EXHIBIT LIST
EcoNoMic ANALYSIS OF INCLUDINGMERCURY CONTAINING DEvIcE5:IN. THE UNIVERSAL
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste

EXHIBIT LIST

iN THE MATTER OF:

)

STANDARDS

FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE

)

R05-8

MANAGEMENT, AMENDMENTS TO

)

(Rulemaking

Land)

ILL. ADM. CODE 703, 720, 721, 724,

725,

)

728, and 733

)

Exhibit

Resume of Mark L. Crites, Environmental Protection Engineer with Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

Exhibit 2

Economic Analysis ofIncluding Mercury Containing Devices in the Universal

Waste System, Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, USEPA Office of Solid Waste,

February

15,

2002

Mark L. Crites

Experience

1990 to Present:

Environmental Protection Engineer

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Bureau of Land, Permit Section, RCRA Unit

Responsibilities:

•

Illinois EPA’s contact person and technical expert on the Universal Waste

Rule and related statutes.

•

Illinois EPA’s contact person and technical expert on hazardous waste

delisting.

•

Review applications and write permits

for hazardous waste management

facilities.

•

Review site remediation plans for state and federal clean-up programs to

determine Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regulations with

regard to

the hazardous waste management system.

•

Evaluate closure by removal

demonstrations forhazardous waste

management units.

•

Inspect hazardous waste management facilities to resolve permitting

issues.

•

Respond to correspondence from the public and the regulated. comniuni-~ty

regarding technical interpretations ofthe hazardous waste regulations and

statutes.

Education

1990 to Present:

Ongoing professional continuing education in a variety oftopics

including engineering, chemistry, geology, hydrogeology,

mathematics, computer modeling, risk

assessment, technical

writing, project management, new regulations, software-specific

courses, and others.

1985 to 1990:

Bachelor ofScience Mechanical Engineering, Southern Illinois

University at Carbondale, Spring 1990.

Licensing and Certification

•

State ofIllinois Professional Engineer in Training

•

OSHA HAZWOPER General Site Worker

•

Red Cross

CPR and First Aid

•

Total Quality Management Facilitator

me~1-’

EcoNoMic ANALYSIS OF INCLUDING

MERCURY CONTAINING DEvIcE5:IN. THE

UNIVERSAL

WASTE SYSTEM,

NOTICE

OF PROPOSED

RULEMAKING

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste

February

15, 2002

Introduction.

General Overviewof Devices

and

Regulated

Entities

2.1

Mercury-Containing

Devices

2.2

Regulated

Entities Under Current RCRA

Regulations

2.3

Regulated

Entities

UnderUniversal Waste Regulations

Preliminary Research

and Analysis

3.1

Number of PotentiallyAffected Generators of MCDs

3.1.1

MCD-Only Generators

3.1.2

MCD-PIus Generators

3.2

Number of Potentially Affected Handlers of MCDs

3.3

Number of Potentially Affected Treaters of MCDs

3.3

Number of Potentially Affected Transporters of Discarded MCDs (Baseline and

Universal Waste Requirements)

3.4

Disposal

Price

Research

3.5

Transportation Costs for Regulated

Generators and

Handlers

3.6

Administrative Compliance

Costs for Regulated Generators and Handlers

MCD

Management Practices

4.1

Baseline Practices

4.2

Post

Rule Practices

Cost Results

5.1

Methodology

5.2

Cost Results

Economic

Impact Results

Qualitative Benefits

Discussion of Findings

Assumptions,

Limitations, and Sensitivity Analyses

AppendixA:

MCD-Only Generators

Appendix B:

Phone Logs

.35

Appendix C:

Subtitle D Baseline Analysis

Appendix

References

Introduction

Mercury-containing devices

(MCD5) might be found in almost any household, ‘business,~

industry,

and institution in the

United States.

Mercury is commonly used in thermometers,

electrical components (such as switches and

relays), gauges, meters, and other devices. ‘The.

amount of mercury in a single device generally ranges from

less than one gram

to more than

400 grams, although some devices may contain more than 200 pounds of mercury.

The mercury contained in most MCDs is sufficient to classify them, once discarded, as

D009 characteristic mercury wastes under RCRA.1

a result, commercial,

indUstrial, ‘and

institutionalentities that discard (i.e., generate)

post-consumer MCDs mustcomply with RCRA

generator:requirements, which include storage limits, manifesting, recordkeeping,~safety

training,

and

biennial reporting by large generators.

Under current RCRA regulations at 40 CFR

268.40,

discarded MCDs must be sent to a

recycler forroasting or retorting ortoa Subtitle C

landfill (only if the mercury content in the device is less than 260 parts per million and the

mercury has been treated to below certain standards)..

Households and conditionally exempt

small quantity generators (those that produce less than 100 kilograms

Of hazardous:waste’per

month) are not subject to these requirements.

Due

in part to the ubiquitous

nature of MCDs, the sporadic frequency with. which they are

discardecLand the fact that many consumers of these devices are not.aware of the hazards

associated. with them, many post-consumer MCDs are often disposed of (both accidentally and

nonaccidentally)

in municipal solid waste (MSVV)

landfills or incinerators, rather than being

recycled.

The additional administrative, storage, transportation, treatment, and disposal costs

associated, with recycling RCRA hazardous waste also serve to discourage recycling of pOst-

consumeLMCDs.

“.

In orderto encourage

more recycling of post-consumerMCDs, EPA

is considering

adding these devices to the list of Universal Wastes under 40 CFR Part 273.

The inclusion of

these devices under the Universal Waste regulations is expected to decrease the costs of

complying with RCRA requirements

(e.g., by exempting MCDs from manifesting and

interim

storage permit requirements) and, as a

result, will make recycling a

relatively more’ economical

disposal option..

‘

The purpose of this analysis is to analyze the incremental costs and costs savings

associated with induding post-consumer MCDs (excluding thermostats)

in the Universal Waste’

system.

The remainder of this analysis is organized in

nine sections and three

appendices.

General

Overview of Devices and

Regulated Entities

This section provides information on the types of MCDs that are of concern to

EPA,

and

generally describes the entities involved

in generating,

handling, transporting, and recycling

them.

...

Specifically,

most MCDs have a

mercury concentration of 0.2 mg/L (ppm) orgreater when tested

using

the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Profile

(TCLP).

2.1

Mercury-Containing Devices

For purposes of this

report, MCDs are defined as any device that contains metallic

mercury as a component necessary forits operation, with the exception of thermostats, lamps,

and

batteries.2

MCDs can be divided into four general categories:

•

Thermometers;

•

Switches and relays;

•

Gauges and meters; and

•

uC)ther devices.”

‘

For each

ofthese categories, Exhibit 2-1

lists a number of specific MCDs along with quantities

of mercurycommonly

found

in them.

2.2

Regulated Entities

Under Current RCRA Regulations

Under current RCRA regulations,

entities involved in the MCD

lifecycle are regulated if

they fall

into one of the following categories:

generators; transporters; or treatment (including

recycling),

storage, and

disposal facilities (TSDFs).

Generators

Because M.CDs contain mercury and are hazardous wastes

when discarded,

any entity

that uses these devices may be a.regulated

generator.3

Moreover, the

ubiquitous nature of

MCDs suggests that the number of regulated generators may be

large.

Generators can be

grouped into three categories:

;

EPA has previously classified discarded mercury-containing thermestats-and-lamps as universal

wastes

(60 FR 25491, 64 FR 36465).

In addition, Title

of the Mercury-Containing and

Rechargeable

Battery Management Act (1996) mandated

a phase out of mercury-containing batteries

in the U.S.

~ Households that generate

post-consumer MCDs are excluded frnmRCRA regulations and are

not modeled in the analysis.

Exhibit 2-1,

Overview of Mercury-Containing Devices Potentially Generated by Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Entities

Device

Category

Example -Devices

‘

Reported

Mercury Content

(grams per device).

Thermometers

Clinical

thermometers (oral/rectal/baby and basal temperature),

laboratory thermometers, industrial thermometers, air/water

temperature thermometers, veterinary thermometers, Mason’s

Hygrometers, sling psychrometers

‘

(“typical”)

0.5

0.61

(fever)

2.25

(basal temperature)

10 (laboratory)

(veterinary)-

5.56- 19.78

(industrial)

Switches and Relays

Tilt switches, float switches, silent tight switches, mercury

reed

switches, metal switches,

telephone switches, glass

switches,

alarm switches, ‘limit switches, mercury-wetted relays,

displacement/plunger relays,

reed relays,

flame sensors, pilot light

sensors, gas safety valves, rectifiers, ignitron tubes, G-sensors,

oscillators, phanatrons, proximity sensors, capacitors

‘

3.5 (‘typical”)

2,6 (silent light switch)

3.5

3,600 (industrial switch)

(float switch)

0.5

(automotive light switch)

2 (chest freezer light switch)

2 (washing

machine light switch)

3 (anti.lock

brake switch)

2 (ride control

system switch)

0.14

3 (mercury reed relay)

160 (displacement relay)

2.5 (flame sensor)

Gauges and Meters

‘

Manometers,

barometers, sphygmomanometers, vacuum meters,

flow meters,-temperature

gauges, pressure relief gauges, water

treatment pressure gauges, regulators,

airway controllers,

permeters, hagenmeters, rtng balances

330 (sphygmomanometer)

395 (barometer)

355 (typical manometer)

91,000-(large manometer)

Other Devices

Tubes/dilators (gastrointestinal tubes

esophageal tubes

cantor

tubes, Miller

Abbot tubes, feeding tubes), recoil

suppressors,

variable-force counterweight wheels, printed circuit boards

170 (recoil suppressor)

1,000 (dilator)

Sources:

Lake Michigan I~orum(i9~~),

-Michigan

Mercuiy

Pollution Prevention

Task

Force (1996),’The-Pollution Prevention

Partnership’and

the

Milwaukee Metropolitan

Sewerage

District

(1997), SAIC

and Rh

(1999),

U.S.

EPA (1992),

U.S.

EPA

(1997a), USWAG (1996),

and

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (1997).

DRFAT

September 5, 2001

4’

Entities that produce less than

100 kilograms

(kg) permonth of post-consumer

MCDs and/or other hazardous wastes are

conditionallyexempt small quantity

‘generators (CESQGs).

CESQGs are subject

limited waste management

requirements

(40 CFR 261.5),

and are not

modeled in this

analysis.

•

Entities that produce between 100 and 1,000 kg per month of post-consumer

‘,

MCDs and/or other hazardous wastes are

small quantitygenerators (SQG5)

and

‘must comply with manifesting, recordkeeping, and safety

training requirements

(40.CFR Part 262 generally).

‘SQGs

may-store hazardous wastes on site for up

180 days without a permit

•

Entities that generate more than 1,000 kg permonth of post-consumerMCDS

and/or other hazardous wastes are

large quantitygenerators (LQGs).

LQGs

must complywith the same requirements as SQGs, except that they may store

hazardous wastes

site for no more than 90

days, ratherthan

180,

without a

permit

LQGs must also comply with biennial reporting requirements.

Transporters

Under

current

RCRA regulatory requirements, transporters

of post-consumer MCDs are

required to be certified as hazardous waste handlers (40 CFR Part 263),

and mustfollow DOTs

hazardous materials regulations in 49 CFR

171- through 180.

Transporters must obtain an EPA

identification number; comply with the manifest system, and properly handle

discharges of

hazardous waste

In addition

transportersmay store post-consumer MCDs attransfer facilities

(e.g., loading docks, parking areas) for up

10 days.

Treatment, Storage. and DisDosal

Facilities (including Recvclers)

Based on the quantities of mercury in MCDs along with the overall weight of these

devices

(which

can vary from

less than one pound to over 1,500 pounds), discarded

MCDs

are

likely to fall into the

category of inorganic

high mercury wastes

“

which are defined as inorganic

wastes

with a total mercury concentration of greater than-or equal to

260

mg/kg (or ppm).4

As a

resu~,

post-consumer MCDs are required, under 40 CFR 268.40, to be recycled through

roasting or retorting, which entails placing the waste in a thermal processing

unit that allows for

volatilization

of-the mercury and subsequent condensing of the mercury for recovery.

This

process is referred to as “RMERC”

in 40 CFR 268.40.~

~ In order tofl~be classified

as a high mercury waste, a device would need to have less than one

gram of mercury for every 8.5 pounds of total device weight.

This

is not likely for most MCDs given that

MCDs with,small amounts of mercury (e.g., thermometers, temperature probes, switches) also tend to be

relatively lighter in weight.

Any post-consumer MCDs with

a total mercury concentration less than 260

mg/kg

(or ppm) would- be classified

as “low mercury wastes.”

These

wastes

are not required to .be

recycled,

butmust be treated

(stabilized) in order to meet a standard of 0.025-mg/L TCLP mercury prior to

land disposed.

‘~

In contrast to post-consumer MCDs, high mercury

wastes that contain organics may be either

incinerated (IMERC”) or recycled.

Entities that recycle MCDs are subjectto full RCRA Subtitle

C regulations, and must

obtain a permit and meet

administrative

and technical standards (40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and

270).

-‘

2.3

Regulated Entities Under Universal Waste Regulations

Underthe Universal Waste regulations (40 CFR Part 273),

entities involved

in the MCD

lifecycle

would be regulated ifthey fall

into one of the following categories: handlers,

transporters, or destination facilities.

Handlers

MCD

handlers would include all

entities

that discard post-consumer MCDs and that are

not explicitly excluded

from the Universal Waste

requirements.6

These include LQGs, SQGs,

and CESQGs.

Regulated

handlers would also include entities that receive discarded MCDs

from

other handlers~accumulate the

devices over

period of time, and then send the devices on

to other handlers,

recyclers, or TSDFs.7

These handlers are generally referred to

“consolidation facilities.”

‘

Handlers can

grouped into two

categories based on the amount of waste they

accumulate:

•

Entities that accumulate less

than- 5,000 kg of universal waste at any time are

smallquantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs),

and are subject to

requirements for accumulation time (up to

one year),

proper management of

waste, response to releases, and employee -training.

