, the cost is approximately $64 to $127 per consolidated CESQG.  As noted above, however, 83.9 percent of LQG waste is managed on-site.  The expected transportation cost for a CESQG's waste once consolidated to an LQG is therefore approximately $10 to $21.  Subtracting this from the avoided CESQG transport cost yields a net transportation cost saving of $98 to $152 per consolidated CESQG.
As noted above, organizations consolidating their CESQG hazardous waste at LQGs would also realize a cost savings associated with a reduction in disposal costs due to the 10 percent disposal cost premium typically incurred by CESQGs relative to LQGs.  The cost savings associated with avoiding this cost premium depend on the method by which CESQG hazardous waste is managed, as the per ton cost of managing hazardous waste varies by management method.  This EA assumes that hazardous waste managed by CESQGs would, if consolidated to an LQG, generally be managed using the same disposal methods as under the baseline, with the exception of hazardous waste managed for reclamation and recovery in the baseline.  Because the economic viability of reclamation and recovery may depend on a generator's proximity to reclamation facilities, this EA assumes that waste undergoing reclamation in the baseline would not be consolidated.  To estimate the disposal costs of the other management methods used by CESQGs, this EA applies the weighted average of the most common remaining off-site disposal methods.  As described in Chapter 2, the most typical off-site management methods among non-LQG facilities include: landfill or surface impoundment (18 percent of overall waste); deepwell or underground injection (9 percent); stabilization prior to land disposal at another site (7 percent); and incineration (7 percent).  As shown in Exhibit 4-3, the weighted average disposal cost per CESQG across these management methods is approximately $253 to $267.  This value reflects annual hazardous waste generation of approximately 0.31 tons per CESQG (see Chapter 2, Exhibit 2-10), which is assumed to be split across two to four 55-gallon drums (see Chapter 3, Other Assumptions).  The exhibit also shows the cost of disposing of a CESQG's waste once it is consolidated to an LQG.  As presented in the exhibit, the estimated $23 to $24 in cost savings associated with consolidating to an LQG reflects the avoided cost premium paid by CESQGs in the baseline.

EXHIBIT 4-3: PER FACILITY COST SAVINGS FOR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY A CESQG ($2012)
                               MANAGEMENT METHOD
            PERCENTAGE OF NON-LQG WASTE MANAGEDLOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
AVERAGE COST TO DISPOSE OF CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE (PER FACILITY)SAVINGS IF MANAGED AT AN LQG INSTEAD OF A CESQGAVERAGE COST TO DISPOSE OF CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE (PER FACILITY)SAVINGS IF MANAGED AT AN LQG INSTEAD OF A CESQGWASTE MANAGED BY CESQG
                             WASTE MANAGED BY LQG
                            WASTE MANAGED BY CESQG
                             WASTE MANAGED BY LQG
                                 INCINERATION
                                     6.6%
                                    $1,162
                                    $1,056
                                     $106
                                    $1,176
                                    $1,069
                                     $107
Deepwell or Underground Injection
                                     8.9%
                                      $97
                                      $88
                                      $9
                                     $110
                                     $100
                                      $10
HW Landfill
(with stabilization)
                                     6.9%
                                      $93
                                      $85
                                      $8
                                     $107
                                      $97
                                      $10
HW landfill
(without stabilization)
                                     18.1%
                                      $59
                                      $53
                                      $5
                                      $73
                                      $66
                                      $7
Weighted-Average Cost of Disposal
                                       -
                                     $253
                                     $230
                                      $23
                                     $267
                                     $242
                                      $24
Notes:
   1. This EA assumes that waste managed using the most common off-site disposal methods could potentially be consolidated at an LQG facility. These methods account for approximately 40.5 percent of total hazardous waste management. It is assumed that the remaining 59.5 percent -- which may be managed on-site (e.g., sewering), transferred off-site with no treatment or recovery, or treated using another method -- would not be consolidated at another facility.
   2. Average disposal costs are estimated for a CESQG facility generating approximately 0.31 tons of hazardous waste per year based on the average quantity reported in the 2011 BR data and data provided from the States of Maine, New Jersey, and Washington. A facility generating this amount of hazardous waste would likely accumulate two to four partially-filled 55-gallon drums per year, assuming an accumulation storage limit of one year and an average container capacity of approximately 157 to 313 pounds per drum. The unit costs for the management methods presented here are assumed to be the following (without the CESQG cost premium): $1.71 per pound for hazardous waste incineration, $237 per ton for landfilling with stabilization, $134 per ton for landfilling without stabilization, and $246 per ton for deepwell or underground injection.  These values are based on U.S. EPA Office Resource Conservation and Recovery, Unit Cost Compendium, September 26, 2011. The costs in this exhibit for each management method also reflect a cost of $12.50 per drum for loading a drum, as derived from RACER 2010.
   3. Values may not equal difference between preceding two columns due to rounding.
Facilities that Already Consolidate Hazardous Waste
The intra-organization transfer provision of the proposed rule may also lead to cost savings for organizations that already consolidate CESQG hazardous waste at an LQG.  As noted above, information collected by EPA suggests that four LQGs currently accept CESQG waste for consolidation.  These LQGs would experience two types of cost-savings: (1) the avoided cost to renew their RCRA storage permit and (2) the avoided cost to secure financial assurance to address Corrective Action and post-closure liabilities.  The cost to obtain a RCRA storage permit is very high, which may explain why most LQGs do not elect to obtain one.  However, for the four permitted facilities assumed to accept CESQG waste in the baseline, this is a sunk cost and would not represent a cost savings under the rule.  The permit-related cost savings for these facilities would be limited to the avoided renewal costs for the Part B permit, which expires every ten years.  The cost to review the regulations and submit the Part B renewal application is an estimated $5,212 per facility, or approximately $694 on an annualized basis (using a 7 percent discount rate).
In addition, financial assurance costs for potential Corrective Action and closure/post-closure liabilities represent a significant cost for facilities with RCRA storage permits.  Avoiding these costs would represent a benefit to LQGs that already accept hazardous waste from CESQGs operated by the same owners.  This EA uses the costs of securing a third-party financial instrument (a letter of credit) as a proxy for the burden of obtaining financial assurance.  Industry sources provided a range of cost estimates for annual premiums for securing a letter of credit, ranging from 1 percent to 3 percent of Corrective Action and closure/post-closure liabilities.  For the purposes of this analysis, EPA uses the midpoint of this range (2 percent).  The Corrective Action and closure/post-closure liabilities covered by a letter of credit or other financial instrument can vary widely.  Based on the results of a survey of Corrective Action liabilities reported in EPA's 2002 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Corrective Action program, EPA estimates that the median cost of Corrective Action remediation is approximately $5 million (in 2002 dollars), which is equivalent to approximately $6.2 million (in 2012 dollars).  For closure/post-closure care, this EA applies the closure/post-closure costs reported in Chapter 3 for LQGs that would be required to close as a landfill (approximately $604,000).  Companies that secure a letter of credit also typically incur an annual administrative processing cost of approximately $967.  Combining these items, the total annual cost of securing financial assurance for Corrective Action and closure/post-closure activities is approximately $136,500 per facility.
The intra-organization transfer provision would result in no additional costs (or benefits) for CESQGs that currently consolidate their hazardous waste, as these facilities would experience no change in their operations relative to baseline.
Similar to the cost assessment for the intra-organization transfer provision presented in Chapter 3, this assessment of benefits assumes that CESQG consolidation will be limited to CESQGs in those states that prohibit or severely restrict the disposal of hazardous waste in MSW landfills and the estimated 10 percent of CESQGs in other states that send their hazardous waste to a TSDF.[,]
Aggregate Benefits of Intra-organizational Tranfsers
As described in Chapter 3, between 15,626 and 22,411 CESQGs in the potentially affected universe could take advantage of the flexibility provided by this provision and an estimated 2,410 LQGs would receive this waste (in addition to the four LQGs that already accept CESQG waste for consolidation).  Exhibit 4-4 shows the derivation of the net transportation and disposal cost savings associated with intra-organization transfers allowed under the rule as well as the cost savings for avoided RCRA storage permit renewal and financial assurance costs for LQGs that already consolidate CESQG waste.  The costs (for LQGs) and cost savings (for CESQGs) are presented as annualized impacts per facility and in aggregate.  From the perspective of the organizations that own these LQGs and CESQGs, the net impact is a cost savings.  The waste management activity is simply transferred from CESQGs to LQGs.  This EA presents this change in the location of where management costs are realized as a cost increase for LQGs and a cost savings for CESQGs for illustrative purposes.  The cost savings realized by CESQGs, however, exceed the increase in costs realized by LQGs, leading to a net cost savings.  All of the benefits associated with intra-organizational transfers are realized on a recurring annual basis, with the exception of avoided RCRA storage permit renewal costs.

