Regulatory Impact Analysis

                        EPA's 2019 RCRA Proposed Rule
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of CCR; A Holistic Approach to Closure Part B: Alternate Demonstration for Unlined Surface Impoundments; Implementation of Closure

                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
              Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR)
                 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Mailstop 5305P)
                           Washington DC, 20460 USA

                                 February 2020
                               Table of Contents
Executive Summary	1
Chapter 1. Background: The Need for Revising the 2015 RCRA  Final Rule Regulating Coal Combustion Landfills and Surface Impoundments at Electric Utility Power Plants	1
Chapter 2. Affected Universe and Baseline Costs	2-1
2.1	Affected Electric Utility Facilities	2-1
2.1.1	Original Baseline: 2015 CCR Regulatory Impact Analysis Universe	2-2
2.1.2	2018 Phase One Final Rule Universe	2-2
2.1.3	2019 Proposed Part A and Part B Rule Universe	2-2
2.2	Changes to Baseline Closure Process under Proposed Part B Rule Provisions	2-5
2.3	Planned Closure of CCR Units at Affected Electric Utility Facilities	2-7
3.2.1	Potential Impacts on Planned Closure Timelines due to the December 2, 2019 Published Proposed Part A Rule 	2-8
2.4	Baseline Costs	2-9
Chapter 3.	3-13
Estimated Costs and Cost Savings Under the Proposed Part B Rule	3-13
3.1	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 1: Alternate Liner Demonstration	3-14
3.1.1	Application to Submit an Alternate Liner Demonstration	3-16
3.1.2 	Demonstration of Suitability of Existing Liner	3-16
3.1.3 	Cost Savings due to Closure Delays for Units with Accepted Demonstrations	3-17
3.2	Provision 2: Use of CCR in Units Subject to Forced Closure	3-19
3.2.1	Summary of Provision 2 Co-Proposed Options	3-20
3.2.2 	Universe of Facilities and Units Likely to Change Practices Under Provision 2 	3-22
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	3-26
3.2.4	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2: Beneficially using CCR during closure of a unit	3-35
3.3	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 3: Closure of CCR Units by Removal of CCR	3-46
3.3.1	Costs Associated with Documentation	3-48
3.3.2	Cost Savings Associated with Avoided Documentation	3-48
3.4 	Costs Associated with Provision 4: Revised Notice of Intent to Close and Annual Closure Progress Reports	3-50
3.4.1 	Notice of Intent to Close Revisions	3-51
3.4.2 	Documentation Component 2: Annual Closure Progress Reports	3-51
3.5 	Interaction Effects Across Provisions	3-52
3.6	Summary of Expected Costs and Cost Savings	3-55
Chapter 4. Incremental Benefits of the Proposed Part B Rule	4-1
4.1	Beneficial Use Market Impacts	4-1
3.2	Human Health and Environmental Impacts associated with Groundwater Contamination	4-5
Chapter 5. Other Required Analyses	5-1
5.1	Electricity Price and Energy Market Impacts (Executive Order 13211)	5-1
5.2	Small Business Impact Analysis (RFA/SBREFA)	5-2
5.3	Potential Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898)	5-3
5.4	Potential Impacts to Children (Executive Order 13045)	5-3
5.5	Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) and Federalism Implications Analysis (Executive Order 13132)	5-4
5.5.1	Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA)	5-4
5.5.2.	Federalism (Executive Order 13132)	5-4
5.5.3.	Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175)	5-4
5.6	Effects on Employment	5-5
Appendix A Baseline CCR Management Costs Considered and Not Considered in this RIA	5-1

