Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$0.69 million average cost for RFIs involving captive industrial waste management (assume applies to impoundments) Source: EPA OSRE memorandum “Transmittal of Average Cost of Investigation Derived from Fund-Lead Superfund Costs, Interim Measures Cost Compendium, and Compendium of Related Guidance Documents”, 01 Nov 2004. This memo indicates that Superfund remedial investigation costs can be used as a proxy for RCRA RFI costs. Industry RFI cost calculations: Landfills: (74 landfills) x ($0.75 million average cost per RFI) = $55.5 million total cost Impoundments: (57 impoundments) x ($0.69 million average cost per RFI) = $39.3 million total cost Total = $94.8 million total cost to industry Amortized industry RFI cost with a capital recovery factor of 0.07246 (@7% discount rate & 50-years) = $6.9 million/year equivalent State government RFI cost: State government RFI review, approval, oversight average cost per RFI = $76,000 69 (131 RFIs) x ($76,000 review, approval, oversight average cost per RFI to state governments) = $10 million total cost Amortized state government RFI cost with a capital recovery factor of 0.07246 (@7% discount rate & 50-years) = $0.7 million/year equivalent RFI total cost (industry + state governments) = $7.6 million per year 14. Regulatory RCRA facility-wide corrective action cost Average annualized future potential cost was not estimated in this RIA because of a high degree of uncertainty. Through a process called corrective action, RCRA Subtitle C requires RCRA-regulated facilities to investigate and clean-up releases of hazardous wastes or constituents to the environment identified in the RCRA facility-wide investigation (RFI). After the RFI, if the need for cleanup is discovered, the RCRAregulated facility must perform a “Corrective Measures Study” (CMS) which may range in cost from $100,000 to $800,000 for such a study. 70 State government cost for corrective measures study & corrective action review, approval, oversight is $117,300 per case. 71 The purpose of a CMS is to develop and evaluate the corrective action alternative(s) and to recommend the corrective measure(s) be taken at the facility. 72 As of 2008 the RCRA corrective action universe is about 3,800 sites nationwide. 73 Relative to the RCRA-regulated universe of 217,500 facilities (consisting of about 16,000 hazardous waste LQG “large quantity generators” plus about 200,000 hazardous waste SQG “small quantity generators” plus about 1,500 hazardous waste TSDF “treatment, storage, disposal facilities” as of 2008), the 3,800 corrective action universe implies a 1.75% relative incidence of occurrence (i.e., 3,800 / 217,500 = 1.75%). Corrective action costs vary from facility-tofacility depending on the number and types of waste management units and other industrial equipment/processes and wastes involved. The 69 Source: Divided the $2,200,600 annual RFI cost to 10 state governments by the 29 annual RFIs from page 82 of the January 2007 ASTSWMO report “State RCRA Subtitle C Core Hazardous Waste Management Program Implementation Costs Final Report” at: http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/hazardouswaste/Final%20Report%20-%20RCRA%20Subtitle%20C%20Core%20Project.pdf 70 Source: RACER unit cost reported on p.38 of EPA’s 2000 “Unit Cost Compendium” , document ID nr. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0429 at : http://www.regulations.gov 71 Source: derived from cost data contained on page 83 of the ASTSWMO “State RCRA Subtitle C Core Hazardous Waste Management Program Implementation Costs Final Report”, January 2007 at: http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/hazardouswaste/Final%20Report%20-%20RCRA%20Subtitle%20C%20Core%20Project.pdf 72 Source: “Corrective Measures Study Scope of Work”, EPA Region 3 at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pdf/CMSATTC.pdf 73 Source: 3,800 corrective action cases represents EPA’s “2020 Corrective Action Universe” as identified on EPA Hazardous Waste Corrective Action Facility Information website at: http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/correctiveaction/facility/index.htm#2020 76
corrective action remedies usually involve mitigating damages to surface water and groundwater. The General Accountability Office (GAO) reported 74 that RCRA corrective action could cost 3,698 non-Federal hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities a total of about $16 billion (1996$) to clean up their properties contaminated by hazardous substances, representing an average $4.327 million corrective action cost per-facility. Updated 75 to 2009$ implies an average of $5.365 million RCRA corrective action cost per facility. 15. Regulatory RCRA TSDF waste disposal permit cost for onsite disposal RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations require hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal facilities (TSDFs) to obtain RCRA permits as described in 40 CFR 270 consisting of a two-part (i.e., Part A and Part B) application process. The paperwork burden cost of this requirement is estimated below. Furthermore, but not included in the cost estimate below, are separate, additional RCRA regulations containing “technical requirements” used by permit issuing authorities (e.g., RCRA-authorized state government waste programs or EPA Regional offices) to determine what technical requirements must be placed in permits. The separate cost of technical requirements is estimated in the “Engineering Controls” regulatory cost section of this RIA above. Assumptions: o Although 93% of CCR landfills have a state government non-hazardous waste disposal permit and 12% of CCR impoundments have such state permits, assume CCR disposal units will need new RCRA disposal permits under Subtitle C options. o 383 of the 495 total electric utility plants currently dispose onsite (i.e., 84 of the 495 plants solely dispose CCR offsite, plus 28 plants solely supply CCR for beneficial uses). Industry average cost per waste disposal permit: o ($440 76 average RCRA Part A permit application cost per-plant per-year) + ($68,960 77 average RCRA Part B application cost per-facility per-year) = $69,400 per Subtitle C permit per year ($69,400 per permit per year) x (3 years ICR annualization period) = $208,200 per permit (383 plants) x ($208,200 per permit) = $79.74 million Amortized industry cost with a capital recovery factor of 0.07246 (@7% discount rate & 50-years) = $5.8 million/year State government average cost per waste disposal permit: o Build estimate based on the following four RCRA Subtitle C permit-related state government activities associated with RCRA Subtitle C waste disposal permits: 78 (1,215 pre-application activities) + ($27,063 application review) + ($26,846 permit issuance) + ($3,110 permit maintenance) = $58,200 average cost per Subtitle C waste disposal permit per year. 74 Source: page 1 of US General Accountability Office (GAO), “Hazardous Waste: Progress Under the Corrective Action Program is Limited, But New Initiatives May Accelerate Cleanups,” report nr. GAO/RCED-98-3, October 1997; http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98003.pdf 75 Updated from 1996$ to 2009$ using the NASA “Gross Domestic Product Deflator Inflation Calculator” at http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateGDP.html 76 $440 unitized cost derived for this RIA from EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 0262.12 “RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification Part A”, Federal Register, Vol.74, No.17, 28 Jan 2009, page 4958; http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1804.pdf 77 $68,960 unitized cost derived for this RIA from EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 1573.12 “Part B Permit Application”, Federal Register, Vol.74, No.100, page 25237, 27 May 2009; http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-12285.pdf 78 Source: Based on cost data from page 84 of January 2007 ASTSWMO report “State RCRA Subtitle C Core Hazardous Waste Management Program Implementation Costs Final Report” at: http://www.astswmo.org/files/publications/hazardouswaste/Final%20Report%20-%20RCRA%20Subtitle%20C%20Core%20Project.pdf 77
Page 1 and 2:
Regulatory Impact Analysis For EPA
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 5 and 6:
Executive Summary This RIA evaluate
Page 7 and 8:
impoundments, the relative number t
Page 9 and 10:
Summary Exhibit 3 Induced Effect of
Page 11 and 12:
Summary Exhibit 6 Comparison of Reg
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 Problem Statement: The Ne
Page 15 and 16:
Bevill Amendments 10 which exempted
Page 17 and 18:
Just three weeks after the TVA’s
Page 19 and 20:
2. Waste & Environmental Management
Page 21 and 22:
This RIA did not discover similar d
Page 23 and 24:
Exhibit 2A Identity of Other Indust
Page 25 and 26: Require review of surface impoundme
Page 27 and 28: Chapter 3 Baseline CCR Management i
Page 29 and 30: Exhibit 3C below, these 495 coal-fi
Page 31 and 32: Exhibit 3C State-by-State Electric
Page 33 and 34: 3B. Types of CCR Disposal Units Es
Page 35 and 36: 92 plants Offsite landfill fly ash
Page 37 and 38: electric utility plants in the data
Page 39 and 40: Exhibit 3E Annual CCR Disposition f
Page 41 and 42: 3D. Size of CCR Disposal Units The
Page 43 and 44: costs for each type of disposal (no
Page 45 and 46: annual sampling for surface impound
Page 47 and 48: o Of the 25 state regulations revie
Page 49 and 50: Exhibit 3I Baseline Compliance with
Page 51 and 52: Baseline CCR Disposal Cost Estimati
Page 53 and 54: Before-tax costs: 50-year period:
Page 55 and 56: Baseline “Engineering Control”
Page 57 and 58: assume that the same water trucks w
Page 59 and 60: memorandum to George Garland, EPA,
Page 61 and 62: Exhibit 3K Summary of Industry & St
Page 63 and 64: ($80,000 per year average Subtitle
Page 65 and 66: Validity Check of Baseline Cost Est
Page 67 and 68: Chapter 4 Estimated Cost for RCRA R
Page 69 and 70: B. Ancillary costs for CCR disposal
Page 71 and 72: location restriction mitigation inv
Page 73 and 74: o Impoundment berms: The average su
Page 75: State government average cost per w
Page 79 and 80: Exhibit 4A Two Case Studies: Possib
Page 81 and 82: Biennial Report”). According to E
Page 83 and 84: 4B.3 Land Disposal Restriction Cost
Page 85 and 86: The TVA cost study did not estimate
Page 87 and 88: Using the EPA ORCR 2009$ updated un
Page 89 and 90: Exhibit 4D Comparison of Annual O&M
Page 91 and 92: Exhibit 4E Summary of Wet Conversio
Page 93 and 94: o Recent Trend in CCR Impoundment P
Page 95 and 96: from coal to other fuels such as na
Page 97 and 98: o Result of Dry Conversion Cost Upd
Page 99 and 100: As summarized below in comparison t
Page 101 and 102: 17% phase-out trend suggest the fut
Page 103 and 104: RIA 50- ye ar period Actual company
Page 105 and 106: 4C. State-by-State Distribution of
Page 107 and 108: 4D. Cost Estimation Uncertainty Thi
Page 109 and 110: Exhibit 4N Cost Estimation Uncertai
Page 111 and 112: In contrast to the Exhibit 5A list
Page 113 and 114: Step 2. Determine Potentially Affec
Page 115 and 116: Step 3. Apply EPA-ORCR 2009 Arsenic
Page 117 and 118: RISKn WELLREACH iRISK EDn N Where
Page 119 and 120: The constant slope allowed estimati
Page 121 and 122: Step 6. Monetize Future Avoided Can
Page 123 and 124: controls like surface-impoundment p
Page 125 and 126: Finally, for Subtitle C, there woul
Page 127 and 128:
Exhibit 5A-12 Percentile of Cleanup
Page 129 and 130:
Exhibit 5A-16 Per-Site Groundwater
Page 131 and 132:
Multiple CCR disposal units at a si
Page 133 and 134:
5B. Benefit of Preventing Future CC
Page 135 and 136:
As displayed below in Exhibit 5B-2,
Page 137 and 138:
Where: = Observed arrival rate (0.