EXHIBIT 4-4:  ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COST SAVINGS FOR INTRA-ORGANIZATION TRANSFERS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                     ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS PER FACILITY
                       AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS
                         TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG[a]
                                 2,410 (4)[b]
                                     $0.00
                                  ($1,326)[c]
                                      $0
                                 ($3,200,000)
                                 ($3,200,000)
SQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
CESQG
                                    15,626
                                     $0.00
                                    $361[d]
                                      $0
                                  $5,650,000
                                  $5,650,000
TOTAL
                                 18,036 (4)[b]
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                  $2,450,000
                                  $2,450,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                     ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS PER FACILITY
                       AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS
                         TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG[e]
                                 2,410 (4)[b]
                                     $0.00
                                  ($2,213)[f]
                                      $0
                                 ($5,340,000)
                                 ($5,340,000)
SQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
CESQG
                                    22,411
                                     $0.00
                                    $439[d]
                                      $0
                                  $9,840,000
                                  $9,840,000
TOTAL
                                 24,821 (4)[b]
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                  $4,490,000
                                  $4,490,000
Notes:
Positive values are a cost savings, whereas negative values in parentheses are a cost increase. All aggregate cost savings are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
   a. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 6.5 CESQGs in the low impact scenario.
   b. In addition to facilities that may take advantage of the flexibility provided by this provision of the proposed rule, information collected by EPA indicates that 4 LQG facilities already accept CESQG waste for consolidation. These facilities may incur cost savings as detailed below.
   c. This is a weighted average of the following: For LQGs that do not already consolidate waste: facilities would incur an average annual disposal cost of $230 plus transportation costs of $10 for CESQG waste that would be managed by an LQG. These costs are multiplied by 6.5 CESQGs per LQG in the low impact scenario, for an average annual cost of $1,556 per LQG. This reflects a net transport costs savings of $98 per CESQG and a net disposal cost savings of $23 per CESQG (for a total cost savings of $121 per consolidated CESQG) for the organization as a whole. For LQGs that already consolidate waste: facilities would experience the cost savings of (1) avoided RCRA Part B permit renewal costs every 10 years (a cost savings of $5,212, or $694 on an annualized basis, per facility) and (2) avoided costs of securing financial assurance for Corrective Action and closure/post-closure activities (a total annual cost savings of $136,500 per facility). Combined, these represent $137,194 in cost savings. Averaged with the cost for LQGs that do not already consolidate the cost increase of $1,326 is estimated as ($1,556 x 2,410  -  $137,194 x 4) / 2,414.
   d. This cost savings represents an average annual hazardous waste disposal cost savings of $253 plus an average annual transportation cost savings of $109 for CESQG waste that would be managed by an LQG voluntarily under the proposed rule.

   e. LQGs that can consolidate hazardous waste are assumed to manage waste for an average of 9.3 CESQGs in the high impact scenario.
   f. See costs in footnote b. For LQGS that do not already consolidate waste, costs are multiplied by 9.3 CESQGs per LQG in the high impact scenario.

As the exhibit illustrates, the intra-organizational transfer provision of the proposed rule yields a total cost savings of between approximately $2.5 and $4.5 million.  This range of cost savings applies to both a 3 percent discount rate and a 7 percent discount rate, since the vast majority of the benefits are incurred on an annual basis.
Generators that Temporarily Change Generator Status Due to an Episodic Event
Under the proposed rule, EPA would allow a CESQG or SQG to retain its existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event that would otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent status.  This provision would result in a cost savings for CESQGs and SQGs that avoid the cost increase associated with such a change in generator status.  These costs are related to the RCRA generator requirements for training, inspections, manifests, contingency plan updating, and biennial reporting.  The following sections present the costs associated with these waste management activities, and also estimate the potential cost savings realized by facilities that experience temporary episodic events. All cost and cost savings estimates presented below reflect the hourly labor costs reported in Chapter 3.  These costs are summarized in Exhibit 4-4 and reported in aggregate on an annualized basis in Exhibit 4-5 below.
Training
The RCRA training requirements for LQGs and SQGs are described earlier in this chapter in the section on drip pad and containment building requirements.  No training requirements exist for CESQGs.  Based on the training costs presented in Exhibit 4-1, the flexibility afforded episodic generators in the proposed rule would result in savings of $979 per CESQG avoiding SQG status, $2,381 ($3,360 - $979) for SQGs that avoid LQG status, and $3,360 for CESQGs that avoid becoming LQGs.
Inspections
LQGs and SQGs are required to conduct weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage areas.  This EA assumes that a technician would take one hour to inspect all storage areas for an LQG and one hour for an SQG, which implies a weekly inspection cost of approximately $40 per LQG or SQG.  In the baseline, if an episodic generator crosses the threshold from CESQG to LQG or SQG in a given month, the facility will need to conduct inspections until the waste is removed from the site.  Based on the LQG accumulation time limit of 90 days, this EA assumes that any episodic generator (otherwise a CESQG) that crosses the LQG threshold removes the waste 90 days after the generation event and conducts weekly inspections in the interim.  For CESQGs becoming SQGs due to episodic generation, this EA assumes that inspections take place for 180 days (the SQG accumulation time limit).  Based on these assumptions, CESQGs that cross the LQG threshold incur an additional $517 in inspection costs due to their episodic generation activity and CESQGs becoming SQGs as a result of episodic generation incur an additional $1,035 in inspection costs.  Thus, the cost savings of the rule with respect to inspections are $518 per CESQG that avoids LQG status and $1,035 per CESQG that avoids SQG status. SQGs that become LQGs because of episodic generation realize no cost savings because SQGs are required to conduct inspections in the baseline.
Manifest Training
Based on the RCRA training regulations, this EA assumes that LQGs and SQGs provide training to employees every three years on the preparation of hazardous waste manifests.  This EA assumes each facility trains one manager and one technician to complete manifests.  Employees are expected to receive a four-hour manifest training session once every three years.  As part of this training, this EA assumes facilities will use EPA's free online hazardous waste manifest video.  The cost of manifest training also includes one hour of a manager's time to compile EPA's hazardous waste manifest instructions and other training materials.  Approximately 0.3 hours of administrative time would likely be incurred to schedule the training every three years.  Based on these estimates, the cost of manifest training is approximately $578 per facility once every three years (an annualized cost of $206, using a 7 percent discount rate).  CESQGs that avoid SQG or LQG status due to this provision of the proposed rule would avoid this cost altogether.
Manifests
Under RCRA, LQGs and SQGs are required to prepare a manifest that, among other information, includes the RCRA waste codes for each hazardous waste shipment.  No such requirements exist for CESQGs.  This EA estimates that the cost to complete a manifest is $9.56 per shipment for SQGs.  This value is also assumed to apply to CESQGs and SQGs that become LQGs due to an episodic generation event.  With respect to the frequency of manifesting, this EA assumes that an episodic generation event occurring in the baseline may lead a generator that is otherwise a CESQG to submit one manifest for the shipment of its non-episodic waste.  Under the proposed rule, the facility would not need to prepare a manifest for this waste and would realize a cost savings of $9.56.
Contingency Plan Updating
As described earlier in the section on drip pad and containment building requirements, under existing regulations LQGs must prepare a contingency plan, coordinate with local response agencies, and update the plan as needed.  This EA assumes that all facilities that would avoid LQG status under the proposed rule have previously prepared a detailed, written contingency plan for handling emergencies (when they surpassed the LQG threshold during previous episodic generation events), because such a plan is required of all LQGs.  Therefore, the cost savings for these facilities is the annual cost to review, update, and distribute the contingency plan, which is assumed to take approximately four hours of a manager's time and one hour of administrative time.  Thus, the total cost savings associated with avoiding LQG status and the associated contingency plan updating is approximately $351 per facility per year.
Biennial Reports
Under existing RCRA regulations, LQGs must submit biennial reports of their hazardous waste generation activity to EPA or State authorities.  As described above, EPA estimates the fixed costs of preparing a biennial report to be approximately $245 per facility.  Additionally, the variable cost of completing each GM form for the BR submission is $19.99.  As described in Chapter 3, LQGs on average are estimated to complete between 5 and 17 unique GM forms per BR reporting year, which implies an additional $100 to $340 in reporting costs per BR cycle.  LQGs incur these costs every even-numbered year.  In total, these costs range from $345 to $584 (or $178 to $302 on an annualized basis using a 7 percent discount rate).
Cost Savings Across Waste Management Activities
Drawing from the cost information summarized in the previous sections, Exhibit 4-5 reports the per facility cost savings associated with the changes in generator status that would be avoided under the proposed rule.