 Executive Summary

Background and Description of the Proposed Part B Rule
On April 17, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Final Rule addressing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) as solid waste under subtitle D of RCRA (80 FR 21302). The "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities," rule (the "2015 CCR Rule") established national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments (CCR management units or "units") that receive the residuals (including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials) from the combustion of coal to generate electricity (or electricity and heat) for sale to the public, as well as all lateral expansions of these units. The criteria include location restrictions, design and operating criteria, requirements for groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care, record keeping, and notification and internet posting of compliance information. The 2015 CCR Rule also required any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent's groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR by April 2019 and either retrofit or close, except in limited circumstances.
The proposed rule considered in this regulatory impact analysis (RIA), herein referred to as the "Part B rule," contains potential amendments to 2015 CCR Rule:
 A provision allowing for owners and operators of existing unlined CCR surface impoundments to demonstrate that its current liner system (e.g., clay liner) performs equivalent to a composite liner (as defined in the CCR federal regulations) and thus meets the § 4004(a) standard for sanitary landfill classification. Units that make a successful demonstration would not be subject to forced closure and could continue to operate.
 Co-proposed options allowing for the use of dry CCR in units subject to forced closure. Under both of these co-proposed options, CCR owners/operators can add dry CCR to closing and de-watered surface impoundments after the cease receipt of CCR deadline, provided they meet the following requirements for each co-proposed option:
 Co-Proposed Option 1  - such placement is conducted under an approved closure plan. Under this option, such placement is implemented as an exemption to the cease receipt of CCR deadline specified in § 257.101.
      or
 Co-Proposed Option 2  - the use of CCR qualifies as "beneficial use" per the definition at § 257.53.
 A provision that would establish an additional closure option for CCR units being closed by removal of all CCR ("closing by removal" or "clean closing"). The 2015 CCR Rule requires that units closing by removal of CCR complete all removal and decontamination activities, including groundwater corrective action, prior to certifying completion of closure. This proposed provision would allow units closing by removal of CCR to certify closure when all removal and decontamination activities are complete (except for completion of groundwater corrective action), but allow ongoing groundwater corrective action to continue during the post-closure care period.
 A provision adding two new documentation requirements for closing units. First, facilities must re-post any prior Notices of Intent to Close, and the re-posted versions must specify an intended date of closure. Any future Notices of Intent to Close (e.g., facility has not yet been required to submit this notification) must also specify an intended date of closure. Second, all units undergoing closure must prepare annual closure progress reports.
Universe of Facilities and Units affected by the Proposed Part B Rule
The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2015 CCR Rule ("2015 CCR RIA") identified a regulatory universe of 478 potentially affected coal-fired electric utility facilities (assigned to the utility sector North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 22).
Of these 478 facilities, the 2015 CCR RIA identified and removed 64 facilities that were expected to fully close all coal-fired units before the rule took effect in 2016, based on the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v.5.13 database. The final universe of affected facilities in the 2015 CCR RIA included 414 affected facilities (i.e., 478 facilities minus 64 facilities); within that universe 308 facilities had 922 onsite CCR management units, including 286 on-site CCR landfills and 636 on-site CCR surface impoundments. Because the 2015 CCR rule included several general provisions regarding reports on CCR management operations, this regulatory universe consisted of all coal-fired electric utility facilities, including 106 with no on-site units for disposal of their generated CCR off-site or whose generated CCR was beneficially used in its entirety. In other words, the 922 on-site CCR management units were located at roughly 308 of the 414 facilities.
The 2015 CCR Rule requires regulated facilities to document compliance with rule requirements on publicly accessible websites. These reports address requirements with different implementation deadlines, including dust control plans, surface impoundment construction histories, notifications of changes in operations (such as closure), inspection documents, and a series of groundwater monitoring reports.
The 2018 Phase One Final Rule (83 FR 36435 (July 30, 2018)) universe removed 23 facilities from the original 414 resulting in an updated facility count of 391. A review of the data posted as of September 2019 provides an accurate update to the number of facilities and units in the 2018 Phase One Final Rule universe regulated under the 2015 CCR Rule, and to the operating status of each of these units. The proposed Part B rule and proposed Part A rule (84 FR 65941 (December 2, 2019)) use the current (September 2019) universe of facilities and units subject to the 2015 CCR Rule includes 300 facilities, with 768 CCR units, (including 522 active surface impoundments and 235 landfills). Two factors drive the difference in apparent universe size between the prior estimates and the current 2019 universe:
 The definition of a unit: the 2015 CCR Rule universe treated each surface impoundment as a separate unit, but the rule allows flexibility in identifying management units. Some facilities in the universe report two or more interconnected surface impoundments as a single unit. This consolidation in reporting conventions has reduced the total number of units relative to prior assessments of the CCR management unit universe.
 Not all facilities have affected units: Not all facilities in the 2018 Phase One Final Rule universe have on-site CCR units. According to the current database of regulated CCR units, 300 affected facilities have on-site CCR landfills or surface impoundments. Roughly 100 existing coal-fired electrical generating facilities with no on-site CCR units do not incur compliance costs associated with the 2015 CCR Rule and are not eligible to change practice in accordance with the provisions of the proposed Part A and proposed Part B rules. Therefore, these facilities are not considered in the universe for these proposed rules.
Exhibit ES-1 lists the CCR unit counts potentially subject to each of the provisions in the proposed Part B rule. Throughout this analysis, units are assumed to be subject to a provision if either 1) new requirements require that facilities operating the unit take action, resulting in costs or cost savings, or 2) changes to financial incentives allows operating facilities to opt to change unit management practices, resulting in costs or cost savings. Exhibit ES-1 identifies the total universe of units potentially subject to each provision, though some facilities may opt not to change operations under some provisions.

                                 Exhibit ES-1
Estimated Number of Units Potentially Subject to Proposed Part B Rule Provisions

      Surface Impoundments and Landfills potentially subject to provision
                           Type of Units Affected[a]
Provision 1  -  Alternate liner demonstration
Scenario 1: High Application Rate
                                      20
A portion of the existing unlined non-leaking surface impoundments with liner systems (e.g., compacted soil or clay liners) that are not consistent with 40 CFR § 257.71(a)(1)(ii) or (iii).

Scenario 2: Low Application Rate
                                      10

         Provision 2  -  Use of CCR in units subject to forced closure
Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Use of CCR during closure under an approved closure plan
                                      211
Surface impoundments that will still be open after 2020, not located in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place, and that successfully demonstrated compliance with the unstable areas location restriction in 40 CFR § 257.64.

Co-Proposed Option 2  -  Beneficial use of CCR during closure
                                      277
Surface impoundments that will still be open after 2020, not located in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place, and that are not located in states with strict beneficial use restrictions.
Provision 3  -  Closure of CCR units by removal of CCR
                                      63
Surface impoundments closing via removal that are still open, not subject to forced closure and not leaking.
Provision 4
Notice of Intent to Close Revisions
                                      163
All surface impoundments and landfills subject to forced closure that have posted NOIs but have not yet closed.

Annual Closure Progress Reports
                                    407[b]
All closing units.
a Chapter 3 of this document describes the methodology for identifying the affected unit universe for each provision, as well as the description of the cost calculations.
b The analysis in the RIA for the Part A rule identified 427 closing surface impoundments, excluding closures prior to 2020. The corresponding figure in this table is 407, reflecting 20 surface impoundments that have since completed closure.