•

Entities that accumulate 5,000 kg or more of universal waste at any time are

large

quantityhandlers of universal waste

(LQHUWs).

LQHUWs are subject to the

same requirements as SQHUWs, but also must maintain basic shipment

records, obtain an

EPA, identification number, and complywith sthcter employee

training

requirements.

Also, designation as a LQHUW is retained through the end

of the calendar year in which LQHUW status is attained

(i.e.,

5,000 kg or more of

universal waste is accumulated).

Transporters

Under the

Universal Waste regulations, transporters of discarded MCDs would be

defined as any entity that transports these devices from

handlers to other handlers,

TSDFs/recyders, or foreign destinations (40 CFR 273.10).

Transporters of discarded MCDS

Households that are handlers of post-consumer MCDs would be excluded

from the Universal

Waste regulations.

An example of such

a handler would be the

Honeywell Corporation, which established

a “reverse

distribution network” in 1994 whereby

it collects discarded

mercury-containing

thermostats from other users

and recycles them. (U.S. EPA, 1997c)

would not be

required to be certified

hazardous waste handlers

under 40

CFR Part 263 and

would not be required to prepare shipping manifests.

add’rtion,-transporters

would be able

toP-

store discarded

MCDs at transfer facilities

(e.g., loading docks;

parking areas)

for up to 10 days.

Although not required to meet RCRA

hazardous waste regulations,:-transporters

shipping

post-consumer MCDs generally would be required to meet

DOTs

hazardous

materials

requirements (49

CFR’

Parts 171

through’1,80)unless:the

total

quantity-Of mercury

each

package

(i.e.,

the “reportable quantity,”

or “RQ”) is

less than one, pound

(49 CFR

172.10’t,

Appendix A).

Additional conditions

for the exemption of post-consumer MCDs-from the:DOT

hazardous

materials requirements are found in 49 CFR 1731648

Destination

Facilities (including

Recyclers)

Under the Universal Waste regulations, destination facilities--for discarded MCDs would

include any facility that treats, disposes of, or recycles these devices.-;, Like the TSDFs

described

in Section 2.2, these facilities are subject to:full RCRA Subtitle C regulations, including

permit requirements and both general and

unit-specific, facility standards.

Destination facilities

must’ also maintain records of shipments of discarded MCDs that are received, but they- are not

required to cornplete,~

transmit, and file manifests (i.e., because manifests- are -not required for

universal

waste shipments)

Preliminary Research and Analysis

This section descnbes the results

of’preliminary;research

conducted

in-order-to

identify

the number of entities potentially affected by the rule and to characterize MCD disposal pnces,

‘transportation costs, and administrative costs.

‘

3.1

Number of Potentially Affected Generators of MCDs

‘

-‘

For the

purpose of this analysis, an “MCD-only” generator is defined as oi~e

that is~

regulated as a

hazardous waste -generator for MCDs only,

and not any other type of hazardous

waste.

An “MCD-plus” generatoris defined

as a-generatorthat is regulated forOther types,of

hazardous waste but also generates MCDs.

As desciibed

in Section 3.1.1, MCD-only

generators are not expected to

be affected by this

rulemaking because -they are all estimated to

be CESQGs.

3.1.1

MCD-OnIy Generators

‘

Preliminary research conducted for this analysis yielded’insufficient data to identif~/,

characterize, and quantifyusers

(generators)

of-MCDs.

Consequently,

in order to assess the

likelihood that MCD-only

generators would be affected by the rule, the analysis estimated the

number of MCDs a

generator

would

have to dispose of to be

dassified as a SQG or LQG.

8For example, under 49 CFR 173.64(c)(1), exceptions are provided for thermometers, switches,

and relays that(1) each contain no

more than 15 grams of mercury, (2) are installed as an “integral part” of

machine or apparatus, and (3) are fitted such that shocks from impacts are unlikely to cause leakages of

mercury.

‘

Further, based on the estimated lifetime

of each

MCD,

the analysis estimates the number of

devices that would need be

in use

at a facility.

As discussed in more detail in Appendix A, MCD~-

only generat6rs would have to use and discard very large numbers of MCDs to’ be’‘dassifled as

either SQGs or LQGs.

As a result, this

analysis assumes that all

MCD-only generators are

CESQGS.9

Because CESQGs are exempt from

the both Subtitle C baseline requirements and

UniversaLWaste system requirements, these generators would not be affected by the inclusion

of MCD5;in the UniversalWaste system and are‘thus

excluded from this analysis.

3~,1.2

MCD-Plus Generators

‘

To identify the

number of MCD-Plus

generators (those that generated MCD5 but qualify

as SQGs or LQGs on the basis of other hazardous wastes), this

analysis examined

1997 BRS

treater data.1° Specifically, data were extracted for all generators that send potential MCD waste

to retorters known to accept MCDs.

Waste was assumed likely to contain MCDs if (1) the

waste

codewas mercury (D009) (only),

(2) the”form code was other waste inorganic solids

(B31 9) or blank, and

(3) the treatment code

was

retorting

(MOl2),

high

temperature metal’

recovery (MOl 1), other metal recovery forreuse

(M014),’ or metal recovery- type unknown

(MOl

9).

Based on information from

a retorting facility (Mercury Waste Solutions) that 25 percent

the waste it

handles is MCD waste, this

analysis assumed 25

percent

of potential MCD waste

actually was ‘MCD waste.~

When available from BRS orthe RCR.~Jnfo

database in Envirofacts

(accessed in August 2001), SIC codes were obtained

for each generating facility.

Exhibit

3-1

summarizes of the number of generating facilities and average MCD

quantities

two digit SIC

code.

Based on this

analysis,

1,877 facilities

generated over 550 tons of MCDs in 1997.

The

average annual

quantity of MCDs generated at-a single facility is approximately 590 pounds

(0.295 tons).12

‘

9A discussion with one mercury retorter confirmed that there are

no MCD-only generators.

See

Appendix B~

‘

10BRS data

are

divided into generator data and treater data.

Generator data are reported by LQGs

only.

Treater data

include data

on all shipments received by a treater, including shipments by CESQGs,

SQGs and LQGs.

Because both

SQG and LQG shipments are of interest, the analysis used the treater

data, rather than

the generator data.

This process may inadvertantly might inadvertently capture CESQG

data.

‘

~ The results of this analysis are not particularly sensitive to this 25 percent estimate.

See

Section

12AS

discussed in Section 9, the numberof MCD-plus generators may

be understated and the

tons

of MCDs may be overstated.

‘

Exhibit

3-1.

MCD-Plus Generators,

Based

on BRS

Data

-‘

-39

51’

‘4

-1

43,

148

-9

57.

-3

2.000

0.013

0.023

‘0.049

0.009

0.023

0.056

0.181

0.167

0.044

0.082

0.037

0.283

0.314

0:116

0.035

0.042

0.143

0.038

0.096

0.313

0.301

0.124

0.063

0.085

0.090

2.304

0.039

0.025

0.150

0.005

0.456

0.051

1.111

0.565

0.067

0.035

0.830

2.00

0.05

‘0:02

0.05

-0.01

0.02

3.49

3.08

1.1~,

0.70

-3.52

1.27

41.86

2.83

5.22

0.07-

1.31:

.8.16

2.50

6.33

28.77

13:24

2.86

0.69

0.26

0.09

•

23.04

0.12

0.02

0.30

‘0.01

0.91

1.13

89.97

11.31

1.00

0.07

0.83

Digit

SIC

Number of’Generators

Average MCDs (tons)

Total

MCDs (tons)

Digit SIC

Number of Generators

Ave rage MCDs (tons)

Total MCDs (tons)

‘

0.009

1.756

‘

0.03’

1.76’

65’

0.019

0.02

‘

•

0.006

0.01

0.171

6.48

‘

0.081

•

0.16

0:036

•

-‘

-‘-

0.25

0.009

‘

•

0.01

‘

0.124

•

1.24

‘

0.581

0.027

0.069

‘

6.39

0.03

—

0.97

‘

-4

‘

5.933

•

23.73

‘

0.075

0.08

-‘

1.540

‘

7.70’

0.080

0.24

0.335

‘

7.37

0260

182

unknown

797

‘

0.298.

237.74

Total.

‘

1877

0.295

554.29

To determine

whether each facility in the

analysis is an LQG or SQG, this analysis

assumes that MCDs make up

betvveen one and live percent of the generator’s total waste.13

Estimates of MCD quantities were divided by five

percent to estimate total waste quantity for

each facility.

The analysis compared this

estimate with 10 tons peryear.

If a facility generated

more than 10 tonsof total waste per

year,.this analysis assumed

was an LQG.

Otherwise, the

facility was assumed to

be an SQG.

Using this methodologythis

analysis estimates that

131 of

the 1877 generators were LQGs.

3.2

Number of Potentially Affected Handlers of MCDs

As discussed in Section 2.3 above, the Universal Waste regulations define two types of

“handlers” of Universal Waste, SQHUWs and LQHUW5, which

cart be,either generators or

consolidatiOn facilities.

All

generators in the baseline are considered handlers

under

Universal

waste requirements.

Consolidation facilities would include facilities that collect MCD waste and

ship

it to a retorter, and could operate within

a company, serve as collection points

fcir

community collection efforts, or act as a waste broker.

Due to uncertainty concerning the

number of potential consolidation facilities that may be established,

this analysis does not

assume any new consolidation facilities will be

established.

However, any firm serving as a

broker

in the- baseline would

be considered a handler

under the

Universal Waste regulations.

These regulations allow a handler to accumulate

waste for up

to one year.

The threshold

accumulation

amount that determines whether an entity is an SQHUW

or an LQHUW is 5,000

at any one time. Assuming

least-cost

behavior,- eachSQHUW and LQHUW that generates

post-consumer MCDs is assumedto make only one shipment to

a TSDF (i.e., recycler) per

year.

Based on this assumption, only 13 of the 1,877

handlers

will

be LQHUWs.

The remainder

will

SQHUWs.15

‘

3.3

Number of Potentially Affected Treaters of MCDs

To identify the number of treaters of MCD-plus waste, this

analysis used 1997 BRS

treater

data.

Data for

all D009 (the hazardous‘waste

code for mercury) waste using the retorting

treatment code (MOl 2) Were extracted,

and the names of the treaters were compiled.

This

generated a

list of 18

facilities. Through a review of Internet sites forthese 18 facilities,

and

limited contact with a few facilities, this analysis

determined

six firms

with a total of ten facilities

accepted

MCDs in 1997 and still exist today.

This research also

indicated

thatthere has been

consolidation within the retorting

industry (mergers, büyouts, etc) since

1997.

It appears that at

‘~

A representative of

Bethlehem Apparatus ‘(a retorter) estimated that MCDs make

up no more

than one to

five percent of a generators

total waste.

The actual LQG threshold quantity is 1000

kg/month

(1.1

tons/month). Using 10 tons per year

as the threshold

assumes an LOG exceeds the threshold approximately nine months out of the year.

CESQGs under

RCRA

also qualify as SQHUWs under the

Universal Waste regulations.

However, as specified in

40 CF•R 273.5, CESQGs may choose to manage their universal wastes according

to either the full RCRA requirements orthe Universal Waste requirements.

Given that CESQGs are subject

to minimal waste management requirements under RCRA, this analysis as.surnesthataHCESQG5

continue to manage post-consumer MCDs under these

requirements.

-least two of these facilities

(the National Environmental Services facilities) act

as brokers

rather

than retorters.

These two broker facilities would be considered TSDFs in the Subtitle.C baseline

and handlers in the Universal Waste system~:

The other retorters would be considered TSDFs in-

the baseline and destination facilities in the Universal Waste system.

Exhibit 3-2 presents a

list

~ofthese facilities from

BRS.

‘,

-‘

Exhibit 3-2. MCD

Retorters

and

Brokers

-Manager JD~’::~-’-~

~ZR000005454

Earth Protection Svc

1i~~it~it~

FL0000207449

Recyclights, Inc.

National Environmental Services

FLD984262782

.‘

~ERC/Mercury-Technologies

‘V

International

,‘

‘.

‘‘

MN0000903468

Recyclights, Inc.

National Environmental—Services

NYD048148175

Mercury Refining

Company,

Inc.

Mercury Waste Solutions Inc

PA0000453084

Bethlehem Apparatus Co,

lnc:

PAD002390961

Bethlehem Apparatus Co,

Inc.

‘

PAD987367216

\ERC

‘

~ID071164032-

Superior Special -Services,

Inc.

‘

•

‘

--.

V1R000000356

Aercury

7ste Solutions, Inä.

‘

“-.

‘‘

‘

3.3

Number of Potentially Affected Transporters of Discarded MCDs (Baseline and

Universal Waste Requirements)

‘

.‘

Data on

the number of transporters shipping

mercury

wastes are

not readily available

However

EPA has

previously estimated that there are

approximately

500

hazardous waste

transporter companies

in total (U S

EPA

1999)

For lack of better data

this analysis assumes

that 20 percent of these companies

100 companies) currently ship post-consumer MCDs

Under the Universal Waste regulations, transporters do not need to be certified

hazardous waste transporters.

Thus, any type of trucking company could potentially be a

transporter of post-consumer MCDs.

Based on data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census, the

number of transporters of post-consumer MCDs under the

Universal Waste requirements

could

as high

as 140 000

This analysis assumes

that 05 percent of these companies

(i e

700

companies) will ship pest-consumer MCDs under the

Universal

Waste requirements.

Of these

700 transporters, 600

are assumed to be new entrants in the market forshipping post~consumer

MCDs.

This

figure

derived from

1997 estimates for SIC codes 4210 (Trucking and courier services,

except air) and 4730 (Freight transportation arrangement).’

