Regulatory Impact Analysis

USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments

To The Industrial Recycling Exclusions

Of The RCRA Definition Of Solid Waste

Co-Authored By:

Mark Eads, Economist<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Office of Solid Waste (OSW)

Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division (EMRAD)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mailstop 5307P

Washington DC 20460 USA

http://www.epa.gov/osw

DPRA Incorporated

Project contact: David Gustafson<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
332 Minnesota Street, Suite E-1500

St. Paul, MN  55101 USA

http://www.dpra.com

25 September  2008

Prefatory Notes

RIA Pedigree

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

Peer Review of this RIA

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

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

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

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

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

Discount Rate Applied in this RIA

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

Table of Contents

1.	Summary & Major Findings													6

1A	Purpose of the 2008 DSW Final Rule											6

1B	Scope of the 2008 DSW Final Rule											6

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

1D	Summary of Other Findings of this RIA										9

1E	Sensitivity Analysis													12

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

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

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

2C.	USEPA Policy to Encourage Resource Recovery									16

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

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

3.	Background & Scope to this RIA												22

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

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

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

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

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

4B	2005 Baseline Hazardous Waste Industrial Recycling Data								41

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

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

5B	Methodology for Identifying Potentially Recyclable Wastes Currently
Disposed					60

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

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

6A	Regulatory Burden Basesline Cost Estimation Methodology								72

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

6C	Estimate of RCRA Regulatory Burden Baseline Cost								79

Table of Contents (Continued)

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

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

8A	Breakeven Test Methodology												87

8B	Key Assumptions Applied to Breakeven Test									89

8C	Summary of Breakeven Test Results											90

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

9.	De-Regulatory Cost Savings Net Impact Estimates										95

10.	Distributional Effects														104

10A	Definition of Distributional Effects											104

10B	Potential Distributional Effects on Industries										106

10C	Potential Distributional Effects on State Governments								119

11.	Countervailing Risks														120

	11A	Definition of Countervailing Risks											120

	11B	Potential Countervailing Risks Identified by Public Commentors
	121

	11C	Countervailing Risk Evaluation Methodology									122

	11D	Evaluation of 12 Countervailing Risks										122

12.	Sensitivity Analysis Factors													136

Appendices																154

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1

Summary & Major Findings

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

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

1A.	Purpose of the 2008 DSW Final Rule

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

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

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

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

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

1B.	Scope of the 2008 DSW Final Rule

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

Exhibit 1A

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

Item	Final Rule Component	Amendments to 40 CFR 260

RCRA DSW Exclusions	Brief Description

1	Exclusion 1: Generator controlled recycling for:

1A. Land-based units*

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

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

260.42 Notification

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

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

Offsite within the same company, or

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

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

261.4(a)(25) Exports

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

Exported to a foreign country for recycling.

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

260.33 variance procedures

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

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 1B

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

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

Impact Metric	Exclusion 1:

Generator Controlled Recycling	Exclusion 2:

Transfer-Based Recycling	Exclusion 3:

Case-by-Case Variance	Combined Impact

(Exclusions 1+2+3)

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

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

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

4.  Cost savings to facilities subject to the rule:

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

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

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

$6.8

Not estimated

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

$70.6

$16.7

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

$1.3

Not estimated

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

$78.6 (82%)

$16.7 (18%)

$95.3 (100%)

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

1D.	Summary of Other Findings of this RIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.	48.3%	NAICS 33 manufacturing

2.	27.7%	NAICS 32 manufacturing

3.	4.2%	NAICS 92 public administration

4.	3.7%	NAICS 61 educational services

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

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

	7.0%	NAICS 3344 semiconductor & electronics mfg

	5.1%	NAICS 3251 basic chemical mfg

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

	4.1%	NAICS 3254 pharmaceutical & medicine mfg

	3.8%	NAICS 3364 aerospace product & parts mfg

Increased Industrial Recycling

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

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

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

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

2% of the annual tonnage impact of the rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

102 tons/year other materials (carbon)