Each of the provisions of the proposed Part B rule considered in this RIA pertain to various aspects of the "closure" of CCR management units. The closure of CCR management units is a multi-stage process that can span several years, and includes the following steps:
        Closure Plan: Before initiating closure for a unit, facilities are required to post closure plans detailing which of two closure methods will be used.
        Notice of Intent to Close: As a first step in initiating the closure process, facilities must post a brief "Notice of Intent to Close" document, indicating that the facility intends to close a unit.
        Cease Receipt of CCR Deadline: Units subject to forced closure must comply with a "cease receipt of CCR deadline" that takes effect on the day that the unit enters closure. Under the 2015 CCR Rule, as of the cease receipt of CCR deadline, no CCR can be placed in the closing unit for any reason.
        Closure Operations: As of the cease receipt of CCR deadline, the unit begins closure operations. Activities include the dewatering of the unit, any required corrective measures for decontamination, and, if the unit is clean closing, removal of all CCR. The unit's supporting structure is also modified to a new shape for closure (sometimes requiring the use of non-CCR "fill" materials) to accommodate a final cover system. The length of time to complete these "closure activities" varies by unit, but may, for some units, take up to 15 years).
        Completion of Closure. Once all closure operations are complete, the facility must obtain a professional engineer's "certification of completion of closure," verifying that the closure process has been completed consistent with requirements under 40 CFR 257.102. The unit then enters the post-closure care period, in which some activities, such as groundwater monitoring at units that closed with waste in place, continue.
Exhibit ES-2 outlines the various steps of the closure process and the associated applicability of the proposed Part B rule's provisions.
                                 Exhibit ES-2
           Closure Activities and Applicability to Part B Provisions
                         Category Relevant to this RIA
                         Applicable Part B Provisions
                             Changes Under Part B
Closure Plan
Provision 2
Revised closure plans detailing use of CCR in closure
Notice of Intent to Close
Provision 4
Revised NOIs containing expected date of closure
Cease Receipt of CCR Deadline
Provision 1
Delays of the cease receipt of CCR deadline
Closure Operations
Provision 2, Provision 4
Use of CCR in closure, annual closure progress reports
Completion of Closure
Provision 3
Earlier certification of closure completion for clean closing units
Each of these categories of closure activities are key aspects of the calculations of the costs and cost savings of the proposed Part B rule, described in Chapter 3 of this RIA.
Estimated Costs and Cost Savings Under the Proposed Part B Rule
The costs and cost savings associated with the provisions of the proposed Part B rule fall into several general types, including:
 Recordkeeping and reporting costs and cost savings: Several of the provisions include new requirements for closure plans or other paperwork, or enable facilities to reduce recordkeeping and reporting costs and other compliance costs.
 Time value of money: Changes in the timing of anticipated expenditures under proposed Part B rule provisions changes the present value cost of those expenditures; for large capital expenditures such as those related to closure, changes in timing can have significant cost implications.
 Operational changes: Under Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule, facilities may opt to change closure methods or other operational plans due to changes in requirements that change the relative cost-effectiveness of different options.

Consistent with EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, the cost estimates in this RIA rely on the principle that facility decision makers are rational economic actors, and will choose the most cost-effective approach to CCR management at the facility (or company) level.
This RIA also assumes full compliance with requirements under the proposed Part B rule and all related regulations. Where the intersection of regulatory requirements and enabling definitions (e.g., the definition of beneficial use) is unclear, this RIA assumes that facilities will interpret the requirements to maximize cost savings.
Finally, consistent with requirements under OMB's Circular A-4, this RIA employs seven percent and three percent discount rates to account for multi-year costs and cost reductions, and identifies seven percent values in the text.
Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 1: Alternate Liner Demonstration
Provision 1 of the proposed Part B rule allows owners/operators CCR surface impoundments whose existing liners are insufficient to qualify as lined under the 2015 CCR Rule to attempt an "alternate liner demonstration." 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, 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 approved units to continue to operate. Upon approval of a successful application and demonstration for a 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. This provision does not impose any involuntary compliance activities on owners/operators of CCR management units. Because the costs of closure are considerable, this RIA assumes that a significant portion of owners/operators with potentially eligible units will prepare and submit an initial application, and if approved, will prepare and submit an alternate liner demonstration. We present two scenarios for a "high" and "low" number of applications to submit the liner demonstration. Units potentially eligible for Provision 1 include units that: (1) are not closed, (2) are not lined under the design criteria specified at 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), (3) are not leaking, (4) have groundwater monitoring systems in place, and (5) have passed all required location restrictions.
The cost savings associated with Provision 1 are summarized in Exhibit ES-3 and Exhibit ES-4.
Exhibit ES-3
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 1  -  Alternate Liner Demonstration
            Scenario 1: High Application Rate
 (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 ES-4
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 1  -  Alternate Liner Demonstration
             Scenario 2: Low Application Rate
 (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.

Cost Savings Associated with 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.
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.
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.
Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Co-Proposed Option 1: Placement 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. 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 placement of CCR during 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 placement of CCR during closure 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 (Exhibit ES-5 and Exhibit ES-6). The derivation of the affected universes for each scenario are outlined in Exhibit 3-2, Exhibit 3-3, and Exhibit 3-4.