3.4

Disposal Price Research

MCD

generatbrs are known to dispose of their MCD5 by sending them to retorters, to

non-retorting TSDF~’(along

with their other hazardous waste), and

to waste brokers.17

ThisV

-study contacted-a small sample of such facilities in order to obtain information on prices charged

‘for MCD disposal

The.results of this

research, ‘summarized in Exhibit

3~5,18

show relatively

large variability

in prices across retorters,

non-retorting TSDFs; and waste brokers.

Several

possible factors might account forthis variability:

‘

Pncing schemes may anticipate certain shipment sizes and therefore

may not be

directly comparable

For example

some firms mayset pnces on a perdrum

basis, while other -llrrns might cater-to smaller generators by charging on a per

pound basis.

Similarly,

some brokers and non-retorting TSDFs may be able to

receive volume discounts from

retorters. that are not ob’ inableby original .MCD

‘

users.

‘

•

The prices may reflect a nbn-homogenous national marketplace that is heavily

influenced by location and, therefore,

by’ transportation costs.

(There were only

an estimated eight retorters operating in the U.S. in 1997.)-

‘

~‘

‘

•

The market may reflect imperfect information

That

the pnce of alternative

disposal

destinations may not be widely known, either by generators- or by waste

brokers, retorters,

and non-retorting

TSDFs.19

This possibility is also ‘consistent

-with

the fact that MCDs~despite their ubiquitous-nature, are not recognized as

MCDs by most people.

‘

(These

factors

also might help explain the counterintuitive finding that prices charged by

retorters are not consistently lower than those charged by brokers orby non-retorting TSDFs,

both of which would be expected to pass alongto their customers

with a

mark-up

the pnces

charged by retorters

Another potential explanation could be that non-retorting TSDFs

in order

to maintain a reputation for providing full-service hazardous waste management

may be willing

to charge lower pricesfor MCDs given that relatively few MCDs are received from generators.)

The two

key findings for this analysis are as follows:

(1) the

amount

of MCDs to be

disposed of is a.key factor in evaluating

relative disposalVpnces; and

(2) given-the

significant

vanation

in disposal pnces~

other factors frequently predominate

over disposal costs in dnving

the decision of where to ship MCDs

In particular

it is worth noting that

because generators are

likely to be sending

other hazardous wastes to a

non-retorting TSDF

least-cost behavior may be

relatively complex and’ non-uniform.

Other factors

influencing the decision may include

•

these devices are ultimately destined for retorting, thetarm

disposalmay,seern

inappropriate.

However, while the mercury is recovered at the retorter, the

rest of the deviceisdiscarded.

185ee also Appendix B.

19A mercury retorterrepresentative

stated that the firm does not publish price lists-in order to

‘,

protect the information from

competitors.

geographic location and transportation costs, corporate contracts to

handle other hazardous

waste, convenience, and imperfect information;

Exhibit 3-3.

Disposal-Prices

for MCDs

Facility

Code

Facility Type

---

Unit Price(s)’

‘

Unit Price

(volume

Discount)

Volume

Needed for

Discount

•A~

TSDF (non-retorting)~

$925/drum

‘

TSDF (non-retorting)

‘

$245

up to 5 gallons

$653-upto25gallons

$783

up to 31

gallons’

$1002

up to

55 gallons

$1,002/drum

drum

‘

TSDF (non-retorting)

$800/5-gallon pail

$2,000/drum

‘

Broker

$4.50

$5.50/lb

‘

$2,500/drum

•

drum price

assumes

•

800pounds

~1.

7flfl/rln im

flflfl/r1nim~

J~1&

Retorter

‘

$1,300/drum or

$250 fee

$2.75/lb

$900/drum

50-60

drums/yr

3 5

Transportation

Costs

for Regulated

Generators

and Handlers

Under the baseline

transportation costs are those associated with certified hazardous

waste transporters.

Under the Universal Waste requirements, the analysis assumes that post-

consumer MCDs will be packaged

in manner that precludes them from

being defined as

hazardous substances under DOT regulations (i.e., with less than one pound of mercury per

package).2°As a result, transportation costs for non-hazardous materials were usedfor

shipments under the Universal Waste requirements.

The transportation costs used in the model consist- of two

parts:

(1) a fixed fee, and (2) a

variable fee based on tons shipped ahd miles driven.

The analysis assumes that generators are

200 miles from all

types of recyclers

(retorters, brokers, and non-retorting TSDFs).

Exhibit 3-6

presents the fixed and variable costs to

ship under Subtitle C requirements and

under Universal

Waste requirements.

For both type

of shipments, this

analysis assumes the minimum quantity

for which these equations

is valid is one ton.

Quantities lower than one ton have been rounded

up to one ton.

See Section

2.3 for

a discussion of transportation requirements.

‘

Exhibit 3-6

‘

Transportation Costs for

Post-Consumer MCDs Under the Baseline

(2001 dollars)

Type of-Shipment

‘

•

VTranSporI~On

COSts*

•

‘

Fixed

Variable~

($/ton-mile)

Hazardous Waste

$159

0.16

UniversalWaste

-‘

‘

$106

0.12

Source: ICF

(1998)

The variable cost per ton-mile

is valid for shipping distances between

50 and

400 miles.

The

analysis assumes an average

shipping distance of 200 miles

the

baseline.

‘

3.6

Administrative Compliance Costs for Regulated

Generators and Handlers

This section presents

the administrative requirements and costs applicable to generators

under the baseline and to handlers under the Universal Waste requirements.

It is important to

note the because all -SQGs and

LQGs that generate MCDs also generate other

types

hazardous waste, not all of these costs will be affected for all entities.

-Baseline Unit Costs:

RCRA Subtitle C

The analysis models the current management of discarded post-consumer MCDs

assuming

100 percent

compliance with SubtitIe~

requirements.21

Administrative activities

required under Subtitle C and the associated unit costs are summarized

in Exhibit 3-7.

These.

unit costs were taken from

prior

EPA analyses on

mercury-containing lamps and

cathode ray

tubes

(ICF,

1999a;

ICE, 1999b).

In calculating total costs

for generators in

the baseline,

the

analysis assumes that SQGs and LOGs incur the low costs.

‘

Universal Waste Reauirements

Administrative

activities required under the Universal Waste regulations and the

associated

unit costs are summarized in Exhibit 3-8

These unit costs also were taken from

prior EPA analyses on mercury-containing lamps and cathode ray tubes (ICE,

1999a;

ICF,.

1 999b).

In calculating total costs for handlers under the Universal Waste requirements, the

analysis assumes that the SQHUWs and LQHUWs incur the low costs.

Appendix

C presents an

alternative

scenario where some facilities are not in fullcompliance with

Subtitle

C requirements.

Exhibit 3-7

Administrative

Unit Costs

for

Generators Under the Baseline (Full RCRA Subtitle C)

(2001 dollars)

‘

Unit Costs

LQG

SQG

Activity

High

Low

High

Low

Estimate

‘

Waste Activity

$161

$1,186

$629

$334’

$89

$356

$230

$161

$1,186

$423.

$334

$89

$139

$124

$67

$35

cost)

$387

(annualized cost)

$508

$175

$67

$15

$138

$223

$67

$35

$79

$37

$67

$15

$31

-$2

Disposal

Restriction

$45

report)***

$69

$33

$34

$35

$32

-$18

One percent of the

generators are

assumed

to be new facilities

and

thus they incur additional costs as startup facilities.

This

percentage was

used

to determine

the

number of establishments

expected to incur initial costs

in any year

(one percent of the

generator-universe).

‘

Variable

costs depend on the

number of shipments made by

a generator.

The

number of shipments per year was calculated

and.used

to estimate

the

administrative costs.

‘

-‘

‘

V -

-‘

‘

The analysis assumes that no

MCD manifests require

exception report.

-16

Exhibit 3-8

Administrative Unit Costs forHandlers.Under the UniversalWaste Requirements

(2001

dollars)

Unit

Costs

.- -.

LQHUW

•

SQHUW

Activity--’---

High

Low

High

Low

Estimate

Waste Activity

$161

“

$1,186

‘

$334

‘

$89-

$177

-;‘

$1,186

$334

‘$0

$89

$33

$92

$33

$28

$33

-$35

:~---

-‘

$33

$10-

‘

(pershipment)

-‘

--V

‘

$0V

One percent o~the

handlers are

assumed to be new facilities

and

thus they incur additional costs-as

startup facilities.- This

percentage was

used

to determine the

number of establishments

expected to incur initial costs in any year (one percent of the

handler universe)

Variable

costs depend on the

number of shipments made by

a large

quantity

handler.

The number of shipments.per year was

calculated and used to estimate the

administrative

costs.

- V

‘-S-’:

‘

MCD Management Practices

This section discusses the baseline and post rule options available to MCD generators

as well as a discussion of the factors

influencing a

generators selection of each option

Baseline Practices

As shown in Exhibit 4-1, in the baseline MCD

generators can send MCDs to a non-

retorting TSDF (along with the other types of hazardous waste they generate), to the retorter

directly, orto

broker.22

The non-retorting TSDF and the

broker would then have to send the

MCDs on

to a

retorter.

The retorter may then directly sell the mercury or send it on to

a retorter

that produces.a higher purity mercury.

Based on the research conducted for this

analysis, including conversationswith industry

representatives (see Appendix B) and analysis of BRS data, all of the pathways shown in the

exhibit are used.

The factors driving generators to select between a retorter, broker, or non-

retorting TSDF include disposal prices and geography (i.e., actual distance from the generator to

a particular disposal option), but the decision also is likely to be influenced by other factors.

‘

fact, least-cost behavior may be relatively complex and non-uniform given that generators are

addition,

it appears that some generators may be sending MCDs to MSW incinerators or

landfills.

Appendix C evaluates the impact of the rule on these generators.

likely to be sending~other

hazardous wastes to

non-retorting TSDF.

For instance, by sending

MCDs to the same non-retorting TSDF to which other waste from the facility is sent, a

Exhibit 4-1.

Baseline Management Practices

Generators:

Subtitle D

Landfill

DRAFT

September 5,

2001

generator mightreduce manifest and shipping costs~

and simplify facility operations.

Alternatively,

a generator might choose to send waste to a broker if the broker offers a

substantially lower price on

a small quantity

MCDs.

Or, a gëneratór- might choose tO send

waste to .a retorter directlyif the retorter is located nearby or if the generatOris already sending

other waste to that retorter.

-“

4.2

Post Rule Practices

‘

-‘

the post rule scenariO,compliahce costs will decrease fOr MCDé that are managed as,

Universal Waste rather than as other SubtitleC hazardous waste.

At a

minimum, all MCDs

shipped directly from

generators22 to waste brokers or retorters

to post-rule Universal

Waste Handlers) will result in such savings,

because-management

praOtices corresponding to

current practices will cost

less.

For example, if a generator continues to ship MCDs to aietorter

post-rule, then savings will accrue due to the reduced Universal Waste

requirements..--This

true regardless of the fact that the generator’s other hazardous waste continues to be Sent to a

TSDF under full

Subtitle C regulation.

‘

Exhibit 4-2 summarizes~the changes

in a generator’s transportation and. administrative

unit costs to send MCD waste to a broker or retorter post rule while

continuing to send other

hazardous waste to a

non-retorting TSDF

These costs assume that no new cost will be

incurred for activities required

under both regulatory schemes (e g

notilication of hazardous

waste activity

safety training)

For a

generator sending less than one ton per year

in a single

baseline shipment, the savings would be $34~If the generator sentthe same amount in two

baseline shipments, but only one

post-rule shipment, the-savings would

$225..

MCDs that continue to be shipped from generators to non-retorting TSDFs post-rule

however

probably will

not result in any savings

Recall that

in the baseline

some generators

ship

MCDs to non-retorting TSDFs

along with their other hazardous wastes.

Post-rule, such

generators mustcontinue to

ship

hazardous waste to the TSDF under -full Subtitle C regulation,

thereby eliminating most of the opportunity for regulatory savings.

Even

though the generator’s

MCDs could

be sentto the TSDF as aUniversal Waste,

doing so would require the generator

and

the TSDF to operate under both the

Universal Waste requirements and under full

Subtitle C

regulation.

This is likely to

be more expensive than simply sending the small amount of MCD5

as if

ft were regular hazardous waste.

‘

;

~ These generators include facilities such as waste brokers and non-retorting TSDFs to-the extent

that they originated shipments/manifests in the baseline.

Exhibit

4-2.

Unit Cost Changes

for

Generators

Sending MCDs to a Broker or Retorter

in the Post Rule Scenario

New

Universal Waste Costs

Eliminated Subtitle C Costs

Universal Waste Rule Familiarization:

$89

(one time)*

‘

Annual Review of Regulations:

$33

‘

Shipping Recordkeeping

9 per shipment (LQHUWonly)

Manifest Cost

$32 per shipment

Transportation

Costs:

- V

‘

$106

$0.1 2/ton-mile~

Transportation Costs:

‘

$159

$0.1 6/ton~mile**

Rule

familiarization

$26

when annualized over

4 years at a

percent discount-rate.

A 200

mile shipping distance is assumed regardless of destination.

Shipment sizes are rounded up to

next full

ton.

Theoretically, greater savings might result from the rule

if MCDs that had been shipped

from

generators to non-retorting TSDFs

in the baseline were, post-rule, shipped to waste

brokers or retorters.

‘However, in reality, any savings would be minimal.

For example, consider

a ‘generator that in-the

baseline is -sending oñe’drum of MCDs along

with four tons of hazardous

waste to a

non-retorting ‘TSDF twice a-year; there is essentially no baseline manifest cost (the

manifest must be completed regardle~s

of th’e

MCDs) and only a negligible baseline

transportation cost (the truck is needed regardless of the MCDs).

Post-rule, there is an

additional

$1.89

in new costs,24 that must be more than offset by any savings

in disposal costs

(i.e., the generator would have to save more than $189 in disposal costs for such a switch to be

economIcal)

Cost Results’

-‘

This section describes

how the incremental compliance costs of the proposed rule are

calculated, assuming

100 percent compliance with

all applicable requirements.