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

Distributional Effects

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

Exhibit 1C

Potential Direct & Indirect Distributional Effects on 23 Industries

A	B	C	D	E	F

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

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

1

2

3

331492

562211

562211	A. Hazardous waste recovery/recycling:

H010 metals recovery (secondary smelting nonferrous metals)

H020 solvent recovery

H039 other materials recovery (carbon in this RIA)

96

57

36

-$21,892,500

-$2,353,300

-$6,508,400

-1.995%

-0.422%

-1.845%

4

5

6

7

562998

562998

562998

42393	B. Intermediate (middlemen) waste/materials distribution

Waste & recycling brokerage facilities

Waste & materials transfer facilities (storage & consolidation)

Waste & materials sorting facilities

Industrial recyclable materials wholesale distribution facilities

Up to 164

Up to 1,473

Up to 1,233

Up to 16

$0*

$0*

$0*

$0*

0%*

0%*

0%*

0%(

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

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

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

21223

3241

325

327

493

561

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

Copper, lead, nickel & zinc mining

Petroleum & coal products mfg

Chemical mfg

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

Warehousing & storage

Administrative support services

Waste management & remediation

1

2

3

20

1

1

15

-$27,400

-$31,900

-$47,900

-$355,900

-$12,200

-$9,100

-$273,700

-0.036%

-0.018%

-0.051%

-0.303%

-1.325%

-1.506%

-0.629%

16

17

18

562211

562211

562211	D2. Hazardous waste non-beneficial disposal:

H132 landfill or surface impoundment disposal

H134 deepwell injection disposal

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

44

0

88

-$8,460,200

$0

-$648,700

-3.324%

0%

-0.096%

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

20

21

22

331492

325199

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

Virgin metals production (primary smelting nonferrous metals)

Virgin solvent production (all other basic organic chemical mfg)

Virgin other materials production (carbon black mfg)

Up to 172

Up to 685

Up to 25

-$3,680,400

-$578,900

-$438,500

-0.156%

-0.001%

-0.0004%

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

Small Business Impacts (1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act)

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

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

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

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

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

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

1E.	Sensitivity Analysis

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

Exhibit 1D

Sensitivity of Annual Impact Estimate to 11 Uncertainty Factors

A	B	C	D	E

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

($millions/year)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary:***

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

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

** Columns D & E::

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

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

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

Chapter 2

Statement of Regulatory Need & Executive Order 13422 Problem Statement

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 2A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensure environmental protections over industrial hazardous secondary
materials recycling practices,

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

2C.	USEPA Policy to Encourage Resource Recovery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3

Background & Scope of this RIA

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

Recap of OSW’s 1995 DSW RIA Methodology Study

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

Options set #1: RCRA jurisdiction:

In-commerce/minimum conditions

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

Options set #2: Regulated recycling:

Tracking system

Management standards

Approval system

Legitimate recycling

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

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

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

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

Stabilization followed by landfill disposal, to metals recovery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spent pickle liquor from SIC 3312 (liquid form codes)

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

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

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

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

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

Lead acid batteries

Lead-bearing materials

Oil from petrochemical manufacturing plants

Oil refining spent acids

Exhibit 3A

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

DSW Exclusion Option	Brief Description of Option

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

2	4-digit NAICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 3B

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

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

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

	2	American Ecology Corporation	2002-0031-0193	X

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

	4	Anonymous	2002-0031-0479

X

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

2002-0031-0548	X	X

6	Chevron Corp.	2002-0031-0464

X

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

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

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

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

X

(n=5)

11	Eastman Chemical Company	2002-0031-0102	X

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

2002-0031-0558	X	X

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

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

2002-0031-0458	X	X

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

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

	17	Metals Industries Recycling Coalition	2002-0031-0529

X

18	Newmont Mining Corporation	2002-0031-0089	X

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

	20	PPG Industries Inc.	2002-0031-0203	X

	21	Safe Food & Fertilizer	2002-0031-0561

X

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

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

(n=6)