Exhibit ES-5
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[a]
                                    ($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)
[a] Reflects 98 surface impoundments closing with waste in place, and two expected to switch from clean closure to closure with waste in place. These 100 units are expected to place CCR during closure and avoid costs associated with purchasing fill. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 for additional information.
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 ES-6
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[a]
                                    ($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)
[a] Reflects 146 surface impoundments closing with waste in place, and 17 expected to switch from clean closure to closure with waste in place. These 163 units are expected to place CCR during closure and avoid costs associated with purchasing fill. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 for additional information.
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.

Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2: Beneficially using CCR as fill 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. The continued placement of CCR in Co-Proposed Option 2 is self-implementing.
Like Provision 1, activities associated with this provision are voluntary. However, they are likely to result in substantial cost savings on and 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 eligible 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.
This provision also consists of two scenarios.
 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.
 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, while the other half will beneficially use CCR in closure at a quantity that exceeds the expected fill requirements.
   Exhibit ES-7 and Exhibit ES-8 summarize the cost savings under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. The universes of affected units for each scenario are outlined in Exhibit 3-2, Exhibit 3-3, and Exhibit 3-4.

                 Exhibit ES-7
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 a
                                    ($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)
[a] Reflects 185 surface impoundments closing with waste in place, and 27 expected to switch from clean closure to closure with waste in place. These 212 units are expected to place CCR during closure and avoid costs associated with purchasing fill. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 for additional information.
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 ES-8
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 a
                                    ($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)
[a] Reflects 185 surface impoundments closing with waste in place, and 27 expected to switch from clean closure to closure with waste in place. These 212 units are expected to place CCR during closure and avoid costs associated with purchasing fill. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 for additional information.
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.

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. At the time that the original rule was finalized, the extent of existing contamination at operating units was not fully understood and was underestimated. 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.
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.
Exhibit ES-9 summarizes the costs and cost savings of Provision 3. The universe of affected units for this provision is outlined in Exhibit 3-18.
Exhibit ES-9
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
                                      63
                                    $2.05
                                   $0.0629
                                    $1.99
                                    $0.134
                                    $1.91
                          Post-Closure Plan revisions
                                   $0.0325
                                      63
                                    $2.05
                                   $0.0629
                                    $1.99
                                    $0.134
                                    $1.91
                            Property deed notation
                                   $0.00100
                                      63
                                   $0.0630
                                   $0.00188
                                   $0.0593
                                   $0.00385
                                   $0.0549
                         Subtotal: Documentation Costs

                                    $4.16
                                    $0.128
                                    $4.04
                                    $0.272
                                    $3.88
Avoided Documentation Costs
              Avoided documentation costs due to earlier closure
                                  ($0.00741)
                                      63
                                   ($0.467)
                                   ($0.0139)
                                   ($0.440)
                                   ($0.0267)
                                   ($0.382)
                                     TOTAL

                                    $3.70
                                    $0.114
                                    $3.60
                                    $0.245
                                    $3.49
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.

Costs Associated with Provision 4: Revised Notice of Intent to Close and Annual Closure Progress Reports
Provision 4 requires changes to paperwork requirements that apply to two different subsets of units depending on the paperwork already submitted for the units. The first requires all previously-submitted Notices of Intent to Close (NOIs) to be updated with an intended date of closure. The second is a new requirement for annual closure progress reports. EPA is proposing these changes to the paperwork requirements to increase transparency around the closure process and to provide a system of accountability for facilities' closure targets. Exhibit ES-10 summarizes and costs associated with Provision 4.
Exhibit ES-10
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 4: Revised Notice of Intent to Close and Annual Closure Progress Reports
 (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
Notice of Intent to Close revisions
                                  $0.0000510
                                     163
                                   $0.00831
                                  $0.000255
                                   $0.00807
                                  $0.000544
                                   $0.00777
Annual Closure Progress Reports
                                   $0.00346
                                     407
                                    $2.00
                                   $0.0541
                                    $1.71
                                   $0.0986
                                    $1.41
                                                                          TOTAL

                                    $2.01
                                   $0.0544
                                    $1.72
                                   $0.0992
                                    $1.42
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.

Incremental Benefits of the Proposed Part B Rule and Other Required Analyses
Because the proposed Part B rule provisions enable more placement of CCR in existing units, the impacts may affect the risk of releases of CCR into the environment, and therefore affect the human health and environmental benefits of the 2015 CCR Rule. However, the magnitude and extent of any possible reductions is dependent on facility- and market-specific factors, and the baseline risks and benefits of the 2015 rule have not been re-examined since data published under 40 CFR 257 show that existing contamination is more widespread than the 2009 risk assessment assumed. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify or monetize the proposed Part B rule's incremental effect on human health and the environment using currently available data. Additionally, the consolidation of CCR into a smaller number of units may reduce exposures. The benefits of consolidation are currently unquantifiable for the reasons discussed above and are instead discussed qualitatively in Chapter 4. EPA solicits public comment on data availability. However, EPA believes the following impacts associated with the proposed Part B requirements may include:
 Reduced benefits associated with beneficial use markets under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, resulting from the potential diversion of CCR away from high-value uses with significant environmental benefits to lower-value fill applications.
 There may be indirect costs associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, resulting slowing of growth or shrinkage to the beneficial use markets and industry.
 Human health and environmental impacts associated with increased potential for groundwater contamination resulting from increased placement of CCR in both open and closing units under Provisions 1 and 2. This could potentially result in a reduction in human health and environmental benefits and an increase in exposures to the chemicals found in CCR. These may be offset by the effects of unit consolidation, which could decrease the potential for groundwater contamination.
As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this RIA considers a number of supplemental analyses for the proposed Part B rule, including:
 Electricity Price and Energy Market Impacts (Executive Order 13211)
 Small Business Impact Analysis  -  Regulatory Fairness Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA)
 Potential Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898)
 Potential Impacts to Children (Executive Order 13045)
 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA), Federalism Implications (Executive Order 13132), and Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175)
 Effects on Employment
 Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 13771)
While EPA has not accounted for potential changes to benefits, these analysis find no significant effect associated with any of the applicable statutes and executive orders, except to note that the impacts of the proposed rule on minority and low-income populations (Executive Order 12898) and children (Executive Order 13045) were not able to be assessed in the absence of an updated risk analysis. The regulation is cost-saving under Executive Order 13771.
Summary of Costs, Cost Savings, and Impacts on Benefits
The total costs, cost savings, and impacts on benefits associated with the proposed Part B rule are summarized in Exhibit ES-11. Combined, the cost provisions in the rule across two co-proposed options with two scenarios each represent a low-end estimate of $45.7 million in cost savings and a high end of $138 million in cost savings, annualized over 100 years at seven percent.
EPA requests comment on the assumptions, methodology, and data used in this analysis