The incremental

annual

cost savings

attributable to the proposed rule

(i.e., under the Universal Waste system)

are calculated by subtracting the new costs under the Universal Waste requirements from the

eliminated costs under the baseline.

-‘

‘

This $189

isthe

sum of $26 (the annualized cost to become familiar

with the Universal Waste

regulations), $33 (the annual cost to review regulations), and $130

(cost to transport one ton

200 miles).

5.1

Methodology

The analysis estimates savings

as applicable for

entities that will incur

reduced costs as

resultof the

rule.

The methodology does- not assume any shifts in the flow of MCDs (i.e., in

the percentage distribution of MCDs from original

userstoretörters; waste brokers, and non-

retorting TSDFs) as a result of the

rule because such shifts seem unlikely (as discussed in:

Section 4).

‘

Costs to Generators

To calculate the savings to MCD generators (SQHUW and LQHUW under the Universal

Waste

System)22 sending waste to a

broker or retorter,- this

analysis used-the following data

from the BRS analysis as discussed in Sections. 3.1.2 and

3.2: two- arid four-digit SIC codes,

assumed annual

MCD generation rate,

status as an LQG or SQG in the baseline,

and status as

an LQHUW or SQHUW

in the post rule scenario.

This analysis first calculated the number of

shipments in the baseline based on

LQG or SQG status:

For LQGs, the baseline number of

shipments was the greaterof four or the annual waste quantity divided by 20 tons pertruckload.

For SQGs,

the

number of shipments was the smaller of two orthe

numbe,r of waste streams

reported in

BRS.

The post rule number of shipments

was calculated as the greater of one per

year.or the annual waste quantity,divided by 20. tons pertruckload.

This analysis then calculated the average shipment size by dividing the annual

MCD

generation rate by

the number of-shipments

in, the baseline and post~rule

‘scenarios. The

incremental unit

costs from ‘Exhibit 4-2 werethen applied to each facility to calculate the new

and eliminated costs for each facility.

The eliminated

costs were then subtracted from the new

costs

to calculate the savings for each facility.

Costs to Retorters and Brokers

For the most part,

retorter and broke&6 of universal wastes must comply with the same

requirements that apply to recyders of hazardous wastes

However

universal waste retorters

and brokers are not required to comply with the manifest requirements

under full RCRA

Subtitle C,

and instead ‘are required only to- keep basic records- of shipments

received.

As a

result,

MCD

retorters and brokers will realize cost savings under the

Universal Waste

requirements.

In the

baseline, retorter and brokers are assumed to incur a

cost of $36 pershipment for

manifest recordkeeping.

This unit cost’estirnate is

calculated by taking the average across the

unit

costs for manifest recordkeeping‘that apply to SQGs and LQGs.

Under the Universal

Waste requirements, retorters and

brokers are assumed to incura cost of $9 pershipment for

~ Thesegenerators include original generators and brokers and

nt~n-retortirigTSDFs that ship

MCDs

retorting

facilities.

-‘

‘

~ Brokers both send and receive waste.

The costs of sending

wastes are captured-in the costs for

generators as discussed above.

The costs of receiving wasteare described in this subsection.

‘

basic recordkeeping.

This unit cost estimate is calculated by taking the average acrOss the unit

costs for recordkeeping that’ apply to LQHUWs.

Thus the cost saying for recyclers was calculatedby multiplying $36 by the number of

shipments in the baseline (2,497), and subtracting the product of

multiplied by the number of

shipments in the, post rule scenario (1,885)~

‘

-‘

‘

5.2

Cost Results

Exhibit

5-1.

Average

Cost

Savings

per

Facility (by SIC Code)

2-digit-SIC

Number of

Facilities

Average

Savings

Total SavingVs

‘

-‘

‘

$678.73

“13

‘.

-‘

‘$3313,

‘-‘‘

‘~

-‘‘1

‘

$33.73

3~.,7-3

$33.73

$33.7.3

$33.73

-$33.73

‘

$69.31

‘

$4,297~09

-17

$86.20

‘

$1,465.36

“24’-

$~i~

V$9~5~9

26,

‘

‘-~‘

$106.33

$Mà~64

‘

$4,572.21

$73.08

$2,484.72

‘

148

$125.51

$18,575.65

‘

$152.28

$1,370.54

‘

-‘

$97~62

‘

~$4,392.72’

‘

‘V

-‘

‘

$3313

-‘

$7.45

—

‘

‘‘

$62~50

$1,937.54

$90.73

$5,171.45

$54.00

$3,564.00

$87.29

$5,761.00.

$134.89

12,409.92

$118:18

$5,200.02

$120.99

$2,782.73

$74.27

817.00

-40

‘

$108.06

324.18

‘

The total savings associated with the rule is$273,000.

Of this

total,- $200,000 is

estimated to accrue to MCD generators, with an average savings

$106 pergenerator.

The

remaining $73,000 in savings accrues to retorters and waste brokers.’ Exhibit5-1

presents the’:

average savings fora typical facility Within each two-digit-

SIC

ode khown to be affected based

BRS data.

:~:.

:-.

Economic Impact Results

The

analysis estimates flrst.order economic impacts of incremental costs by calculating

an industry average cost-to-sales ratio and cost-to-profit ratio for entities

in two-digit SIC codes

known to be

affected

by the

rule, based on BRS data.

Census

data

for the year,1997 served as

the

source of average sales data for

establishments in each two-digit SIC code.

Profits

data

2-digit-SIC

-:‘

Numberof

Facilities

Average

‘

Savings

‘

TotalSavings

$33.73

‘$294.03

$2,940.34

-43

$182.39

‘

547.18

$33.73

$33~73

‘

$256.73:

—

513.45

:46:

‘-.,

..~.

-3

~..

$3~.73

--,

$101.18

‘V

‘

$368.23

‘

736;45

-48-’

‘

-~:.

- -

$3373

-‘

‘

-‘Vs

74Z00

‘

$261.63’

$21,191.99

~5.

~20

‘

$241.18

‘‘

$4,823.54

8.91

52.

$33.73

$67.45

$702.73

702.73

.55

$3.73

-‘

$:~

63~.

-Y1

‘

$67813

‘

$33~73’

$3373

‘1

“~

$•3~73~

~VVV~

$3373

“

$80.89

$3,073.63

$145~23

.,.$

290.45

‘

‘,$65.58

459.09,

‘

‘$3313

$33.73

$1,452.27

-$1,717.00-

918.18

$1,525.93

$33.73

$2,724.64

101.18

$3,735.00

$1,996.09

$ 69,627.62

$199,765.25

10’

$145.23

‘,

‘

$156.09

‘

‘:

‘‘$65.58

$381.48-

‘

$33.73

$544.93

$33.73

169.77

285~16

unknown

797

$87.36

Total

1877

106.43

were obtained forthose two-digit SIC ‘codes contairung the most affected entities.v

Incrementa!

compliance

costs or savings for representative establishments were

estimated as

described

prevkusly.

‘

The impacts

analysis

based on.costs/sales is likely to overstate economic impacts

(whether costs or savings) because the sales data used in the analysis‘represent average

values for each SIC code

whole, whereas the’ estimated ‘compliance costs arise only for the

entities that are large énou~h

-to-be considered an

SQG

Or- LQG in- the baseline~Such

entities

may have an average sales value that is slightly higher than the average fprThe industry as a

whole

Conversely

the profits analy3is is likely to understate economic impacts because profits

data are estimated based on data for publidy held companies, which tend

be relatively larger

than other companies and to have higher nominal profits

Given thatthe proposed rule will result

in savings, rather than costs, ne’rtherof these liñiitations are significant:

However, the combined

effed is to make impacts appear more significant

when measured as a

percent of sales than as

a percent of profit.

Exhibit

6-1

shows the

impacts- of the cost savings

(as a

percentage of sales) -for the

average affected entity in each

two-digit SIC code.

Cost as a percentage of sales is very small

for

aIF SICs (e.g.,

relative’to the average savings pergenerator of $106 per year).

The highest

impact for a classifiable industry sector is on the “transportation services” sector (SIC

code 47).

Establishments in

SIC code 47 have average annual

sales of $800 280

The incremental

savings represents 005 percent of the average annual

sales

Exhibit

6-2 shows the impacts of the cost savings (as a percentage of profits) fpr the

average

affected entity in the

two-digit SIC àodes

containing the most

affected entities.

Cost as

a percentage of profit is very small for all,,SlCs.

The

highest impact for a Olassiflable industry

sector

is on

the “electric,

gas, and sanitary services” sector (SIC

code

49), which contains

TSDFs and electric and gas utilities

which are known to

use relatively significant quantities of

MCDs.

Establishments in SIC

code 49 have modeled

average annual

profits of $5,247,531.

The incremental savings represents 0005 percent of the average annual sales

n Two-digit SIC codes containing fewerthan five affected facilities were excluded from the profits

analysis.

Profits data were available only at the four-digit- SIC level based on data for selected publicly held

companies.

The analysis modeled

profit at thetwo-digit SIC level based on the associated four-digit SIC

code containing the most affected entities.

Alternative

four-digit SICs were selected as necessary where

the summary data represented~

relatively few publicly held companies.’ Several relevant two-digit SIC codes

were not modeled due to data limitations.

Source:

DIALOG Media General 2001,

accessed August 2001.

Exhibit

6-1:

Estimated

Impact (Cost/Sales)

----‘-l

‘

SIC

‘

Average Sales

Affected

Savings

Industry

Code

(per establishment)

Facilities

Percent of Sales

‘

—10

$15,444,022

0.004

$7,099,539

0.0005

except fUels

$3,067,481

0.001

‘

Contractors

$1,918,732

0.002’

‘

contractors

‘

$3,651,692

‘

0.001

‘

trade

‘

$869,084

0.004

‘

products

$23,452,928

‘

‘62

0.0003

‘22

$13,459,297

0.001

products

‘

$3,164,898

0.004

$5.300~519

0.001

products

‘

$25,534,243

0.000

27..’

$3,512,951

-0.002

products

$31,829,039

148

0.0004

products

$77,749,139

‘

0.0002”

plastics products

‘

30-

$9,900,988

0.001

$5,645,731

0.001”

products

$5,484,777

0.001

$29,069,529

0.0003

industries

$6,304,917’

0.001

and equipment

$7,649,689

0:001

electric’equipment

$20,102,162

0.001

equipment

$42,369,196V

-.44

0.0003

products

38:

$13,732,146

0.001,

manufacturing

$2,988,227

0.002

COMMUNICATIONS,

AND UTILITIES

‘

passenger

$1,000,929

0.003

and

$1,554,880

‘

0.02

‘

$3,886,447

0.001

$13,768,621

0.002

natural gas

$8,642,919

0.0004

$800,280

0.05

$8,007,019

0.0004

sanitary services

$21,082,044

0.001

durable

goods

$7,179,142

0.003

nondurable goods

$10,953,407

0.0004

SIC

Average Sales

Affected

Savings as

Industry

‘

Code

(per establishment)

Facilities

Percent of Sales

RETAIL TRADE

‘

3uilding materials, hardware, garden

;upply, and mobile home dealers

$2,33z525

‘

0.001

3eneral merchandise stores

$9;835,465

0.007

\utomotive dealers and gasoline

~ervice-stations

169 625

‘

0001

‘

FINANCIAL, INSURANCE,

ANDREAL ESTATE

INDUSTRIES

Security and commodity brokers

lealers;

exchanges,

and services

$25 071

924

‘

0 003

‘Real Estate

‘

$799,821

-0.004

SERVICE IF4bUSTRIES

‘

..~VV

Person-al services

‘

$277,326

0.01

VVV~

Business services’

$1,407,270

-.0.006.

~utomotiverepair

services

and

parking-

‘

$566 325

‘

0 03

‘

Misc repair services

$6-I 1,18-8

0.01.

Healtt~rservices-

$1,747,423

0.008

Educationalservices

$2,920,852

0.005

Social services

$616,590

0.005

Engineering

accounting

resea’rch

-management, and

related ser

ices

‘

182

153

‘

0 006

Services,

nOt elsewhere classified

PUBLIC’ ADMINISTRATION

‘

$1,234,760

‘

0.03-

‘

Executive

legislative

and general

jovernment

‘

Lnvironmental

quality and housing

\dministration of economic programs

National security and international

iffairs

‘

Nonclassifiabie

Establishments

$85,596’

‘

0.3

Exhibit 6-2:

Estimated Impact (Cost/Profit)

Industry

‘

SIC

‘

Code

Affected

Entities

“Model” 4

‘

DigitSIC

Average Profit

‘

(pro-tax)

Savings as a

Percent of

Profit

MANUFACTURING

~V,

V’

Foothand kindred products

2086

$537,317,489

0.00001

Furniture and-fixtures’

-25

2511.

$62;090,151

‘-

‘0~0001

Paper and allied products

VV,

2621

!$465,1’25,659

‘-

~‘0.00002’:

Printing and publishing,

‘

~hemicaIs

and allied products

-34

‘

148

~2752

2821

$37’;i-54,933’

‘

$291,631,063,

0:0002

0.00004’

Petroleum and coal products

2911”-’

$3,433,070,006-

‘,

0.000004

Rubberand misc plastics products

3011

$64,959,888

0.0002

Stone, clay,

arid,

glass products

3,1

3241

$488,914,002

‘

0.00001-,’

Primary metal industries

3312

$41,447,275

0.0002

Industrial machineryand equipment

~66

-.3585.-,

$117,416,497

•~V

0.00005

Electronic and electric equipment

.3679

$8,174,795’

0.002-

Erans~ortation-equipment-

‘

.3714

$174,385,355

0.00007

Instruments

an,d related products~

3841

‘

$52,688,738

‘.0.0002

Miscellaneous manufacturing

‘

ndustrses

‘

‘‘3999

‘

$37,205,970

‘

0.0002

‘

RANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,

Motorireight transportation and

‘

~arehousing

‘

“

‘

AND UTILITIES

“V

‘

4213

‘

‘~

‘

$36,927,454

‘

~‘Y

‘

0.0008

Communications

4813

$818,495,404

0.000004

Electric, gas, and sanitary services--

81-

‘

4953

$5,247,531

0.005

NHOLESALE TRADE

‘

‘V

Wholesaletrade-durablegoods

5013

$103,109,313

0.0002

SERVICE INDUSTRIES

‘

Health services

‘

8062

$21-2,55&,327

-:0.00007

Educational services

822.1

$16,638,061

0.0009

Effect

of Market StrutUre

‘

Given the extremely low magnitude of the savings

per

facility that will result

from this rule,

the effects of market,structure -of affected industry sectors are insignificant to the-’ incidence of

the proposed rule’s economic impacts.

