Under the 2015 CCR Rule, owners/operators of each CCR surface impoundment are required to develop a liner demonstration and determine whether the unit is lined as defined by 40 CFR 257.71. As a result of this demonstration each surface impoundment has been identified as either (a) lined or (b) unlined under the 40 CFR 257.71 criteria. While the 2015 CCR Rule did not require any change in management of unlined units that had not documented leaks or failed location restrictions, the 2018 court decisions (the baseline for this rulemaking) required that all units identified as unlined, including clay lined units, must enter forced closure by August 2020, regardless of whether or not they are leaking.
Provision 1 of the proposed Part B rule provides facilities operating CCR surface impoundments considered unlined per the 40 CFR 257.71 criteria with an opportunity to develop an "alternate liner demonstration" that would allow qualifying unlined units to avoid closure. Upon approval of a successful demonstration for an unlined CCR unit, that unit would be considered lined, and therefore not be required to enter forced closure by August 2020 as required under the 2018 court decisions baseline. To receive an approved alternate liner demonstration, facilities must:
 Prepare and submit an initial application for approval to undertake an alternative liner demonstration. EPA will review applications and determine which unlined units are eligible to undertake an alternate liner demonstration. Unlined units with rejected applications will be considered ineligible for an alternate liner demonstration and must close in accordance with the 2018 court decisions baseline. Unlined units with successful applications can proceed to submit the alternate liner demonstration.
 Undertake an alternate liner demonstration. For unlined units with applications approved by EPA, facilities may prepare and submit a full alternate liner demonstration. EPA will review demonstrations and determine whether each unlined unit is to be considered lined (if the demonstration is accepted), or maintains its unlined status (if the demonstration is rejected). Rejected unlined units must enter forced closure; accepted unlined units, which EPA has reclassified as lined units, can remain open.
Note that this provision does not impose any mandatory compliance activities on owners/operators of CCR management units. Rather, owners/operators may voluntarily choose to submit applications and, if permitted, demonstrations to EPA, if the cost savings associated with delaying closure past the August 2020 deadline for any unlined unit in the 2018 court decisions justify the cost of the submissions. This RIA presents two scenarios accounting for "high" and "low" numbers of applications to submit the liner demonstrations. These unit counts are based on EPA knowledge of likely action of the owners/operators of units potentially eligible to apply, out of a set of units meeting the criteria set forth in the proposed rule. These units are those that: (1) are not closed, (2) are unlined under the design criteria specified at 40 CFR 257.71, (3) are not leaking, (4) have groundwater monitoring systems in place, and (5) have passed all required location restrictions.
While Provision 1 and Provision 2 provide different and mutually exclusive opportunities to effectively delay the costs associated with closure of surface impoundments, the analyses in this RIA assumes that all potentially eligible facilities with unlined units will first attempt to follow the exemption from forced closure due to Provision 1 before relying on the use of CCR in closure as allowed under Provision 2, because unlined units approved under Provision 1 as having alternate liners can operate indefinitely. Facilities with unlined units that fail to obtain approval under Provision 1 are then assumed to pursue relevant cost savings to the extent possible under Provision 2. In other words, the universe of eligible unlined units in Provision 1 is not affected by Provision 2. However, the unlined units that are reclassified as lined under Provision 1 does affect the units affected by Provision 2.
The implementation of this provision will result in four distinct costs or cost savings. Two documentation costs are associated with submitting the application and completing and submitting the alternate liner demonstration. The potential cost savings are time-value-of-money impacts from delays in unit closure associated with the alternative liner demonstration. The costs and cost savings associated with Provision 1 are described in Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.4.
3.1.1	Application to Submit an Alternate Liner Demonstration
Prior to preparing the full alternate liner demonstration, an interested facility with an eligible surface impoundment considered unlined per the 40 CFR 257.71 criteria must submit an application to EPA. If EPA approves the application, the facility can then develop and submit a full demonstration. This RIA assumes that between 10 and 20 units will submit the application. Units that do not meet the conditions above that are explicitly outlined in the proposed rule language are not expected to submit the application. EPA assumes that the cost of an application is 10 percent of the cost of the full demonstration, or $10,700 (2016$). The costs of the demonstration itself is based on unit cost estimates from the 2015 CCR RIA and outlined in Section 3.1.2 below. The total undiscounted cost to file the application for the 20 relevant units in Scenario 1 is approximately $0.216 million, or $0.014 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate. The total undiscounted cost to file the application for the 10 relevant units in Scenario 2 is approximately $0.108 million, or $0.006 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate.
3.1.2 	Demonstration of Suitability of Existing Liner
Any facility whose application is approved by EPA is eligible to submit an alternate liner demonstration for approved units. EPA expects all applications to submit the liner demonstration will be approved, in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Therefore, demonstration costs accrue to the same subsets of units that submitting applications as described in Section 3.1.1. The universe of units expected to submit demonstrations is 20 units in Scenario 1 and 10 units in Scenario 2.
The per-unit cost of submitting a demonstration is approximately $0.108 million. To estimate the cost of an alternate liner demonstration, this RIA relies on paperwork cost estimates for the following three activities from the 2015 CCR RIA, listed below with approximate costs.
 Alternate liner demonstration: $921
 Groundwater monitoring well certification: $492
 Groundwater monitoring system design certification: $106,000
The total cost across the 20 relevant units in Scenario 1 is approximately $2.15 million, or $0.141 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate. The total cost across the 10 relevant units in Scenario 2 is approximately $1.08 million, or $0.071 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate.
33
3.1.3 	Cost Savings due to Closure Delays for Units with Accepted Demonstrations
This RIA assumes that EPA will ultimately accept (i.e., approve) 50 percent of the alternate liner demonstrations it receives and reviews, or  10 of the 20 demonstrations in Scenario 1 and five of the 10 demonstrations in Scenario 2. This RIA assumes that units with successful applications will continue to operate, on average, for an additional 16 years prior to commencing closure, instead of closing in August 2020 as required under the 2018 court decisions. This 16-year figure is derived from the 2015 RIA, which assumed the average unit lifespan to be 40 years and that the average remaining lifespan in 2015 was 20 years. Because four years have elapsed since 2015, units are expected to have an average of 16 years of useful life remaining.
The per-unit cost savings as a result of a 16-year closure delay is approximately $12.5 million, an estimate of the time value of money associated with moving per-unit closure costs as estimated in the 2015 CCR RIA out in time (i.e. delaying closure) by 16 years. This per-unit closure cost is approximately $20.3 million and reflects the average (2016$) present value per closure under a seven percent discount rate. This method is the same as that used in the proposed Part A rule RIA to simplify the realignment of closure costs over time. The total, present value cost savings for the 10 affected units in Scenario 1 are approximately $125 million, or $8.79 million annualized across 100 years at a seven percent discount rate. The total, present value cost savings for the 5 affected units in Scenario 2 are approximately $62.7 million, or $4.39 million annualized across 100 years at a seven percent discount rate. Note that this cost savings accrues to units whose alternate liner demonstrations were accepted by EPA.
The cost savings associated with Provision 1 are summarized in Exhibit 3-1-A and Exhibit 3-1-B.
Exhibit 3-1-A
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 1  -  Alternate Liner Demonstration
                        Scenario 1
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                       Total cost savings (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
Application to submit alternate liner demonstration
                                    $0.011
                                      20
                                    $0.215
                                    $0.006
                                    $0.209
                                    $0.014
                                    $0.201
Demonstration of suitability of existing liner
                                    $0.108
                                      20
                                    $2.15
                                    $0.066
                                    $2.09
                                    $0.141
                                    $2.01
Subtotal: Documentation Costs

                                    $2.37
                                    $0.072
                                    $2.29
                                    $0.155
                                    $2.21
Closure Timeline Adjustments
Closure delays due to successful demonstrations
                                                                             3%
                                    (15.9)
                                      10
                                    ($164)
                                    ($5.05)
                                    ($160)

                                                                             7%
                                    (12.5)
                                      10
                                    ($134)

                                    ($8.79)
                                    ($125)
Subtotal: Closure Timeline Adjustments

                                    ($298)
                                    ($5.05)
                                    ($160)
                                    ($8.79)
                                    ($125)
                                                                          TOTAL

                                    ($4.98)
                                    ($157)
                                    ($8.63)
                                    ($123)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