                 Exhibit ES-11
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
                   Proposed Part B Rule
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Provision 1
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2

                                    ($4.98)
                                    ($2.49)
                                    ($157)
                                    ($78.6)
                                    ($8.63)
                                    ($4.32)
                                    ($123)
                                    ($61.6)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2

                                    ($22.8)
                                    ($37.2)
                                    ($722)
                                   ($1,170)
                                    ($40.7)
                                    ($65.3)
                                    ($581)
                                    ($932)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2

                                    ($47.7)
                                    ($86.0)
                                   ($1,510)
                                   ($2,720)
                                    ($85.2)
                                    ($140)
                                   ($1,220)
                                   ($1,990)
Provision 3 (cost increase)
                                    $0.114
                                    $3.60
                                    $0.245
                                    $3.49
 Provision 4 (cost increase)
                                   $0.0544
                                    $1.72
                                   $0.0992
                                    $1.42
Interaction Effects, Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2

                                    $1.59
                                    $1.56
                                    $50.2
                                    $49.3
                                    $3.26
                                    $3.20
                                    $46.5
                                    $45.6
Interaction Effects, Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2

                                    $2.30
                                    $4.80
                                    $72.7
                                     $152
                                    $4.71
                                    $9.85
                                    $67.3
                                     $141

                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                              TOTAL COST SAVINGS
                                    ($23.3)
                                    ($86.0)
                                    ($745)
                                   ($2,719)
                                    ($41.4)
                                    ($138)
                                    ($591)
                                   ($1,967)
Scenario Assumptions
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1
   - Scenario 1: Assumes EPA rejects a share of modified closure plans detailing CCR to be used in closure, at a rate of 50 percent of units currently exceeding the Groundwater Protection Standards and 50% of units failing the aquifer location restriction.
   - Scenario 2: Assumes EPA accepts all modified closure plans.
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
   - Scenario 1: Assumes the quantities of beneficially used CCR in closure align with the same existing estimates of fill required in closure used in Co-Proposed Option 1.
   - Scenario 2: Assumes that 50 percent of units will beneficially use CCR in closure at quantities exceeding existing estimates of fill required in closure at a rate equaling that of the Yates facility in Georgia, which has closure plans on file detailing a 40 foot thick layer of CCR to be used in closure.

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.

