5. At least one of the waste codes above appear in 89 percent of all waste streams; the remaining 11 percent of waste streams do not contain any of these waste codes.

SQG Hazardous Waste Generation
Due to the limited information in the BR database for non-LQG facilities, this EA does not rely solely on the BR data to characterize hazardous waste generation for SQGs.  Instead, for SQGs, this EA relies on the limited data available in the BR database supplemented by facility-level data provided by Maine and Washington.  The data provided by Maine and Washington represent the most complete set of state data for SQG facilities.  SQG data were also provided by New Jersey; however, these data appear to be less complete than the SQG data for New Jersey already reported in the BR database.
The BR data are on their own are insufficient for estimating SQG hazardous waste quantities because most states do not require SQGs to submit generation data to EPA.  For example, no SQG data are available for Texas and Mississippi, which are two of the largest states in terms of hazardous waste generation of LQGs.  In addition, there are reporting discrepancies in the BR data regarding generator status and hazardous waste quantities.  Based on the hazardous waste generation thresholds, facilities must generate greater than 100 kg and less than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month (or between 1.3 and 13.2 tons per year) and also generate less than or equal to 1 kg of acute hazardous waste in a calendar month to be considered an SQG.  However, a number of facilities identified as SQGs in the BR data have generation quantities that exceed these thresholds.
EXHIBIT 2-9 PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF THE BR, MAINE, AND WASHINGTON DATA ON HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION FOR SQG FACILITIES.  THE BR DATA EXCLUDE FACILITIES THAT ARE REPORTED TO BE SQGS, BUT THAT EXCEED THE RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION THRESHOLDS.  MAINE AND WASHINGTON DATA ARE ALSO EXCLUDED FROM THE BR DATA TO AVOID DOUBLE-COUNTING.  IN TOTAL, THESE DATA REPRESENT 1,927 FACILITIES GENERATING, ON AVERAGE, APPROXIMATELY 2.6 TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE PER FACILITY PER YEAR.  RECOGNIZING THE UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AVERAGE VALUE, EXHIBIT 2-9 ALSO REPORTS THE INTERQUARTILE RANGE FOR SQG HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION (I.E., THE 25[th] to 75[th] percentiles), which is 0.7 to 3.3 tons per year.  In addition, the data suggest that SQG facilities manage approximately eight waste streams per facility per year.
EXHIBIT 2-9: SQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED
                                  Data Source
                                      [A]
                   Number of Facilities with Generation Data
                                      [B]
                    Total Hazardous Waste Generated (Tons)
                                      [C]
                    Hazardous Waste Generated Per Facility
                                    (Tons)
                                    [D=C/B]
                 Average Number of Waste Streams Per Facility
                                      [E]
2011 BR Data[1] (excluding ME and WA)
                                                                          1,051
                                                                          3,270
                                                                            3.1
                                                                              9
Maine DEP
                                                                            317
                                                                            461
                                                                            1.5
                                                                           9[2]
Washington DOE
                                                                            559
                                                                          1,183
                                                                            2.1
                                                                              6
TOTAL
                                                                          1,927
                                                                          4,914
                                                                            2.6
                                                               (Median: 1.5)[3]
                                                                              8
                                                                 (Median: 4)[3]
Notes:
   1. Data based on analysis of 2011 BR database. BR data exclude facilities that are reported to be SQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine and Washington data are also excluded to avoid double-counting.
   2. Maine did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. The BR data contain records for 9 SQG facilities in Maine that generated an average of 9 waste streams per facility per year.
   3. In statistics, the median is the midpoint (or 50[th] percentile) of the distribution.

CESQG Hazardous Waste Generation
To estimate hazardous waste generation for CESQGs, this EA relies on the limited information available in the BR data supplemented by facility-level information provided by Maine, New Jersey, and Washington.  As with SQGs, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation quantities of CESQGs.  Based on the hazardous waste generator status thresholds, facilities must generate less than or equal to 100 kg of hazardous waste per month (or less than 1.3 tons per year) and less than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste per month to be considered a CESQG.  Therefore, this analysis excludes facilities in the BR data that are reported to be CESQGs, but exceed these thresholds.
Exhibit 2-10 provides a summary of hazardous waste generation for CESQG facilities.  The BR data exclude facilities that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste thresholds as well as data for Maine, New Jersey, and Washington to avoid double-counting.  In total, these data represent 2,527 facilities generating, on average, approximately 0.3 tons of hazardous waste per facility per year.  The interquartile range around this average value is 0.14 to 0.60 tons per year.  In addition, CESQG facilities generated an average of approximately four waste streams per facility per year.
EXHIBIT 2-10: CESQG HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES AND NUMBER OF WASTE STREAMS GENERATED
                                  Data Source
                                      [A]
                   Number of Facilities with Generation Data
                                      [B]
                    Total Hazardous Waste Generated (Tons)
                                      [C]
                    Hazardous Waste Generated Per Facility
                                    (Tons)
                                    [D=C/B]
                 Average Number of Waste Streams Per Facility
                                      [E]
2011 BR Data[1] (excluding ME, NJ, and WA)
                                                                            252
                                                                             67
                                                                           0.26
                                                                              6
Maine DEP
                                                                            917
                                                                            161
                                                                           0.18
                                                                           2[2]
New Jersey DEP
                                                                          1,224
                                                                            501
                                                                           0.41
                                                                           5[3]
Washington DOE
                                                                            127
                                                                             42
                                                                           0.33
                                                                              3
TOTAL
                                                                          2,520
                                                                            771
                                                                           0.31
                                                              (Median: 0.20)[4]
                                                                              4
                                                                 (Median: 2)[4]
Notes:
   1. Data based on analysis of 2011 BR database. BR data exclude facilities that are reported to be CESQGs, but that exceed the RCRA hazardous waste generation thresholds. Maine, New Jersey, and Washington data are also excluded to avoid double-counting.
   2. Maine did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. The BR data contain records for 2 CESQGs in Maine that generate an average of 2 waste streams per facility per year.
   3. New Jersey did not report the number of waste streams generated for each facility. The BR data contain records for 17 CESQGs in New Jersey that generate an average of 5 waste streams per facility per year.
   4. In statistics, the median is the midpoint (or 50[th] percentile) of the distribution.

Aggregate Generation of Hazardous Waste Among Facilities Potentially Affected by the Rule
Exhibit 2-11 reports the aggregate hazardous waste generation of facilities potentially affected by the proposed rulemaking.  The regulatory universe includes between approximately 353,000 and 543,000 facilities; however, not all of these facilities are affected by the proposed rule.  For example, many CESQGs would only be affected if they voluntarily take advantage of the regulatory flexibility (e.g., intra-organizational transfers and episodic generation) provided by the rule.  Due to uncertainty regarding the hazardous waste generation of SQGs and CESQGs, this EA bounds estimates of these generation quantities using the interquartile ranges reported above to characterize the lower-cost and higher-cost impact scenarios.  Using this approach, facilities in the affected universe, in aggregate, generate between 34.65 and 34.82 million tons of hazardous waste per year.  While there is uncertainty about the actual number of SQG and CESQG facilities as well as their hazardous waste generation, the vast majority of hazardous waste (approximately 99 percent) is generated by LQGs.  Therefore, in terms of volume, the difference between the low-end and high-end scenarios contemplated in this EA is approximately 167,000 tons of hazardous waste or less than 1 percent of all hazardous waste managed by facilities in the affected universe.
EXHIBIT 2-11: AGGREGATE ANNUAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY GENERATOR STATUS (TONS)
                                   SCENARIO
                                      [A]
                                     LQGs
                                     SQGs
                                    CESQGs
                                     TOTAL

                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[B]
                   TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED(TONS)[C]
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[D]
                   TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED(TONS)[E]
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[F]
                   TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED(TONS)[G]
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[H]
                   TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED(TONS)[I]
Low-end Estimate
                                    14,262
                                  34,522,000
                                    45,762
                                    70,000
                                    292,912
                                    59,000
                                    352,936
                                  34,651,000
High-end Estimate

                                    59,702
                                    152,000
                                    469,378
                                    144,000
                                    543,342
                                  34,818,000
Notes:
   1. For SQGs, the low-end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 1.54 tons/year of hazardous waste (the median). The high-end estimate assumes that SQGs generate, on average, approximately 2.60 tons/year of hazardous waste (the mean).
   2. For CESQGs, the low-end estimate assumes each facility generates, on average, approximately 0.20 tons/year of hazardous waste (the median). The high-end estimate assumes that CESQGs generate, on average, approximately 0.31 tons/year of hazardous waste.