Exhibit 3-1-B
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 1  -  Alternate Liner Demonstration
                        Scenario 2
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                       Total cost savings (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
Application to submit alternate liner demonstration
                                    $0.011
                                      10
                                    $0.108
                                    $0.003
                                    $0.209
                                    $0.014
                                    $0.201
Demonstration of suitability of existing liner
                                    $0.108
                                      10
                                    $1.08
                                    $0.033
                                    $2.09
                                    $0.141
                                    $2.01
Subtotal: Documentation Costs

                                    $1.18
                                    $0.036
                                    $2.29
                                    $0.155
                                    $2.21
Closure Timeline Adjustments
Closure delays due to successful demonstrations
                                                                             3%
                                    (15.9)
                                      5
                                    ($82.2)
                                    ($2.52)
                                    ($79.8)

                                                                             7%
                                    (12.5)
                                      5
                                    ($67.1)

                                    ($4.39)
                                    ($62.7)
Subtotal: Closure Timeline Adjustments

                                    ($149)
                                    ($2.52)
                                    ($79.8)
                                    ($4.39)
                                    ($62.7)
                                                                          TOTAL

                                    ($2.49)
                                    ($77.5)
                                    ($4.24)
                                    ($60.5)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

3.2	Provision 2: Use of CCR in Units Subject to Forced Closure
EPA is co-proposing two options under Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule. Each co-proposed option would alter the 2015 CCR Rule's current prohibition on the placement of CCR in units after they begin the closure process (the cease receipt of CCR deadline). Under each of the co-proposed options, facilities could continue to place CCR in units that have begun the closure process, in effect removing the cease receipt of CCR deadline and eliminating the prohibition of CCR placement in closing units under specified circumstances.
In the baseline (under current regulations), on the date when a CCR surface impoundment enters closure, it becomes subject to a CCR placement prohibition that disallows any further CCR placement into the unit. This CCR placement prohibition applies both to surface impoundments subject to forced closure as a result of the August 2020 deadline imposed by the 2018 court decisions baseline and to units subject to forced closure as a result of the provisions of the 2015 CCR Rule at 40 CFR 257.101. In other words, in the baseline, no further CCR can be placed in an unlined surface impoundment past the August 2020 deadline, nor in any unit entering forced closure under the 40 CFR 257.101 provisions, as of the cease receipt of CCR deadline. The assessment of CCR management costs in the RIA for the 2015 CCR Rule accounted for offsite disposal or the construction of new or retrofitted CCR management units following the forced closure of existing units.
While the co-proposed options differ in regard to the approval process and circumstances under which CCR placement as a part of closure is allowed, the effect of both co-proposed options is to enable owners/operators of CCR surface impoundments to place CCR into surface impoundments during the closure process, beyond the cease receipt of CCR deadline. Because the closure process for some units can take as many as 15 years (five years under 40 CFR 257.102 with possible total extensions totaling up to ten additional years),  placing CCR under these co-proposed options could also take place for as many as 15 years, until the unit is capped and certified closed. Under both options, the CCR that can be used during closure can come from any location, including other facilities.
Because the closure process typically involves large volumes of CCR, both co-proposed options under Provision 2 have the potential to change the relative cost-effectiveness of different approaches to CCR management at CCR-generating facilities. Facilities that can, avoid costs associated with offsite disposal or new unit construction by continuing to place CCR in existing surface impoundments after their cease receipt of CCR deadline. In some cases, the option to close a unit by removing CCR ("clean close") may be less cost effective than using CCR in closure, leading to more waste-in-place closures.
3.2.1	Summary of Provision 2 Co-Proposed Options
The two co-proposed options differ in the specific CCR placement that is allowed, and therefore have different potential universes and effects on CCR management.
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 allows facilities to place CCR in surface impoundments subject to forced closure, contingent upon the submittal of a demonstration and a revised closure plan to the EPA Administrator (Administrator) or Participating State Director, and the approval of all such submissions by EPA or participating states. Revised closure plans under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 must sufficiently demonstrate the following:
 The volume of CCR that would be placed during closure would not exceed the volume of virgin fill material that otherwise would be used as subgrade beneath the final cover system;
 The time needed to complete closure of the unit is not extended under the new plan;
 The unit is in compliance with the unstable areas location restriction requirement;
 The unit is in compliance and will remain in compliance with the closure performance standards applicable to units closing with CCR in place;
 The unit will have a final cover system no more permeable than the CCR placed in the unit as part of closure; and
 The additional placement of CCR will not adversely affect compliance with the corrective action remedy requirements.
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 also revises the 2015 CCR Rule's prohibition on placement of CCR in surface impoundments subject to forced closure, but it does so by allowing CCR placement in these surface impoundments as beneficial use, provided that a revised closure plan is prepared by the facility. The revised closure plan must document how the CCR will be beneficially used to support closure of the unit and how the beneficial use of CCR in the closing unit achieves the following four conditions specified in the beneficial use definition in the 2015 CCR Rule (40 CFR 257.53):
        The CCR must provide a functional benefit,
        The CCR must substitute for use of a virgin material,
        The use of CCR must meet relevant product specifications, regulatory standards, or design standards, when available, and
        When unencapsulated use of CCR involves placement on the land of 12,400 tons or more in non-roadway applications, the use must demonstrate and keep records that environmental releases to groundwater, surface water, soil, and air are comparable to or lower than those form analogous products made without CCR or are below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use, though EPA recognizes that this environmental demonstration may not be required in all situations.
Under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, the revised closure plan and the adherence of CCR placement in units subject to forced closure to the beneficial use provision at 40 CFR 257.53 is self-implementing; no review of closure plans or approval from a regulator is required prior to placing the CCR in the closing unit. Under this option any facilities with CCR surface impoundments subject to forced closure can place CCR in closing units upon preparing and posting a closure plan that documents the beneficial use of CCR in accordance with the requirements for beneficial use at 40 CFR 257.53.
This RIA examines the costs and cost savings associated with each of the co-proposed options under Provision 2 in the sections that follow, including, for each co-proposed option, two adoption scenarios reflecting existing uncertainty within each co-proposed option around the likely implementation of the provision. While the scenarios are unique to each co-proposed option, the universe of units likely to change practices under the proposed provision is similar because both co-proposed options affect decisions about placement of CCR in existing, closing units. Section 3.2.2 describes the types and numbers of units potentially subject to each of the co-proposed options under Provision 2.
3.2.2 	Universe of Facilities and Units Likely to Change Practices Under Provision 2
<IP_ADDRESS>	Units not eligible for use of CCR in closure under Provision 2
Each of the co-proposed options under Provision 2 has a subset of units not expected to change practices under the proposed changes. For each co-proposed option, this includes units that are not subject to forced closure, and units that are planning to close before the end of 2020 (including units that have certified completion of closure as of September 9[th], 2019). Units in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place (North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana) are also ineligible to change practices as a result of the provision. Additionally, each co-proposed option has specific exclusions relevant to the nature of the option, as noted below. All other units not identified as ineligible below are expected to change practices as a result of Provision 2 due to the considerable cost savings resulting from using CCR in closure.
 The Co-Proposed Option 1 universe of units likely to change practices excludes units that did not successfully demonstrate compliance with the unstable areas location restriction; while
 The Co-Proposed Option 2 universe of units likely to change practices excludes units in states with beneficial use policies that may not be consistent with placement of CCR in surface impoundments as fill.
For Co-Proposed Option 1, EPA notes that leaking units subject to corrective action, as well as those that failed location restrictions requirements besides the unstable areas, failed aspects of the safety factor assessment or have a "high" hazard potential classification are all potentially eligible provided they have successful demonstrations. Co-Proposed Option 1 does allow for Agency review and possible rejection of the revised closure plans and accompanying demonstrations as required under the proposed option. The cost calculations for Co-Proposed Option 1, Scenario 1 assume that EPA rejects 50 percent of units that are leaking or have failed the aquifer location restriction. Co-Proposed Option 1, Scenario 2 assumes that EPA does not reject any submitted revised closure plans and that all eligible units change practices as a result of the provision.
For Co-Proposed Option 2, because the beneficial use definition is not explicitly governed by the regulations, all units whose use of CCR is consistent with the beneficial use definition would be eligible to place CCR in the unit during closure and remain compliant. Co-Proposed Option 2 is self-implementing; while facilities are required to submit revised closure plans detailing their plans for use of CCR in closure and how that use meets the beneficial use definition, there is no mechanism in the provision for EPA rejection of those plans.
<IP_ADDRESS>	Baseline closure practices at existing units
By allowing facilities to delay or avoid the costs of new CCR unit construction or the costs associated with offsite disposal, both co-proposed options under Provision 2 would likely lead facilities to increase the quantity of CCR placed in existing units as they close. In some cases, the cost savings associated with changes in CCR disposal under Provision 2 may be significant enough to cause facilities to reconsider management options for unit closure, by making closure of units with waste in place more cost-effective than clean closure (closure by removal of CCR).
To estimate the costs and cost savings for both co-proposed options under Provision 2, therefore, the RIA allocates units likely to change practices in the universe to one of three categories, depending on the configuration of units at operating facilities and their expected closure methods in the baseline and under the proposed Provision. Because facilities will work to minimize CCR management costs across all existing units, the existence of other units at a site can affect management practices and decisions under Provision 2. Considering this, units fall into one of three categories in the baseline:
 Units closing with waste in place in the baseline; these units are already designated as closing with waste in place, and are unlikely to change management strategies and switch to clean-closure under the rule, though facilities may change practice by submitting revised closure plans to enable placement of CCR in the units during closure as specified under the relevant option. This CCR could come from continued operations or other on-site units.
 Units clean closing at facilities that also have waste-in-place units; these units are designated as clean-closing in the baseline; Provision 2 provides facilities with the opportunity to move the CCR from these units into other closing on-site (or off-site) units; and
 Units incentivized to switch from clean closure to waste in place to take advantage of cost savings under this provision. These units are not co-located at facilities with other units closing with waste in place.
Very small units at most facilities are likely to clean close in both the baseline and the Co-Proposed Option 1 and Option 2 scenarios because the quantities of CCR involved are not large enough to change the economics of closure; the long-term monitoring costs associated with waste-in-place closure exceed the cost of removing the CCR.
These categories of units are described in greater detail below, and Exhibit 3-2 summarizes their total numbers relevant to each of the two options.
<IP_ADDRESS>	Anticipated changes in closure strategies
The universe of units closing with waste in place consists of the units identified as eligible in the previous subsection and that have posted closure plans indicating that they plan to close with waste in place. The total universe of units closing with waste in place who may consider changing practices (by submitting revised closure plans to enable placement of CCR in the units during closure) under Co-Proposed Option 1 is 146 units; the total universe likely to change practices by Co-Proposed Option 2 is 185 units.
The universe of units planning to clean close at facilities with multiple management strategies for closing units consists of the units identified as eligible in the previous subsection and that have posted closure plans indicating that they will close by removing all CCR (clean closing). The total universe of clean-closing units that are located at facilities with multiple units and management strategies that may consider changing practices under Co-Proposed Option 1 is 48 units; the total universe that may change practices under Co-Proposed Option 2 is 65 units.
The remaining universe of units expected to change management from clean closure to closure with waste in place represents the array of units where the cost savings associated with Provision 2 are significant enough to make clean closure less economical than closure with waste in place. These units are typically large enough that the cost of long-term monitoring required for units closed with waste in place is offset by the avoided cost of disposal. For some small units avoided disposal costs are not significant enough to outweigh the cost of long-term monitoring that is required for units closed with waste in place, and clean closure remains the economic choice. These units include those identified as eligible in the previous subsection and that have closure plans indicating that they will clean-close. This universe does not include clean-closing units at facilities with multiple units pursuing different strategies and excludes units with surface areas of three acres or less, employing an assumption that clean closure is a more cost-effective option for units of this size, because clean closure avoids long-term monitoring costs.
The total universe of clean-closing units estimated to change management practices under Co-Proposed Option 1 is 17 units; the total universe likely to change practices under Co-Proposed Option 2 is 27 units.
Exhibits 3-2 and 3-3 outline the derivations of the respective universes and numbers of units estimated to use CCR in closure under Co-Proposed Option 1 and Co-Proposed Option 2. Exhibit 3-4 shows how these universes are divided according to closure strategy in response to Provision 2. The following sections lay out the costs and cost savings associated with the Options.
                                  Exhibit 3-2
Number of Units Estimated to Use CCR in Closure under Proposed Part B Rule Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1
Surface Impoundments
                                      533
Adjusted to remove 117 units not subject to forced closure
                                      416
Adjusted to remove 52 units that have already certified completion of closure or plan to do so before the end of 2020
                                      364
Adjusted to remove 101 units that failed the unstable areas location restrictions requirement
                                      263
Adjusted to remove 45 units located in states not allowing closure with waste in place (NC, VA, IN)
                                      218
Adjusted to remove 7 units not switching from clean closing to waste in place due to being smaller than three acres in size
                                     211
The changes to the universe below this line differ between Scenarios 1 and 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
Adjusted to remove 45 units due to EPA rejecting 50% of units currently closing with waste in place or switching from clean closing that failed the aquifer location restriction (Scenario 1 only)
                                      166
                                      211
Adjusted to remove 18 units due to EPA rejecting 50% of units currently closing with waste in place or switching from clean closing that are currently leaking[a] (Scenario 1 only)
                                      148
                                      211
Adjusted to remove 16 clean closing units co-located at facilities with waste in place units rejected under the Scenario 1 provisions above (Scenario 1 only)
                                      132
                                      211
Final Proposed Part B Rule Provision 2 Universe
                                   132 Units
                                   211 Units
[a]For the purposes of this RIA, we identify leaking units as those that have posted an exceedance of the Groundwater Protection Standards, i.e. units that have identified Appendix IV SSL as part of their groundwater monitoring process and have not filed an Alternate Source Demonstration as the cause of the contaminant.