Background: The Need for Revising the 2015 RCRA
Final Rule Regulating Coal Combustion Landfills and Surface Impoundments at Electric Utility Power Plants
On April 17, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Final Rule addressing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) as solid waste under subtitle D of RCRA (80 FR 21302). The "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities," (the "2015 CCR Rule") established national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments (CCR management units or "units") that receive the residuals (including fly ash, bottom ash, and other materials) from the combustion of coal to make electricity, as well as all lateral expansions of these units. The criteria include location restrictions, design and operating criteria, requirements for groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care, record keeping, and notification and internet posting. The rule also required any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent's groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR by April 2019 and either retrofit or close, except in limited circumstances.
Litigation History
The 2015 CCR Rule was challenged by several different parties, including a coalition of regulated entities and a coalition of public interest environmental organizations. See Utilities and Solid Waste Advocacy Group (USWAG) et al. v EPA, No. 15-1219 (DC Cir. 2015). Four of the claims, which represent a subset of the provisions challenged by the industry and environmental petitioners were settled. As part of that settlement, on April 18, 2016 EPA requested the court to remand the four claims back to the Agency. On June 14, 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion.
One claim, which was settled by the vacatur of the provision allowing inactive surface impoundments to close early and thereby avoid groundwater monitoring, cleanup, and post-closure care requirements, was the subject of a 2016 rulemaking, Extension of Compliance Deadlines and Response to Partial Vacatur, that extended compliance deadlines for certain inactive CCR surface impoundments (81 FR 51802).
In March 2018, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2015 CCR Rule. These revisions, which resulted in a final rule, "Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Amendments to the National Regulations Finalized in 2018 (Phase One, Part One) published on July 30, 2018 (83 FR 36435) (referred to hereafter as the "2018 Phase One Final Rule") included:
 Extension of Compliance Date for Aquifer Location Standards to October 31, 2020;
 Modification of the Date by Which Unlined Surface Impoundments Must Cease Receiving Waste and Initiate Closure (to October 31, 2020);
 Revision of the groundwater protection standards (GWPSs) for four constituents (cobalt, lead, lithium, and molybdenum) in Appendix IV to 40 CFR 257 for which maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act have not been established, in place of background levels of contamination under 40 CFR 257.95(h)(2).
 The provision of two alternate performance standards that provide regulators in states with an EPA-approved CCR permit program under the December 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act to revise certain CCR requirements based on site specific conditions. These two alternate performance standards are:
 Suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements if a no migration demonstration can be made; and
 Allowing State Directors to issue certifications in lieu of the 2015 CCR Rule requirement to have professional engineers issue certifications.
The regulatory analysis for the 2018 Phase One Final Rule included a downward adjustment of the estimated compliance costs of the 2015 CCR Rule to reflect new data collected by EPA between 2015 and 2018 regarding the number of facilities (plants) subject to its provisions.
A subsequent rule proposed on December 2, 2019 and currently undergoing public review, "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure" (hereafter referred to as the "Part A rule") contains provisions that revise the CFR to adhere to  the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, et al v. EPA (USWAG Decision), on August 21, 2018 and on October 15, 2018.  The Part A rule contains:
 Revisions to the closure schedule for unlined CCR surface impoundments, §§ 257.101(a) and (b)(1) following both the vacatur from the USWAG decision that all unlined CCR surface impoundments, including those formally considered clay lined, must close, and the remand from the Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. et al v. EPA decision on the cease receipt of CCR deadline. EPA is proposing a new cease receipt of CCR deadline of October 2020 for the surface impoundments forced into initiation of closure (subject to "forced closure") due to either being an unlined or formally "clay lined" CCR surface impoundment (§ 257.101(a)) or if the CCR surface impoundment failed the location standard for the minimum depth to the uppermost aquifer (§ 257.101(b)(1)(i)).
 Revisions to the alternate closure provisions, §§ 257.103(a), (b), (e), and (f). These revisions will grant facilities the necessary time to find alternate capacity and initiate closure of unlined CCR surface impoundments and create an approach for facilities needing an alternate cease receipt of CCR deadline. Pending documentation and approval, some units may receive an extension of up to three years, resulting in a delayed cease receipt of CCR deadline of October 2023. Additionally, units at facilities closing by 2028 without access to alternate capacity are eligible to remain open until the facilities close, providing they meet reporting and size requirements.
The proposed rule considered in this regulatory impact analysis (RIA), herein referred to as the "Part B rule," contains further potential amendments to 2015 CCR Rule:
1)	A provision allowing for owners of CCR surface impoundments to demonstrate that the clay liner meet the § 4004(a) standard for sanitary landfill classification and therefore that the unit is classified as "lined" under the CCR Rule. Units that apply and see their demonstration accepted by EPA would be allowed to avoid forced closure and remain open past August 2020, following the 2018 court decisions.
2)	Co-proposed options allowing for the use of CCR in units subject to forced closure. Under both of these co-proposed options, CCR owners/operators can add CCR to closing surface impoundments after the cease receipt of CCR deadline, provided they meet the following requirements for each co-proposed option:
 Co-Proposed Option 1  - such placement is conducted under an approved closure plan. Under this option, such placement is implemented as an exemption to the cease receipt of CCR deadline specified in § 257.101.
         or
 Co-Proposed Option 2  - the use of CCR qualifies as "beneficial use" per the definition at § 257.53.
3)	A provision allowing an additional closure option for CCR units being closing by removal of all CCR ("closing by removal" or "clean closing"). The 2015 CCR Rule requires that units closing by removal of CCR complete all removal and decontamination activities, including groundwater corrective action, prior to certifying completion of closure. This provision under this proposed rule would allow units closing by removal of CCR to certify closure when all removal and decontamination activities are complete, but allow ongoing groundwater corrective action to continue during the post-closure care period.
4)	A provision adding two new documentation requirements for closing units. First, facilities must re-post any prior Notices of Intent to Close, and the re-posted versions must specify an intended date of closure. Any future Notices of Intent to Close, i.e., non-re-postings, must also specify an intended date of closure. Second, all units undergoing closure must file annual closure progress reports.