EXHIBIT 4-5: PER-FACILITY COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH AVOIDING A CHANGE FROM A LESS STRINGENT TO A MORE STRINGENT GENERATOR STATUS ($2012)
                               RCRA REQUIREMENT
                      CHANGE IN GENERATOR STATUS AVOIDED
                                   FREQUENCY
                                 CESQG-TO-SQG
                                 CESQG-TO-LQG
                                  SQG-TO-LQG
                                   TRAINING
                                     $979
                                    $3,360
                                    $2,381
                                    Annual
Weekly Inspections
                                    $1,035
                                     $518
                                      $0
                                    Annual
Manifest Training
                                     $578
                                     $578
                                      $0
                                 Every 3 Years
Manifests
                                      $10
                                      $10
                                      $0
                                    Annual
Contingency Plan Updating
                                      $0
                                     $351
                                     $351
                                    Annual
Biennial Reports
                                      $0
                                 $345 to $584
                                 $345 to $584
                                 Every 2 Years

Aggregate Benefits of Episodic Generation Provisions
To estimate the total cost savings associated with this rule provision, this EA applies the per facility savings in Exhibit 4-5 to the estimated number of eligible generators.  As described in Chapter 3, this EA estimates that 2,544 facilities (including both CESQGs and SQGs) move into a more stringent generator status each year.  This value represents less than 1 percent of the potentially affected universe.  The number of these facilities that would be elevated to a higher generator status due to an episodic generation event that meets the rule conditions (e.g., the episodic event must occur within a single calendar month) is uncertain.  Due to this uncertainty, this EA estimates the number of facilities qualifying for this provision of the proposed rule as a range.  The low end of the range assumes that 50 percent of facilities experiencing a change in generator status meet the rule conditions (one episodic event per year that lasts no more than a month) and take advantage of this provision.  The high end of the range assumes that 100 percent of affected facilities are able to take advantage of this provision.  As reported in Exhibit 4-6, based on these assumptions, EPA estimates an aggregate annual cost savings of between $3.8 million and $7.7 million for CESQGs and SQGs that could maintain their existing regulatory status in the event of an episodic generation event.  This range of cost savings is similar when applying a 3 percent discount rate or a 7 percent discount rate.  The flexibility afforded episodic generators under the proposed rule would yield annualized cost savings on a per-facility basis ranging from approximately $2,070 per CESQG avoiding SQG status to $4,730 per CESQG avoiding LQG status.  This flexibility would also yield annualized cost savings of approximately $2,910 to $3,030 per SQG avoiding LQG status.

EXHIBIT 4-6:  ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COST SAVINGS FOR THE EPISODIC GENERATION PROVISION (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)[a]
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                     ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS PER FACILITY
                       AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS
                         TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
SQG
                                      419
                                     $0.00
                                   $2,910[c]
                                      $0
                                  $1,220,000
                                  $1,220,000
CESQG[b]
                                      854
                                     $0.00
                                   $2,974[d]
                                      $0
                                  $2,540,000
                                  $2,540,000
TOTAL
                                     1,273
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                  $3,760,000
                                  $3,760,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                     ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS PER FACILITY
                       AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS
                         TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
SQG
                                      837
                                     $0.00
                                   $3,034[c]
                                      $0
                                  $2,540,000
                                  $2,540,000
CESQG[b]
                                     1,707
                                     $0.00
                                   $3,011[e]
                                      $0
                                  $5,140,000
                                  $5,140,000
TOTAL
                                     2,544
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                  $7,680,000
                                  $7,680,000
Notes:
   a. See Exhibit 4-5 for unit cost details by waste management activity.
   b. This EA assumes that the following changes in generator status would occur but for the regulatory flexibility provided by the proposed rule: 264 CESQG-to-LQG and 590 CESQG-to-SQG changes in the low impact scenario and 527 CESQG-to-LQG and 1,180 CESQG-to-SQG changes in the high impact scenario.
   c. The SQG values reflect per facility costs presented above in Exhibit 4-5.
   d. This figure is a weighted average that reflects a cost savings of $2,235 per CESQG that would otherwise be elevated to SQG status and $4,627 per CESQG that would otherwise be elevated to LQG status in the low impact scenario.  As indicated in Chapter 3, an estimated 590 CESQGs would avoid SQG status under the low-impact scenario and 264 CESQGs would avoid LQG status.
   e. This figure is a weighted average that reflects a cost savings of $2,235 for CESQGs that would otherwise be elevated to SQG status and $4,731 for CESQGs that would otherwise be elevated to LQG status in the high impact scenario.  As indicated in Chapter 3, an estimated 1,180 CESQGs would avoid SQG status under the high-impact scenario and 527 would avoid LQG status.