                                  Exhibit 3-3
Number of Units Estimated to Use CCR in Closure under Proposed Part B Rule Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2

                               Scenarios 1 and 2
Surface Impoundments
                                      533
Adjusted to remove 117 units not subject to forced closure
                                      416
Adjusted to remove 52 units that have already certified completion of closure or plan to do so before the end of 2020
                                      364
Adjusted to remove 68 units located in states not allowing closure with waste in place (NC, VA, IN)
                                      296
Adjusted to remove 7 units located in states with stringent beneficial use standards (PA)
                                      289
Adjusted to remove 12 units switching from clean closing to waste in place that are smaller than three acres in size
                                      277
                Final Proposed Part B Rule Provision 2 Universe
                                   277 Units
                                  Exhibit 3-4
CCR Surface Impoundments Likely to Change Practices Due to Provision 2, by Closure Strategy
                      Closure Strategy under the Baseline
                           All Surface Impoundments
                      Closure Strategy under Provision 2
                             Co-Proposed Option 1
                             Co-Proposed Option 2

                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                              (Scenarios 1 and 2)
Waste in Place
                                      310
                             Waste in Place (WIP)
                                      98
                                      146
                                      185
Clean Close
                                      223
            Clean Closing at Facilities with Units also Closing WIP
                                      32
                                      48
                                      65