Management of Hazardous Waste
This section describes the management of hazardous waste by facilities in the affected universe.  This EA uses the 2011 BR database to identify the primary management methods for hazardous waste generated by LQGs and SQGs.  The BR instructions allow facilities to report a number of different management methods, both on-site and off-site.  For reporting purposes, this EA uses the number of waste streams reported in the 2011 BR, combined with EPA's aggregated management method codes for similar activities (e.g., chemical reduction, destruction, oxidation, or precipitation) established in the 2013 BR.  This reclassification resulted in a smaller number of categories than in prior editions of the BR.  Specifically, this EA summarizes the frequency of 14 categories of on-site and off-site management methods (these are listed in Exhibit 2-12) reported in the 2011 BR database using the 2011-to-2013 management method code crosswalk provided in the 2013 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Form.
Exhibit 2-12 reports the primary on-site and off-site management methods for LQGs and SQGs.  Overall, LQGs manage approximately 84 percent of their hazardous waste on-site and 16 percent off-site.  The primary on-site management methods for LQGs include: deep well or underground injection (64 percent of all waste); biological treatment (6 percent); and reclamation and recovery (3 percent).  The primary off-site management methods for LQGs include: reclamation and recovery (7 percent of all waste); landfill or surface impoundment (2 percent); and deep well or underground injection (2 percent).  However, the disproportionate share of deep well or underground injection is almost entirely attributable to the largest four industries in terms of overall hazardous waste generation: chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325); petroleum and coal products manufacturing (NAICS 324); primary metal manufacturing (NAICS 331); and waste management and remediation services (NAICS 562).  Excluding these industries, less than 0.01 percent of hazardous waste is managed through onsite deep well or underground injection.  This also implies that, excluding these four industries, only 23 percent of hazardous waste generated by LQGs is managed on-site -- with slightly less than half of that, or 11 percent of overall hazardous waste, being discharged to a sewer/publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) -- while the remaining 77 percent of hazardous waste is managed off-site -- including 18 percent being managed off-site for reclamation and recovery, 15 percent being transferred off-site with no treatment or recovery, and the remaining 44 percent being managed through other off-site methods.
Overall, SQG facilities manage approximately 77 percent of their hazardous waste off-site and 23 percent on-site.  The primary off-site management methods for SQGs include: landfill or surface impoundment (18 percent of overall waste); transfer off-site with no treatment or recovery (16 percent); and reclamation and recovery (10 percent).  The primary on-site management method for SQGs is sewering (23 percent of overall waste).
One source of uncertainty regarding this analysis is that, in some cases, LQGs and SQGs that reported to EPA inadvertently submitted identical Waste Generation Management (GM) Forms for off-site and on-site waste management, thereby double-counting the amount of hazardous waste they generate.  It is not possible to determine whether these wastes were managed on-site or off-site.  Because this occurs infrequently and the associated waste quantities are generally small, this EA includes these wastes in both estimates of waste managed on-site and off-site.  In addition, for a small number of facilities, the waste quantities generated and the waste quantities managed (both on-site and off-site) did not match.  This may be attributable to reporting error or changes in reporting methods.  As this discrepancy accounts for a very small proportion of all hazardous waste generated, no attempt was made to correct for it.
EXHIBIT 2-12: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY MANAGEMENT METHOD[1]
                               MANAGEMENT METHOD
                                      [A]
                                   LQGsSQGs
                                    ON-SITE
                                     [B]
                                 OFF-SITE [C]
                                    ON-SITE
                                     [D]
                                 OFF-SITE [E]
Reclamation and Recovery
                                      3%
                                      7%
                                      1%
                                      10%
Incineration
                                      1%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      7%
Chemical Treatment
                                      1%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      3%
Biological Treatment
                                      6%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Physical Treatment
                                      2%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Stabilization Prior to Land Disposal at Another Site
                                      0%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      7%
Neutralization Only
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Evaporation
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Other Treatment (excluding Onsite Disposal)
                                      4%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      6%
Land Treatment or Application
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Landfill or Surface Impoundment
                                      1%
                                      2%
                                      0%
                                      18%
Deepwell or Underground Injection
                                      64%
                                      2%
                                      0%
                                      9%
Discharge to Sewer/POTW or NPDES
                                      2%
                                      0%
                                      23%
                                      0%
Transfer Off-site with no Treatment or Recovery
                                      0%
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      16%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL WASTE
                                      84%
                                      16%
                                      23%
                                      77%
Notes:
   1. Note that Columns B and C are additive and sum to 100 percent for LQGs. Similarly, Columns D and E are additive and sum to 100 percent for SQGs.
   2. The primary management methods for the LQG universe largely mirror those for the SQG universe when excluding the four largest industries in terms of overall hazardous waste generation (NAICS 324, 325, 331, and 562), which account for the vast majority of on-site deepwell or underground injection.

CHAPTER 3  |  Assessment of Costs
Introduction
This chapter assesses the costs of managing hazardous waste under the provisions set forth in the proposed Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule, which are outlined in Chapter 1.  This chapter begins by outlining EPA's approach for addressing several uncertainties related to the rule's cost impacts by estimating these costs as a range.  Following this discussion, the chapter presents a detailed description of the methodology for the cost analysis.  This includes a discussion of EPA's approach for estimating costs based on the limited facility-level data summarized in Chapter 2 and identification of the requirements likely to have the most significant impact on costs.  This chapter then presents the total annualized costs under the proposed rule, and concludes with a discussion of the analytic limitations associated with the cost analysis.
Estimating Costs as a Range
To address uncertainties regarding the number of facilities in the regulated universe, the amount of hazardous waste that they generate, and several of the cost-related inputs presented later in this chapter, this EA presents both low-impact and high-impact estimates of the costs associated with the proposed rule.  The low-impact cost estimates presented in this chapter reflect the low-end estimates presented in Chapter 2 regarding (1) the number of facilities in the regulated universe, (2) the number of waste streams per facility, and (3) the annual generation of hazardous waste among regulated facilities.  The low-impact estimates also reflect the low-end assumptions regarding any cost-related inputs for which a range of data inputs were available.  Similarly, the high-impact cost estimates developed in this chapter reflect the high-end estimates for these variables.  Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the low- and high-end assumptions regarding the number of facilities, the number of waste streams per facility, and the per-facility generation of hazardous waste.  The distinctions between the low- and high-end values for these variables are as follows:
      NUMBER OF FACILITIES: For SQGs, the low-end estimate reflects the number of SQGs identified on the Biennial Report WR form in 2011, whereas the high-end estimate reflects SQGs identified on the WR form for any of the years 2007, 2009, or 2011.  A more detailed discussion on these estimates can be found in Chapter 2.  For CESQGs, the low-end estimate reflects the lowest value calculated among the CESQG-to-SQG and CESQG-to-LQG ratios presented in Chapter 2, whereas the high-end estimate reflects the highest value.  The estimated number of LQGs is derived from the 2011 BR database and is the same for both the low-end and high-end scenario.
EXHIBIT 3-1:  BASELINE HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION ESTIMATES
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                               LOW-END ESTIMATE
                               HIGH-END ESTIMATE
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[B]
         MEDIAN HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY GENERATED PER FACILITY(TONS)
                                      [C]
           MEDIAN NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY[D]
                            NUMBER OF FACILITIES[E]
          MEAN HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY GENERATED PER FACILITY(TONS)
                                      [F]
            MEAN NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS PER FACILITY[G]
                                      LQG
                                    14,262
                                     21.39
                                       5
                                    14,262
                                   2,420.56
                                      17
                                      SQG
                                    45,762
                                     1.54
                                       4
                                    59,702
                                     2.55
                                       8
                                     CESQG
                                    292,912
                                     0.20
                                       2
                                    469,378
                                     0.31
                                       4
Notes:
   1. Hazardous waste generation mean and median quantities are derived from the following sources. For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined with data provided by the States of Maine and Washington; for CESQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined with data provided by the States of Maine, New Jersey, and Washington.
   2. The median number of waste streams is derived from the following sources. For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs and CESQGs: data provided by the State of Washington. SQGs and CESQGs are not required to report to the BR; therefore, the computed median value may not be generally representative of non-LQG facilities. Maine and New Jersey also provided data on waste quantities for SQGs and CESQGs, but did not report information on the number of waste streams managed.
   3. The mean number of waste streams is derived from the following sources: For LQGs: 2011 BR data; for SQGs and CESQGs: limited 2011 BR data combined with data provided by the State of Washington.

Number of waste streams per facility: Low-end values represent the median estimates presented in Chapter 2, whereas the high-end values represent the mean estimates.
Annual hazardous waste generation per facility: Similar to the number of waste streams, the low-end generation values reflect the median values derived from the BR or state data, and the high-end values reflect the mean values estimated from these data sources.
Cost Methodology
This section presents the methods employed in this EA to assess the cost impacts of the proposed rule.  To begin, this section outlines the key assumptions reflected in several components of the cost analysis.  Following this discussion, the chapter provides a detailed accounting of the unit costs associated with each provision of the proposed rule.  For each provision, this section describes differences in requirements between the baseline and the proposed rule.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
The assessment of costs presented in this chapter relies upon several assumptions that influence the estimated costs of managing hazardous waste under the proposed rule.  Some of these assumptions affect several components of the analysis.  These include assumptions regarding (1) hourly labor costs that determine the costs associated with the various provisions of the rule and (2) the discount rate.  These assumptions are outlined in detail below.
Hourly Labor Costs
Many of the unit costs presented in this chapter reflect the time required of managers, technicians, attorneys, and other staff for various hazardous waste management activities.  The costs associated with this time are estimated as a function of the hourly labor costs associated with various professional and clerical positions.  Exhibit 3-2 reports the fully loaded labor costs on a per-hour basis for facility staff, including lawyers and office clerks, who will likely implement the requirements associated with the proposed rule.  The hourly costs presented in the exhibit reflect unloaded hourly wages reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) based on a full time employee working 40 hours a week multiplied by a loaded wage rate factor of 1.4825, which represents the addition of two cost factors: (1) a fringe benefit (e.g., insurance, disability income protection, retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation, etc.) cost factor of 0.3625 and (2) an overhead cost factor of 0.12.
EXHIBIT 3-2:  HOURLY LABOR COSTS
                            BLS OCCUPATION CATEOGRY
                 MEAN LOADED HOURLY LABOR COST ($2012)MANAGERS
                                    $82.56
Technicians
                                    $39.82
Software Developers and Programmers
                                    $65.04
Office Clerks, General
                                    $21.04
Lawyers
                                    $94.09
Source:
   1.    Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2012, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 on September 3, 2013.
   2.    Inflation factor based on December 2012 cost index using Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index Historical Listing Current-dollar March 2001  -  June 2013, Table 1: Employment Cost Index for Total Compensation, by Occupational Group and Industry (Seasonally Adjusted), accessed at http://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf on September 6, 2013.
   3.    Loaded wage rates calculated using fringe benefit and overhead cost factors from Figure C1 of the May 29, 2003 OMB Circular A-76: Performance of Commercial Activities, accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a076_a76_incl_tech_correction on September 6, 2013.
Discount Rates
This EA presents the cost impacts of the rule in present value and annualized terms based on discount rates of three and seven percent over a 20-year forecast period.  The present value represents the value of a payment or stream of payments in common dollar terms.  That is, it is the sum of a series of future cash flows expressed in today's dollars.  Translation of future costs to present value terms requires the following: (a) projected future costs; and (b) the specific years in which these impacts are expected to be incurred.  With these data, the present value of the future stream of impacts (PVc) from year t1 to T is measured in 2012 dollars according to the following standard formula:

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

where N is the number of years in the forecast period.
Other Assumptions
The hazardous waste generation quantities reported above in Exhibit 3-1 inform several baseline waste management assumptions in this EA.  Specifically, this EA relies on the mean and median per facility generation quantities to develop estimates of the number of storage containers used by hazardous waste generators.  Generally, these facilities are assumed to accumulate hazardous waste in 55-gallon drums, which are stored and eventually transported to disposal sites once filled.  This EA assumes that facilities need to maintain a sufficient number of drums to manage all of their hazardous waste, whether it is managed on-site or off-site.  This EA assumes that a filled 55-gallon drum holds between 140 and 275 pounds of waste (an average of 207.5 pounds) in solid form or between 250 and 400 pounds of waste in liquid or sludge form (an average of 325 pounds).  Based on 2011 BR data, approximately 90 percent of all hazardous waste managed is in liquid or sludge form and 10 percent is in solid form.  Therefore, this EA assumes that the average 55-gallon drum holds approximately 313 pounds of hazardous waste, which represents the weighted average of the liquid/sludge and solid values presented above.  With respect to transportation, this EA assumes that a standard 18-wheeler trailer can carry up to eighty 55-gallon drums.
Based on the waste generation values in Exhibit 3-1, this EA's drum capacity assumption of 313 pounds per drum implies that a typical CESQG manages approximately two 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste per year, while a typical SQG manages between approximately 10 and 17 drums per year.  To estimate the number of drums used by LQGs, this EA applies the 313-pound-per-drum figure to the median LQG generation value from Exhibit 3-1.  Based on this value, the typical LQG manages approximately 137 drums per year.  The median generation value for LQGs is likely to be more representative than the mean because the latter is skewed by a limited number of larger facilities, which are more likely to use storage tanks than drums.
METHODS FOR ASSESSING COSTS OF RULE PROVISIONS
This section describes the methods employed to assess the costs associated with each of the rule provisions outlined in Chapter 1.  For each provision, costs are estimated on an incremental basis relative to the baseline.  While the majority of the requirements are mandatory, three provisions of the rule (intra-organizational transfers, episodic generation, and special requirements for ignitable and reactive waste) are intended to provide greater flexibility to certain classes of hazardous waste generators and are thus voluntary.  This section first reports the costs associated with the mandatory provisions of the rule and then reports costs for the voluntary provisions.  In this section, costs are annualized over a 20-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.
Negative Hazardous Waste Determinations
The proposed rule would require that LQGs and SQGs maintain records of negative or non-hazardous waste determinations.  Under current RCRA regulations, facilities must document and maintain records when they determine that they have generated a hazardous waste, but no such documentation is required for negative determinations.  Several states already require facilities to document negative determinations.  Additionally, other states require facilities to provide documentation for questionable waste that is claimed to be non-hazardous waste -- this implies that several States indirectly require documentation of negative determinations.  Therefore, the proposed rule imposes a cost only to those facilities located in states that do not currently require this documentation.  Approximately 7,000 LQGs and between approximately 20,600 and 26,900 SQGs are located in states that do not directly or indirectly require documentation of negative determinations.  Thus, EPA estimates that approximately 46 percent of LQGs and SQGs in the affected universe would likely be affected by this provision of the proposed rule.
The costs of hazardous waste determinations are composed of the following: (1) the cost of making a determination, (2) the cost of documenting the determination, and (3) the cost of maintaining records of a determination.  Under the existing regulations, facilities must determine whether they generate RCRA hazardous wastes.  Therefore, the cost of making negative hazardous waste determinations is already incurred by generators in the baseline.  The only costs associated with the proposed rule with respect to determinations are the costs of documenting and maintaining records of negative determinations.
To estimate the cost of documenting and maintaining records of a hazardous waste determination, this EA relies on EPA's waste analysis and recordkeeping requirements for generators that manage hazardous waste or soil contaminated with hazardous waste.  EPA estimates that the time burden to prepare the one-time documentation of a hazardous waste determination for contaminated soil is approximately 0.25 hours (or 15 minutes) of a technician's time and that the cost to maintain records of all supporting data is approximately 0.1 hours (or 6 minutes) of an office clerk's time plus photocopying costs of approximately $0.11 per record.  Combining this information with the hourly labor costs presented above, each negative waste determination that a facility must document as a result of the proposed rule has a cost of $12.17.  Facilities must maintain this information in their records for a minimum of three years from the date that the waste was last sent for on-site or off-site treatment, storage, or disposal.
This unit cost value for documenting hazardous waste determinations would be applied to all of an LQG or SQG's non-hazardous waste streams in the first year of the rule's implementation and to all new non-hazardous waste streams in subsequent years.  However, the number of non-hazardous waste streams generated by an LQG or SQG -- both presently and in the future -- is uncertain, as EPA does not require LQGs and SQGs to report negative determinations to the Agency.  To estimate the number of non-hazardous waste streams per generator, this EA relies on limited data from a sample of 29 inspection reports from the State of Connecticut.  Most state agencies do not maintain records of negative waste determinations, even if facilities are required to do so.  The Connecticut data represent a variety of facility types (LQGs, SQGs, and CESQGs) and industries.  On average, these facilities generate approximately 17 waste streams per year.  Of these, the Connecticut data suggest that approximately 38 percent of waste streams generated were determined to be non-hazardous, approximately 51 percent were determined to be hazardous, and approximately 12 percent were managed as universal waste.  Therefore, the ratio of non-hazardous waste streams to hazardous waste streams is approximately 0.75 to 1.
Based on analysis of the 2011 BR data, LQG facilities generate, on average, between 5 and 17 hazardous waste streams per facility per year (see Exhibit 3-1).  Thus, each LQG is also assumed to generate between 4 and 13 non-hazardous waste streams using a ratio of 0.75 negative determinations per positive determination.  Applying this range to the cost per waste stream, the total cost of this provision for LQGs in the first year of the rule's implementation is approximately $49 to $158 per facility.  Using the same approach for SQGs, which on average generate between four and eight hazardous waste streams per year, yields an estimate of three to six non-hazardous waste streams per year, which translates to costs of $37 to $73 per facility during the first year of the rule's implementation.
As noted above, the costs of this provision after the first year of rule implementation will include only the cost of documenting negative determinations for new non-hazardous waste streams not generated during the first year the rule is in effect. To estimate the number of new waste streams per generator, this EA relies on sample data from the BR.  More specifically, based on a random sample of 100 facilities from the BR that submitted records in both 2009 and 2011, approximately 50 percent of hazardous waste streams that were reported in 2011 were also reported in 2009 (based on an analysis of waste codes).  Furthermore, based on a random sample of a subset (19 of 100) of these facilities, approximately 80 percent of the waste streams with matching waste codes between 2009 and 2011 were identical, based on an analysis of their written waste descriptions.  This lowers the effective match rate to approximately 40 percent (80 percent of 50 percent).  This implies that approximately 60 percent of waste streams generated each reporting period are new.  Therefore, starting with an average of 13 negative determination waste streams per LQG facility in the high impact scenario, approximately eight of these are new each biennial reporting period, or about four each year (assuming that these are split evenly across the two years between reporting periods).  In the low impact scenario, LQGs are estimated to generate an average of four negative determination wastes streams per year (see above), of which two are new each reporting period (60 percent of four waste streams rounded to the nearest waste stream), or approximately one per year.  Applying the same methodology, SQGs manage approximately two new non-hazardous waste streams each year in the high impact scenario and approximately one new non-hazardous waste stream each year in the low impact scenario.
Exhibit 3-3 reports the average number of hazardous and non-hazardous waste streams generated by LQGs and SQGs in the potentially affected universe on a per facility basis.  As described above, the proposed rule would require facilities to document and maintain records of all non-hazardous waste streams in the first year of the rule and all new non-hazardous waste streams thereafter.
EXHIBIT 3-3:  WASTE GENERATION CHARACERTISTICS OF AFFECTED FACILITIES
                                   Scenario
                                 Facility Type
                   Average Number of Hazardous Waste Streams
                 Average Number of Non-Hazardous Waste Streams

                                     Total
                          New Waste Streams per Year
                              Low Impact Estimate
                                      LQG
                                       5
                                       4
                                       1

                                      SQG
                                       4
                                       3
                                       1
                             High Impact Estimate
                                      LQG
                                      17
                                      13
                                       4

                                      SQG
                                       8
                                       6
                                       2

Exhibit 3-4 reports the estimated annualized costs of this provision on both a per-facility and aggregate basis, by facility type.  Costs are also broken out by one-time costs (i.e., first year only) and recurring costs (i.e., annual costs incurred each year thereafter).