Non-Quantified Benefits
In addition to the monetized benefits presented in the previous section, the proposed rule may yield a variety of other non-quantifiable benefits.  These benefits are summarized below for each major rule provision outlined in Chapter 1.
Intra-organization Transfers of Hazardous Waste from CESQGs to LQGs
As outlined above, the proposed rule would permit CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions.  In addition to the reduced transportation and disposal costs estimated above, allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization would contribute to more environmentally sound management of hazardous waste and reduce environmental risks associated with long-term storage of hazardous wastes on site.  These potential benefits are outlined in more detail below.
   * Improved Oversight. The proposed rule would require that LQGs receiving waste from CESQGs within the same organization manage the CESQG-generated waste in accordance with RCRA LQG requirements.  Under these requirements, LQGs are subject to more rigorous management conditions (labeling, emergency planning, and containment standards) that are more protective of human health and the environment than CESQG requirements.  As a result, the proposed change would improve oversight and management of hazardous waste by subjecting hazardous wastes generated by CESQGs to more rigorous management and disposal requirements. Related to these differences in requirements, the consolidation of CESQG waste at LQGs owned by the same company may lead to more protective management of hazardous waste, as LQGs typically have a better understanding of safe management practices and implement these practices on a more consistent basis.
   * Reduce the Amount of Hazardous Waste Deposited in Subtitle D Landfills. Under the proposed rule, CESQGs that dispose of their hazardous waste in Subtitle D units (e.g., MSW landfills) in the baseline may send their waste to LQGs instead.  Because LQGs receiving CESQG hazardous waste must manage this waste in a permitted Subtitle C facility, the consolidation of CESQG waste to LQGs may, in effect, lead to the diversion of CESQG hazardous waste from Subtitle D disposal to Subtitle C disposal.  Such a change in the management of CESQG hazardous waste would reduce the overall quantity of hazardous waste disposed of in Subtitle D units, resulting in improved environmental quality and outcomes, particularly associated with landfill leaching.
   * Reduce Risks Associated with Longer Storage Times of Hazardous Wastes at CESQG Facilities. Whereas LQGs have up to 90 days to accumulate hazardous waste without having to obtain a RCRA storage permit or comply with interim status standards, CESQGs may accumulate up to 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste (or up to 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste or up to 100 kilograms of residues from the cleanup of a spill of acute hazardous waste) without any time constraint. The longer storage time of the hazardous waste on site presents a greater risk of adverse impacts to human health and the environment. Allowing CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the control of the same organization may reduce the overall time that CESQG hazardous waste is accumulated on site, further reducing the potential risk to human health and the environment.
   * Reduced Liability Risk. Organizations that opt to transfer their CESQG hazardous waste to LQGs within the organization will likely realize a reduction in liability risk.  Because the transferred waste would be managed at facilities with more protective safeguards than under the baseline, the likelihood of an environmental accident would be lower, which would reduce the organization's expected liabilities.  This reduction in liabilities could lead to cost savings associated with lower legal costs and lower insurance costs.
Documentation of Negative or Non-hazardous Waste Determinations
The proposed rule would require that SQGs and LQGs maintain records of all hazardous waste determinations, including determinations where a solid waste is found not to be a RCRA hazardous waste.  Current regulation requires that SQGs and LQGs maintain documentation of determinations only when they determine that a material is a hazardous waste.
This proposed requirement would result in benefits associated with more efficient facility inspections and more appropriate and accurate waste determinations.  With respect to the former, the documentation required of SQGs and LQGs under the rule would provide facility inspectors with supporting information for negative determinations, allowing them to more easily and efficiently assess the reasonableness of potentially questionable determinations.  This provision of the proposed rule may therefore result in time savings for many inspections, freeing up labor resources to allow state agencies to conduct more inspections and/or to reallocate resources to other productive activities. The lack of documentation for negative determinations under current regulation in many cases prolongs the review of waste streams that generators determine are not hazardous.
Requiring documentation for negative determinations would also provide SQGs and LQGs with an incentive to make more accurate determinations, as the documentation would make their determination processes more open to facility inspectors.  These improved determination processes may reduce the volume of hazardous waste inappropriately identified and managed as non-hazardous waste.  This change in facility behavior would reduce risks to human health and the environment and may further improve the efficiency of facility inspections, as inspectors would likely identify fewer waste streams with negative determinations that are questionable.
SQG Re-notification
EPA's proposal that SQGs re-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year would improve the ability of EPA and the states to perform compliance monitoring of regulated facilities.  The data available to EPA would become more accurate and up-to-date, allowing the Agency to observe the changes in facilities' operations over time and therefore conduct more precise and meaningful reviews of their waste generation activity.  Similarly, the information collected through re-notification will help EPA and the states target their outreach, enforcement, and compliance assistance efforts.  For example, the information collected from re-notifications may help determine which facilities warrant greater oversight.  This more targeted enforcement approach may reduce the risk of environmental damage from the mismanagement of hazardous waste.
Re-notification may also result in time savings associated with assembling data for analyses performed by the Agency and the states on a periodic basis.  For example, information collected from re-notifications may inform analyses of regulatory burdens to the regulated community and the benefits of RCRA regulations, or serve as data inputs in public reports on hazardous waste generation and management.
Marking and Labeling of Containers for SQGs and LQGs
As described in Chapter 1, EPA is proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark containers with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container's contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).
This change would help increase awareness of a container's contents among the various individuals in the waste management chain, which may in turn prevent improper treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste.  In addition, due to the increased awareness associated with enhanced labeling, generator employees may handle hazardous waste with greater care, potentially leading to a reduction in the number of accidental spills and other incidents that might jeopardize the health and safety of site employees and the nearby population.
The more detailed information that EPA proposes for display on container labels would also enhance the ability of emergency responders to limit adverse impacts from exposure to hazardous materials.  Emergency medical technicians would be able to treat those exposed to the hazardous waste in a manner specific to the waste, limiting exposure time, preventing lethal outcomes, and improving the time and chances of recovery. Fire fighters may be able to extinguish fires and contain spills more quickly by using reactive chemicals designed specifically for the waste in question. The use of these chemicals may prevent lethal outcomes and injuries among fire fighters and minimize exposure and environmental damage associated with fires, spills, and other hazardous waste incidents.
LQG Closure Conditions
With respect to facility closure, EPA is proposing that LQGs accumulating hazardous wastes in containers meet the landfill closure requirements if they cannot demonstrate that contaminated soils can be removed or decontaminated.  This provision of the proposed rule would ensure that facilities are closed in a manner that reflects the additional risk associated with leaving hazardous waste (or materials containing hazardous constituents) in place at closure.  Under current regulation, LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containers may close accumulation areas with contamination in place without implementing measures to contain the waste.  Relative to these baseline closure requirements, the closure requirements for landfills are much more stringent and designed to contain any contaminants left in place at closure, thereby preventing potential releases to the environment.
The Agency is also proposing that LQGs notify EPA of their intention to close waste accumulation unit(s) at least 30 days prior to closure as well as notify EPA when the units have been closed.  These requirements would a) provide regulatory authorities with knowledge of the location and specifics of hazardous waste sites planned for closure; b) allow the authorities to confirm that the unit is properly closed in compliance with the applicable closure regulations; and c) allow the authorities to monitor the unit during the post-closure period, alerting regulators in cases where generators may have abandoned the site or closed it improperly, or where other complications may have developed at the site. This, in turn, will prevent releases of harmful substances to the environment and adverse impacts to human health and the environment.
Strengthening of the Preparedness, Prevention, and Emergency Response Conditions for LQGs
Building on the current preparedness requirements for LQGs, EPA is proposing that all new LQGs submit an executive summary of their contingency plans to local emergency management authorities.  While LQGs are already required to provide a copy of their contingency plans to local emergency response agencies, the length of these documents may make it difficult for first responders to identify key information in the limited time available when an emergency occurs.
The contingency plan executive summaries called for in the proposed rule would allow first responders to more easily discern the layout of a facility, the location of hazardous wastes, what those wastes are, and what chemicals to use (or not use) near those wastes.  To the extent that first responders are able to respond more quickly and effectively based on this information, this provision of the proposed rule may prevent lethal outcomes and injuries among fire fighters, other first responders, and facility employees, and may also reduce exposure risk for local populations and ecosystems.
Generators that Temporarily Change Generator Status Due to an Episodic Event
As described above, EPA is proposing to allow a CESQG or an SQG to maintain its existing regulatory status in the event of a planned or unplanned episodic event in which the facility generates a quantity of hazardous waste in a calendar month that would otherwise elevate the facility to a more stringent regulatory status.  In addition to the cost savings associated with avoided SQG- or LQG-specific activities (as estimated above), this provision of the rule may result in additional cost savings associated with facilities maintaining a more consistent RCRA generator status over time.  Changing status from one month to the next may impose an administrative burden on facilities as they re-visit the requirements for different generator status categories and implement measures to ensure compliance.  If facilities are able to maintain a more consistent generator status over time, they would not need to re-visit the generator requirements as frequently or make as many changes to their internal controls to ensure compliance with RCRA.
Transfer Facility Requirements
EPA is proposing to change the marking and labeling requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators.  Thus, all hazardous waste stored by these facilities must be marked with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container's contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).
As discussed in the marking and labeling section above, including this information on the container would alert facility workers of the container's contents and its potential hazards, which may help prevent the improper treatment of this material.  Displaying this information on the containers may also help first responders limit exposure to local populations and ecosystems in the event of a fire or other emergency.
Biennial Reporting Requirements
As described in Chapter 1, EPA is proposing two substantive changes to the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs under the rule.  First, the Agency is proposing that LQGs report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting year, not just waste for the month(s) during which they were LQGs. Second, EPA is proposing that LQGs report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless of whether the waste was transported off-site during the reporting year.  Both of these changes would make the BR more complete and consistent, allowing the Agency and the states to base their policy, programmatic, and enforcement decisions on more reliable hazardous waste generation and management data.
Prohibitions on Storage of Restricted Waste
EPA is also proposing to require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land disposal be marked with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste", (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers, and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container's contents.  As described above, including this information on containers may help prevent the improper treatment or transportation of hazardous waste, and may also help first responders limit exposures to hazardous waste in the unlikely event of a fire or other emergency.
Special Requirements for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes (Voluntary)
The proposed rule would also include flexibility for LQGs to apply for a waiver from the hazardous waste accumulation property line requirement.  Under this requirement, containers holding ignitable or reactive waste must be located at least 15 meters (50 feet) from a facility's property line.  In some settings, however, particularly in urban environments, LQGs may experience difficulty in meeting this requirement. For example, meeting this requirement may not be possible if the width of a facility is 100 feet or less or if a facility's operations have expanded such that it no longer has the ability to accumulate ignitable or reactive waste at least 15 meters (50 feet) from the facility's property line.
With a waiver from this requirement, LQGs would avoid a variety of costs associated with the 50-foot limit.  For example, some LQGs would avoid the costs of relocation or purchasing additional property to meet the 50-foot requirement. In addition, facilities that would otherwise reconfigure their layout to meet the 50-foot requirement may be able to structure their operations to streamline the process flow at the facility, rather than structure their operations based on the required location of ignitable or reactive waste.  This more optimal facility structure would likely result in operational cost savings for affected facilities and would provide greater flexibility for meeting other requirements (e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations).  The option of obtaining a waiver may also allow some businesses to operate in geographic areas where they are unable to operate under current regulation.