                   Clean Closing Switching to Waste in Place
                                       2
                                      17
                                      27
Total
                                      533
                                     Total
                                      132
                                      211
                                      277
3.2.3	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Co-Proposed Option 1: Use of CCR during closure of a unit under an approved closure plan
The proposed Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 would allow continued CCR placement into surface impoundments subject to forced closure, subject to the submittal of a demonstration and revised closure plan to be reviewed and approved by EPA. EPA's review of submitted documentation will focus on certain key aspects of the CCR placement, including volumetric analyses to ensure that CCR placement is used only to the extent that CCR replaces fill that would otherwise be used, and temporal analyses to ensure that closure timelines are not extended as a result of the placement of CCR into the units.
Like Provision 1, activities associated with this provision are voluntary; only facilities that wish to place CCR in units after closure begins would be subject to this provision. Moreover, the continued placement of CCR in units will likely result in substantial cost savings for units receiving approval. Therefore, this RIA assumes that all eligible facilities will pursue the demonstration process to be able to use CCR during closure as allowed under this provision.
This provision has three key costs/cost savings:
 Costs associated with developing and submitting the demonstration and revised closure plan,
 Avoided costs of disposal of the CCR that is approved by EPA to be used in unit closure at facilities that undertake successful demonstrations, and
 Avoided cost of fill that would otherwise be required for closure at facilities that are successful in their demonstrations.
Due to uncertainty regarding the quality of applications and demonstrations that EPA will receive and its ultimate rates of rejection or approval of these submissions, this RIA presents costs and cost savings for two scenarios reflecting different EPA approval rates:
 Scenario 1 assumes that EPA will reject the use of CCR in closure in some units upon review of the submitted documentation. Specifically, Scenario 1 considers that EPA will deny use of CCR in closure to 50 percent of units that are leaking or have failed the aquifer location restriction.
 Scenario 2 assumes that all applications and demonstrations for use of CCR will be successful and will therefore be approved by EPA.
The only difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 is the number of units that will be able to change practice under the Provision.
As described in Section 3.2.2, the universe of units likely to change practices under Co-Proposed Option 1 includes three different unit types, according to expected closure methods in the baseline; the costs and cost savings under this Provision vary depending on unit's expected closure strategy under the proposed provision: closing with waste in place, clean closing at facilities that also have waste-in-place units, and units incentivized to switch from clean closure to waste-in-place.
This RIA assumes that Co-Proposed Option 1 excludes surface impoundments that are not already closed as of September 2019 and do not plan to close before the end of 2020, as well as units that did not successfully demonstrate compliance with the unstable areas location restriction; and units in states that no longer allow closure with waste-in-place according to state law (i.e., North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana). In addition, clean-closing units smaller than three acres in size and not located at a facility that also has units closing with waste in place are not expected to change practices under the provision. Scenario 1 assumes that EPA will consider and reject the submitted revised closure plans for 50 percent of leaking units and 50 percent of those failing the aquifer location restriction. Scenario 2 assumes no EPA rejection of revised closure plans (See Exhibit 3-2). EPA assumes that the remaining units will, regardless of failing location restriction or leaking, be able to successfully demonstrate that the use of CCR in closure will occur. Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the number of units in each universe segment that will use CCR in closure under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1.
                                  Exhibit 3-5
                         Universe by Closure Strategy
                       Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1
                               Universe Segment
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                         Applicable Costs/Cost Savings
All Units Submitting Revised Closure Plans
                                      211
                                      211
                              Documentation Costs
Units Estimated to use CCR in Closure by Closure Strategy Following EPA Rejection and Facility Review of Closure Strategy
Units Closing with Waste in Place
                                      98
                                      146
                 Avoided Disposal Costs, Avoided Cost of Fill
Units Clean Closing at facilities with Waste-in-Place units (excavated CCR placed in a co-located waste-in-place unit)
                                      32
                                      48
                            Avoided Disposal Costs
Units Switching from Clean Closing to Waste in Place
                                       2
                                      17
                 Avoided Disposal Costs, Avoided Cost of Fill
Total Units Estimated to Use CCR in Closure
                                      132
                                      211

Sections <IP_ADDRESS>  -  <IP_ADDRESS> below describe the specific costs and cost savings associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1.
<IP_ADDRESS>	Documentation costs
To obtain approval for use of CCR in closure under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1, facilities must submit both a demonstration for their new final cover system and a revised closure plan. The universe for this provision includes all units that are potentially eligible, regardless of closure strategy. The same number of units incur demonstration and closure plan revision costs under both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. The universe for the documentation costs is 211 units.
The per-unit cost for this cost is approximately $0.033 million. To estimate the cost of the demonstrations, this RIA relies on paperwork cost estimates for the following two activities from the 2015 CCR RIA, listed below with approximate costs.
 Final cover system demonstration: $117
 Revised closure plan: $32,500
The total cost across the relevant 211 units is approximately $6.42 million, or $0.450 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate.
<IP_ADDRESS>	Avoided disposal costs
Units using CCR in closure avoid paying to dispose of that CCR elsewhere. This avoided disposal cost could either reflect transportation costs and tipping fees for offsite disposal or the capital and operating costs associated with new on-site CCR management unit construction, operations and maintenance. Units that are approved by EPA under all three closure strategies accrue this benefit. Scenario 1 considers 132 units (of the 211 eligible units submitting demonstrations, 63 units are assumed to be unable to use CCR in closure due to location restriction failures or groundwater contamination, while an additional 16 clean-closing units located at facilities with rejected waste-in-place units are also removed). Scenario 2 considers all 211 eligible units.
The average per-unit cost savings for avoided disposal is approximately $1.65 million in Scenario 1 and $1.66 million in Scenario 2. These costs differ across the two scenarios because the groups of facilities that place CCR in closing units have different compositions of waste-in-place versus clean-closing units, which have a smaller average size, and represent a weighted average across the two closure types.
The estimates of the quantities of CCR expected to be placed in each approved unit under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 are based on estimates from testimony by the Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilities Energy (LGE-KU) utility company for fill requirements across the 16 units it operates at six facilities. These estimates are limited because they are drawn from a single company however, EPA believes these estimates are the best available and that they are reasonably representative of the CCR universe in terms of size and distribution between closure strategies. The fill estimates required for closure of these sixteen units averaged 4,280 cubic yards per acre of subgrade fill for both closure methods and, for units closing with waste in place, an additional 2,960 cubic yards per acre for capping fill. These values are multiplied by the median unit sizes of LGE-KU's units for each closure method to estimate total fill requirements for clean-closing and waste-in-place units.
Because facilities are able to substitute CCR for fill use in closure under Provision 2, the per-unit estimated fill capacity is used to estimate per-unit use of CCR in closure. We assume that facilities will use CCR in closure to the greatest extent that is permissible under this provision, though the true quantities of CCR associated with this practice will vary with unit area, and with the amount of CCR in the unit at the beginning of closure. The average quantities estimated for per-unit use of CCR in closure are used to calculate the avoided disposal costs resulting from Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 using an average cost of CCR disposal estimated as $10 per ton, derived from total cost and CCR quantity values in the 2015 CCR Rule RIA. Exhibit 3-6 and Exhibit 3-7 provide the detailed calculations and assumptions that drive these cost savings estimates.
                                  Exhibit 3-6
               Avoided Disposal Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 1; EPA Approves 50 Percent of Units Applying with Failed Aquifer Location Restriction, Groundwater Protection Standard Exceedance

                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                   Source[b]
                                      [1]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent.
                                     $507
                               millions of 2013$
                                     Input

                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                      [2]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $527
                               millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                             [1] inflated to 2016$
                                      [3]
Average annual CCR tonnage disposed across the universe
                                     52.6
                              million tons of CCR
                                     Input
                          2015 CCR RIA, Section 3.3.2
                                     [4]
Expected fill requirements for units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC) [a]
                                  7,240 (WIP)
                             cubic yards per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony

                                  4,280 (CC)

                                      [5]
Median unit surface area
                                  36.5 (WIP)
                                     acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony

                                   8.7 (CC)

                                      [6]
Relevant units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC)
                                   100 (WIP)
                                     units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2

                                    32 (CC)

                                      [7]
Average per-ton disposal cost at seven percent
                                      $10
                             2016$ per ton of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                   [2] / [3]

                                      [8]
Unit conversion: tons of CCR per cubic yard of CCR
                                     0.758
                                  tons of CCR
                                     Input
                                 2015 CCR RIA
                                      [9]
Expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 200,000 (WIP)
                                  tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                [4] x [5] x [8]

                                  48,000 (CC)

                                     [10]
Estimated total CCR used as fill  across the universe
                                     21.5
                              million tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                        ([6-WIP] x [9-WIP]) + ([6-CC] x
                                    [9-CC])
                                     [11]
Total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $221
                               millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                  [10] x [7]
                                     [12]
Present value of total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $198
                               millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                     [13]
Annualized total avoided cost of disposal over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $13.8
                               millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [11] over 100 years at seven percent
a 7,242 cubic yards per acre, derived by adding the average per-acre subgrade fill requirements to the average capping fill requirements cited in the LGE-KU testimony: 4,278 cubic yards per acre for subgrade fill and 2,963 cubic yards per acre for capping fill.
[b] Calculations may not total due to rounding.

The total cost savings for Scenario 1 are approximately $198 million, or $13.8 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent. The total cost savings for Scenario 2 are approximately $305 million, or $21.4 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent.

                                  Exhibit 3-7
               Avoided Disposal Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2; All Units Applying Are Able to Use CCR in Closure

                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                      [1]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent.
                                     $507
                               Millions of 2013$
                                     Input

                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                      [2]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $527
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                             [1] inflated to 2016$
                                      [3]
Average annual CCR tonnage disposed across the universe
                                     52.6
                              Million tons of CCR
                                     Input
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                     [4]
Expected fill requirements for units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC) [a]
                                  7,240 (WIP)
                             cubic yards per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony

                                  4,280 (CC)

                                      [5]
Median unit surface area
                                  36.5 (WIP)
                                     acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony

                                   8.7 (CC)

                                      [6]
Relevant units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC)
                                   163 (WIP)
                                     units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2

                                    48 (CC)

                                      [7]
Average per-ton disposal cost at seven percent
                                      $10
                             2016$ per ton of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                   [2] / [3]

                                      [8]
Unit conversion: tons of CCR per cubic yard of CCR
                                     0.758
                                  tons of CCR
                                     Input
                                 2015 CCR RIA
                                      [9]
Expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 200,000 (WIP)
                                  tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                [4] x [5] x [8]

                                  48,000 (CC)

                                     [10]
Estimated total fill capacity across the universe
                                     34.9
                              Million tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                        ([6-WIP] x [9-WIP]) + ([6-CC] x
                                    [9-CC])
                                     [11]
Total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $349
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                  [10] x [7]
                                     [12]
Present value of total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $305
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                      [1]
Annualized total avoided cost of disposal over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $21.4
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [11] over 100 years at seven percent
a  7,242 cubic yards per acre, derived by adding the average per-acre subgrade fill requirements to the average capping fill requirements cited in the LGE-KU testimony: 4,278 cubic yards per acre for subgrade fill and 2,963 cubic yards per acre for capping fill.