‘

RëQulatorv Flexibility

The Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement and Fairness Act,

5 U.S.C.

§~

601-612, generally requiresan agency to conduct a

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements

unless the

agency certifies

thatthe rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises,

and small governmental jurisdictions~This proposed

rule does not have a

significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because today’s proposed rule

relieves

regulatory bun:len for affected entities through reduced regulatory requirements.

addition, the Agency estimates that this proposed rule leads to an overall cost savings of

approximately $270 000

Accordingly

EPA believes that the rule will not have a

significant

economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

Qualitative Benefits

Including post-consumerMCDs

in the

Universal Waste system is

expected

result in

three major potential benefits

(1) increase in regulatory efficiency and improvement in the

implementation of the~hazardous

waste program

(2) establishmentoj consolidation facilities

(3)

increase

in recycling by regulated and non-regulated entities

and

(3) reduction in mercury

emissions

This section discusses these three qualitative benefits

Regulatory

Efficiency and lmorovement in the Implementation of the Hazardous Waste Proaram

Post-consumer MCDs are usually generated in small quantities by large numbers of

generators at many commercial

industnal

and institutional

locations

This factor makes

regulation of these devices difficult for both generators and regulatory agencies

Including

post-

consumer MCDs in the Universal Waste system will allow regulated entities greater flexibiltty in

dealing with

these wastes

(e g

due to increased accumulationtime limits and the potential for

waste

consolidation)

which in turn will allow them to manage these wastes more

efficientlyand

with greater regulatory compliance

Adding post-consumer MCDs to the Universal Waste system will also

provide clearer

more streamhned

requirements for post-consumer MCDs

which may reduce problems

associated with a

lack of ‘understanding of

certain

requirements., Under current RCRA Subtitle C’

‘

regulations

generators

transporters

and TSDFs that handle post-consumer

MCDs must spend

a significant amount of time

money

and other resources following the RCRA hazardous waste

requirements

If MCDs were incjuded in the Universal

Waste system

this

administrative and

logistical

burden would be reduced

as discussed above in Section 42

Finally

regulating post-consumer MCDs as universal wastes could potentially reduce

identification problems associated with having some mercury~contamningwastes, such as lamps

—

and thermostats, included in the Universal Waste systemwhile

others are not

Undercurrent

RCRA requirements, generators and

other waste handlers may have problems

identifying which

‘

mercury-containing ‘wastes

can

be managed according to

the

Universal Waste requirements,

which may lead to improper disposal (e~g.,

ina MSW landfill).

lnduding otherMCDs in’the

‘

Universal

Waste system could help to reduce this confusion..

‘

‘‘

‘

‘Establishment of Consolidation Facilities

Research

on the regulated community for post-consumer MCDs did not yield information

the potential number of entities that serve, as consolidation facilities for these devices (other

than brokers,

or non-retorting TSDFs).

EPA’s prior

analyses of mercury-containing lamps

indicates that recyclers generally have lamps shipped directly to their facilities and do not offer

‘

substantial discounts on

larger volumes of lamps (ICF

I 999b)

If this

IS also the case for

MCDs, one would not expect to find a substantial number o. consolidation facilities under either

‘V

the current RCRA baseline or the Universal Waste

requirements

However, a

petition filed by-USWAG requesting that MCDs be added to the Universal

Waste System suggested the rule would reduce the burden associated with managing small

quantities of waste generated at remote and sometimes unstaffed locations such as electric

sub8tatibns ‘and along gas’ distribution

lines.

Essentially, by including MCDs as a Universal:

Waste, utilities could collect wastes‘from remote ‘locations and bring them back to their main

faciIiti~s~,hich

would functionas consolidation facilities.

These consolidationfacilitieswould be

considered Handlers of Universal Waste rather than TSDFs.

As a result~

full RCRA permittiflg-

as a TSDF would not be

required for the facility.

:---~

‘

addition, this same ability to consolidate waste without becoming:

a permitted TSDF

mayapply

to two other types of facilities.

First, some manufacturers of MCDs ormanufacturers

of products that contain MCDs (e.g.-,’gas ranges) may.serve

as consolidation facilities to receive

discarded MCDs from

their customers

and

from

other generatorsY~Second; some generators

such as hospitals- may establish product

swaps, (e.g.,

trade-ins of mercury thermometers

for

digital thermometers) to promote responsible handling of discarded

MCDS..

Due to uncertainty

concerning the

number of potential consolidation facilities that may be estabhshed, this analysis

does not model costs or cost savings associated with these facilities.

Increase

in Recycling by Reciulated and Non-Regulated Entities

One of the pnmary goals of RCRA

is to conserve valuable matenal and energy

resources.

Shifting post-con$urner MCDs from the RCRA hazardous waste- system to the

Universal Waste system should increase resource conservation- by encouraging recovery of-

mercury from discarded MCDs.

‘

Including

post-consumer MCDs

in the Universal Waste system will permit regulated

entities (including .those that are not in full compliance with hazardous waste

requirements) to-

accumulate the devices they generate

(or- send the

devices to consolidation ‘faCilities) for future

shipment to

an off-site recycling facility

Allowing facilities to accumulate larger quantities of

MCDs

could make recycling a more-cost-effective option due to economies of scale.

increase

in the demand for recycling of post-consumer MCDs might then encourage the’

recycling

industry

to develop and expand its

operations, which in turn could make recycling a

more attractive option for the regulated and non-regulated communities.

Thus, both non-

compliant generators and some non-regulated entities mayshift their disposal of post-consumer

MCDs from

landfills or incinerators, to

recyclers.

addition, manufactures of MCDs may be

‘further encouraged to establish reverse distribution

networks for discarded devices to assist

both regulated and non-regulated generators in recycling discarded MCDs:

Reduction in Mercurv Emissions

More recycling of MCDs should occur as a result of induding MCDs in the Universal

Waste system.

Recycling decreases the amount of mercury emissions that result from

landfill

and incineration disposal because

it diverts waste from

disposal.

Mercury in recycled MCDs is

separated, distilled, and recovered,

rather than released to the air via incineration or

landfllling.

According to

1997 data from the U.S. Bureau

of the Census, there are approximately 16,000

establishments that manufacture MCDs or products containing MCDs.

‘

The disposal of post-consumer MCDs in landfills and incinerators

often

results

mercury

emissions to air, water, and Other media.

Mercury emissions are a serious problem

because ‘ofthe volatility

of this metal: one gram of mercury (the amount usually found

in a

household thermometer)

can foul up to 5 million gallons of water.~Due to the volatility

mercury and the fragility of many MCDs,.mercury vapor is readily released

into the:environment

when waste.containing MCDs is managed improperly.~Mercury emissions are particularly

detrimental because they pollute both air and water:

Mostmercury pollution to water is the result

of mercury deposition from

air

into watersheds.31

‘

Discussion of Findings

The primary conclusion drawn from the analysis is that the total cost savings of the rule

and the average savings per affected

entity are very small.

Total savings, which are estimated’

be $273,000 per year, appear particularly small when compared to the $70-million annual

savings

estimated forthe original Universal Waste rulemaking, which covered’ nickel. cadmium

and other batteries,

certain

hazardous waste

pesticides,

and mercury-contaihing thermostats.

Both the RCRA Subtitle C baseline and the Universal Waste requirements modeled

this analysis assume that almost 1,900 entities will -be affected if post-consumer MCDs are•

included

in the

Universal Waste system.

iAJmost 75

percent of

the $273,000 annual

savings

from this

action

will

accrue to existing generators of these devices, with the’ remaining savings

going to

MCD

retorters or brokers.

Relative to the Subtitle C baseline, the economic

impacts on

the entities in the regulated community ‘are expected to be negligible because the rule provides

savings for all affected entities.

‘

Assumptions,

Limitations,

and Sensitivity Analyses

‘The accuracy.of the analysis depends -on a wide variety of data and assumptions.

The

following is a list Of key assumptions, limitations, and other factors

affecting

the accuracy of the

analysis.

Some assumptions tend to increase or decrease the savings of the alternatives,

noted

below..

Except where noted,

assumptions are best estimates and are not believed‘to

introduce systematic bias into the results.

‘

When analyzing the BRS data, this analysis assumes 25 percent of potential

MCD waste is actually MCD waste (See Section 3.1.2).

This estimate is based

on information from

a single retorter and may not be true across all

retortersthat

accept MCD waste.

-In fact, some retorters may specialize

in sometype of

devices

(like flouréscent light recyclers) and handle relatively little MCD waste.

As a sensitivity analysis, the savings of the

rule were also calculated assuming

12.5 percent and 50

percent figures.

both cases, the savings

of the

rule are

essentially unchanged

at $273,000.

‘

~AmberBollman, Boston Globe,

Nov.

3°http://~.dep.state.fl.us/dwm/programs/mercury/Iamps/htm

http://www.state.ma.us/dep/f’iles/mercuiy/hgch3b.htm#background

‘

Most of the incremental costs in this analysis are fixed perfacility, rather than

variable pershipment

As a result, the number

of regulated

facilities generating

MCDs is a moresignificant variable

in calculating savings associated

with this

rule than are the quantities of MCDs perfacility.-’Because the number of facilities

was derived from

BRS data, it is believed to be the best estimate available and

‘should be accurate given the assumptions of full compliance with Subtitle C

regulations.

‘

‘V.

‘

,‘

•

-To some extent, ‘this analysis may. undercount the number of regulated

generators of MCDs, because the BRS data used do

not capture

all generators

that send MCDs to a

non-retorting TSDF.

Specifically, of the 1,877 generators

identified

in this analysi~

.approximately 36 appear to

be non-retorting-TSDFs

•

(based on

a four-digit SIC code of either ‘4953 or 8999.)

These 36 facilities

‘generated an estimated94 tons of MCDs in 19~7;All of the original generators of

these MCDS are not captured in the’.analysis, resulting

in a

potential to have

underestimated the number of generators.

However, because ‘these original

generators are not assumed to shift management to sending waste directly to

retorter or broker (see Section 4.2),

these

generators would not incur any

costs

or savings as a

result of this rule.

Hence, this analysis may undercount the

number of regulated generators, but it does.not

undercount. the number of’

affected

regulated generators.

:..

,.:

~,‘

‘

•

‘Finally, the: estimate of generators and quantities of MCDs may -be- slightly

overstated

‘if CESQGs send.MCDs to

retorters and

are captured by.BRS.

minimize this effect, obvious CESQGs (e~g.,facilities with

identification numbers

like PACESGQ) were removedfrom the data set --Thus, it is unlikely that the

effect of any CESQGs being captured in the analysis is significant.

•

As described in Section 3.t2, MCDs are.assumed

to cornprise’flve percent of a

•

facility’s total wastestream.

This assumption is used to calculate whether a

facility

is an

LQG or SQG.

reality, the amount of MCDs maynot be

‘

systematically related to total waste generation rates.

The facility classification of

LQG or SQG is subsequently used to calculate the number of baseline

shipments.

If the number of LQGs is overestimated,

the overall savings of the

rule

would be slightly overstated.

‘

•

As described in Section 3.1.2, SIC codes could

identified for slightly more than

half the facilities.

Thus, the economic impact analysis does not address all

affected entities.

•

The impacts analysis based on costs/sales is likely to overstate economic

impacts (whether costs or savings) because the sales data used in the analysis

represent average values for each SIC code as a whole,

whereas the estimated

compliance costs arise only for the entities that are large enough to’be

considered an SQG or LQG in the baseline.

Such entities may

have an

average

sales value that is slightly higher than the average forthe industry as a whole.

Conversely, the profits analysis is likely to understate economic impacts because

profits data are‘estimated based on data for publicly held companies, which tend

to be relatively larger than other companies and

to have

higher

nominal profits.

Given that the proposed rule-will result in savings,

ratherthan costs, neither

these limitations are significant

However, the combined effect

is to.maké

:,,impactsV.appear.more significant when-measured as apercent

sales-than as a

percent

profit

‘V

‘

“:..

•

This analysis assumes average device weights and

lifetime, forvarying classes of

.MCDs to ôalculate the number of devices needed to

be an SQG or LQG

(as

discussedVin AppendixA).

Theseassumptions are not’Iikelyto impact the finding

that MCD-only generators are likely to

be CESQGs.

•

The assumed distance fortransportation

200 miles regardless

of type of

generator Or’ recycler (non-retorting TSDF,

broker, or retorter).

In reality, the

distance to one--type of recycier -may’ be’ significantly higherfor a particular

generator.

Because no shift in management has been’modeled, the distance to

recyclers

will ‘be the same in the baseline-and post rule scenario, and this

assumptiori is not a significant factor in the analysis.

•

All MCDs.shipped underthe Universal ‘Waste requirements are assumed to

qualify, as nOn-hazardous materials:-. This assurnptithn.was made based on the-

fact.that

most MCDs contain relatively small (i.e., lessthan 10-grams) -amounts of

mercury (see Exhibit

2-1).

The analysis

assumes

that discarded

MCDs will be

packaged- in manner: that

precludes.them from

being‘defined as-h:azardous

substances under DOT regulations:

For shipments of post-consumer MCDs that

-are’ subject to the DOT hazardous. materials requirements, the transportation

cost savings calculated in the analysis would,decrease.

•

This analysis assumes full Subtitle C compliance

in the baseline.