CHAPTER 5  |  Summary of Regulatory Benefits and Costs
This chapter compares the costs and benefits of the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule as estimated in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EA.  Specifically, this chapter calculates the net benefits of the proposed rule (i.e., benefits minus costs).  From an economic perspective, the proposed rule would enhance economic efficiency if benefits (cost savings) exceed costs.  Focusing solely on these or other benefit-cost metrics provides an incomplete view of the effects of the proposed rule, however, because many positive impacts of the rule cannot feasibly be monetized, such as improvements in emergency response associated with the rule's enhanced marking and labeling requirements.
Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 report the net benefits of the proposed rule using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively.  The exhibits present net benefits separately for the mandatory and voluntary provisions of the rule and also examine net benefits for the mandatory and voluntary provisions combined.  As indicated in both exhibits, benefits were not monetized for many of the rule's provisions because sufficient data were not available.  Net benefits for these provisions are therefore presented as negative.  These negative values, however, do not reflect the benefits presented in Chapter 4 that EPA was unable to monetize.  In excluding these benefits, the negative values in the exhibits underestimate the net benefits associated with the rule's mandatory provisions.
For the voluntary provisions of the rule, this EA estimates positive net benefits (cost savings) ranging from $5.4 to $6.7 million per year based on discount rates of both 3 and 7 percent.  For both the low impact and high impact scenarios, the positive net benefits for these provisions reflect, in part, the net benefits associated with episodic generation.  As discussed in Chapter 4, organizations that opt into the episodic generation provision are expected to experience cost savings associated with reduced transportation and hazardous waste disposal costs.  The net benefits of this provision are also expected to be much higher under the high impact scenario than the low impact scenario.  This difference reflects the assumption in this EA (stated in Chapter 4) that 50 percent of episodic generators would meet the rule conditions for taking advantage of this provision (i.e., no more than one episodic event per year, which lasts no more than one calendar month) under the low impact scenario while all episodic generators are assumed to meet these conditions under the high impact scenario.

EXHIBIT 5-1. NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE (3% DISCOUNT RATE)
                                  REQUIREMENT
                               LOW-END SCENARIO
                               HIGH END SCENARIO
                               ANNUALIZED COSTS
                              ANNUALIZED BENEFITS
                                 NET BENEFITS
                               ANNUALIZED COSTS
                              ANNUALIZED BENEFITS
                                 NET BENEFITS
MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Negative Determinations
                                                                      $386,000
                                 Not monetized
                                      --
                                                                    $1,130,000
                                 Not monetized
                                      --
Re-notification
                                                                      $748,000

                                                                      $960,000

Labeling
                                                                    $3,160,000

                                                                    $6,270,000

Closure
                                                                       $28,800

                                                                    $1,340,000

Emergency Response Preparedness
                                                                       $416,000

                                                                       $807,000

Transfer Facility
                                                                      $192,000

                                                                      $549,000

BR Requirements
                                                                      $294,000

                                                                      $931,000

Prohibitions on Storage
                                                                            $0

                                                                            $0

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $34,800
                                                                        $34,800
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $35,200
                                                                        $35,200
SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions
                                                                    $5,220,000
                                                                       $34,800
                                                                   ($5,190,000)
                                                                   $12,000,000
                                                                       $35,200
                                                                  ($12,000,000)
VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Intra-organizational Transfers
                                                                      $562,000
                                                                    $2,450,000
                                                                    $1,880,000
                                                                    $4,280,000
                                                                    $4,490,000
                                                                      $212,000
Episodic Generation
                                                                      $208,000
                                                                    $3,750,000
                                                                    $3,540,000
                                                                    $1,070,000
                                                                    $7,660,000
                                                                    $6,600,000
Ignitable and Reactive Waste
                                                                           $50
                                                                  Not monetized
                                                                          ($50)
                                                                       $88,000
                                                                  Not monetized
                                                                      ($88,000)
SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions
                                                                      $771,000
                                                                    $6,200,000
                                                                    $5,430,000
                                                                    $5,440,000
                                                                   $12,200,000
                                                                    $6,720,000
MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED
TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary Provisions Combined
                                                                    $5,990,000
                                                                    $6,230,000
                                                                      $240,000
                                                                   $17,400,000
                                                                   $12,200,000
                                                                   ($5,230,000)
Notes:
All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

EXHIBIT 5-2. NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE (7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                                  REQUIREMENT
                               LOW-END SCENARIO
                               HIGH END SCENARIO
                               ANNUALIZED COSTS
                              ANNUALIZED BENEFITS
                                 NET BENEFITS
                               ANNUALIZED COSTS
                              ANNUALIZED BENEFITS
                                 NET BENEFITS
MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Negative Determinations
                                                                       $403,000
                                 Not monetized
                                      --
                                                                    $1,130,000
                                 Not monetized
                                      --
Re-notification
                                                                       $762,000

                                                                      $960,000

Labeling
                                                                     $3,370,000

                                                                    $6,270,000

Closure
                                                                        $28,800

                                                                    $1,340,000

Emergency Response Preparedness
                                                                       $420,000

                                                                       $807,000

Transfer Facility
                                                                       $192,000

                                                                      $549,000

BR Requirements
                                                                       $299,000

                                                                      $931,000

Prohibitions on Storage
                                                                             $0

                                                                            $0

Drip Pads and Containment Buildings
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $34,800
                                                                        $34,800
                                                                             $0
                                                                        $35,300
                                                                        $35,300
SUB-TOTAL: Mandatory Rule Provisions
                                                                     $5,480,000
                                                                       $34,800
                                                                   ($5,440,000)
                                                                   $11,900,000
                                                                       $35,300
                                                                  ($11,900,000)
VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Intra-organizational Transfers
                                                                      $584,000
                                                                    $2,450,000
                                                                    $1,880,000
                                                                     $4,320,000
                                                                     $4,490,000
                                                                      $173,000
Episodic Generation
                                                                      $208,000
                                                                    $3,760,000
                                                                    $3,540,000
                                                                     $1,070,000
                                                                     $7,680,000
                                                                     $6,610,000
Ignitable and Reactive Waste
                                                                           $50
                                                                  Not monetized
                                                                          ($50)
                                                                       $95,700
                                                                  Not monetized
                                                                      ($95,700)
SUB-TOTAL: Voluntary Rule Provisions
                                                                       $793,000
                                                                     $6,200,000
                                                                    $5,410,000
                                                                     $5,490,000
                                                                    $12,200,000
                                                                     $6,690,000
MANDATORY AND VOLUNTARY PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE COMBINED
TOTAL: Mandatory and Voluntary Provisions Combined
                                                                    $6,270,000
                                                                    $6,240,000
                                                                      ($28,000)
                                                                   $17,400,000
                                                                   $12,200,000
                                                                   ($5,210,000)
Notes:
All estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.

In addition, the values in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 show that the estimated net benefits of the voluntary intra-organizational transfer provision are positive.  While there is a transfer of costs from CESQGs to LQGs, the net benefits of the provision are positive for the organization as a whole.  Furthermore, because not all benefits associated with CESQG consolidation can be monetized in this EA, EPA estimates that the actual benefits are even larger.  Therefore, EPA expects that eligible organizations are likely to take advantage of this provision.  As described in Chapter 4, these qualitative benefits include reduced liability risk for organizations that opt to consolidate waste because the transferred waste would be managed at facilities with more protective safeguards.  In additional, this voluntary provision would provide the following social welfare benefits:
   1) Improved oversight by subjecting hazardous wastes generated by CESQGs to more rigorous management and disposal requirements in accordance with RCRA LQG requirements;
   2) Reducing the amount of hazardous waste deposited in Subtitle D landfills; and
   3) Reduced risks associated with longer storage times of hazardous waste at CESQG facilities in accordance with the 90 day storage limit for LQGs, lowering the potential risk to human health and the environment.