EXHIBIT 3-4:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR NEGATIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATIONS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                    [C][a]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                    [D][b]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                     7,010
                                     $4.29
                                    $11.09
                                    $30,100
                                    $77,800
                                   $108,000
SQG
                                    20,623
                                     $3.22
                                    $11.09
                                    $66,400
                                   $229,000
                                   $295,000
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    27,633
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                    $96,500
                                   $307,000
                                   $403,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                    [C][c]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                    [D][d]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                     7,010
                                    $13.95
                                    $44.38
                                    $97,800
                                   $311,000
                                   $409,000
SQG
                                    26,920
                                     $6.44
                                    $22.19
                                   $173,000
                                   $597,000
                                   $771,000
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    33,930
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                   $271,000
                                   $908,000
                                  $1,180,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
   a. One-time costs represent a first-year cost of $48.67 ($4.29 on an annualized basis) per LQG ($12.17 per waste stream x 4 waste streams) and $36.50 ($3.22 on an annualized basis) per SQG ($12.17 x 3 waste streams) under the low impact scenario.
   b. Recurring costs represent $12.17 to document one new non-hazardous waste determination per facility each year after the first year of the rule in years two through 20 of the analytic time horizon in the low impact scenario.  This translates to $11.09 on an annualized basis, when annualized over 20 years.  In other words, the $12.17 incurred in years two through 20 is discounted to be expressed in present value terms, the resulting 19 present values are summed to yield an aggregate present value number, and this present value sum is then annualized.
   c. One-time costs represent a first-year cost of $158.18 ($12.17 x 13 waste streams), or $13.95 on an annualized basis, per LQG and $73.01 ($12.17 x 6 waste streams), or $6.44 on an annualized basis, per SQG under the high impact scenario.
   d. Recurring costs represent $12.17 per waste stream and there are four new non-hazardous waste streams each year after the first year of the rule (years two through 20 of the analytic time horizon) per LQG ($44.38 on an annualized basis when annualized over 20 years) and two non-hazardous waste streams per SQG ($22.19 on an annualized basis) in the high impact scenario.  For example, the $48.68 ($12.17 x 4) incurred by LQGs in years two through 20 is discounted to be expressed in present value terms, the resulting 19 present values are summed to yield an aggregate present value number, and this present value sum is then annualized.

Re-notification
Under the proposed rule, SQGs and LQGs are required to re-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generation activities every other year.  LQGs are already required to re-notify EPA of their hazardous waste generator status through the BR.  Therefore, this requirement only represents a cost for SQGs.  However, twelve States and the District of Colombia already require SQGs to re-notify.  There are approximately 5,500 to 8,000 SQGs in states that currently require SQG re-notification; therefore, the proposed rule would impact between approximately 40,000 and 52,000 SQGs in states that do not currently require re-notification.
Specifically, for each re-notification, a facility will need to review its previous notification and either make changes, if necessary, or confirm that the information remains accurate. EPA estimates that the initial cost of notification is approximately $45.15 per facility and the cost of re-notification is approximately $32.01 (in 2012 dollars).  Because facilities that must record changes in their re-notification form may require additional time to collect this information, this EA assumes that these facilities are likely to incur costs similar to the initial notification, while facilities that need only confirm that the previous information is still accurate are likely to incur typical re-notification costs.
To estimate the number of facilities that may take additional time to complete the re-notification, EPA analyzed BR data for approximately 18,450 facilities that submitted multiple BR records between 2003 and 2011 to assess whether those facilities reported changes in their general facility information between reporting periods.  These include changes to a facility's: (1) physical location; (2) mailing address; (3) contact information; (4) ownership; and (5) generator status.
Identifying changes between reporting years is complicated by the fact that facilities may report the same information differently each year.  Thus, the most significant challenge in identifying actual information changes is eliminating false mismatches, which occur as a result of: misspellings, typos, abbreviations, acronyms, nicknames, titles, prefixes, suffixes, and word order.  These false mismatches may account for the majority of changes in physical location and mailing address, which tend to occur less frequently than changes in contact information.  Address mismatches are particularly challenging because zip codes may change while street addresses do not, and generators may alternate between listing adjoining or enveloping towns/cities/metro-areas/counties in different reporting years.  For example, a facility may list its location as being in Phoenix one year, but in Glendale (a Phoenix suburb) the next. Considering these and other irregularities in the reporting of facility information in the BR, this EA uses the following approach to identify changes between reporting years:
      1) For contact and owner names, remove titles, prefixes, and suffixes to more easily identify actual matches.
      2) Use a computer algorithm to calculate the "Levenshtein distance" between any two entries for a generator. Then eliminate matches where the Levenshtein distance is less than four or where less than 30 percent of the text characters change from one year to the next, because these are highly likely to be identical entries, but for typos, misspellings, etc.
      3) For contact and owner names, eliminate mismatches where the last name does not change but the first name (or remaining part of the name) is a variation on another entry. For example, "Bill Rogers" and "William Rogers" or "EI Dupont", "EI Dupont De Nemours", and "E I Dupont De Nemours & Co."
      4) Use a search and replace method to clean the data of common typos or abbreviations, for example changing "PHX, ARIZONA" to "PHOENIX, ARIZONA."
      5) Finally, review any remaining changes between reporting years manually to identify and remove the remaining false mismatches.
This methodology attempts to remove false mismatches that appear to be changes but are likely due to input error or inconsistent reporting methods over time.  For all of the information changes identified, a manual check of the records was performed to ensure the accuracy of the results.  However, this methodology is limited by the sheer volume of data and limitless possibilities for variation in user data entry.  For contact and owner names, a limitation of this approach is that name changes that may occur due to marriage or divorce (i.e., an individual's surname changes while their first name does not) are not easily verified.  These types of name-changes occur for a non-trivial percentage of facilities (approximately 200 per year, or five percent of all name changes in the BR data).  Another limitation of this approach is that many facilities submitted BR records in only one year, making it impossible to identify potential changes for these facilities.
Based on this approach, this EA estimates that approximately 35.2 percent of facilities had at least one reason to notify EPA of a change in their general facility information between biennial reporting periods (or approximately 17.6 percent on an annual basis), with the most common reasons being a change in the primary contact name or a change in ownership.  Exhibit 3-5 reports the percentage of facilities that reported changes in their generator information to EPA across multiple BR reporting periods.
EXHIBIT 3-5:  PERCENTAGE OF FACILTIES REPORTING A CHANGE IN THEIR GENERATOR INFORMATION TO EPA (ON A BIENNIAL BASIS)REASON FOR reporting Change in Generator Information
                           Percentage of Facilities
Physical Location Change
                                     0.05%
Mailing Address Change
                                     3.9%
Contact Name Change
                                     33.0%
Owner Change
                                     8.2%
Generator Status Change
                                     4.7%
At Least One Notification for Any Reason
                                   35.2%[2]
Notes:
   1. Source: EPA's BR database records from 2003 to 2011.
   2. This value is less than the sum of the values associated with individual reasons for reporting a change in generator information because some facilities may have multiple reasons for reporting a change.

Based on the 2003-2011 BR data, approximately 65 percent of facilities would likely incur standard re-notification costs every other year, while approximately 35 percent of facilities may require additional time to report changes in generator information as part of their re-notification.  Therefore, the average per facility cost of re-notification is approximately $36.64 every other year.  This represents a cost for SQGs in states that do not currently require re-notification, but is already incurred by LQGs and a subset of SQGs in states with reporting requirements in the baseline.
Exhibit 3-6 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of re-notification under this provision of the rule by facility type.  All of the costs associated with this provision of the rule are incurred on a biennial basis in even-numbered years.
EXHIBIT 3-6:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR RE-NOTIFICATION (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNAULIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
SQG
                                    40,229
                                     $0.00
                                   $18.94[a]
                                      $0
                                   $762,000
                                   $762,000
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    40,229
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $762,000
                                   $762,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
SQG
                                    51,656
                                     $0.00
                                   $18.94[a]
                                      $0
                                   $978,000
                                   $978,000
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    51,656
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $978,000
                                   $978,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
   a. This figure represents the annualized cost of re-notification (a weighted average of $32.01 for basic re-notification and $45.15 for re-notification with data modifications -- see the main text for details on the weighting).  Approximately 64.8 percent of facilities are assumed to have basic re-notification, while 35.2 percent of facilities are assumed to have at least one reason for modification to their re-notification submission.  Applying these values as weights yields a weighted average cost of $36.64 incurred every other year.  This represents $18.94 on an annualized basis (assuming the costs are incurred in even numbered years).