<IP_ADDRESS>	Avoided cost of fill
Units using CCR in place of fill during closure also accrue cost savings resulting from not purchasing virgin fill material needed to bring the units up to grade and/or serve as part of the material necessary to cap the unit. These cost savings are only relevant to units closing with waste in place (including units switching from clean closure to waste in place, as discussed above). Any units using CCR in a closing unit under Provision 2, accrue cost savings from using CCR as fill in lieu of virgin materials that would otherwise have been purchased. Clean-closing units do not accrue any cost savings associated with the avoided costs of fill, as, by definition, placing CCR in these units as part of closure would not conform to "clean" closure.

The relevant universe is 100 units in Scenario 1 and 163 in Scenario 2. Estimates for per-unit fill requirements, or the volumes of fill no longer needed to be purchased as a result of changing practices under this provision, are the same as described in the previous subsection for the avoided costs of disposal. The fill estimates required for closure of these sixteen units averaged 4,280 cubic yards per acre of subgrade fill and, for units closing with waste in place, an additional 2,960 cubic yards per acre for capping fill. These values are multiplied by the median unit sizes of LGE-KU's units for each closure method to estimate total fill requirements for waste-in-place and clean closing units. These values are multiplied by the expected price of fill, $122,000 per acre also from the LGE-KU testimony. The per-unit cost savings estimate for the avoided cost of fill is $4.5 million in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. This value is derived using the methodology in Exhibits 3-8 and Exhibit 3-9 below:
                                  Exhibit 3-8
             Avoided Cost of Fill Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 1; EPA Approves 50 Percent of Units Applying with Failed Aquifer Location Restriction, Groundwater Protection Standard Exceedance

                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                     [1]
                       Expected cost of fill per acre[a]
                                   $122,000
                                2016$ per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [2]
     Median unit surface area for units closing with waste in place (WIP)
                                     36.5
                                     Acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [3]
                         Per-unit avoided cost of fill
                                     $4.5
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [1] x [2]
                                      [4]
                  Relevant units closing with waste in place
                                      100
                                     Units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2
                                      [5]
     Avoided cost of fill material for units closing with waste in place.
                                     $466
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [3] x [4]
                                      [6]
    Present value of total avoided cost of fill due to using CCR in closure
                                     $390
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [5] from 2021 to 2019
                                      [7]
     Annualized total avoided cost of fill over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $27.3
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [6] over 100 years at seven percent
[a]The sum of $74,600 per acre for capping fill and $47,600 per acre for subgrade fill, from the LGE-KU testimony.

                                  Exhibit 3-9
             Avoided Cost of Fill Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2; All Units Applying Are Able to Use CCR in Closure

                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                     [1]
Expected cost of fill per acre[a]
                                   $122,000
                                2016$ per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [2]
Median unit surface area for units closing with waste in place (WIP)
                                     36.5
                                     Acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [3]
Per-unit avoided cost of fill
                                     $4.5
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [1] x [2]
                                      [4]
Relevant units closing with waste in place
                                      163
                                     Units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2
                                      [5]
Avoided cost of fill material for units closing with waste in place.
                                     $725
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [3] x [4]
                                      [6]
Present value of total avoided cost of fill due to using CCR in closure
                                     $633
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [5] from 2021 to 2019
                                      [7]
Annualized total avoided cost of fill over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $44.4
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [6] over 100 years at seven percent
[a]The sum of $74,600 per acre for capping fill and $47,600 per acre for subgrade fill, from the LGE-KU testimony.

The total cost savings for Scenario 1 are approximately $390 million, or $27.3 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent. The total cost savings for Scenario 2 are $633 million, or $44.4 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent.
The costs and cost savings associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 are summarized in Exhibit 3-10 and Exhibit 3-11.

Exhibit 3-10
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 1; EPA Approves 50 Percent of Units Applying with Failed Aquifer Location Restriction, Groundwater Protection Standard Exceedance
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                       Units likely to change practices
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
                       Final cover system demonstration
                                  $0.000117
                                     211
                                    $0.025
                                  $0.000759
                                   $0.0240
                                   $0.00162
                                   $0.0231
                             Closure plan revision
                                   $0.0325
                                     211
                                    $6.85
                                    $0.210
                                    $6.65
                                    $0.448
                                    $6.40
                         Subtotal: Documentation Costs
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                    $6.87
                                    $0.211
                                    $6.67
                                    $0.450
                                    $6.42
Replacing Fill with CCR in Closure
                            Avoided Disposal Costs
                                      3%
                                    ($2.39)
                                     132
                                    ($327)
                                    ($9.75)
                                    ($308)

                                      7%
                                    ($1.65)
                                     132
                                    ($226)

                                    ($13.8)
                                    ($198)
                             Avoided cost of fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                     100
                                    ($446)
                                    ($13.3)
                                    ($421)
                                    ($27.3)
                                    ($390)
                        Subtotal: Timeline Adjustments

                                    ($672)
                                    ($23.1)
                                    ($729)
                                    ($41.2)
                                    ($587)
                                     TOTAL

                                    ($666)
                                    ($22.8)
                                    ($722)
                                    ($40.7)
                                    ($581)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

                 Exhibit 3-11
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2; All Units Applying Are Able to Use CCR in Closure
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                       Units likely to change practices
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                                  Total (3%)
                                  Total (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
                       Final cover system demonstration
                                  $0.000117
                                     211
                                   $0.0247
                                  $0.000736
                                   $0.0233
                                   $0.00162
                                   $0.0231
                             Closure plan revision
                                   $0.0325
                                     211
                                    $6.85
                                    $0.204
                                    $6.45
                                    $0.448
                                    $6.40
                         Subtotal: Documentation Costs
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                    $6.87
                                    $0.205
                                    $6.48
                                    $0.450
                                    $6.42
Replacing Fill with CCR in Closure
                            Avoided Disposal Costs
                                      3%
                                    ($2.41)
                                     211
                                    ($506)
                                    ($15.1)
                                    ($477)

                                      7%
                                    ($1.66)
                                     211
                                    ($350)

                                    ($21.4)
                                    ($305)
                             Avoided cost of fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                     163
                                    ($725)
                                    ($22.3)
                                    ($704)
                                    ($44.4)
                                    ($633)
                        Subtotal: Timeline Adjustments

                                   ($1,070)
                                    ($37.4)
                                   ($1,180)
                                    ($65.8)
                                    ($939)
                                     TOTAL