Affected Universe and Baseline Costs
This chapter consists of four sections: Section 2.1 defines the current universe of facilities and identifies the number of units that will be subject to each provision of the proposed Part B rule. This universe reflects changes to the 2015 CCR Rule universe resulting from industry and market changes, and changes resulting from the 2018 Phase One Final Rule and the 2018 court decisions. Section 2.2 discusses the planned closure timelines associated with the current CCR rules and court decisions in place that affect this universe. Section 2.3 discusses the array of baseline costs relevant to the proposed Part B rule's assessment of incremental costs and cost savings. Section 2.4 outlines the baseline costs considered in this analysis. In simple terms, this chapter describes the facilities, CCR management units, management practices, and regulatory requirements that are in place in 2019, and represent the "starting point" for measuring the effects of the rule.
2.1	Affected Electric Utility Facilities
Consistent with requirements for examining the impacts of regulations that have been established by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the OMB Circular A-4 publication, this RIA first establishes a baseline from which to measure the incremental costs, cost savings, and benefits that are attributable specifically to the proposed Part B rule. Prior regulatory actions related to the management and closure of CCR surface impoundments include the original 2015 CCR Rule, as modified by the 2018 Phase One Final Rule and by the 2018 court decisions, both of which affect the timing of and reasons for closure of surface impoundments. In addition, more recent and detailed information about the universe and operation of surface impoundments has become available to EPA through regulatory reporting requirements under the 2015 CCR Rule. To isolate and measure the impacts of the proposed Part B rule, it is necessary to adjust the different universe data to reflect an accurate 2020 regulatory and cost baseline.
The sections below briefly describe each of the needed adjustments; Exhibit 2-1 provides a final summary of the universe of facilities and management units subject to by the proposed Part B rule.
2.1.1	Original Baseline: 2015 CCR Regulatory Impact Analysis Universe
The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2015 CCR Rule ("2015 CCR RIA") identified a regulatory universe of 478 potentially affected coal-fired electric utility facilities (assigned to the utility sector North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 22).
Of these 478 facilities, the 2015 CCR RIA identified and removed 64 facilities that were expected to fully close all coal-fired units before the rule took effect in 2016, based on the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v.5.13 database. The final universe of affected facilities in the 2015 CCR RIA included 414 affected facilities (i.e., 478 facilities minus 64 facilities); within that universe 308 facilities had 922 onsite CCR management units, including 286 on-site CCR landfills and 636 on-site CCR surface impoundments. Because the 2015 CCR rule included several general provisions regarding reports on CCR management operations, this regulatory universe consisted of all coal-fired electric utility facilities, including 106 with no on-site units for disposal of their generated CCR off-site or whose generated CCR was beneficially used in its entirety. In other words, the 922 on-site CCR management units were located at roughly 308 of the 414 facilities.
2.1.2	2018 Phase One Final Rule Universe
As part of the 2018 Phase One rulemaking, an additional 23 facilities were removed from the affected universe, because data available at the time show that these facilities closed before incurring any costs under the rule. This resulted in an adjusted affected universe of 391 facilities subject to the provisions of the 2018 Phase One Final Rule (i.e. 414 facilities minus 23 facilities). Consistent with the 2015 CCR RIA universe, the universe in the 2018 Phase One rulemaking included all operating coal-fired electric utility facilities, including those with on-site CCR management units and those with no on-such units that disposed of their generated CCR off-site or whose generated CCR was beneficially used in its entirety.
2.1.3	2019 Proposed Part A and Part B Rule Universe
The 2015 CCR Rule requires regulated facilities to document compliance with rule requirements on publicly available websites. These reports address numerous requirements with different implementation deadlines, including dust control plans, construction histories, notifications of changes in operations (such as closure), inspection documents, and a series of groundwater monitoring reports.
A review of the data posted as of September 2019 provides an accurate update to the number of facilities and units in the 2018 Phase One Final Rule universe regulated under the 2015 CCR Rule, and to the operating status of each of these units. The current (September 2019) universe of facilities and units subject to the 2015 CCR Rule includes 300 facilities, with 768 CCR units, (including 522 existing surface impoundments, 11 new and retrofitted surface impoundments) and 235 landfills). Two factors drive the difference in apparent universe size between the prior estimates and the current 2019 universe:
 The definition of a unit: the 2015 CCR Rule universe treated each surface impoundment as a separate unit, but the rule allows flexibility in identifying management units. Some facilities in the universe report two or more interconnected surface impoundments as a single unit. This consolidation in reporting conventions has reduced the total number of units relative to prior assessments of the CCR management unit universe.
 Not all facilities have affected units: Not all facilities in the 2018 Phase One Final Rule universe have on-site CCR units. According to the current database of regulated CCR units, 300 affected facilities have on-site CCR landfills or surface impoundments. Roughly 100 existing coal-fired electrical generating facilities with no on-site CCR units do not incur compliance costs associated with the 2015 CCR Rule, and the provisions of the Proposed Part A and Part B rules do not apply. Therefore, these facilities are not considered in the universe for these proposed rules.
Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the CCR unit counts in the current universe and the original 2015 CCR Rule universe. Exhibit 2-2 lists the CCR unit counts potentially subject to each of the provisions in the proposed Part B rule. Throughout this analysis, units are assumed to be subject to a provision if either 1) new requirements require that facilities operating the unit take action, resulting in costs or cost savings, or 2) changes to financial incentives allows operating facilities to opt to change unit management practices, resulting in costs or cost savings. Exhibit 2-2 identifies the total universe of units potentially subject to each provision, though some facilities may opt not to change operations under some provisions. Chapter 3 of this RIA describes the methods used to identify the universe of facilities and units likely to take action and incur costs or cost savings under each provision, and presents the anticipated costs and cost savings associated with each provision.