This

assumption understates the potential savings of the rule.

Appendix

A: MCD-Only Generators

Preliminary’ research conducted for this

analysis yielded.insufficient data to identify,

characterize, and quantify users (generators). Of MCDs. ‘Consequently, in order

‘to

assess the

likelihood that MCD-only generatorswould be affected ‘by the rule, the analyeis estimated the

number of MCDs a generator would haveto dispose of to

be classified as a SQG or LOG.

Through Internet research and limited contacts with vendors and manufacturers

this

analysis obtained

data on

‘typical” weights of several different kinds of MCDs

When unable to

obtain, weights for certain types of.MCDs,.this. analysis calculated MCD’ weights using a ratio of

mercury content to device weightfor similar devices

This analysis then divided the SQG and

LQG thresholds

(100

kg/month and

1,000

kg/month) by the device’weights to calculate the

number of devices that an MCD-only generator would need todispose of in order.to be a SQG or

LOG.

Exhibit A-i

presents the number-of devices an MCD-only generator would need to

dispose of in one month to

an SQG or LQG

For example

be an SQG

a facility would

need to dispose of over 12,000 veterinary thermometers during one

month.

Further, basedon

the estimated lifetime of each MCD

Exhibit A-2

presents the number of devices that would need

in use

a facility if ‘all ‘discarded

MCDs were disposed of on

an annual

basis, or in equal

amounts

on a quarterly or monthly-basis to be an

SQG or LOG.

,,,-

‘

As can be seen in Exhibit A-2s

MCD-only generators would have to use and discard very

large numbers of MCDs to

be classified as SQGs or LQGs

As a

result

this analysis

assumes

that all

MCD-only generators are

CESQGs.~Because CESQGs are exempt -from the both

Subtitle C baseline requirements and

Universal Waste system requirements

these generators

woUld not be affected by the inclusion of MCDs in the Universal Waste system and are thus

excluded from

this analysis.

‘

Exhibit A-I.

MCDs Required to be Disposed of to be Small or

Large Quantity Generator

‘

‘Weight of

Reported Mercury Content

‘

device..

(grams per device)

‘‘

(grams)

Number of Devices Needed to be

Disposed

one month to

be classified

‘

as’

‘

SQG

LOG

3.3

0.83

(fever-high)

‘

1.01

(basaI’temper~ture)

‘

4.98

16.61

‘

~-~‘~±~-8.3

(industrial

low)

‘

9.24

(industrial

high)

32.86

5.81

30,303

303,030

120,482

1,204,819

‘

99~O10

990,099

,‘

2~7,380-

20,080

200,803

6,020

60,205

.12,048

120,482

10,823

•

108,225

3,043

30,432

17,212-

172,117

A representative from

Bethlehem Apparatus confirmed th,at there

are no MCD-only generators.

‘-

-34

‘

Weight of

Reported Mercury Content

‘device

(grams perdevice)

‘-

(grams)-’

Number of Devices

Needed to be

Disposed in one month to

be classified

as’

‘‘‘~-

‘

SOG

LOG

light

switch)

‘

‘5.2

-‘3,600(industrialswitch)

‘‘

7200

switch) 3

(automotive light switch) 4

freezer

light

switch),

‘

machine light switch)

3(anti-Iock’brakeswitch)

control

system switch)

(mercury reed relay)

‘

(displ~cernent

relay)

‘

‘320

sensor)

‘“

19,231

‘

“

192,308

•

‘

139

704

7 042

100 000

1 000 000

25,000

V~,

250,000

?5,000

25O~000

16,66-7.--

166,667

25,000

•

‘V

250,000

16,667

‘

166,667

‘

31-3

3,125

‘

20,00.Q

‘S

‘

~OO,odo’

(sphygmomanometer)

450

-2 3/4” face) 6

~-“~

6” face)

manometer) 7

(large manometer) 8

V~566~0

222

2 222

629

289

‘

.649

110..

1,103

---.,

‘

suppressor)

‘,

‘

340

-‘

‘

‘.‘

2000-

‘

..‘

-294

‘2,941

‘

-50

‘

5O0

Shaded Cells indicated known

device weight

‘

Other Device Weights

were calculated based on

known weights of similar devices and a

ratio

of mercury content.

The weights of thethermometer types listed were calculated using a ratio of amount. of mercury to weight

of device.

The

ratio was derived by obtaining the weight of

a veterinary thermometer from the Colorado

.Serum Company (coJorado~serum@colorado-serum.com),

which is 8.3

This was then

used to

calculate the other thermometers.

‘

MCDsdenoted by low and high indicate that a range of mercury

coritentwas

estimated.

The weight of a p!astic’float switch was estimated to be 5 oz by Dave Bomhorst-atGateway Supply Co.

The weight of an automotive light switch was derived by averaging estimates from two documents, one a

letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s Division of Solid and

Hazardous

Materials,Region 9,’regarding the

development of an automotive switch collection program,

and the other a spreadsheet originating from the Clean

Car Campaign’s initiative

remove

mercury

switches from automotives, titled A Method for Estimating Mercury in Recalled Ford.Vehicles.

The ratio of

estimated mercury content (—0

g) to the estimated device weight (‘-1 g) was used to calculate the

remaining

switches, except for

float switches.

‘

The weight of.a sphygmomanometer was estimated at

lb by Richard

Najarian at Bruce -Medical Supply

(bru’cemedi@aol.com).

The weights

of brass barometers with

2 3/4” and

faces were estimated to be 0.35 lbs and 3.4

Ibs,

respectively,

by Calvin Smith at Red Sky At Night (info@redskyatnight.com).

‘-

A typical manometer containing

12 oz of’mercury is estimated to weigh 2 lbs

by Erica Thurner at Dwyer

•

Instruments,

Inc. (Tech~dwyer-inst.com).

The weight of a large manometer was estimated to be

between 1,000 and

1,500 pounds (—1,250

Ibs)

based on the model

1025LX manometer manufactured by Schwien Engineering,

Inc.

(See

www.schwien.com/specs.htm)

Exhibit A-2.

MCDs Required to be in Use to be Small or Large

Quantity Generator

‘

Estimated or

Assumed

Number of devicé~needed to be

‘in

use

per faciliiy,

when disposed of

~umber of devices needed

to belA

use per facility, when disposed of

Numb&

devices needed to

be in

use

per facility, when disposed, of on

Reported Mercury content

(grams per device)

Device

L~fettme

SOC

LQG

SOC

LOG

SOC

LQG

.10w)

(tever.high)

(basal temperature)

iow)

-high)

‘

(industrial

.10w)

(industrial

high)

(“typical”)

151,515

1,515,152

606,061

6060,606

1,618.182

18,181,818

602,410

6,024,096

2,409,639

24,096,386

7,228,916

72,289,157

‘

495,050

4-950,495

1,980,198

19,801,980

5,940,594

59,405,941

1 33,690

1,336,898

534,759

5,347,594

1,604,278

1 6,042.781

100,402’

1,004,016

401.606

4,016,064

1,204,819

12,048,193

30,102

301,023

120,409

1,204,094’

361.228

3,612,282-

24,096

240,964

96,386

963,855

289,157

2,891,566

54,113

541,126

216,450

2.1,64,502

649,351

6,493,506

15,216

152,161

60,864

608,643

182,593

1,825,928

‘

86,059

860,585

344,234

3,442,341

1,032,702

10,327,022

(silentlightswitch)

3,600 (industrial switch)

‘

switch)

(automotive light switch)

freezer light switch)

machine light switch)

brake switch)

(ride

controt

system

switch\

(mercury reed relay)

(displacement relay)

sensor)

961,538

9,615,385

3,846,154

38,461,538

11,538,462

115,384,615

‘

278

2,778

‘

1,111

11,111

3,333

‘

33,333

14,085

140,845

56,338

563,380

169,014

1,690,141

2,000,000

20,000,000

8,000,000

80,000,000

24,000,000

240000,000

500.000

‘5.000.000

000.000

20.000,000

6.000.000

60.000000

500,000

5,000,000

2,000,000

20,000,000

6,000,000

‘60,000,000

‘

333,333

3,333,333

1,333,333

13,333,333

4,00Q~000

-40,000,000

500,000

5.000.000

2.000,000

20.000.000

6 000.000

60.000.000

333,333

3,333,333

1,333,333

13,333,333

4,000,000

40,000,000

6,250

62,500

25,000

250,000

75,000

‘

750,000

400000

‘

4.000.000

1.600.000

16.000:000

4.800.900

48.000.000’

(sphygmomanometer)

889

8,889

3,556

35,556

10.667

106,667

(barometer.23/4” face)

2.516

25,157

‘

10,063

100,629

30,189

301,887

(barometer.

6”

face)

259

2,594

1,038

10,376

3,113

‘

31,128-

(typIcal manometer)

‘

441

4.410

1,764

17.641

5,292

52,922

(large manometer)

‘

170(recoilsuppressor)

1,176

11.765

4,706

47,059

14,118

141,176

(dilator)

200

2.000

800

8,000

2.400

24,000

~DRAFT

—

September 5, 2001

,,,‘,,

;

‘,,

,‘‘

‘V

‘

APPendix

‘B:

‘Phone

L~s

H..’

:,~,

‘-.:

:.~...‘.“

“V.

‘,

,“,‘,

Bethlehem Apparatus~Inc..

890 Front St,

P.O.

Box Y

Hellertown, PA 18055

‘Date: August

16,

2001

Contact: John Boyle

Contact made by

Yvonne

Stone-

Bethlehem Apparatus

Bethlehem Apparatus is

the largest commercial mercury recycling facility in North

America.

It accepts all types of mercury waste from free-flowing liquid mercury to mercury

containing devices to mercury contaminated soil.

Bethlehem is a

global supplier

prime virgin

and high.

purity merôury.

‘

‘‘

Procedures

•

Profiling: All mercury is profiled

before

it is accepted. (Website)

•

Waste Separation: MCDs do

not typically arrive with universal waste,

but this

is due to

shipping requirements, not company policies. A client with a broken mahometer, which

spilled and contaminated other materials ‘maysend -a drum with the broken manometer,

the directly contaminated’material, the material

contaminated

in the process of cleaning

“up the

spill,

and a set of unbroken manometers the’ companydecided to

retire or replace.

Bethlehem’s

price quotes are

for generic mixed material.

-Clients

‘

Composition:

Bethlehem’s clients run

the gamut in

terms of size and industry. Significant

MCD client industries

include brokers and

utilities. Although Boyle guessed that more

than half of MCDs arrive from brokers,

he wrote off all further attempts to characterize.

‘

the industry.

‘There

is so little that is typical...there is no standard

mercurygenerator.”

appears that the reason it is so hard to characterize merOury generators is that the

measuring-devices and industrial equipment that make use of MCDs have such a wide

range of applications in a wide range of fields. Thermometers and barometers may be

used in households, research

laboratories, health care facilities, or industry-each

category of which has a different characteristic size, use pattern, and applicable-

‘

regulatory code.

Similauly,

mercury tilt switches are the technology behind “silent

‘

switches”used in households as well as

in heavy machinery which could be found in

some capacity- in -almost any industry category or description. Any companywith a boiler

possesses

a mercury containing device.

Volume:

If little can be said aboUt a “typical” MCD

generator,

it appears that something

can be

said about the amount of MCDs handled and

its volume relative to a

generator’s

otherwaste. Boyle

confirmed that no company becomes and SQG or LOG from mercury

containing

devices alone; mercury and/or MCD generation is typically a

byproduct of a

set of operations that generate some other waste, which

gives a company

SQG or LOG

generator status in the first place. Boyle estimates that MCDs probably account for

around 1

to 5

of generator waste.

•

Motivation for Disposal:

Firms dispose of MCDs when they need to be ~eplaced,

not

when new

products

become ‘available. This means that there is no constant stream of

MCD

generation. Although ‘there.may be estimates of MCD

lifespan, BOyle speculates

that life depends on usage,

and therefore

varies significantly from case to case. -Some

companies collect and replace

mercury products that they manufacture,

resulting

in a

shipment of MCDs. This represents a rather small proportion of MCD

shipments, but it

has

picked up lately as awareness of the hazards of mercury grows.

•

Use of a Broker Whether a firm goes

through a broker

depends on whether it already

uses one for its other waste. If it does,,it islikely-to ask that broker to deal with its

mercury waste also. .lf the firm is not’otherwise involved with a broker,

it tends to be

cheaperto ship the mercury waste to the retorter direct

Shipments

•

Content:,Bethlehem

sees a wide variety of MCDs. Devices

normally arrive

post-consumer.

‘

‘,

•

Packaging: MCDs amve in differentcontainers depending the type of device and

regulations applicable.to the generator. Bethlehem sells reusable 76

and 2,250

lb. steel

flasks, presumably for liquid mercury. Bethlehem offers a

prepaid shipping container and

retorting program, notonly for lamps,

but for thermometers, for use by CESQGs and

households who need not

ship MCDs under manifest A thermometer

shipping container

holds up to

450

household

thermometers.

Prices

‘

•

Disclosure: Price

lists are given freely.

•

Prices:

Prices depend on -the type of material and

packaging. There is no standardization

of prices and

the range is large. A 55-gallon drum of mixed MCDs would be accepted for

between $1,000 and

$1,700, dollars. Some devices, such as water meters, require less

labor to

retort; these receive

price. discounts to

as low as $400-$500 per 55-gallon

drum.

Universal Waste Rule

‘

In Boyle’s opinion, a universal ‘waste rule for MCDs would be wonderful. It would help a

lot of people.

Companies are currently hurtwhen they havejust a very small quantity of MCDs

and

must ship

this waste separately

under manifest Boyle descnbed pick up services arriving at

companies with

a tractor trailer and then picking

up a 2 Quart container, which the driver would

drop off to the retorter from

his cab. Boyle points out that thermostats can contain larger bulbs

than thermometers, creating what generators see as an

“illogical

exclusion” of the latter from

universal waste status.