                                   ($1,070)
                                    ($37.2)
                                   ($1,170)
                                    ($65.3)
                                    ($932)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.
3.2.4	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2: Beneficially using CCR during closure of a unit
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 also revises the 2015 CCR Rule prohibition on placement of CCR in closing units. Option 2 allows facilities to place CCR in units undergoing forced closure as a "beneficial use" of fill following the submission of a revised closure plan. Under the baseline on the date when a CCR surface impoundment enters closure, the unit also becomes subject to a CCR placement prohibition that disallows any further CCR placement into the unit (the cease receipt of CCR deadline). Units subject to forced closure by specified dates, due to either the August 2020 deadline imposed by the 2018 court decisions baseline or provisions at 40 CFR 257.101, are subject to the prohibition as of those dates.
While Co-Proposed Option 2 also allows continued CCR placement into surface impoundments subject to forced closure, it differs from Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 because it does not require specific EPA approval of the revised closure plan. Rather, the only requirements for the use of continued CCR placement into units subject to forced closure are that the closure plan be consistent with the performance standards identified in the 2015 CCR Rule, and that placement of CCR meet the definition of beneficial use at 40 CFR 257.53. The continued placement of CCR in Co-Proposed Option 2 is self-implementing.
This is in contrast to Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1, wherein EPA's review of submitted documentation specifically verifies certain aspects of CCR placement, including volumetric analyses to ensure that CCR placement is used only to the extent that CCR replaces fill that would otherwise be used, and temporal analyses to ensure that closure timelines are not extended as a result of the placement of CCR into the units. While the definition of beneficial use requires that CCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material and not be used in "excess quantities," the lack of specificity in this language, combined with the lack of affirmative review of planned owner/operator activities before CCR placement commences, engenders substantial uncertainty regarding the actual volumes of CCR that may be legitimately placed in units subject to forced closure under this provision and option. Under this option, a revised closure plan must still be developed, though this revised plan is not subject to formal EPA approval prior to implementation, or to any requirement that materials use be minimized.
Like Provision 1, activities associated with this provision are voluntary. However, they are likely to result in substantial cost savings above the paperwork costs required to receive approval to use CCR during closure from EPA. Therefore, this RIA assumes that all eligible facilities will pursue the paperwork development and submission needed to be able to use CCR during closure as allowed under this provision. In the absence of any specific clarification of the definition of beneficial use that would restrict the use of CCR as fill in a unit initially designed for its disposal, this analysis also assumes that all facilities will pursue the use of CCR as "fill" in a beneficial use application that essentially places CCR in the unit in sufficient quantities to fill the unit as designed and cap it, even if those designs do not represent the options requiring the least amount of fill, or the approach that would have been most cost-effective under the 2015 CCR Rule's prohibition on placement of CCR units undertaking closure.
The implementation of this provision will result in three types of costs/cost savings:
 Costs associated with developing and submitting the closure plan,
 Avoided costs of disposal of the CCR that is approved by EPA to be used in unit closure at facilities that undertake successful demonstrations, and
 Avoided cost of fill that would otherwise be required for closure at facilities that are successful in their demonstrations.
Another impact of this provision, discussed in Chapter 4, is the reduction in economic benefits associated with the reduced sale of CCR into beneficial use markets compared to the sales originally quantified in the RIA for the 2015 CCR Rule.
This provision also consists of two scenarios, though the two scenarios are not the same as those modeled for Co-Proposed Option 1. Due to the self-implementing nature of this provision and option, this RIA assumes that all facilities seeking to place CCR in existing surface impoundments as beneficial use will do so; units located in Pennsylvania are excluded from this analysis due to the state's restrictions on the beneficial use of CCR. In addition, a review of specific closure plans indicates that some facilities are likely to design waste-in-place closure of existing units in a way that maximizes placement of CCR within these units. Unlike the structure of Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1, wherein EPA's review and approval of the use of CCR in units subject to forced closure is subject to volumetric analyses that demonstrate that additional CCR is not placed in any units on and above quantities that replace the use of virgin materials (i.e., fill), this provision and option contains no review and approval process, and places no restrictions on revisions to closure plans that would allow facilities to design closures to use additional quantities of CCR in units subject to forced closure and closing with waste in place. Therefore, this provision and option considers two scenarios to capture the uncertainty associated in the quantities of CCR that will be used in such units.
 Scenario 1 considers that beneficially used CCR in closure will equal the volume of fill already planned for use in closure, and is therefore consistent with assumptions made regarding the volume of CCR placed in units subject to forced closure in Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1. (See Section 3.2.3 for a discussion of estimates of fill volumes used in closing CCR surface impoundments.)
 Scenario 2 considers that half of the relevant universe will use a volume of CCR in closure equaling the volume of fill already planned for use in closure (just as in Scenario 1), while the other half will beneficially use CCR in closure at a quantity that exceeds the expected fill requirements.
As described in Section 3.2.2, the universe of units likely to change practices under Co-Proposed Option 1 includes three different unit types, according to expected closure methods in the baseline; the costs and cost savings under this Provision vary depending on unit's expected closure strategy under the proposed provision: closing with waste in place, clean closing at facilities that also have waste-in-place units, and units incentivized to switch from clean closure to waste in place. Within each of these segments of the universe, this RIA assumes that Co-Proposed Option 2 excludes surface impoundments that are not already closed as of September 2019 and do not plan to close before the end of 2020, as well as units located in states with beneficial use regulations that may not be consistent with the placement of CCR in a closing unit (i.e., Pennsylvania). In addition, clean-closing units smaller than three acres in size and not located at a facility with units closing with waste in place and clean closing are not expected to change practices under this provision. These universe segments are summarized in Exhibit 3-12 and described in greater detail in Section 3.2.2.
                                 Exhibit 3-12
                  Units Changing Practice by Closure Strategy
                       Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
                               Universe Segment
                               Scenarios 1 and 2
                         Applicable Costs/Cost Savings
All Eligible Units
                                      277
                              Documentation Costs
Units Closing with Waste in Place
                                      185
                 Avoided Disposal Costs, Avoided Cost of Fill
Units Clean Closing at "Mixed Facilities" (excavated CCR placed in a co-located waste-in-place unit)
                                      65
                            Avoided Disposal Costs
Units Switching from Clean Closing to Waste in Place
                                      27
                 Avoided Disposal Costs, Avoided Cost of Fill

The costs and cost savings associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 are described in Sections <IP_ADDRESS>-<IP_ADDRESS>.
<IP_ADDRESS>  Documentation costs
To take advantage of Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, facilities must submit a revised closure plan. The universe for this provision includes all three closure strategies discussed above, since any unit using CCR in closure must submit the documentation. The universe for the documentation costs is 277 units.
The per-unit cost of closure plan revisions is approximately $0.033 million. To estimate the cost of the closure plan revisions, this RIA relies on paperwork cost estimates for an amended closure plan from the 2015 CCR RIA with the approximate cost of $32,500. The total cost across the relevant 277 units is approximately $8.42 million, or $0.590 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate.
<IP_ADDRESS>  Avoided disposal costs
Units using CCR in closure accrue cost savings from the CCR that would otherwise be disposed of elsewhere, incurring a per-ton disposal cost. This disposal cost reflects either transportation costs and tipping fees (if CCR is taken to an off-site landfill) or the capital and operating costs associated with CCR management unit construction, operations and maintenance (for on-site disposal). Units across all three closure strategies accrue this cost savings, for a unit count of 277 units.
The estimates of the quantities of CCR expected to be placed in each approved unit under Provision 1 are based on estimates from testimony by LGE-KU for fill requirements across the 16 units it operates at six facilities, a reasonably representative sample of the CCR universe in terms of size and distribution between closure strategies The fill estimates required for closure of these sixteen units averaged 4,280 cubic yards per acre of subgrade fill for both closure methods and, for units closing with waste in place, an additional 2,960 cubic yards per acre for capping fill. These values are used in conjunction with the median unit sizes of LGE-KU's units to estimate total fill requirements for clean closing and waste in place units.
Because facilities are able to substitute CCR for fill use in closure under Provision 2, the per-unit estimated fill capacity is used to estimate per-unit use of CCR in closure. We assume that facilities will use CCR in closure to the greatest extent that is permissible under this provision, though the true quantities of CCR associated with this practice will vary with unit area, and with the amount of CCR in the unit at the beginning of closure. The estimates for per-unit use of CCR in closure are used to calculate the avoided disposal costs resulting from Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 using an average cost of CCR disposal of $10 per ton, derived from total cost and disposal quantity values in the 2015 CCR Rule RIA. Based on these assumptions, the per-unit cost savings of avoided disposal is approximately $1.65 million in Scenario 1, which is consistent with the methodology in Co-Proposed Option 1. These cost savings are calculated using the methodology outlined in Exhibit 3-13.

                                 Exhibit 3-13
               Avoided Disposal Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 1: Standard Expected Per-Unit Fill Capacity

                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                      [1]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent.
                                     $507
                               Millions of 2013$
                                     Input

                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                      [2]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $527
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                             [1] inflated to 2016$
                                      [3]
Average annual CCR tonnage disposed across the universe
                                     52.6
                              Million tons of CCR
                                     Input
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                     [4]
Expected fill requirements for units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC)[a]
                                  7,240 (WIP)
                             cubic yards per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony

                                  4,280 (CC)

                                      [5]
Median unit surface area
                                  36.5 (WIP)
                                     Acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony

                                   8.7 (CC)

                                      [6]
Relevant units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC)
                                   212 (WIP)
                                     Units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2

                                    65 (CC)

                                      [7]
Average per-ton disposal cost at seven percent
                                      $10
                             2016$ per ton of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                   [2] / [3]

                                      [8]
Unit conversion: tons of CCR per cubic yard of CCR
                                     0.758
                                  tons of CCR
                                     Input
                                 2015 CCR RIA
                                      [9]
Expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 200,000 (WIP)
                                  tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                [4] x [5] x [8]

                                  48,000 (CC)

                                     [10]
Estimated total fill capacity across the universe
                                     45.7
                              Million tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                        ([6-WIP] x [9-WIP]) + ([6-CC] x
                                    [9-CC])
                                     [11]
Total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $457
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                  [10] x [7]
                                     [12]
Present value of total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $399
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                     [13]
Annualized total avoided cost of disposal over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $28.0
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [12] over 100 years at seven percent
a 7,242 cubic yards per acre, derived by adding the average per-acre subgrade fill requirements to the average capping fill requirements cited in the LGE-KU testimony: 4,278 cubic yards per acre for subgrade fill and 2,963 cubic yards per acre for capping fill.