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

X

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

X

Sub-total comment sets =	18 sets

(n=23 organizations)	10 sets

(n=14 organizations)

Total public comments on the two prior RIAs=	25 sets

(n=30 organizations)

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

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

Exhibit 3C

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

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

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

2002-0031-0095

2002-0031-0098

2002-0031-0117

2002-0031-0119 [ETC]

2002-0031-0130

2002-0031-0146

2002-0031-0172 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0231**

2002-0031-0343

2002-0031-0479

2002-0031-0548 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0558 [ETC]

2002-0031-0559***

2002-0031-0561	16 comment sets

(representing 19 organizations)

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

2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0117

2002-0031-0119 [ETC]

2002-0031-0172 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0203

2002-0031-0231**

2002-0031-0548 [CKRC]

2002-0031-0558 [ETC]

2002-0031-0559***	11 comment sets

(representing 14 organizations)

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

2002-0031-0095

2002-0031-0098

2002-0031-0172

2002-0031-0548

2002-0031-0558

2002-0031-0561	7

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

2002-0031-0119

2002-0031-0178

2002-0031-0193

2002-0031-0548	5

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

2002-0031-0093

2002-0031-0112

2002-0031-0178

2002-0031-0203	5

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

2002-0031-0471.2

2002-0031-0529	3

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

2002-0031-0458

2002-0031-0471.2	3

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

2002-0031-0213	2

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

2002-0031-0231	2

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Onsite recycling (addition of 40 CFR 260.10)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legitimate Recycling (addition of 40 CFR 260.43)

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

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

Chapter 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4B.	2005 Baseline Hazardous Waste Industrial Recycling Data

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

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

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

Exhibit 4A

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

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

Hazardous Waste Recycling Category

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

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

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

(69%)

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

(15%)

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

(16%)

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

(81%)	159

(24%)	656

(100%)	456,124

(22%)	1,589,058

(78%)	2.045 million

(100%)

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

Exhibit 4B

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

Item	Economic Sub-Sector

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

Waste Generation	Waste Management	Waste Recycling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

Exhibit 4C

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

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

Item	Generator Industry

2-digit NAICS code	Managed by H010 Metals Recovery

(tons per year)	Managed by H020 Solvents Recovery

(tons per year)	Managed by H039 Other Recovery

(tons per year)	Row Totals Managed by Recovery

(tons per year)

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

2	21	Mining	0	0	3	3	< 0.1%

3	22	Utilities	53	1	0	54	< 0.1%

4	23	Construction	0	11	0	11	< 0.1%

5	31	Manufacturing	0	350	0	350	< 0.1%

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

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

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

9	44	Retail Trade	0	8	0	8	< 0.1%

10	45	Retail Trade	-	-	-	-	-

11	48	Transportation	145	32	0	177	< 0.1%

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

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

14	52	Finance & Insurance	-	-	-	-	-

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

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

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

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

19	61	Educational Services	26	51	1	78	< 0.1%

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

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

22	72	Accommodation & Food Services	-	-	-	-	-

23	81	Other Services	9	4	0	13	< 0.1%

24	92	Public Administration	34	10	178	222	< 0.1%

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 4D

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

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

Item	Industrial Process/ Activity

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

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

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

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

4	G04	Etching	0	32	172	204	< 0.1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22	G26	Leachate collection	0	0	0	0	0.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 4E

Physical Form of Recycled RCRA Hazardous Wastes (2005)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7	W320	Electrical devices	559	0	1	560	< 0.1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23	W206	Waste oil	0	7	14	21	< 0.1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 4F

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit 4G

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

Recycling method

(Biennial Report management code)

Recycling method definition	2005 BR annual total  tons recycled

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

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

(onsite + offsite)

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

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

H039: Other recovery	328,180	161	0.01%

Column totals =	2.045 million	20,381	1.00%

Explanatory Notes:

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

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

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

There is a data reporting or data entry error, or

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5

Data for Identifying Potential Switchover of Baseline Disposal to
Recycling

5A.	Identification of Hazardous Waste Disposal Baseline

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

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