Labeling/Marking
Current RCRA regulations require that LQGs and SQGs label containers with the words "Hazardous Waste."  The proposed rule would expand this policy to require facilities to provide additional markings, including: (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container's contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).  Similarly, EPA is also proposing that SQGs and LQGs mark areas near drip pads and containment buildings with the words "Hazardous Waste" and use their inventory logs to document (1) the date the waste was first placed on the drip pad on in the containment building; (2) the contents of the waste; and (3) an indication of the associated hazards (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).  This represents a cost for all LQGs and SQGs.
This EA assumes that LQGs generally use a computerized labeling system or rely on an environmental services company to maintain a labeling/tracking database.  Furthermore, it is assumed that all of the necessary information to be included on the label is already maintained in a database in the baseline and that the current labels used by LQGs are large enough to fit the additional information that must be included on labels under the proposed rule.  Therefore, the one-time programming and testing costs to accommodate the new enhanced label format, which requires 10 hours of a programmers' time, represents the only cost for LQGs.  Using the hourly labor costs for programmers as presented in Exhibit 3-2, this represents an initial one-time cost of approximately $650.41 per LQG to modify existing labels with the additional data elements.  After incurring this initial cost, LQGs would realize no additional costs in subsequent years.
In contrast, this EA assumes that SQGs rely on a manual process rather than an automated system to label their containers.  EPA estimates that it takes about 0.25 hours (or 15 minutes) of a technician's time to apply labels to containers in a primary storage area.  This cost is already incurred in the baseline.  Based on label price information for two label suppliers this EA estimates that the average cost of a simple label containing the words "Hazardous Waste" is approximately $0.06 per label, while the average cost of a complex label with space for the additional data elements required under the rule is approximately $0.46 per label.  Thus, the incremental cost of the complex label itself is approximately $0.40 per container (versus the simple label).  Additionally, it is assumed to take about 0.08 hours (or 5 minutes) of a technician's time per container to write the additional information on the label, which represents a cost of approximately $3.32 per container.
This cost would be applied to containers in SQGs' primary accumulation areas, as well as their SAAs.  As indicated in the assumptions section above, EPA estimates that SQGs use 10 to 17 containers in their primary accumulation areas each year.  The number of containers in SQGs' SAAs (that are not simply moved to primary accumulation areas), however, is highly uncertain and likely to vary significantly across facilities.  In the absence of information on containers in SAAs, this EA assumes that the number is half that in primary accumulation areas (or 5 to 8.5 containers).  Based on this assumption, the cost per container for SQGs is applied to 15 to 26 containers per SQG.  With a cost of $3.72 per container ($3.32 plus $0.40), this translates to additional labeling costs of $56 to $95 per SQG.  The requirements for SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings are slightly different in that these generators would use their inventory logs to comply with the labeling/marking provision.  This EA assumes that the costs for these generators are similar to the costs for SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste in containers -- approximately $56 to $95 per SQG per year.  Unlike the system upgrade costs presented above for LQGs, these labeling/marking costs for SQGs represent an annual recurring cost incurred by SQGs.
Exhibit 3-7 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of labeling/marking containers by facility type.  Costs are also broken out by one-time costs (i.e., first year only) and recurring costs (i.e., annual costs).
EXHIBIT 3-7:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR LABELING/MARKING (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    14,262
                                   $57.38[a]
                                     $0.00
                                   $818,000
                                      $0
                                   $818,000
SQG
                                    45,762
                                     $0.00
                                   $55.77[b]
                                      $0
                                  $2,550,000
                                  $2,550,000
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    60,024
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                   $818,000
                                  $2,550,000
                                  $3,370,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    14,262
                                   $57.38[a]
                                     $0.00
                                   $818,000
                                      $0
                                   $818,000
SQG
                                    59,702
                                     $0.00
                                   $94.81[c]
                                      $0
                                  $5,660,000
                                  $5,660,000
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    73,964
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                   $818,000
                                  $5,660,000
                                  $6,480,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
   a. This figure represents a first-year labor cost of $650.41 ($57.38 on an annualized basis) for 10 hours of a programmer's time.
   b. This figure represents an additional cost of $0.40 for a complex label (as opposed to a simple label) plus labor costs of $3.32 (five minutes of a technician's time) per 55-gallon drum. This EA assumes that SQGs manage an average of 15 drums per year in the low impact scenario. The annualized cost of $55.77 per facility is split between labeling in primary accumulation areas ($37.18 per facility) and satellite accumulation areas ($18.59 per facility). Thus, the total annualized cost for SQGs of approximately $2.6 million is divided between primary accumulation areas ($1.7 million) and SAAs ($0.9 million).
   c. This figure represents an additional label cost of $0.40, plus labor costs of $3.32 (five minutes of a technician's time) per 55-gallon drum. This EA assumes that SQGs manage an average of 26 drums per year in the high impact scenario. The annualized cost of $94.81 per facility is split between labeling in primary accumulation areas ($63.21 per facility) and satellite accumulation areas ($31.60 per facility). Thus, the total annualized cost for SQGs of approximately $5.7 million is divided between primary accumulation areas ($3.7 million) and SAAs ($1.9 million).

Closure
Under existing regulations, LQGs must comply with general closure provisions (§ 265.111 and § 265.114), which require removing and decontaminating all contaminated equipment, structures, and soil to minimize the need for further maintenance and prevent post-closure release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment.  LQGs storing or treating waste in tanks, drip pads, and containment buildings are also subject to closure requirements specific to these types of units.  No such unit-specific requirements exist, however, for SAAs or CAAs.  In addition, LQGs are not currently subject to closure notification or financial assurance requirements.  The closure requirements for SQGs are less stringent than for LQGs in that SQGs are only subject to certain requirements for accumulating hazardous waste in tanks, while there are no specific requirements for SQGs managing hazardous waste in containers.  There are no closure requirements for CESQGs.
The proposed rule would strengthen the closure requirements for LQGs.  Specifically, EPA proposes that if an LQG cannot demonstrate that any contaminated soils in either a SAA or CAA can be practicably removed or decontaminated, then the LQG must close the waste accumulation unit(s) and perform post-closure care in accordance with the closure and post-closure care requirements that apply to landfills (§ 265.310).  In addition, EPA is proposing to require LQGs to notify EPA or their authorized state agency at least 30 days prior to closure.  EPA is also proposing that such generators subsequently notify within 90 days after closure that they have either clean closed or, if they cannot clean close, they have closed as a landfill.
The costs of this provision depend on four factors.  First, for all LQGs that close, this provision's costs depend on the cost of notifying EPA of a closure.  Then, for LQGs that close CAAs or SAAs and cannot demonstrate that contaminated soils in these areas can be practicably removed or decontaminated, the costs of this provision also depend on (1) the average number of LQGs with CAAs or SAAs that close annually, (2) the percentage of these facilities that would be required to close as a landfill, and (3) the per-facility cost of closing as a landfill.  This EA's approach for estimating the costs of these items is as follows:
Cost of Notifying EPA of a Closure: All LQGs that close will incur costs associated with the proposed rule's notification requirements for LQGs.  Consistent with the unit costs presented above for re-notification, the cost per notification is estimated to be $45.15 per facility.  For two notifications (one 30 days prior to notification and another no later than 90 days following closure), this cost increases to $90.30 per LQG that closes.
Average number of LQG closures per year: Because EPA does not currently require notification for LQG closures, comprehensive data on the number of closures occurring each year are not available.  EPA contacted several states to determine if any possess data on LQG closures, and the only state in possession of such data was Connecticut.  Although Connecticut does not currently require facilities to submit notification of closure, the State maintains data on changes in generator status dating back to 1996 that were used to estimate the number of closures. A status change is documented when a hazardous waste generator with an EPA ID number informs the State that it is changing its generator status, for example, from LQG to SQG or SQG to CESQG. A change in generator status from LQG, SQG, or CESQG to non-handler is considered a closure. For closures, Connecticut requires hazardous waste generators to confirm on a status change application form that they closed any storage areas that they ceased using in accordance with the state closure requirements.
In addition to tracking LQG generator status changes, Connecticut also documented the number of SQGs that changed their generator status to CESQG and the number of SQGs and CESQGs that changed their generator status to non-handler. Virtually all of the CESQGs that have EPA ID numbers were formerly LQGs or SQGs. Exhibit 3-8 reports the number of generator status changes and closures in Connecticut between 1996 and 2012. Over this time period, Connecticut had a total generator universe of approximately 400 LQGs, 1,700 SQGs, and 2,800 CESQGs.
EXHIBIT 3-8:  CONNECTICUT HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR STATUS CHANGES AND CLOSURES FROM 1996 TO 2012
                                Original Status
                                 Ending Status
                           Number of Status Changes
LQG
SQG
                                      199
LQG
CESQG
                                      87
LQG
Non-Handler
                                      152
SQG
CESQG
                                      141
SQG
Non-Handler
                                      231
CESQG
Non-Handler
                                      29
TOTAL GENERATOR STATUS CHANGES
                                      839
TOTAL CLOSURES
                                      412
AVERAGE CLOSURES PER YEAR (all generators)
                                     24.2
AVERAGE LQG CLOSURES PER YEAR
                                      8.9