CHAPTER 6  |  Equity Considerations and Other Impacts
As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this chapter summarizes EPA's analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. This chapter assesses potential impacts, with respect to the following issues:
Regulatory planning and review: requires examination and quantification of costs and benefits of regulating with and without the proposed rule;
Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the proposed rule on small entities;
Employment impacts: assesses the potential impact of the proposed rule on employment;
Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the proposed rule with respect to unfunded mandates;
Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty;
Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to include impacts on Native American tribal governments and their communities;
Environmental justice: considers potential issues for minority and low-income populations;
Children's health protection: examines the potential impact of the proposed rule on the health of children;
Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the proposed rule on energy use, supply, and distribution; and
Joint impacts of rules: considers the combined effect of the proposed rule with other regulations affecting the healthcare sector.
Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], as amended by Executive Order 13563, the Agency, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. EO 12866 defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
   (1)	Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
   (2)	Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
   (3)	Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
   (4)	Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of EO 12866, as affirmed in EO 13563, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action.
Findings for the EA indicate that the rule, as proposed, is projected to result in aggregate annualized costs of approximately $5.5 to $11.9 million for the mandatory provisions of the rule, and $6.3 to $17.4 million when factoring in the voluntary provisions, using a discount rate of 7 percent.  This full range is below the $100 million threshold established under part 3(f)(1) of the Order.  The proposed rule is therefore not considered to be an economically significant action.
In addition to calling for assessment of regulatory costs, the Executive Order also requires Federal agencies to assess benefits and, "recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs."  As described in Chapter 4 of this Assessment, monetization of all the rule's benefits was not possible given limitations in the available data.  This Assessment, however, estimates that the proposed rule would lead to $6.2 to $12.2 million in quantifiable benefits per year under the voluntary CESQG consolidation and episodic generator provisions.  In addition, requirements related to labeling/marking, documentation of negative hazardous waste determinations, LQG closure, and other rule provisions would help ensure that hazardous waste is managed in such a way as to minimize risks to human health and the environment.
Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute.  This analysis must be completed unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.  Based on EPA's RFA/SBREFA analytic guidance, a rule is not expected to result in a significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities if the costs of the regulation for a facility are less than 1 percent of annual revenues.
Ideally, assessment of the rule's small entity impacts would identify specific entities affected by the rule as small and assess impacts for these entities.  As described in previous chapters of this Assessment, however, detailed data necessary for the assessment of regulatory impacts for individual facilities are not readily available.  In the absence of such information, this Assessment uses the average cost impacts by generator status in conjunction with revenue and employment data from the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 Census of Agriculture for industries affected by the rule to gauge potential small entity impacts.  The steps in this process are as follows:
   1) Identify most heavily represented industries among small entities. To identify the most common industries among small entities affected by the rule, EPA consulted data from two surveys conducted in 1985, a National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Survey and a Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D Establishments, in addition to several state and local studies of CESQGs.  Although some of these data are more than 25 years old, they represent the most comprehensive data available on SQGs and CESQGs.  EPA used this information to identify industries with the largest number of hazardous waste generators in the SQG and CESQG universe.  This list broadly includes the following industry groups: (a) pesticide end-users and application services; (b) industrial chemical manufacturers; (c) wood preservation; (d) pharmaceutical and other chemical and chemical product manufacturers; (e) dry cleaners and industrial launderers; (f) funeral services and crematories; (g) photography; (h) textile manufacturing; (i) vehicle maintenance; (j) metal manufacturing; (k) construction; (l) printing; (m) professional cleaning services; (n) hospitals; and (o) wholesale paints and chemicals.  For this analysis, EPA assumes that LQGs are not owned by small entities.
   2) Estimate percentage of facilities that are small, by industry.  To assess the prevalence of small entities within the industries identified in Step 1, EPA relied on NAICS-level data from the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 Census of Agriculture and calculated the percentage of facilities, by NAICS code, owned by facilities below the Small Business Administration (SBA) small size standard threshold (see Exhibit 6-1).  SBA's small size standards vary by industry and may be based on either a firm's annual revenues or number of employees.  The 2007 Economic Census reports the number of firms and number of establishments by revenue-based or employee-based categories (e.g., establishments with 50 to 99 employees).  In those cases where one of the categories is below the SBA threshold, all entities within that category are considered small.  Similarly, entities in categories above the SBA threshold are not considered small.  For some NAICS codes, the SBA small size threshold is between the category boundaries used by the Economic Census.  In these cases, entities within each category are assumed to be evenly distributed between small firms and large firms.
      Ideally, this analysis would apply the industry-specific percentages estimated in this step to the SQGs and CESQGs in the affected universe to derive estimates of the number of small entities in the universe.  Performing this calculation, however, is not possible because the SQGs and CESQGs in the regulated universe are not broken out by industry.  Therefore, Exhibit 6-1 reports the percentage of facilities in the industries identified in Step 1 that are small according to the SBA thresholds.  With the exception of five industries, more than 60 percent of facilities in each NAICS code are considered to be small.
   3) Estimate average annual revenues of affected small entities.  EPA also used the Economic Census and Census of Agriculture data to calculate the average annual revenue per small entity in the industries identified in Step 1 by dividing the total revenues of entities meeting the SBA definition by the total number of establishments owned by those entities within each industry.  Exhibit 6-1 reports the small business size standard for each NAICS code, the percentage of facilities that are considered to be small, and the average annual revenues per small facility.
   4) Estimate regulatory costs per small entity.  The average incremental costs of the rule per small entity are estimated based on the cost analysis presented in Chapter 3.  As an upper bound, this regulatory flexibility analysis reports the total per facility costs for SQGs and CESQGs, excluding the voluntary provisions of the rule, for a hypothetical small facility that incurs costs under every provision of the rule.  In practice, however, many small entities will incur costs associated with only a subset of the rule provisions.  For example, between 25,500 and 33,800 small facilities (of a total of 338,700 to 529,100 SQGs and CESQGs) are anticipated to be impacted by the negative hazardous waste determination requirement on an annual basis.  Based on this approach, EPA estimates an upper bound annualized cost of $131 to $298 per facility (excluding the rule's voluntary provisions) for small facilities (SQGs and CESQGs), excluding transfer facilities, affected by each mandatory provision of the rule using a 7 percent discount rate.  Since there are only a small number of CESQG and SQG transfer facilities in the regulated universe and their NAICS codes are known, this EA presents a separate cost range for transfer facilities and compares this range against the average annual revenues for these establishments.  For small transfer facilities, the upper bound annualized cost is $720 to $1,988 per facility.
      For small facilities not affected by every provision of the rule, these estimates overstate the potential cost impacts.  In addition, many SQGs and CESQGs that take advantage of the voluntary provisions of the rule are anticipated to experience a net cost savings relative to the baseline.  These provisions are excluded from this regulatory flexibility analysis.
EXHIBIT 6-1.  CHARACTERIZATION OF INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED AMONG SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE
                                     NAICS
                          NAICS INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
SBA SMALL SIZE STANDARDPERCENTAGE OF FACILITIES THAT ARE SMALLAVERAGE REVENUE PER SMALL FACILITY($2012, MILLIONS)

                         REVENUE(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
                              NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

                                                                         115112
Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating
                                     $7.0

                                     99.9%
                                     $0.1
                                                                         211112
Natural Gas Liquid Extraction

                                      500
                                    100.0%
                                    $154.2
                                                                            236
Construction of Buildings
                                     $33.5

                                     97.4%
                                     $2.5
                                                                            237
Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
                                     $33.5

                                     93.8%
                                     $4.7
                                                                         313110
Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills

                                      500
                                     97.6%
                                     $19.4
                                                                         313210
Broadwoven Fabric Mills

                                     1,000
                                     99.6%
                                     $13.7
                                                                         313220
Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery

                                      500
                                    100.0%
                                     $3.3
                                                                         313230
Nonwoven Fabric Mills

                                      500
                                     98.4%
                                     $20.0
                                                                         313240
Knit Fabric Mills

                                      500
                                     99.2%
                                     $6.3
                                                                         313310
Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills

                                     1,000
                                    100.0%
                                     $5.6
                                                                         313320
Fabric Coating Mills

                                     1,000
                                    100.0%
                                     $13.2
                                                                         314110
Carpet and Rug Mills

                                      500
                                     93.4%
                                     $23.9
                                                                         314120
Curtain and Linen Mills

                                      500
                                     99.9%
                                     $2.2
                                                                         314910
Textile Bag and Canvas Mills

                                      500
                                     99.9%
                                     $1.7
                                                                         314994
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills

                                     1,000
                                    100.0%
                                     $23.7
                                                                         314999
All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills

                                      500
                                     99.8%
                                     $1.8
                                                                         321114
Wood Preservation

                                      500
                                    100.0%
                                     $12.3
                                                                         322110
Pulp Mills

                                      750
                                     86.0%
                                    $120.9
                                                                         322121
Paper (except Newsprint) Mills

                                      750
                                     73.0%
                                    $121.3
                                                                         322122
Newsprint Mills