The total discounted cost savings for Scenario 1 are approximately $399 million, or $28.0 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent.
For Scenario 2, the per-unit cost savings estimated for this cost is $7.7 million, which follows the same methodology as above for Scenario 1, except it incorporates a higher per-unit fill capacity for units closing with waste in place. This higher expected fill capacity for waste-in-place units is based on information from existing closure plans on a review of closure plans submitted by facilities under the 2015 CCR Rule. According to a review of closure documentation for 22 units detailing the use of fill in closure plans to date, two facilities have already stated that they intend to place CCR in their units during closure, though that practice is not consistent with the 2015 CCR Rule prohibition on placement of CCR in a closing unit. The first facility, J R Whiting in Michigan, has posted a closure plan detailing the beneficial use of 400,000 cubic yards of CCR in one of its units. The second, the Yates facility in Georgia, posted a closure plan outlining 2.3 million cubic yards of CCR to be beneficially used in closure per unit. [,] We take the average of the per-unit expected beneficial use requirements for these two cases and assume that 50 percent of the 212 units closing with waste in place beneficially use CCR in closure at this level. The remaining 50 percent of units are assumed to follow the same practice as used in Scenario 1. The weighted average of these values yields an expected per-unit beneficial use capacity of 618,000 tons. These calculations are detailed in Exhibit 3-14 below.
The 618,000 tons of beneficially used CCR per unit estimated in Scenario 2 represents total CCR quantities placed in units over a closure period of potentially up to 15 years for the 212 units expected to change practices under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, Scenario 2. The annual tonnage represented by this of approximately 8.7 million tons (618,000 divided by 15 years, multiplied by 212 units) is equivalent to approximately 17 percent of the estimated annual CCR generation of 52.6 million tons of CCR (from the 2015 CCR RIA), and does not account for accumulated CCR from other on-site or off-site units that could be used under this provision. The avoided disposal cost calculations for Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2 are outlined in Exhibit 3-14.

                                 Exhibit 3-14
               Avoided Disposal Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2: High-End Expected Per-Unit Fill Capacity

                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                      [1]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent.
                                     $507
                               Millions of 2013$
                                     Input

                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                      [2]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $527
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                             [1] inflated to 2016$
                                      [3]
Average annual CCR tonnage disposed across the universe
                                     52.6
                              Million tons of CCR
                                     Input
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                     [4]
Expected fill requirements for units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC) [a]
                                  7,240 (WIP)
                             cubic yards per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony

                                  4,280 (CC)

                                      [5]
Median unit surface area
                                  36.5 (WIP)
                                     acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony

                                   8.7 (CC)

                                      [6]
Relevant units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC)
                                   212 (WIP)
                                     units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2

                                    65 (CC)

                                      [7]
Average per-ton disposal cost at seven percent
                                      $10
                             2016$ per ton of CCR
                                  Calculation
                                   [2] / [3]

                                      [8]
Unit conversion: tons of CCR per cubic yard of CCR
                                     0.758
                                  tons of CCR
                                     Input
                                 2015 CCR RIA
                                      [9]
Scenario 1 expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 200,000 (WIP)
                             tons of CCR per unit
                                  Calculation
                                [4] x [5] x [8]

                                  48,000 (CC)

                                     [9a]
Yates facility example unit: potential high-end use of CCR in closure
                                   2,330,000
                           cubic yards CCR per unit
                                     Input
                          Yates facility closure plan
                                     [9b]
J R Whiting facility example unit: potential high-end use of CCR in closure
                                    400,000
                           cubic yards CCR per unit
                                     Input
                       J R Whiting facility closure plan
                                     [9c]
Average high-end use of CCR in closure
                                   1,370,000
                           Cubic yards CCR per unit
                                  Calculated
                               ([9a] + [9b]) / 2
                                     [9d]
High-end use of CCR in closure, converted to tons
                                   1,030,000
                             tons of CCR per unit
                                  Calculated
                                  [9c] x [8]
                                     [9e]
High-end weighted total fill capacity for units closing with waste in place (WIP)
                                    618,000
                             tons of CCR per unit
                                  Calculation
                        (0.5 x [9d]) + (0.5 x [9-WIP])
                                     [9f]
Scenario 1 expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 618,000 (WIP)
                             tons of CCR per unit
                                  Calculation
                                [9e] and [9-CC]

                                  48,000 (CC)

                                     [10]
Estimated total fill capacity across the universe
                                      134
                              Million tons of CCR
                                  Calculation
                       ([6-WIP] x [9f-WIP]) + ([6-CC] x
                                   [9f-CC])
                                     [11]
Total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                    $1,340
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculation
                                  [10] x [7]
                                     [12]
Present value of total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                    $1,175
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculation
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                     [13]
Annualized total avoided cost of disposal over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $82.3
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculation
                Annualized [12] over 100 years at seven percent
a 7,242 cubic yards per acre, derived by adding the average per-acre subgrade fill requirements to the average capping fill requirements cited in the LGE-KU testimony: 4,278 cubic yards per acre for subgrade fill and 2,963 cubic yards per acre for capping fill.

The present value of total cost savings for Scenario 2 are approximately $1,175 million, or $82.3 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent
<IP_ADDRESS> Avoided cost of fill
Units using CCR in closure in place of fill also accrue cost savings resulting from not purchasing virgin fill material that is replaced by CCR. Though Scenario 2 assumes that facilities will place larger quantities of CCR in units than would be the case under Scenario 1, it is not clear whether closure designs using similar quantities of purchased virgin fill would represent the most cost-effective option in the baseline. Facilities might be expected to find alternatives such as use of on-site fill materials at no cost or redesign of closure (though that would complicate compliance with the beneficial use definition). Given the uncertainty, this analysis assumes that facilities will incur the same cost savings associated with avoided purchase of virgin fill in both scenarios. This may understate cost savings associated with Scenario 2. These cost savings are only relevant to units closing with waste in place, including units switching from clean closure to waste in place, as discussed above. The relevant universe is 212 units.
The fill estimates required for closure of the sixteen LGE-KU units averaged 4,280 cubic yards per acre of subgrade fill for both closure methods and, for units closing with waste in place, an additional 2,960 cubic yards per acre for capping fill. These values are multiplied by the median unit sizes of LGE-KU's units for each closure method to estimate total fill requirements for clean closing and waste-in-place units. These values are multiplied by the expected price of fill, $122,000 per acre also from the LGE-KU testimony. The per-unit cost savings estimate for the avoided cost of fill is $4.5 million in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.  Exhibit 3-15 provides a detailed description of the methodology:

                                 Exhibit 3-15
             Avoided Cost of Fill Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
                       Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2

                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                     [1]
Expected cost of fill per acre[a]
                                   $122,000
                                2016$ per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [2]
Median unit surface area for units closing with waste in place (WIP)
                                     36.5
                                     acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [3]
Per-unit avoided cost of fill
                                     $4.5
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [1] x [2]
                                      [4]
Relevant units closing with waste in place
                                      212
                                     units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2
                                      [5]
Avoided cost of fill material for units closing with waste in place.
                                     $954
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [3] x [4]

                                      [6]
Present value of total avoided cost of fill due to using CCR in closure
                                     $826
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                      [7]
Annualized total avoided cost of fill over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $57.8
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [11] over 100 years at seven percent
a The sum of $74,600 per acre for capping fill and $47,600 per acre for subgrade fill, from the LGE-KU testimony

The present value of total cost savings for avoided cost of fill for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are approximately $826 million, or $57.8 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent. This cost savings estimate assumes that facilities would specifically purchase virgin fill in the same quantities that they are proposing to use CCR as fill. It is possible that alternative engineering solutions could reduce the amount of fill needed or that materials are available for fill on-site, but if that were the case the CCR would be considered "excess" and would not meet the definition of beneficial use. Absent any specific requirement that units conform with the least-fill option for closure, these cost savings would be implied. However, they may overstate actual baseline costs.
The costs and cost savings associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 are summarized in Exhibit 3-16 and Exhibit 3-17.