Chemical Waste Management

Model City,

(716)754-8231

Date: August

17,

2001

Contact:~

Jill Knickerbocker

Contact made by: Yvonne Stone

Chemical Waste Management (CWM)’

Chemical Wastes Management is a TSDF that accepts MCD waste, which it ships on to

mercury retorter. Mercury transhipment makes up a very small proportion of its

business. CWM

currently receives just a couple of containers of MCDs a

month. Knickerbocker speculates that if

MCDs were no longer sentto herbusiness, any effect would be

negligible.

Procedures

Mercury containing

devices may arrive

mixed together,

but may not be

mixed with universal

waste because of differing regulatory requirements for shipping.

Mercury containing devices

often arrive

in a “lab pack” which

contains all

waste associated with

broken MCD (the broken

device, materials contaminated by the device, materials used to clean up the

spill). The lab pack

is placed

in a

55-gallon drum, which arrives at Chemical

Waste

Management and is shipped on’

to the

retorter. Knickerbocker remarks that the retorter does not care if the waste

,is separated.

‘

Clients

Mercury generally comes to Chemical Waste Management from

labs,

hospitals, or drug stores.

Knickerbockerguesses that a number of hospitals would be LQGs,

but that LOG status would

not-be

dUe to MCD generation. On a very rare occasion, CWM would handle

mercury switches

from a

broken machine sent by industry. CWM does not receive MCDs from

demolition

sites.

Pricing

The gate price fora

55-gallon

drum of MCDs at Chemical Waste Management is $925.

Knickerbocker did not have specific information about whetheror’at what price CWM would

charge for MCDs by the pound but guessed that this

could be

an‘option for customers who

had

small amount of MCD waste. She ‘said that it was likely that dients with national accounts with

Chem Waste would receive

discounts of

some sort,

but that MCDs were such a

rare item that

she didn’t know of specific examples.

Similarly, Knickerbocker guessed that few discounts were

given out for volume, not because it would

not make economic

sense, butbecause clients rarely

have more than one or two drums to begin with.

Universal Waste Rule

‘

Knickerbockeradmits that she sees such small quantities

Of mercury coming to her company’s

facility that she assumes there

is not much mercury in use out there. She suspects that a

universal waste rule would help those involved,

but that considering what she estimates to be

the size of the industry,

that number would

low.

‘

•

‘~~•Ii

•

•I

.‘:~‘“y

••,.•

,~,

‘b

Mercury Waste

Solutions

302 North Riverfront Drive

Mankato, Minnesota 56001-3548

(800)741-3343

Date: August

2001

Contact: Scott Taylor

Contact made by: Yvonne Stone

Mercury Waste Solutions

Mercury Waste Solutions

is one of only about six mercury retorters in the United States.

Although MWS purifies some mercury on-site forresale to small firms or producers of dental

amalgam, the majority of retorted

mercury is shipped as scrap grade to D.F. Goldsmith, who

purifies the mercury for resale. Taylor explains that MWS has not focused

its

efforts on sales,

and so has

a smaller

network

of buyers than D.F. Goldsmith, who is able to find demand to keep

up with supply. Taylor guesses that MCDs make up

at least 25

of the waste MWS receives.

Procedures

•

Profiling: All waste is profiled before

it is accepted. Waste~that

arrives that does not

•

match specifications will

still

be accepted in most cases, but the customer will be

charged

—30

off-specification surcharge.

•

Waste Separation: MWS separates waste according to regulatory status.

If the client has

only small amounts of

two different types of MCDs, MWS will usually allow that client to

,ship them

in the same 55-gallon drum.

Similarly, if a small number of batteries, for

•

example, were included in a shipment of MCDs, these would also be accepted without

penalty. However, if a large amount of MCD and non-MCD objects arrive together in the

same

drum, the

customer will be

reqUired to pay a surcharge to cover the co~ts

of hand

separation.

Clients

•

Location:

Clients come from throughout the lower 48 states, although

MWS’ business is

• strongest in the Midwest and Northeast, where the company has retorting facilities. Few

clients come from

the West Coast. Taylor explains that one reason whydistantclients

may choose MWS over a doser retorter is that not

all

retorting facilities are approved,

narrowing

retorter choices. A second reason is that the clients of some brokers request

that MWS be used. Some large companies have corporate accounts with

MWS, giving

them access

to more competitive pricing.

Composition: Although MWS sees a wide variety of clients,

the majority are waste

brokering firms as opposed to

individual generators. The generators who use their

services tend to

large manufacturers in industries such as lighting (Sylvania, for

example), auto makers, and manufacturers of heavy machinery that make use of

mercury switches.

Shipments

•

Content The size and type of devices sent varies.

•

Packaging: Shipments arrive

in 55-gallon

drums. Drums are generally full since MWS

prices per drum.

‘

•

Frequency: The number of shipments clients make vary considerably. MWS sees

everything from

SQGs and CESQGs clients,

who maymake only one shipment peryear

or one shipment ever,

large firms that may deliver 50-60 55-gallon drums per year.

Prices

‘

•

Disclosure:

Prices were quoted-freely.

‘

•

Prices: The pricefor accepting

55-gallon drum of MCDs varies from

$1300

for a single

small shipmentto $900 perdrum for large corporate clients shipping 50-60 drums a

year. The prices for mid-sized shipment falls between these figures, varying.inversely

with volume. There are about

10 or 12

priceschedules forMCDs. One 55-gallon drum

filled

with MCDs weighs about 400 to,800 -lbs. Sometimes drums run into DOT weight

limits, and thus amve only partially full.

In general, however, drums arrive full since

shipments are generally priced

per container rather than by weight MWS sometimes

accommodate customers who would like their shipments priced per pound. The price

perpound ranges from

around $2.75 to $2 per pound, with a $250 dollarminimum per

drum.

‘

Universal Waste Rule Commentary

•

Prepaid return program for MCDs:

Taylor

believes that a

prepaid return

program

for.

MCDs,

similar to MWS’ .Lamptracker program for florescent lights, would be both

beneficial

and feasible, given a

universal waste rule for mercury

containing devices.

does not foresee different MCD

sizes as a barrier to such a program.

Firms would be

given 5-gallon

(potentially 3-gallon) pails

in which to

collect

and then ship MCDs.

•

Effect on Recycling

: Taylor believes that lowering

transportation-costs through a

universal waste rule could increase the

level of mercury recycling. He notes that for

many small companies, transportalon costs are currently prohibitive. A firm with only

5-10

lbs of mercury would have to pay about $300-$500just fortrucking.

•

Effect

on MWS: MWS currently operates at about 80 percent of capacity. An increase

the number of MCDs retorted would make

noticeable difference in MWS operations.

MWS stores mercury waste by regulatory level, and so would haveto make

accommodations if the amount of universal waste

coming in was much largerthan

usual. MWS does have options to address short-term

influxes of products. On occasion,

when the inflow of mercury at one plant.exceeds capacity, the excess

mercury is

transported to its other retorting

facility.

When inflow exceeds capacity

both plants, as

happens during the seasonal

variation of November and

December (large rrianufacturers

clear out their inventories forthe start of the next year),. the excess mercury products are

stored for later processing when

business slows (usually January).

MTIIAERC

West Melbourne, FL

(800) 808.4684

‘

Date: August 7,

2001

Contact: Tracy DePaola

Date: August 9, 2001

Contact: Bob Blanchfleld

Contact made by: Yvonne Stone

MTI/AERC

MTI/AERC is a

mercury retorter and a member of the Association of Lighting and

Mercury Recyclers

(ALMR). MTI/AERC processes and then retorts the mercury it receives.

For

example, lamps are crushed and then the lamp powder processed Blanchfleld.

MTI/AERC

accepts all

types of MCDs.

‘

Procedures

•

Waste Separation: MCDs must arrive sorted by material

composition. For example, two

different devices both comprised of liquid mercury and glass could come shipped

together, but neither device could arrive

in the same package with batteries or a

florescent light DePaolaj.

Clients

•

Composition:

MTI/AERC sees a variety of contractors from

small labs to demolition

contractOrs and

industrial

sites. A large contract forthe firm involves Becton-Dickenson,

•

a thermometer manufacturer,

who is pulling one quarter million of its thermometers out

of circulation Blanchfield.

•

Noncompliance: Blanchfleld believes that one of the large sources of noncompliance is

property management Although transportation costs are high,

Blanchfleld believes that

noncompliance

by property managers

is driven by a desire not to enter the entire

retorting process. They would rather “stick their heads in the sand.” Blanchfleld

speculates that a

scenario in which property managers would be brought into

•

compliance would

be partnership with

large

firm whose business was already

inextricably

linked with

regulation,

such

as a large pharmaceutical

company. In this case,

the partnering company would demand that its

products be disposed of correctly for

liability reasons.

Shipping

Composition:

Drums of MCDs often arrive with drums of other mercury waste. This is

because there are almost never enough drums of MCDs to

flU an entire truck when

comes time to transport mercury within the company. Trucks

usually arrive

full

Blanchfield.

Prices

•

Prices: MTI/AERC does not generally give out price lists.

Prices are not published to

shieldthat information from

competitors. Tothis

end, prices are not given out to public

studies

DePaola.

Universal Waste Rule

‘

MTI/AERC was very involved with the creation of the

universal waste rule for florescent

lights, working with the EPA on the issue since 1993. MTI/AERC is interested in seeing a-

universal waste rule come out for MCDs Blanchfleld.

A universal waste rule would make

mercury recycling

more cost effective by lowering transportation costs DePaolaj.

National Environmental Services (NES)

Minneapolis, MN

(952) 830-1348”

‘

Dates: August

-7 and

28,

2001

Contact: Dale Borton

Contact made by: Yvonne Stone

National

Environmental Services (NES)

National Environmental

Services isa

mercury broker with locations in Tampa,

FLand

Minneapolis~

MN.

It does’ not retort mercury. NES accepts all types of MCDs, which it ships

immediately to

one of.two retorters depending

on where the MCD waste originated. Waste that

arrives from

within

Minnesota is sent to Superior at Fort Washington. Waste that arrives from

out of state is sent to Lighting Resources’ retorting facility

in Phoenix,AZ. NES does not deal in

mercury waste laced with-any other type of contaminant MCDs make up less than 10 percent of

the mercury waste that NES receives.

ProcedUres

Profiling:

NES requires that all

waste be- profiled

before

it is brokered (and typically before

price of service information is given out). Virtually all

waste is shipped under manifest.

•

Waste Separation:

Devices

must be separated by type to

be accepted.

It would be

possible, however, to ship two different types of MCD

in one 55-gallon

drum

as long as

the devices were in separated by containers inside that drum.

Devices

‘

•

Size: The devices that NES ‘receives most frequently are switches

and barometers.

While switches

are’ quite small,-a standard barometer measures

three to fourfeet

length

and measures

about -15

lbs~Barometers are the

largest MCDs that NES generally

receives.

‘

•

Pre-processing: Many devices

have broken down before they are sentto NES. In a

typical

scenario, -a customer might•have a jar of mercury or have a

consolidated mercury

from

a collection of units, breaking off a glass partof a device from

mercury

bead.

Barometerstypically cannot

be broken down because they have a

large, long bead of

liquid mercury.

‘

V.’

‘

Clients

•

Location: Clients come from throughout the lower 48 states.

•

Composition:

Most client companies have 250 or more

employees.

•

Noncompliance: While the typical MCD shipment that

NES receives is a batch of

switches, these switches very rarely come from

demolition projects, leading Borton to

believe that most demolition

projects do not recycle. Similarly, ‘NES sees veryfew small

companies (250

employees), which Borton believes reflects a status qUo of

non-compliance among these companies.

‘

•

Shipping

‘

•

Size: Most MCD shipments consist of a

couple of 55-gallon drums. A four drum

shipment would be considered large and reach the threshold for receiving a discount

•

Packaging: Most devices,

whether large or small, are packaged in 55-gallon

drums.

Borton notes that 55-gallon drums appear to be the industry standard.

NES does often

provide special

containers forwaste disposal.

•

Frequency: The size and number of shipments varies by client industry and generator

status

(CESQG, SQG, LOG). Barometers generally cometo NES one or two at a time.

The average number of MCD

shipments

in a year is around

two.

Prices

•

Disclosure:

NES avoids giving price lists;

it wants to know about the waste it is dealing

with

before giving quotes.

Borton emphasizes that the company must operate according

strict regulations. Presumably

NES does not want to enter a situation in which, a client

‘

is quoted

a low standard

price, further information reveals new necessary

procedures

that raise costs, and the client is displeased.

•

Prices: Transhipment of MCD waste is usually billed by the pound. The average cost for

accepting

a pound of MCDs is about $5.50. Large

shipments

(about four 55-gallon

drums) could be discounted

as much as a

dollarto $4.50 per pound. Borton describes

mercury brokering as a

“volume driven, industry.” As the volume of waste brokered

through

NES rises, prices foreach type of waste fall. For example, if a companyshipped

2,000 florescent lamps

to NES along with a

drum of MCDs, the drum of MCDs would be

priced

at a discount.

NES passes along

a lot of the low prices it receivesfrom

retorters

forshipping making many shipments

a year. For a

good customer with an

800

lb drum of

MCDs, NES said theymight charge $2,500 (—$3.13/ib).

Universal

Waste

Proposal

Prepaid

return program for MCDs: Borton believes that MCDs could be “an easy

1W’for a

prepaid

return program like the Green Kit program NES has

in place for florescent lamps~

Effect on Mercury Recyding: Anything that brings down transportation and/or

administrative costs could make recycling more accessible

and bring more firms into

compliance with disposal

regulations. Borton

notes that

100 devices is a lot for a smaller

firm to generate in a year. A firm

in Texas with

a couple

of switches

probably does not

comply today,

but could be

likely to comply in the

future,

given rower transportation costs.