As shown in the exhibit, Connecticut had 152 LQG closures (approximately 9 per year) between 1996 and 2012. This represents an annual LQG closure rate of approximately 2.2 percent. Applying this to the 14,262 LQGs in the regulated universe, this EA estimates approximately 319 LQG closures on an annual basis.
Percent of LQGs Closing as a Landfill: As noted above, the proposed requirement for closing an LQG as a landfill (i.e., with contamination in place) would apply only to LQGs that are unable to remove or decontaminate contaminated soils from their accumulation areas.  Data on the number of closures that would meet this criterion are unavailable.  In addition, enforcement personnel contacted in state agencies that implement RCRA are unaware of any LQGs that closed without decontaminating their accumulation areas and suspect that such an occurrence is exceedingly rare.  Based on this input and the lack of data on closure with contamination in place, this EA assumes that between zero and one percent of LQGs close with contamination in place in their accumulation areas.   Applying this range to the estimates 319 LQG closures per year, this EA estimates between zero and three LQGs would close as a landfill each year under the proposed rule.
Additional Costs of Closing as a Landfill: The additional cost of an LQG closing its accumulation area(s) as a landfill is uncertain, as EPA is unaware of any documented cases of LQGs closing with contamination remaining in their accumulation area(s).  For the purposes of estimating these costs, this EA assumes that an LQG would need to demolish its concrete floor and stabilize it for disposal, install a new concrete floor, and conduct groundwater monitoring near the facility.  EPA estimated each of these costs using 2010 Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements (RACER) software as follows:
Demolition of Concrete Floor: The estimated cost of demolishing concrete flooring is approximately $793 per facility.
Floor Disposal: The estimated cost of floor disposal, including transportation, is approximately $2,615 per facility.
New Concrete Floor: The estimated cost of laying a new concrete floor is approximately $3,219 per facility.
Groundwater Monitoring (installation): For each LQG closing as a landfill, this EA assumes that three monitoring wells would be drilled near each facility: two downslope and one in the immediate vicinity of the facility.  The cost of drilling monitoring wells varies, based largely on well depth.  Under the conservative assumption that a deep well would be necessary for each site, this EA applies an installation cost of approximately $16,226 per well, plus professional labor management costs of approximately $9,784 and design costs of approximately $2,212, which translates to total well installation costs of $60,674 per LQG closing as a landfill.
Groundwater Monitoring (sampling): Sampling of the three wells drilled near each site is assumed to occur semi-annually, consistent with the minimum required under RCRA.  The cost per semi-annual sampling for all three wells combined is an estimated $16,983 per year.  However, the first year sampling costs are estimated to be higher due to the initial design and development of the monitoring systems and the benchmark establishment of recordkeeping and other requirements.  Therefore, the increased cost of first year sampling is estimated to be $26,820 in addition to the regular annual sampling cost of $16,983.  As required under RCRA, monitoring is expected to continue for 30 years after closure.  To capture this recurring cost, this EA estimates the present value of monitoring for each LQG closing as a landfill.  Based on a discount rate of three percent, this value is $369,684.  With a discount rate of seven percent, this value declines to $252,317 per LQG closing as a landfill.
Combining these various cost elements for LQGs closing as a landfill, this EA estimates costs of approximately $319,618 (using a seven percent discount rate) for every LQG that closes as a landfill.
Exhibit 3-9 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs of closure, including costs associated with the failure to clean close, by facility type.  While closure notification and most closure activities -- with the exception of groundwater monitoring -- are one-time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs of the proposed rule because a percentage of the LQG universe is expected to close each year.
EXHIBIT 3-9:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR CLOSURE (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                    [B][a]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    319 (0)
                                     $0.00
                                   $90.31[b]
                                      $0
                                    $28,800
                                    $28,800
SQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    319 (0)
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                    $28,800
                                    $28,800
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                    [B][a]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    319 (3)
                                     $0.00
                                   $3,096[c]
                                      $0
                                   $988,000
                                   $988,000
SQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    319 (3)
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $988,000
                                   $988,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
   a. This EA assumes 319 LQGs close each year. The values in parentheses in this column represent the estimated number of LQGs that cannot clean close.  The low impact scenario assumes that zero facilities fail to clean close, while the high impact scenario assumes that three facilities fail to clean close each year.
   b. This figure reflects the cost ($45.15 each) of writing and submitting two closure notifications (30-days prior to closure and within 90 days following closure) per facility to a Regional Administrator.
   c. This figure reflects multiple costs, including two closure notifications per facility (as described in note b above), and is reported as a weighted average across all affected facilities -- including those that are able to clean close and those that are not. For facilities that fail to clean close, it includes the following costs: (1) concrete floor demolition, $793; (2) floor stabilization and disposal, $2,615; (3) laying a new concrete floor, $3,219; (4) installation of three groundwater monitoring wells, $60,674 = $9,784 labor + $2,212 design + $16,226 installation per well x 3 wells; and (5) the present discounted value of groundwater monitoring for 30 years, $252,317.  Based on these values, the cost per facility that clean closes is $90.31 and the cost per facility that does not clean close is $319,618.  Therefore, the total annualized costs are calculated as follows: (319 x $90.31) + (3 x $319,618) = $987,663, which translates to an average per facility cost of approximately $3,096.

Emergency Response Preparedness
Under the existing RCRA requirements for prevention, preparedness, and emergency response, LQGs and SQGs must prepare a contingency plan, coordinate with local response agencies, and update the plan as needed.  Under the proposed rule, LQGs and SQGs will also be required to maintain records documenting these arrangements with local emergency responders.  This documentation must include a certified letter or any other documentation that confirms such arrangements actively exist.  Most LQGs and SQGs are likely to have active arrangements with local authorities and will only incur costs to document these arrangements.  While under existing regulations hazardous waste generators could document instances in which State or local authorities declined to enter in such arrangements, under the proposed rule facilities must ensure such arrangements exist.  Currently, EPA estimates that 10 percent of facilities have failed to make arrangements with local emergency responders.  These facilities are compliant with existing regulations by documenting in their operating record where State or local authorities have declined to enter into such arrangements, but will no longer be in compliance under the proposed rule.
Requirements for Existing LQGs and SQGs. In the first year after the promulgation of the proposed rule, LQGs and SQGs that do not have arrangements with local emergency responders would have to submit a copy of their contingency plan to their local emergency management authorities and all LQGs and SQGs would have to document such arrangements.  EPA estimates it would take about 10 minutes (or 0.16 hours) of administrative time to re-submit a plan that satisfies all of the requirements of the local emergency management authorities for approval.  EPA also estimates it would take all LQGs and SQGs about 6 minutes (or 0.1 hours) of administrative time to document active arrangements with local emergency responders.  Therefore, the average one-time labor cost for a facility without existing arrangements would be $5.47 and the average labor cost for a facility with existing arrangements would be $2.10.
Requirements for New LQGs. In addition, the proposed rule would require all new LQGs to submit an executive summary of their contingency plan to emergency management authorities to improve the ability of emergency response teams to respond to an emergency.  The cost to prepare a stand-alone executive summary is estimated as a range.  For the high end of the range, EPA assumes that the cost of developing the executive summary is similar to the annual cost to review and update a facility's contingency plan.  EPA assumes it takes approximately four hours of a manager's time to perform these activities and 0.16 hours (or about 10 minutes) of an office clerk's time to submit the plan to the emergency management authority.  Based on the labor cost values in Exhibit 3-2, these labor hour estimates translate to a cost of approximately $336 per executive summary.  For the low end cost estimate, this EA assumes that LQGs would use the draft template that EPA released with today's rule to copy and paste information from their more detailed contingency plan.  This process is assumed to reduce the time burden on managers from four to two hours, which reduces the cost per LQG to approximately $171.  Thus, the total cost of preparing an executive summary represents an initial one-time cost ranging from $171 to $336 for every new LQG.  This estimate includes recordkeeping costs for maintaining documentation of these arrangements.
Requirements for New SQGs. Under the proposed rule, new SQGs would have to document their arrangements with emergency management authorities and would incur one-time costs similar to facilities with existing arrangements.  New facilities entering into the SQG universe are already required to attempt to make arrangements with local emergency responders; therefore, they would not incur additional costs relative to the baseline beyond documenting these arrangements. SQGs would not be required to develop a separate executive summary of their contingency plan.
This EA estimates the annual number of new LQGs using EPA's RCRAInfo database to identify facilities that: (1) submitted an initial RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form as an LQG to obtain an EPA ID number; (2) submitted a subsequent RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form to change a facility's generator status from CESQG or SQG to LQG; or (3) submitted a BR Hazardous Waste Report Form to change a facility's generator status from CESQG or SQG to LQG.  Using data from 2000 to 2013, EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,350 new facilities entering into the LQG universe every year.[,]  Using a similar approach, this EA estimates the annual number of new SQGs based on initial notifications and changes in generator status from CESQG to SQG.  EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,610 new facilities entering into the SQG universe each year.
Exhibit 3-10 reports the unit costs and aggregate annualized costs for this provision of the rule by facility type.  The exhibit reports one-time costs for existing facilities and recurring costs for the segment of the regulated universe consisting of new LQGs and SQGs each year.  While emergency response preparedness costs are one-time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs because a percentage of the regulated universe is comprised of new facilities entering into the LQG and SQG universe each year.
EXHIBIT 3-10:  ANNUALIZED UNIT COSTS AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS[a]
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS[b]
                                      [C]
                              RECURRING COSTS[c]
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                14,262 (2,353)
                                     $0.22
                                  $170.60[d]
                                    $3,070
                                   $401,000
                                   $404,000
SQG
                                45,762 (2,610)
                                     $0.22
                                     $2.10
                                    $9,850
                                    $5,490
                                    $15,300
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    60,024
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                    $12,900
                                   $407,000
                                   $420,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
            NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS[a]
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                               ONE-TIME COSTS[b]
                                      [C]
                              RECURRING COSTS[c]
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                14,262 (2,353)
                                     $0.22
                                  $335.73[e]
                                    $3,070
                                   $790,000
                                   $793,000
SQG
                                59,702 (2,610)
                                     $0.22
                                     $2.10
                                    $12,900
                                    $5,490
                                    $18,300
CESQG
                                       0
                                     $0.00
                                     $0.00
                                      $0
                                      $0
                                      $0
TOTAL
                                    73,964
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                    $15,900
                                   $795,000
                                   $811,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
   a. The first value in Column B represents the estimated number of existing facilities that would have to document their arrangements with emergency responders in the first year after the rule's implementation; the value in parentheses represents the estimated number of new facilities each year.
   b. The one-time costs represent a weighted-average first-year cost of $2.10 for 90 percent of LQGs and SQGs with existing arrangements and $5.47 for 10 percent LQGs and SQGs without existing arrangements. Thus, the weighted-average one-time cost is $2.44 per facility ($0.22 on an annualized basis).
   c. The recurring costs for LQGs vary by scenario and are described in detail below. The recurring costs for SQGs are identical to the first-year costs for facilities with existing arrangements with emergency responders. While these are one-time costs on a per facility basis, they are reported as recurring costs because a percentage of the regulated universe is comprised of new facilities entering into the SQG universe each year.
   d. The low impact scenario assumes it takes approximately two hours of a manager's time and ten minutes of administrative time to prepare and submit an executive summary to the local emergency management authority. It also assumes it takes approximately six minutes of a technician's time to document active arrangements. Thus, the total estimated cost is $170.60 per LQG.
   e. The high impact scenario assumes it takes approximately four hours of a manager's time and ten minutes of administrative time to prepare and submit an executive summary to the local emergency management authority. It also assumes it takes approximately six minutes of a technician's time to document active arrangements. Thus, the total estimated cost is $335.73 per LQG.
TRANSFER FACILTIY REQUIREMENTS
The proposed rule would change the labeling/marking requirements for transporters storing hazardous waste at a transfer facility to be consistent with the proposed requirements for generators.  Thus, all hazardous waste stored at these facilities must be marked with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container's contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).
While this provision would require transfer facilities to label all hazardous wastes that they receive, the proposed rule's labeling/marking requirements, as outlined above, would assure that all hazardous wastes that transfer facilities receive from SQGs and LQGs meet these labeling requirements.  Thus, transfer facilities would incur additional costs under this provision only for waste received from CESQGs, which are not otherwise required to comply with the labeling/marking provision of the proposed rule.
Based on the above, the costs that transfer facilities incur depend on the number of CESQGs that send their waste to transfer facilities and the labeling costs associated with each of these CESQGs' wastes.  As an initial step in estimating the number of CESQGs in the regulated universe that send their hazardous waste to transfer facilities, this EA assumes that the CESQGs engaged in this practice would include a subset of (1) those CESQGs located in states that do not allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste as MSW and (2) those CESQGs located in other states (i.e., states that allow CESQGs to dispose of hazardous waste in MSW landfills), but that choose to manage their hazardous waste at a permitted TSDF.  Industry and state agency data suggest that 32 states and the District of Columbia currently allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste through MSW landfill disposal.  These states are estimated to account for 146,300 to 204,300 CESQGs.  Of the CESQGs in the remaining states, this EA assumes that 10 percent manage their hazardous waste at a TSDF, bringing the total number of CESQGs managing their hazardous waste at a TSDF to 161,000 to 230,800 facilities.  Of these CESQGs, this EA estimates that approximately 16 percent send their hazardous waste to a transfer facility, consistent with the percentage of SQGs in the 2011 BR database that send their waste to such a facility.  In the absence of data specific to CESQGs, the SQG percentage is assumed to apply to CESQGs as well.  Based on this assumption, an estimated 25,800 to 36,900 CESQGs send their hazardous waste to a transfer facility each year.
EPA estimates that there are 325 transfer facilities nationwide.  These facilities are a subset of generators in the regulated universe because they may consolidate hazardous waste and are therefore subject to the same requirements as generators.  According to 2011 BR data, 317 of these facilities (approximately 98 percent) are LQGs and the remaining 8 facilities are evenly split between SQGs and CESQGs.  The transfer facility costs associated with complying with the requirements for new consolidated wastes are already incurred in the baseline.  Therefore, the only incremental cost of complying with the proposed rule is the labeling of hazardous waste containers received from CESQGs.  Based on the number of CESQGs and the number of transfer facilities in the regulated universe, transfer facilities manage waste for between 80 and 110 CESQGs each, on average.
The cost of labeling hazardous waste containers received from CESQGs is estimated to be $7.44 to $14.87 per CESQG per year (with an average of two to four 55-gallon drums per CESQG), which includes two factors : (1) an additional five minutes of a technician's time to write the required information on each container, and (2) an incremental label cost of $0.40 per container (i.e., the difference between a complex label that costs $0.46 and a simple label that costs $0.06).  CESQGs are already required to apply simple labels with the words "hazardous waste" to all containers sent to a TSDF in the baseline.  The costs of this provision represent labeling costs above and beyond those incurred in the baseline.
Exhibit 3-11 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of enhanced labeling under the transfer facility requirements of the proposed rule by facility type.  The estimated cost per transfer facility to comply with the additional marking and labeling requirements ranges from $590 to $1,690 per year.
EXHIBIT 3-11:  ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR TRANSFER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                              RECURRING COSTS[a]
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                      317
                                     $0.00
                                     $589
                                      $0
                                   $187,000
                                   $187,000
SQG
                                       4
                                     $0.00
                                     $589
                                      $0
                                    $2,360
                                    $2,360
CESQG
                                       4
                                     $0.00
                                     $589
                                      $0
                                    $2,360
                                    $2,360
TOTAL
                                      325
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $192,000
                                   $192,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                              RECURRING COSTS[a]
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                      317
                                     $0.00
                                    $1,690
                                      $0
                                   $536,000
                                   $536,000
SQG
                                       4
                                     $0.00
                                    $1,690
                                      $0
                                    $6,760
                                    $6,760
CESQG
                                       4
                                     $0.00
                                    $1,690
                                      $0
                                    $6,760
                                    $6,760
TOTAL
                                      325
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $549,000
                                   $549,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
   a. This figure represents the cost of labeling containers (with an average of two to four 55-gallon drums per CESQG), which includes two factors: (1) an additional 5 minutes of a technician's time to write the required information on each container; and (2) an incremental label cost of $0.40 per container (i.e., the difference between a complex label that costs $0.46 for a complex label and a simple label that costs $0.06)