                                      750
                                    100.0%
                                     $68.6
                                                                         322130
Paperboard Mills

                                      750
                                     85.6%
                                    $123.8
                                                                         323111
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)

                                      500
                                     96.4%
                                     $8.7
                                                                         323113
Commercial Screen Printing

                                      500
                                     99.9%
                                     $1.7
                                                                         323117
Books Printing

                                      500
                                     98.2%
                                     $6.8
                                                                         325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing

                                     1,000
                                    100.0%
                                   $1,498.4
                                                                         325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing

                                     1,000

                                     $15.3
                                                                         325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing

                                     1,000
                                    100.0%
                                     $30.9
                                                                          32518
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing

                                     1,000
                                     99.4%
                                     $34.5
                                                                         325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing

                                     1,000
                                    100.0%
                                     $74.7
                                                                         325199
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

                                     1,000
                                     99.1%
                                    $102.8
                                                                         325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     99.6%
                                     $37.8
                                                                         325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

                                      750
                                     95.1%
                                     $65.8
                                                                         325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     99.6%
                                     $10.4
                                                                         326211
Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)

                                     1,000
                                     84.7%
                                     $41.0
                                                                         326212
Tire Retreading

                                      500
                                    100.0%
                                     $3.4
                                                                         326220
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     98.1%
                                     $13.7
                                                                         326291
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use

                                      500
                                     99.0%
                                     $13.6
                                                                         326299
All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     99.5%
                                     $9.4
                                                                         327110
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing

                                      750
                                     99.3%
                                     $1.8
                                                                         327120
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing

                                      750
                                     99.6%
                                     $9.5
                                                                         327211
Flat Glass Manufacturing

                                     1,000
                                    100.0%
                                     $68.3
                                                                         327212
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing

                                      750
                                     97.2%
                                     $7.3
                                                                         327213
Glass Container Manufacturing

                                      750
                                     97.7%
                                     $78.9
                                                                         327215
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass

                                      500
                                     99.5%
                                     $6.5
                                                                         327310
Cement Manufacturing

                                      750
                                    100.0%
                                     $38.2
                                                                         327320
Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     99.9%
                                     $6.1
                                                                         327331
Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     99.9%
                                     $7.2
                                                                         327332
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing

                                      500
                                    100.0%
                                     $9.0
                                                                         327390
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     99.9%
                                     $5.5
                                                                         327410
Lime Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     98.8%
                                     $21.9
                                                                         327420
Gypsum Product Manufacturing

                                     1,000
                                    100.0%
                                     $20.5
                                                                         327910
Abrasive Product Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     99.1%
                                     $13.2
                                                                         327991
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing

                                      500
                                    100.0%
                                     $2.0
                                                                         327992
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing

                                      500
                                     99.6%
                                     $9.7
                                                                         327993
Mineral Wool Manufacturing

                                      750
                                     99.0%
                                     $19.5
                                                                         327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

                                      500
                                    100.0%
                                     $7.2
                                                                         331110
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing

                                     1,000
                                     92.7%
                                    $172.9
                                                                         424950
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

                                      100
                                     66.9%
                                     $4.0
                                                                         483211
Inland Water Freight Transportation

                                      500
                                     92.3%
                                     $10.3
                                                                         484110
General Freight Trucking, Local
                                     $25.5

                                     99.5%
                                     $1.0
                                                                         484121
General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Truckload
                                     $25.5

                                     89.6%
                                     $1.8
                                                                         484122
General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Less Than Truckload
                                     $25.5

                                     39.6%
                                     $1.6
                                                                         484210
Used Household and Office Goods Moving
                                     $25.5

                                     95.7%
                                     $1.0
                                                                         484220
Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local
                                     $25.5

                                     98.1%
                                     $1.1
                                                                         484230
Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Long-Distance
                                     $25.5

                                     77.6%
                                     $2.0
                                                                         532111
Passenger Car Rental
                                     $35.5

                                     35.4%
                                     $0.7
                                                                         532112
Passenger Car Leasing
                                     $35.5

                                     94.8%
                                     $1.3
                                                                         532120
Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing
                                     $35.5

                                     35.2%
                                     $1.6
                                                                         541921
Photography Studios, Portrait
                                     $7.0

                                     61.5%
                                     $0.3
                                                                         541922
Commercial Photography
                                     $7.0

                                     98.7%
                                     $0.5
                                                                         561710
Exterminating and Pest Control Services
                                     $10.0

                                     84.7%
                                     $0.5
                                                                         561720
Janitorial Services
                                     $16.5

                                     95.6%
                                     $0.5
                                                                         561730
Landscaping Services
                                     $7.0

                                     96.9%
                                     $0.6
                                                                         561740
Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
                                     $5.0

                                     97.6%
                                     $0.3
                                                                         562211
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
                                     $38.5

                                     57.4%
                                     $3.8
                                                                            622
Hospitals
                                     $34.5

                                     24.9%
                                     $16.1
                                                                         712130
Zoos and Botanical Gardens
                                     $25.5

                                     99.3%
                                     $0.7
                                                                         713910
Golf Courses and Country Clubs
                                     $14.0

                                     90.1%
                                     $1.3
                                                                         811111
General Automotive Repair
                                     $7.0

                                     97.2%
                                     $0.5
                                                                         811112
Automotive Exhaust System Repair
                                     $7.0

                                     97.6%
                                     $0.4
                                                                         811113
Automotive Transmission Repair
                                     $7.0

                                     99.4%
                                     $0.5
                                                                         811118
Other Automotive Mechanical and Electrical Repair and Maintenance
                                     $7.0

                                     93.0%
                                     $0.5
                                                                         811121
Automotive Body, Paint and Interior Repair and Maintenance
                                     $7.0

                                     96.6%
                                     $0.8
                                                                         811191
Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops
                                     $7.0

                                     66.5%
                                     $0.6
                                                                         811198
All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
                                     $7.0

                                     88.7%
                                     $0.4
                                                                         812210
Funeral Homes and Funeral Services
                                     $7.0

                                     84.6%
                                     $0.8
                                                                         812220
Cemeteries and Crematories
                                     $19.0

                                     81.1%
                                     $0.4
                                                                         812310
Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners
                                     $7.0

                                     96.1%
                                     $0.2
                                                                         812320
Dry-cleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated)
                                     $5.0

                                     94.5%
                                     $0.3
                                                                         812331
Linen Supply
                                     $30.0

                                     62.8%
                                     $2.9
                                                                         812332
Industrial Launderers
                                     $35.5

                                     37.5%
                                     $2.5
                                                                         812921
Photofinishing Laboratories (except One-Hour)
                                     $19.0

                                     94.2%
                                     $0.5
                                                                         812922
One-Hour Photofinishing
                                     $14.0

                                    100.0%
                                     $0.1
Notes:
   1. U. S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, effective July 22, 2013, accessed at http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards.
   2. Based on analysis of data compiled from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2007 Economic Census (accessed at http://www.census.gov/econ/census07) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Census of Agriculture (accessed at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php).