Page 139 and 140:
Step 3. Calculate Future Impoundmen
Page 141 and 142:
some surface impoundment regulation
Page 143 and 144:
Exhibit 5B-8 Poisson Distribution (
Page 145 and 146:
With these new distributions, EPA p
Page 147 and 148:
Exhibit 5B-12 Scenario #2: Cleanup
Page 149 and 150:
5C. Induced Effect of RCRA Regulati
Page 151 and 152:
Exhibit 5C-1 Estimate of Annual Mat
Page 153 and 154:
Exhibit 5C-3 below presents a 2004
Page 155 and 156:
To avoid double-counting of economi
Page 157 and 158:
5C2. Potential Effect of RCRA Regul
Page 159 and 160:
Others take a different view on how
Page 161 and 162:
Exhibit 5C-7 EPA Extrapolation of E
Page 163 and 164:
Based on the most recent CCR benefi
Page 165 and 166:
Beneficial uses of CCR have been co
Page 167 and 168:
Exhibit 5C-12 Beneficial Use Trend
Page 169 and 170:
Increases due to increased disposal
Page 171 and 172:
“Using [coal] fly ash in building
Page 173 and 174:
Exhibit 5C-14 Historical Annual Per
Page 175 and 176:
Hypothetical expansion of CCR custo
Page 177 and 178:
Step 6: Apply Estimated Induced Eff
Page 179 and 180:
Exhibit 5C-16 Scenario #1: Increase
Page 181 and 182:
Exhibit 5C-17 Scenario #2: Decrease
Page 183 and 184:
Exhibit 5C-18 Beneficial Use Trends
Page 185 and 186:
Exhibit 5C-19 Scenario #1: Benefit
Page 187 and 188:
Exhibit 5C-21 Scenario #2: Cost of
Page 189 and 190:
Step 10: Quantify Potential Capacit
Page 191 and 192:
Chapter 6 Comparison of Regulatory
Page 193 and 194:
Exhibit 6B Comparison of Regulatory
Page 195 and 196:
Exhibit 6D Comparison of Regulatory
Page 197 and 198:
Exhibit 6F Comparison of Regulatory
Page 199 and 200:
Exhibit 6F Scaling Factors (Extrapo
Page 201 and 202:
Exhibit 6G Estimate of Subtitle D (
Page 203 and 204:
detect contamination early and thus
Page 205 and 206:
Step 1: Downloaded the annual milli
Page 207 and 208:
Exhibit 7A State by State Breakout
Page 209 and 210:
Small government: Based on the RFA/
Page 211 and 212:
Step 3 & Step 4: Determine and docu
Page 213 and 214:
Factor #2 of 2: The small business
Page 215 and 216:
how much they use or indeed how muc
Page 217 and 218:
Collection of Minority & Low-Income
Page 219 and 220:
Comparison of Minority & Low-Income
Page 221 and 222:
Exhibit 7G Minority and Low-Income
Page 223 and 224:
Exhibit 7H Comparison of Minority a
Page 225 and 226:
o The state-by-state range of minor
Page 227 and 228:
CCR fraction #3: CCR fraction #4:
Page 229 and 230:
7D. Child Population Statistics (Ex
Page 231 and 232:
Comparison of Child Populations Liv
Page 233 and 234:
Count of plant unique ZCTAds Exhibi
Page 235 and 236:
Exhibit 7K Comparison of Child Popu
Page 237 and 238:
7E. Unfunded Mandates (UMRA) & Fede
Page 239 and 240:
Findings for UMRA Impact and Federa
Page 241 and 242:
Exhibit 7M List of 74 Coal-Fired El
show all

Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?