BR Requirements
The proposed rule would make two substantive changes to the biennial reporting requirements for LQGs.  First, it would require LQGs to report all of the hazardous waste that they generate for the entire reporting year, not just quantities for the month(s) during which they were LQGs.  Existing regulation is unclear on this issue and a limited number of states currently require LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste generated for only those months that they were LQGs.  Second, the rule would require LQGs to report all hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, regardless of whether the waste was transported off-site during the reporting year.  Although the current BR instructions state that generators should report the total quantity of hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, Federal regulations do not specifically address cases where a facility generates hazardous waste during the reporting year but ships it off-site during the next calendar year.
Report for all waste generated, regardless of when it was managed. As described earlier in this chapter, the 2011 BR data suggest that LQGs, on average, manage between five and 17 hazardous waste streams each year (and prepare a separate GM form for each waste stream).  Anecdotal accounts suggest that the BR data may under represent the true number of waste streams generated because many facilities only report those waste streams generated and managed in the BR reporting year.
Limited information is available on the amount of hazardous waste generated but not transported off-site during the reporting year.  In the absence of such data, this EA assumes that, on average, no more than one-quarter (25 percent) of an LQG's total hazardous waste (all hazardous waste generated between the months of October and December) could be stored on-site and not transported off-site or managed on-site until the following calendar year.  This assumption is based on the current RCRA storage requirements allowing LQGs to accumulate hazardous waste on site for up to 90 days.  As corroboration for this assumption, data collected from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality's Hazardous Waste Annual Reports suggest that approximately 76 percent of the hazardous waste managed by facilities each year is generated in the same calendar year and approximately 24 percent is kept in accumulation areas for treatment or transportation off-site in a different calendar year.
Applying the 25 percent assumption to the five to 17 waste streams reported per LQG in the BR, this EA estimates the BR reporting costs for an additional two to six waste streams.  As described above, EPA estimates that the cost burden to prepare each GM form is approximately $19.99, which reflects 0.14 hours of a manager's time, 0.18 hours or a technician's time, and 0.06 hours of an office clerk's time.  Based on this cost, the additional BR costs per LQG are between $39.98 and $119.93.  These costs are incurred every other year.
Report for all months that a facility is an LQG. As noted above, EPA is proposing that facilities qualifying for LQG status for part of the year report their waste generation for the full year.  Anecdotal accounts suggest that LQGs in some states complete biennial reports only for the months during which they cross the LQG threshold during the year.  In addition, in a survey of 26 states, three states reported that they did not require one-time or short-term LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste they generate for the entire calendar year.   Idaho and West Virginia reported that they required these facilities to report the amount of hazardous waste they generated only for the months they were LQGs.  South Carolina reported that it required facilities to report the amount of hazardous waste they generated for the remainder of the calendar year after they exceeded the monthly LQG generation threshold.
Limited information is available on episodic generation in these states.  Overall, there are 374 LQGs in these states, between 844 and 1,187 SQGs, and between 5,428 and 11,120 CESQGs.  For the 374 LQGs, the costs of the rule are estimated as a range.  The low end of the range assumes that these facilities report for two months of the year in the baseline and that their baseline reporting covers all of their waste streams, but underreports generation for those waste streams.  Therefore, for the low scenario, the cost for these facilities is the cost to gather additional information on the existing waste streams.  This cost is estimated to be $20 per facility.  The high end assumes that the number of waste streams that these facilities report in the baseline covers two months of the year and that this temporal coverage is proportional to the number of waste streams reported in the baseline.  Thus, if the mean number of waste streams generated by LQGs is 17, this EA assumes that three are reported in the baseline and 14 are newly reported under the rule, at a cost of $19.99 per waste stream.
This requirement of the rule would also affect CESQGs and SQGs that become LQGs in these three states.  Data from EPA's RCRAInfo database suggest that nationwide 1.4 to 1.8 percent of SQGs and 0.1 to 0.2 percent of CESQGs each year notify EPA of a change in their generator status to LQG (i.e., submitting BR records as an LQG when they were previously an CESQG or SQG).  Applying this to the number of SQGs and CESQGs in West Virginia, Idaho, and South Carolina, this EA estimates that the three states combined are home to 12 to 22 SQG episodic generators and 6 to 20 CESQG episodic generators.  This EA conservatively assumes that all these episodic generators have just one month-long episodic event each year that exceeds the monthly LQG generation threshold.  Furthermore, these facilities are assumed to submit BR reports for one to two waste streams in the baseline (1/12 of the baseline values of five and 17 for LQGs).  Therefore, the cost of BR reporting for SQGs and CESQGs that are episodic generators in these states is the time and materials to prepare an additional GM form for each of the unreported waste streams, between 4 and 15 per facility -- approximately $80 to $300 per facility per reporting year.
Exhibit 3-12 reports the annualized unit and aggregate costs of BR reporting under the proposed rule by facility type.  All of the reported costs are incurred on a biennial basis in even-numbered years.  Therefore, there are no one-time costs associated with this provision of the rule.
EXHIBIT 3-12:  ANNUALIZED UNIT AND AGGREGATE COSTS FOR BR REQUIREMENTS (ANNUALIZED OVER 20 YEARS, USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE)
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                              LOW IMPACT ESTIMATE
NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    14,262
                                     $0.00
                                   $20.94[a]
                                      $0
                                   $299,000
                                   $299,000
SQG
                                      12
                                     $0.00
                                   $41.33[b]
                                      $0
                                     $496
                                     $496
CESQG
                                       6
                                     $0.00
                                   $41.33[b]
                                      $0
                                     $248
                                     $248
TOTAL
                                    14,280
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $299,000
                                   $299,000
                               GENERATOR STATUS
                                      [A]
                             HIGH IMPACT ESTIMATE
              NUMBER OF AFFECTED FACILITIES LIKELY TO INCUR COSTS
                                      [B]
                         ANNUALIZED COST PER FACILITY
                           AGGREGATE ANNUALIZED COST
                            TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                    [G=E+F]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                      [C]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                      [D]
                                ONE-TIME COSTS
                                   [E=BxC]
                                RECURRING COSTS
                                   [F=BxD]