As Exhibit 6-1 shows, the average annual revenues of small entities in the affected universe range from approximately $129,000 (for soil preparation, planting, and cultivating) to over $1 billion (for petrochemical manufacturing).  As described in Step 4, above, the average annualized costs of the rule are estimated to be between $131 and $298 on a per facility basis for SQGs and CESQGs, excluding transfer facilities (using a 7 percent discount rate).  Therefore, at most, the costs of the proposed rule represent between 0.10 and 0.23 percent of annual revenues for CESQGs and SQGs.  For CESQG and SQG transfer facilities, the average annualized costs of the rule are estimated to be between $720 and $1,988 (using a 7 percent discount rate) compared with average annual revenues of approximately $3.8 million for a small business.  Therefore, at most, the costs of the proposed rule represent less than 0.1 percent of annual revenues for CESQG and SQG transfer facilities.  Since the incremental impact to the smallest facilities in terms of revenue is less than 1 percent of average annual revenues, the proposed rule is not expected to have a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities.
As shown in the presentation of year-by-year costs in Chapter 3, the costs of the proposed rule are estimated to be higher in the first year than in later years.  These relatively high costs in the first year reflect the one-time costs associated with the rule's marking/ labeling requirements and the costs of documenting non-hazardous waste determinations for existing wastes.  To assess whether these higher costs for the first year represent a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities that year, upper bound costs similar to those presented above for annualized costs were developed for costs incurred in the first year of the rule.  For a hypothetical small entity (SQG or CESQG) that incurs the first-year costs of all of the rule's mandatory provisions, the costs of the rule range from $211 to $507.  This range represents 0.16 to 0.39 percent of annual revenues per facility for the industry with the lowest per-facility revenues in Exhibit 6-1, further suggesting that the rule would not lead to a significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities.
Employment Impact Analysis
Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" (76 FR 3821; January 18, 2011) requires Federal agencies to consider the employment impacts of regulatory policy.  Specifically, Executive Order 13563 states, "Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation." Consistent with the requirements of the Executive Order, this Assessment considers the employment impacts of the proposed rule.  Ideally, this Assessment would include a quantitative assessment of these impacts, but insufficient data are available to quantify changes in employment associated with the rule.  This Assessment therefore presents a qualitative assessment of the rule's potential employment impacts.
In general, an environmental regulation can be understood as an increase in demand for a particular output: environmental quality.  Meeting this new demand can result in increased demand for the various factors of production (including labor) available to the economy.  However, the regulated sector generally relies on revenues generated by their other market outputs to cover the costs of supplying increased environmental quality. This can lead to reduced demand for labor and other factors of production used to produce the market output.  Thus, as described in Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), the net effect of an environmental regulation on employment in regulated sectors and the overall economy is indeterminate.  The costs imposed on directly regulated sectors may raise production costs and put some specific jobs at risk, while at the same time environmental regulation may create jobs in the regulated sector or other sectors, such as the environmental protection sector. Because the costs of this rule are relatively low, both in aggregate and on a per-facility basis, EPA believes it is unlikely that it would result in significant employment impacts.
Unfunded Mandates Analysis
Among its other purposes and federal agency rulemaking requirements, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in "any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year."
Section 202 of UMRA requires federal agencies that propose rules that are likely to exceed this expenditure threshold to prepare a "Written Statement" containing the following five components, supply the statement to OMB, and summarize it in the Federal Register:
   1. Identification of the applicable authorizing federal law;
   2. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the rule including the costs and benefits to state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector, and an analysis of whether federal resources may be available to pay these costs;
   3. Estimates of future compliance costs and any disproportionate budgetary effects;
   4. Estimates of effects on the national economy such as productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation, international competitiveness; and
   5. Description and summary of agency's prior consultation with elected representatives of the affected state, local and tribal governments.
The total annualized cost of the proposed rule, including the voluntary provisions, is estimated to be $6.3 to $17.4 million (using a 7 percent discount rate), but declines to $5.5 to $11.9 million when excluding the voluntary provisions.  Determining the private sector and state/local/tribal government shares of these costs requires information on the extent to which regulated facilities are owned by these two groups.  Based on EPA's 2011 BR database, approximately 6.7 percent of LQGs, or 961 facilities, are owned by state/local/tribal governments and the private sector accounts for approximately 89.0 percent of LQGs or 12,697 facilities.  Facility-level data are not widely available for SQGs and CESQGs.  However, using limited data from the BR combined with facility-level data from the State of Washington (which this EA assumes to be representative of the U.S. as a whole), EPA estimates that 14.2 percent of SQGs and CESQGs are owned by state/local/tribal governments and 82.6 percent are privately-owned.  Applying these percentages to the estimated cost of the proposed rule, including the voluntary provisions of the rule, suggests that the annualized cost to state/local/tribal governments is between $0.7 and $2.0 million and the annualized cost to the private sector is between $5.3 and $14.8 million (using a 7 percent discount rate).  Excluding the voluntary provisions of the rule, the annualized cost to state/local/tribal governments is between $0.6 and $1.4 million and the annualized cost to the private sector is between $4.6 and $10.1 million (using a 7 percent discount rate).  Therefore, based on the magnitude of the rule's estimated cost impacts, EPA expects that the rule would not result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million for the private sector or state, local, and tribal governments, separately or in aggregate.
Federalism Analysis
The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 furthers the policies of UMRA by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state and local government consultation process for the development of federal regulations with implications for federalism.  These include regulations and other federal policies and actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Pursuant to the consultation process of Executive Order 13132, this section evaluates whether the proposed rule may "impose substantial direct compliance costs" on state and local governments.  EPA's 2008 guidance for compliance with Executive Order 13132 describes two numerical methods for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications with respect to "substantial direct compliance costs":
   1. The $25 million test. Annualized direct compliance cost expenditures to state and local governments in aggregate of $25 million or more.
   2. The 1 percent test. Annualized direct compliance costs faced by state and local governments are likely to equal or exceed 1percent of their annual revenues.
As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, the annualized cost of the proposed rule to state and local governments is estimated to be between $0.7 and $2.0 million, including the voluntary provisions of the rule, and between $0.6 and $1.4 million, excluding the voluntary provisions (using a 7 percent discount rate).  Thus, the estimated costs incurred by facilities owned by state and local governments are not expected to exceed the $25 million threshold.  This suggests that the proposed rule would not result in substantial direct compliance costs, as defined in the EPA guidance, for facilities owned by state and local governments.
EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would affect the relationship between the federal government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.  In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, however, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.
Tribal Governments Analysis
EO 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications."
To assess the potential tribal implications of the rule, EPA compiled data on the number of tribally-owned establishments in the U.S. and estimated the costs of the rule for these facilities.  Based on the BR data, less than 0.1 percent of LQGs, or approximately 5 facilities, are tribally-owned.  Similarly, based on the BR and Washington State data, less than 0.1 percent of SQGs and CESQGs, or between 77 and 120 facilities are tribally-owned.  To estimate the potential costs of the rule, the aggregate costs described above were applied to the estimated percentage of tribally-owned establishments.  This suggests that the annualized cost to tribal entities is between $1,700 and $4,700, including the voluntary provisions of the rule, and between $1,500 and $3,300, excluding the voluntary provisions (using a 7 percent discount rate).  Based on these values, the proposed rule is not expected to impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.
Energy Impact Analysis
EO 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to more fully consider the potential energy impacts of regulatory action.  Under this executive order, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign supplies.  Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use.
The proposed rule would not directly regulate energy production or consumption. In addition, with annualized costs of approximately $5.5 to $11.9 million for the mandatory provisions of the rule and $6.3 to $17.4 million when adding the voluntary provisions (based on a discount rate of 7 percent), this rule is not considered an economically significant action under EO 12866.
Changes in the management of hazardous waste resulting from the proposed rule are not expected to significantly impact energy production or distribution.  The rule, however, may lead to a small increase in energy production.  As described in Chapter 1, voluntary provisions of the rule would allow for intra-organization transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs under certain conditions.  Under the baseline, the hazardous waste generated by CESQGs may be managed as municipal solid waste, as the RCRA regulations do not require CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste at a permitted TSDF.  In contrast, any hazardous waste sent from a CESQG to an LQG within the same organization must be managed at a TSDF under the provisions of the rule, consistent with the requirement for all waste generated by LQGs.  Such TSDFs include hazardous waste burning cement kilns, which use the energy value of the wastes they burn as a source of heat for the production of cement.  Thus, to the extent that the rule diverts hazardous waste generated by CESQGs from disposal as municipal solid waste to combustion for energy recovery, the rule may lead to an increase in energy production.  The magnitude of this effect is uncertain.
Aside from the potential increase in energy production described above, the requirements of the rule would have minimal impact on energy consumption; therefore, the rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, no measurable adverse impacts are expected on energy prices or foreign supplies.
Environmental Justice Analysis
EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.  Among other actions, the Order directs agencies to improve research and data collection regarding health and environmental effects in minority and low-income communities.
EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low-income populations.  Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule would reduce any adverse effects associated with the management of hazardous waste, thus benefiting minority and low-income populations.  For example, the rule would expand the marking and labeling requirements for hazardous waste containers used by SQGs and LQGs, reducing the likelihood that SQG and LQG staff mismanage the contents these containers.  Improved labeling will also help emergency responders minimize local populations' exposure to hazardous waste in the unlikely event of an accident.  Similarly, the requirement that new LQGs submit an executive summary of their contingency plans to emergency management authorities would help these authorities respond more quickly should an accident occur.  Low income and minority populations may also experience a reduction in risk associated with the intra-organization transfers of hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs under the rule.  Because the storage, inspection, employee training, and other requirements for LQGs are more stringent than those for CESQGs, transferring hazardous waste from CESQGs to LQGs would reduce the risks associated with the management of hazardous waste generated by CESQGs.