•

Effect on NES: A universal waste rule would also be athantageous-to NES since it would

allow

NES to store

MCDS before shipping them, raising the volume of MCDs per

shipment and lowering both shipping and ‘disposal

costs. In

both transportation and

retorting, prices fall as quantity rises. Borton predicts that NES savings would be-

reflected

in the priceof their services. Competition between brokers would drive prices

down.

Onyx

Environmental Services

Eden Lane

Flanders, NJ 07836

(973) 347-7111

Date: August 30,

2001

Contact:

Sales Department

Contact made by: Yvonne Stone

Onyx

Environmental Services

Onyx Environmental Services

is the new name forWaste Management,

Inc. The

company is a

national waste brokerng and disposal facility. Onyx Environmental Services,

•

formerly Waste Management,

Inc., owns Chemical Waste Management and Rust International.

(See http:llwww.greenlink.org/grassroots/soc~’wastenotJ97i02799.html).Some facilities appear

to still operate under the name Waste Management,

Inc., for example the facility at Port Arthur,

Tx,

Phone:

(409) 736-2821.

Company

services include: landfill,

stabilization, solidification, macro

encapsulation, and drum

bulking fortransshipment

The, company accepts MCD waste. In-

addition to transshipment, the company can be

hired to package and transport mercury waste

from the client facility (Information at:

http://www.chwmeg.org/asp/searchldetaiLasp?ID=1 8).

Prices

‘

Onyx has a verywide range of prices.

In addition to waste volume, type of mercury

containing device and client location are significant variables in what Onyx charges for MCD

disposal. The New

Jersey facility alone handles 10 different territories, each with

its own price

schedule. Although prices varytremendously, the sales department was able to provide ballpark

figures. Disposal costs for 5 gallons

of MCD waste through their company, not including

transportation costs to their facility or the cost of packaging

will cost around $800 to

$900.

dispose of a.55-gallon

drum of MCDs, a customer will pay over $2,000.

Clients

It may be noted-that the sales department first offered the 5-gallon price when asked for

price schedule

information (thefull

drum pricewas

offered

in response to a specific question).

Although this may not be significant, ‘it may be indicative of the scale of typical MCD shipments

received. (The contact was not asked follow up questions

as she specifically stated that

information requests not from

non-clients were low priority and that she was pressed for time.)

Safety-Kleen Corporation

Salt Lake City, UT

(801)323-8100

Date: August 30, 2001

Contact: Sherm

Monson

Contact made by: Yvonne Stone

Safety-Kleen Corporation

Safety-Kleen,

also known as Laidlaw,

is a TSDF that offers Incineration, landfill,

hazardous

liquids (acid) broker and transfer services (Information at:

http:llwww.chwmeg.org/asp/search/detail.asp?1D3).

It is a

broker for MCD waste,

all of which

ships to Superior at Fort Washington.

Procedures

‘

•

Waste

Separation: Different types of MCDs may arrive packaged together, but they may

not be mixed with items such as lamps orbatteriesthat are subjectto a different set of

regulations.

•

Transshipment: MCD

‘waste received from

clients

is consolidated, but not repackaged.

Safety-Kleen stores the MCDs waste at

its

facilities

until it has enough for a full

load,

which time it remanifests the waste and ships

it to

its

retorter.

Prices

‘

Safety-Kleen has one price list for all

clients,

regardless of location and/or type of MCD.

Its price

list,

based

on MCD waste volume, is as follows:

‘

1-5 gallons

$245

6-25 gallons

$653

26-30 gallons

$783

31-55

gallons

‘

$1,002

More than one 55 gallon drum

$1,002 per drum

Safety-Kleen does not offer further discounts forfrequent customers or extra large shipment

volumes. Safety-Kleen does not offer customers the option of pricing

per pound.

•

‘

“V

U.S. Geological Survey

Reston, VA,

(703) 646-4981

‘

Date: July31, 2001

Contact:

Robert

Reese

Contact made by: Yvonne Stone

The Marketfor Mercury

•

Price:

The price of mercury has followed a downward

trend. Mercury now sells for

around

$150/ton.

‘

•

Import/Export: As to why the amount exported and imported varies so considerably,

Reese speculated that the observed import/export patterns may arise from firms taking

advantage of opportunities in foreign exchange markets, changes in buyer/seller prices,

or other economic circumstances of the firm.

The

mercury shipped abroad

not

‘quatitatively different from that imported into the United States.

•

Future: The amount of mercury used in products is falling

in all

industries.

Retorters

‘would

have a hard time selling

more mercury. The market for mercury is a “dead horse.”

Universal Waste Rule

‘

Reese

was not familiar with universal waste regulations or with changes Over time in the

‘

market for recycling batteries and florescent lamps.

Even if shipping costs were significantly

reduced, there would be little incentive for new consolidation companies to ariseto sell retorted

mercury.

‘V

‘

Appendix

Subtitle D Baseline Analysis

The main analysis in this document assumes

full baseline compliance with Subtitle’C

regulations for all

SQGs and LQGs.

This appendix evaluates.an alternative baseline that

assumes some Subtitle D disposal of MCDs both before and, to a lesser extent, after the rule.

The first step isto estimate the percent of-the regulateduniverse dispOsing of MCDs as

MSW.

This is equivalent to asking “what percent of the LQG and SQG universe is out of

compliance with the Subtitle C regulations in the baseline?”

Neither a

literature review orphone

interviews with selected individuals

involved in’ mercury recycling and disposal suggested a

noncompliance rate,

although one vendor indicated that

his firm does

not receive

switches from

demolition

contractors, suggesting that mercury switches generated during demolition may

commonly be disposed of as MSW.

the

absence of further information,

this analysis

assumes that half of the universe is out of compliance.

Because

the universe

in the main

analysis is based on BRS data (i.e.,

data on generators known to comply with Subtitle C

regulations),

this

analysis assumes that LOGs and SQGs disposing of MCDs as MSW are in

addition to

the 1,877 generators identified in the main analysis.

The second step is to determine

if any

portion of generators disposing of MCDs as MSW

will change management practices as a result of the rule.

This analysis assumes there are

two

majOr~

reasons for noncompliance:

(1) cost, and

(2)

ignorance that waste

contains MCDs or that

MCDs should

disposed of as Subtitle

C waste.

As seen in the main analysis, the savings

associated

with the rule for a generator are small,

estimated at just over

$100 per facility.

Given

the relative magnitude of

the disposal costs ($1,000 to $2,500 per drum), this savings is not

likely

to motivate

noncompliant generators to change their management practices.

In addition,

the

rule does not provide for any major public awareness campaigns about

MCDs, and

is not

likely to inform generators thattheir devices are hazardous.

However,

mercury retorters and

brokers may attempt to raise public awareness of the

new regulatory status of MCDs, at least to

their customers who may be sending mercury lamps or mercury thermostats for disposal.

Consequently, this analysis assumes that a small percentage (five percent) of the generators

incorrectly disposing of MCDs as MSW will change their management practices.

As a result,

approximately 94

additional generators will manage MCDs as a Universal Waste

in the post rule

scenario.

‘

The

third step is to estimate thecost or savings

for these additional

94 generators. The

cost of a generator moving

from

Subtitle D management to

Universal Waste management

include (1) new

transportation costs, (2) new disposal costs, and (3) additional

administrative

costs.

Baseline transportation and disposal costs for the 94 generators are assumed to

essentially zero, as the generators were previously disposing of MCDs as MSW, and the

quantities of MCDs are small.

In other words, the relative baseline disposal cost of throwing a

few devices in

with the facility’s normal MSW is negligible.

Therefore, assuming a MCD quantity

of less than one ton per year, the annual transportation and administrative cost will be $189.

(See Section 4.2 for

information on the derivation of this cost)

The disposal cost will

increase from

essentially zero to approximately $1,500

(the average retorting cost for one drum

from Exhibit

3-3).

section the average for

a single

drum at Bethlehem Apparatus and Mercury

Waste Solutions).

The total of these costs ($1,689) pre facility per year is multiplied by the 94

generators assumed to

switch management practices to result in a total new cost of $158,766.

Subtracting this cost from the $273,000 savings estimated in Section 5.2

results

total

savings under the Subtitle D baseline of approximately $114,000.

The

preceding result considers

the

added cost

to generators of managing MCDs

according to the Universal Waste regulations:as opposed to the considerably less expensive

Subtitle D regulations.

An alternative view would

be-to consider the

rule as reducing the cost of

compliance for these~

facilities because’ these generators would incur the relatively less

expensive costs

of Universal Waste

regulations

instead

of:the somewhat higher

cost

full

Subtitle C regulations.

If the rule’is viewed as creating savings because these generators would

spend less to come into compliance;

the

savings can becalculated by multiplying. the average

facility savings calculated

in the main analysis ($106/generator)’ by’the number of facilities likely

to change management practices (94 facilities).

The resulting savings is $9,964

for

these

facilities.

Adding

the $273,000 savings estimated in section

5.2

results in total savings under

the Subtitle

D baseline of

approximately $283,000.

‘

Appendix

References

Bethlehem Apparatus

Company,

Inc. web page

(www.bethapp.thomasregister.com).

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, ‘Mercury-Containing Lamps & Devices.”

(http://www.dep.state.l1.usldwm/programs/mercuryilamps.htrn)

FranklirnAssociates (1999), “Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:’,

1998 Update,” prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office’ of’Solid Waste,

July 1999

ICF Incorporated (1998), “Baseline Costs and Cost Comparisons Between Hazardous Waste,

Hazardous Material,

and Non-Hazardous

Shipments,” prepared forthe

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, August

31,

1998.

ICF Incorporated (1 999a), ‘Draft Assessment of the Cost and Economic Impacts of the CSI

Regulatory Option for Glass-to-Glass

Recycling of CRTs,” prepared

for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office ‘of Solid -Waste, February 24,

1999.

‘

ICF

Incorporated ‘(1 999b),

“Modification

of the Hazardous Waste Program:

Hazardous Waste

Lamps

(Final Economic Assessment),” prepared forthe U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency,

Office of Solid Waste,

March

11,

1999.

‘

Jasinski,

Stephen M. (1994),

The Materials Flow of Mercury in

the United States,

U.S. Bureau

Mines Information Circular 9412, 1994.

Lake Michigan Forum (1999),

“Mercury Sources of Three Indiana

Steel Mills,” September 1999.

(www.lkmichiganforum.org/mercury)

‘

‘:‘

‘

Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection (1996), “Mercury

in Massachusetts: An’

Evaluation of Sources

Emissions,

Impacts and Controls,” June 1996.

V “V

(www.magnet.state.ma.us/dep/files/mercury.html)

MercuryWaste

Solutions,

Inc. web page (www.mwsi.com).

Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality (1998), ‘Companies that Accept Elemental (Free

Flowing)

Mercury,”

March

12,

1998.

‘

(http://www.déq.state.mi.us/ead/p2sect/mercury/mtablel

.html)

‘

Michigan

Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force (1996), ‘Mercury Pollution Prevention in

Michigan:

Summary of Current Efforts and Recommendations for Future Activities (Final

Report),”

April 1996.

‘

Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency (2000), ‘Report to the Advisory Council of the Minnesota

Pollution

Control Agency Mercury Contamination Reduction

Initiative: Options and Strategies for

Reducing Mercury Releases,” Policy & Planning Division, April

2000.

‘

(http:llwww.pca.state.mn.ue/air/mercury-mn.html)

The Pollution

Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997),

“Mercury Source Sector Assessmentfor the Greater Milwaukee Area,” September

1997.

(httpi/www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocstmilwaukeehg/mercury.pdt)

Schwien Engineering,

Inc. web page

(www.schwien.com).

Science Applications

International Corporation (1998), ‘Analysis of Current Mercury Waste

Generation

and Treatment,” June 19,

1998.

-Science Applications International -Corporation

and Research

Triangle- Institute (1999),

“Nationwide Generation of Mercury Bearing Wastes:

Pollution

Prevention Analysis and Technical

Report,”

prepared

for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, September 17,

1999.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1997),

County Business Patterns,

1997.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1999),

Statistical Abstractof the United States: National Data Book,

Edition 119, October 1999.

‘

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, ‘Background

Information

on Mercury Sources and

Regulations.”

(http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocs/mercsrce/)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mercury in Medical

Institutions.”

‘

(http:llwwwepa.gov/glnpo/seahome/mercury/src/mercmed.htm)

‘

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency,

Officeof Solid Waste web

page (www.epa.govfosw).

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (1992), “Characterization of

Products Containing Mercury

In Municipal

Solid Waste in’ the United States,

1970 to

2000,”

Officeof Solid Waste

and

Emergency Response, April

1992.

“

‘

U.S..Environmental

Protection Agency (1 997a), “Mercury in The Environment: The Waste

Connection,” March 1997.

(www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/mercpam.html)

‘

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (1 997b), “National Analysis: The National Biennial RCRA

Hazardous Waste

Report (Based on

1995 Data),” August

1997.

U.S. EnvirOnmental Protection Agency (1 997c),

“Mercury,Study Report to Congress,

Volume

Il:

An Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions

in the United States,” Office of Air Quality

Planning & Standards

and Office of Research and Development; December1997.

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (1999), ‘Supporting Statement for Information Collection

Request Number 801, ‘Requirements for Generators,

Transporters, and Waste Management

Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System’,” October 22,

1999.

U.S. Geological Survey,

Mineral Commodity Summaries: Mercury,

various years (1996,

1997,

1998, 1999, 2000).

‘

U.S. Geological Survey,

Minerals

Yearbook: Mercury,

various years (1990,

1991,

1,994, 1995,

1996, 1997,

1998).

‘

Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (1996), “Petition of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group,

the Edison Electric

Institute, the American Public

Power Association, and the

National

Rural

Electric Cooperative Association to Include Mercury Containing Equipment in the Universal

Waste Management Program,

40 C.F.R. Part 273,”

submitted to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, October

11,

1996.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(1997), ‘Wisconsin

Mercury Sourcebook: A Guide

Help Your Community Identify and Reduce Releases of

Elemental Mercury,” May 1997.

(http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocs/hgsbook/)