LQG
                                    14,262
                                     $0.00
                                   $66.06[a]
                                      $0
                                   $942,000
                                   $942,000
SQG
                                      22
                                     $0.00
                                  $154.98[b]
                                      $0
                                    $3,410
                                    $3,410
CESQG
                                      20
                                     $0.00
                                  $154.98[b]
                                      $0
                                    $3,100
                                    $3,100
TOTAL
                                    14,304
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      $0
                                   $949,000
                                   $949,000
Notes:
All aggregate cost estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding.
   a. This figure represents the sum of the following costs: (1) labor costs of $19.99 per GM form x 2 additional GM forms per facility in the low impact scenario, which equals $39.98 incurred on a biennial basis in even numbered years (or 6 additional GM forms per facility in the high impact scenario) and (2) labor costs totaling $20.18 per facility on a biennial basis in even numbered years for data collection for 374 LQGs in States that require short-term LQGs to report the amount of hazardous waste they generate only for the months they are LQGs. In annualized terms, the $39.98 in biennial costs represents annualized costs of $20.66 and the $20.18 in biennial costs represents annualized costs of $10.43. The $10.43, however, is incurred by only 374 LQGs (2.6 percent of LQGs); averaging this over all 14,262 LQGs yields a per facility cost of $0.27. Adding this value to the $20.66 presented above yields $20.94 in annualized costs.
   b. This figure represents a labor cost of $19.99 per GM form ($10.33 on an annualized basis) x 4 additional GM forms per SQG and CESQG in the low impact scenario (or 15 additional GM forms in the high impact scenario). These costs are incurred on a biennial basis in even-numbered years.

Prohibitions on Storage of Restricted Waste
Consistent with the proposed labeling/marking requirements for LQGs and SQGs, the proposed rule would require that containers holding hazardous waste restricted from land disposal be marked with (1) the words "Hazardous Waste"; (2) other words that identify the contents of the containers (e.g., paint solvent waste); and (3) an indication of the hazards of a container's contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).
Waste subject to the requirements of this provision would most likely be in compliance due to the labeling/marking and transfer facility requirements outlined above.  This EA therefore estimates no additional costs for this provision.
Drip Pad and Containment Building Requirements
Under the existing regulations, EPA has consistently interpreted the requirements for LQGs subject to 40 CFR Part 265 Subparts W and DD to also apply to SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings for 90 days or less without a permit or interim status.  Although there are no explicit requirements for SQGs, EPA intended for SQGs to comply with all of the LQG conditions for an exemption associated with the accumulation of hazardous waste, as well as any associated independent requirements for LQGs or else obtain a Part B permit for their drip pads or containment buildings.  While SQGs may normally accumulate hazardous waste in primary accumulation areas or SAAs for 180 days, the maximum generator accumulation time period for drip pads or containment buildings is 90 days.  The current regulations also imply that generators using drip pads or containment buildings must comply with the requirements that apply to LQGs for personnel training, emergency response preparedness, and biennial reporting.  In contrast, if an SQG accumulates hazardous waste in containers, it can comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs, including accumulation of hazardous waste for up to 180 days.
Under the proposed rule, EPA believes a more effective and efficient approach is to require SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings to comply with the LQG 90-day accumulation limit (as opposed to the SQG 180-day accumulation limit), but to otherwise comply with the less stringent requirements for SQGs.  Only hazardous waste that is accumulated on drip pads or in containment buildings must be managed in compliance with the LQG accumulation limits.
EPA estimates that there are 12 SQGs and 22 LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings.  Under the proposed rule, LQGs and SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings must comply with the labeling requirements described in the previous section on labeling/marking.  The costs associated with this requirement are reported above and are not repeated here to avoid double-counting.
Under the existing technical requirements for drip pads (40 CFR 265.443) and containment buildings (40 CFR 265.1101), LQGs and SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings are required to conduct weekly inspections and document the results in their operating record.  In situations when a release from a drip pad or a containment building occurs, generators are required to notify their authorized state within 24 hours after discovery.  Thus, there are no incremental costs associated with the inspection documentation requirements under the proposed rule as these requirements already exist under current regulations.  Furthermore, SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste on drip pads or in containment buildings would realize a net cost savings, as described in the discussion of benefits in Chapter 4.
Intra-organizational Transfers (Voluntary)
To afford greater flexibility to CESQGs, the proposed rule would allow CESQGs to send their hazardous waste to an LQG under the ownership of the same organization, provided that both the CESQG(s) and LQG comply with certain conditions.  The CESQG conditions are as follows:
      (a)       A participating CESQG must label containers with the words "CESQG Hazardous Waste," other words that identify the contents of the containers, and an indication of the hazards of a container's contents (e.g., the applicable hazardous waste characteristic).
      (b)       CESQGs must comply with all applicable DOT regulations when sending their hazardous waste to an LQG.
The proposed conditions for LQGs receiving hazardous waste from one or more CESQGs under the same organizational structure include the following:
      (a)       LQGs must submit a notification to EPA or their authorized state identifying the names, addresses, and contact information for the CESQGs that will be transferring hazardous waste to the LQG.
      (b)       LQGs must maintain records of all hazardous waste received from CESQGs that include the name, address, and contact information for each CESQG, as well as a description (i.e., quantity and hazardous waste codes) of each waste shipment received.
      (c)       LQGs mark shipments from CESQGs with the date the hazardous waste was received from the CESQG.
      (d)       LQGs would be required to manage all incoming CESQG hazardous waste in compliance with the regulations applicable to their LQG status.
      (e)       Hazardous waste received from CESQGs would need to be included in the receiving LQG's BR submissions.
Estimating the costs associated with this portion of the proposed rule requires information on (1) the number of CESQGs that may consolidate to an LQG and the number of LQGs that may receive CESQG waste, (2) the per facility costs for affected CESQGs, and (3) the per facility costs for LQGs receiving CESQG waste.
Number of CESQGs and LQGs opting for this rule provision: The number of entities that may take advantage of the flexibility provided by this portion of the proposed rule is uncertain.  The sources of this uncertainty include the lack of information indicating the extent to which eligible facilities will take advantage of this rule provision and the limited data available on the number of CESQGs that are eligible (i.e., are owned by organizations that also own at least one LQG).  With respect to the former, the CESQGs that take advantage of this rule provision may be split into two groups:
   1. CESQGs in states that allow MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste: As indicated in the discussion regarding the proposed rule's transfer facility provision, industry and state data suggest that 32 states and the District of Columbia currently allow CESQGs to manage their hazardous waste through MSW landfill disposal.  Facilities in these states are estimated to account for between 50 and 56 percent of the potentially affected universe of CESQGs, or 146,600 to 265,000 CESQGs.  This EA assumes that 90 percent of the CESQGs in these states dispose of their hazardous waste as MSW and that 10 percent send their hazardous waste to a permitted TSDF.  The CESQG facilities that dispose of their hazardous waste in MSW landfills are assumed to continue to manage their hazardous waste as MSW (and not consolidate their waste through LQGs owned by the same organization) because of the relatively low cost of this disposal option.  Of the remaining 14,700 to 26,500 CESQGs that are located in states that allow the MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste, but choose to send their waste to a TSDF, this EA assumes that CESQGs owned by organizations that also own LQGs consolidate their waste to an LQG.
   2. CESQGs in states that prohibit MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste: In states that prohibit the MSW landfill disposal of CESQG hazardous waste, all CESQGs owned by organizations that also own one or more LQGs are assumed to consolidate their CESQG hazardous waste to an LQG.  These states account for an estimated 146,300 to 204,300 CESQGs.
Combined, these two groups represent 161,000 to 230,800 CESQGs.
To estimate the percentage of CESQGs owned by companies that also own at least one LQG, this EA relies on facility-level data collected from Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin.  Each of these states provided the name, address, and generator status of active hazardous waste generators within their borders, but lacked information on the ownership structure of facilities.  Absent this ownership information, a matching algorithm based on facility names was used to identify the ultimate owner.  First, generators in each state that had the same organization name were identified.  Then, organizations owning multiple generators (including at least one CESQG facility and one LQG facility) within the same state were identified.  For bordering states (i.e., Maine-Massachusetts-New Hampshire), facilities located in adjacent states were also included in the analysis.  Three of the states analyzed (Florida, New Hampshire, and Oregon) allow CESQGs to dispose of waste in MSW landfills.  For these states, 90 percent of all CESQGs are assumed to use MSW disposal and 10 percent are assumed to send waste to a TSDF.  For the other three states, all CESQGs are assumed to send waste to a TSDF.  Furthermore, for all states, CESQGs that are part of a larger organization are assumed to manage their waste at a TSDF.  Finally, we divide the number of CESQGs that are part of a larger organization that could potentially consolidate waste by the number of CESQGs that send waste to a TSDF in the baseline.  This EA then applies this percentage to the total number of CESQGs nationwide that send waste to a TSDF.
The limitations of this approach are: (1) some states did not have information on the generator status of all facilities (e.g., Massachusetts only reported generator status for approximately 80 percent of facilities); (2) facility names do not necessarily identify the ultimate owner, therefore it is difficult to determine whether generators are owned by the same organization; and (3) the states used to estimate the percentage of CESQGs that could consolidate their waste may not be representative of other states in the U.S.