                 Exhibit 3-16
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2  -  Scenario 1: Standard Expected Per-Unit Fill Capacity
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Costs (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
                            Closure Plan revisions
                                   $0.0325
                                     277
                                    $9.00
                                    $0.277
                                    $8.74
                                    $0.590
                                    $8.42
CCR in Closure
                             Avoided disposal cost
                                                                             3%
                                    ($2.39)
                                     277
                                    ($662)
                                    ($19.7)
                                    ($624)

                                                                             7%
                                    ($1.65)
                                     277
                                    ($457)

                                    ($28.0)
                                    ($399)
                             Avoided Cost of Fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                     212
                                    ($945)
                                    ($28.2)
                                    ($891)
                                    ($57.9)
                                    ($826)
                                  Subtotal:
                                CCR in Closure

                                   ($1,610)
                                    ($47.9)
                                   ($1,510)
                                    ($85.8)
                                   ($1,220)
                                                                          TOTAL

                                   ($1,390)
                                    ($47.7)
                                   ($1,510)
                                    ($85.2)
                                   ($1,220)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

                 Exhibit 3-17
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2  -  Scenario 2; High-End Expected Per-Unit Fill Capacity
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                      Units expected to change practices
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                                  Total (3%)
                                  Total (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
                            Closure Plan revisions
                                   $0.0325
                                     277
                                    $9.00
                                    $0.277
                                    $8.74
                                    $0.590
                                    $8.42
CCR in Closure
                             Avoided disposal cost
                                                                             3%
                                    ($7.0)
                                      277
                                   ($1,950)
                                    ($58.1)
                                   ($1,840)

                                                                             7%
                                    ($4.86)
                                      277
                                   ($1,340)

                                     ($82)
                                   ($1,170)
                             Avoided Cost of Fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                      212
                                    ($945)
                                    ($28.2)
                                    ($891)
                                    ($57.9)
                                    ($826)
                                  Subtotal:
                                CCR in Closure

                                   ($2,290)
                                    ($86.3)
                                   ($2,730)
                                    ($140)
                                   ($2,000)
                                                                          TOTAL

                                   ($2,280)
                                    ($86.0)
                                   ($2,720)
                                    ($140)
                                   ($1,990)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

3.3	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 3: Closure of CCR Units by Removal of CCR
The 2015 CCR Rule required all units closing by removal of CCR to complete all removal and decontamination activities, including groundwater corrective action, prior to certifying completion of closure. The 2015 CCR Rule also required that all closure activities be completed within five years of commencing closure activities under 40 CFR 257.102(f) for surface impoundments, and within six months of commencing closure activities for landfills, with additional extensions granted per 40 CFR 257(f)(2) for a maximum total of 10 years for surface impoundments and two years for landfills. At the time that the original rule was passed, the extent of existing contamination at operating units was not fully understood, and was underestimated. The rule provisions assumed that the majority of releases would occur after monitoring systems were in place and that contamination would be discovered and addressed before contamination was extensive. Subsequent information documenting the number of and extent of existing releases indicates that 38 percent of units with groundwater monitoring systems in place have already posted exceedances of the Groundwater Protection Standards, and a large portion of the remaining units are likely not far enough along in monitoring activities to confirm the presence or absence of leaks. Partly in response to this information, EPA is revisiting the requirements for documenting closure at the subset of leaking units that are "clean closing" (i.e., removing all CCR from the unit), to separate the requirements associated with closure from those associated with longer-term remediation of prior contamination. Specifically, EPA has received information through its work with State regulating agencies that the extent of contamination at many sites will require lengthier corrective action measures than the overall closure timeframes, inclusive of extensions, afforded by the 2015 CCR Rule. Under current regulations, units closing by removal cannot certify that closure has been completed until all CCR removal and decontamination activities, including groundwater corrective action are complete. Given the lengthy time horizon of corrective action (e.g., long-term groundwater treatment) anticipated at some sites, this would render some units closing by removal incapable of meeting the deadlines in the 2015 CCR Rule, even if all possible extensions were applied for and granted.
To address this challenge, this provision allows units closing by removal of CCR to certify closure once all removal and decontamination activities, aside from groundwater corrective action, are complete. Groundwater corrective action would be allowed to continue during the post-closure care period until remediation is complete, and would not preclude the unit from certifying that closure has been completed. The provision has two associated costs and cost savings related to required documentation:
 Costs associated with amending closure and post-closure plans in order to comply with the provision.
 Cost savings associated with avoided documentation requirements during closure resulting from earlier closure certification. Once certified closed, units are no longer required to comply with incremental documentation requirements under the 2015 CCR Rule.
In addition, facilities that can take advantage of this provision might have other cost savings or financial benefits associated with a certified closure designation, such as the ability to transfer the property in a sale, or insurance impacts.
The relevant universe for Provision 3 includes all surface impoundments not already closed that are 1) subject to forced closure, 2) closing by removal, and 3) undergoing corrective action. Units closing with waste in place are not expected to change practices under this provision. Clean-closing units that do not require corrective action are likewise unaffected, as they do not have to complete corrective measures prior to certifying closure. This universe therefore consists of 63 units. Exhibit 3-18 summarizes the derivation of the applicable universe for Provision 3.

                 Exhibit 3-18
Provision 3 Universe Derivation
Surface Impoundments
                                      533
Adjusted to remove 50 units already closed
                                      483
Adjusted to remove 281 units not closing via removal
                                      202
Adjusted to remove 46 units not subject to forced closure
                                      156
Adjusted to remove 93 leaking units
                                      63
Final Provision 3 Universe
                                   63 Units

The costs and cost savings associated with Provision 3 are described in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
3.3.1	Costs Associated with Documentation
Facilities seeking to take advantage of earlier completion of closure under Provision 3 are required to revise both their closure and post-closure plans to reflect the updates to their planned closure practices. In addition, facilities are required to add a notation to the property deed for units that will be closing prior to completion of corrective action.
The per-unit costs associated with the documentation required for Provision 3 (in 2020 for the closure plans, 2021 for the deed notation) are approximately $0.066 million. To estimate the cost of the demonstrations, this RIA relies on paperwork cost estimates for the following two activities from the 2015 CCR RIA, listed below with approximate costs.
 Amended closure plan: $32,500
 Amended post-closure plan: $32,500
 Property deed notation: $1,000
The total cost across the 63 units is approximately $3.88 million, or $0.272 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent.
3.3.2	Cost Savings Associated with Avoided Documentation
As a result of earlier certification of closure, owners and operators avoid certain documentation requirements that would be required if the affected units' closure was not yet complete. This RIA assumes that under Provision 3, eligible units are able to certify closure five years ahead of their ability to do so in the baseline, based on the standard, non-extended closure length timeframes included in the 2015 CCR Rule and 40 CFR 257.103. This assumption results in ten avoided annual reports (five avoided inspection reports and five avoided fugitive dust control reports, each of which is required annually under current regulations at 40 CFR 257), as well as one round of five-year follow-up reports for design criteria requirements at 40 CFR 257: hazard classification, structural stability assessment and safety factor assessment (the structural stability assessment is used as a proxy for the safety factor assessment), i.e., three additional avoided reports, or 13 avoided reports in total. The approximate costs of the reports listed above are:
 Annual report (inspection/fugitive dust): $492
 Hazard Potential Classification: $1,060
 Structural Stability Assessment: $921
The per-unit cost savings associated with the avoided documentation (2021-2026 for the annual reports, 2021 for the five-year reports) is $7,040. This value is based on unit cost estimates from the 2015 CCR RIA associated with each of these documentation requirements and updated with 2018 labor rates. The total cost across the 63 units is approximately $0.382 million, or $0.0267 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent.
The costs and cost savings associated with Provision 3 are summarized in Exhibit 3-19. While this provision appears voluntary in nature, it is a cost-increasing regulatory change. This RIA expects the net cost increases summarized in Exhibit 3-19 to be incurred despite the voluntary appearance of the provision, as the ability to certify closure, with certain additional paperwork requirements and costs, prior to the completion of groundwater corrective action activities is necessary for certain CCR management units to meet their closure deadlines under existing regulations. In other words, while the changes in practice associated with paperwork under this provision result in a net cost, this net cost occurs specifically because under existing closure deadlines, some units must be able to certify closure prior to the completion of associated groundwater corrective action activities and therefore must incur this net cost to remain in regulatory compliance.

Exhibit 3-19
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 3
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Costs (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
                            Closure Plan revisions
                                   $0.0325