                                  Exhibit 2-1
Universe of Facilities and CCR Units Subject to the 2015 CCR Rule and Subsequent Rulemakings

              Universe of Facilities Subject to Regulation[a][,b]
                             Surface Impoundments
                                   Landfills
                                Total CCR Units
                               2015 CCR Rule RIA
                                      414
            (includes roughly 100 facilities with no on-site units)
                                      636
                                      286
                                      922
                           2018 Phase One Final Rule
                                      391
            (includes roughly 100 facilities with no on-site units)
                                      596
                                      272
                                      868
                   2019 Proposed Part A and Part B rules[c]
                                      300
                 (includes only facilities with on-site units)
                                    533[b]
                                    235[b]
                                      768
Notes:
[a] The 2015 CCR Rule provisions included all facilities in the relevant industrial sector, because all of these facilities were required to read, understand, and comply with relevant parts of the rule, and because the universe of impoundments and landfills had not been verified. The 2018 Phase One universe relied on the same information, adjusted to remove a number of facilities that had ceased burning coal and/or closed. The 2019 proposed rules address only facilities with management units subject to various provisions. A review of data supporting the RIAs for the 2015 CCR Rule and the 2018 Phase One Final Rule suggests that actual closure of plants with on-site management of units since 2015 is closer to 10 plants.
b The change in the number of units in the universes of the 2018 Phase One Final Rule and the 2019 proposed rules is due in part to the definition of a unit as determined by regulated facilities. The 2015 CCR Rule universe treated each surface impoundment as a separate unit, but the rule allows flexibility in identifying management units. As of 2019, some facilities have identified two or more interconnected surface impoundments as a single unit in their reporting, reducing the number of overall units (without changing total capacity or operational requirements).
c Under the 2015 CCR rule, off-site CCR disposal units must comply with the same requirements applicable on-site CCR disposal units located at coal-fired electric utility plants. The count of 300 facilities includes a few (less than 10) off-site disposal units considered to be facilities subject to the 2015 CCR Rule and subsequent rulemakings in the baseline.
                                  Exhibit 2-2
Estimated Number of Units Potentially Subject to Proposed Part B Rule Provisions

      Surface Impoundments and Landfills potentially subject to provision
                           Type of Units Affected[a]
Provision 1  -  Alternate liner demonstration
Scenario 1: High Application Rate
                                      20
A portion of the existing unlined non-leaking surface impoundments with liner systems (e.g., compacted soil or clay liners) that are not consistent with 40 CFR § 257.71(a)(1)(ii) or (iii).

Scenario 2: Low Application Rate
                                      10

         Provision 2  -  Use of CCR in units subject to forced closure
Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Use of CCR during closure under an approved closure plan
                                      211
Surface impoundments that will still be open after 2020, not located in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place, and that successfully demonstrated compliance with the unstable areas location restriction in 40 CFR § 257.64.

Co-Proposed Option 2  -  Beneficial use of CCR during closure
                                      277
Surface impoundments that will still be open after 2020, not located in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place, and that are not located in states with strict beneficial use restrictions.
Provision 3  -  Closure of CCR units by removal of CCR
                                      63
Surface impoundments closing via removal that are still open, not subject to forced closure and not leaking.
Provision 4
Notice of Intent to Close Revisions
                                      163
All surface impoundments and landfills subject to forced closure that have posted NOIs but have not yet closed.

Annual Closure Progress Reports
                                    407[b]
All closing units.
a Chapter 3 of this document describes the methodology for identifying the affected unit universe for each provision, as well as the description of the cost calculations.
b The analysis in the RIA for the Part A rule identified 427 closing surface impoundments, excluding closures prior to 2020. The corresponding figure in this table is 407, reflecting 20 surface impoundments that have since completed closure.

2.2	Changes to Baseline Closure Process under Proposed Part B Rule Provisions
Each of the provisions of the proposed Part B rule considered in this RIA pertain to various aspects of the "closure" of CCR management units. The closure of CCR management units is a multi-stage process that can span several years. The typical process includes the following steps that map to requirements under the 2015 CCR Rule, as detailed in 40 CFR § 257.102:
        Closure Plan: Before initiating closure for a unit, facilities are required to post closure plans detailing which of two closure methods will be used: closing with waste in place, or capping the unit without removing existing CCR, and clean closing or closure following removal of all CCR in the surface impoundment. The deadline for the posting of closure plans was October 17, 2016, but facilities may modify closure plans at any time after the initial posting.
        Notice of Intent to Close: As a first step in initiating the closure process, facilities must post a brief "Notice of Intent to Close" document, indicating that the facility is intending to close the unit.
        Cease Receipt of CCR Deadline: Units subject to forced closure (either because they are unlined and leaking, fail to meet location restriction standards, or are required to close under court order) must comply with a "cease receipt of CCR deadline" that takes effect on the day that the unit enters closure. Under the 2015 CCR Rule, as of the cease receipt of CCR deadline, no CCR can be placed in the closing unit for any reason; any CCR requiring disposal must be placed in another open unit on site or sent offsite for disposal or beneficial use. The 2015 CCR Rule set specific calendar cease receipt of CCR deadlines for units that failed location restrictions or documented releases as part of their initial review. Adjustments to these deadlines for specific subsets of units subject to forced closure have been implemented as part of subsequent rulemakings and the 2018 court decisions, as shown in Exhibit 2-4.
        Closure Operations: As of the cease receipt of CCR deadline, the unit begins closure operations. Activities undertaken during this time include the dewatering of the unit, any required corrective measures for decontamination, and, if the unit is clean closing, removal of all CCR. The unit's supporting structure is also modified to a new shape for closure (sometimes requiring the use of non-CCR "fill" materials) to accommodate a final cover system or "cap" that is placed on top of the unit. The length of time taken to complete these "closure activities" varies by unit and facility, but may take up to six months for landfills and up to five years for surface impoundments under 40 CFR 257.102(f), and may, for some units, be extended by up to 10 additional years (for a maximum closure time frame of 15 years).
        Completion of Closure. Once all closure operations are complete, the facility must obtain a professional engineer's "certification of completion of closure," verifying that the closure process has been completed consistent with requirements under 40 CFR 257.102. The unit then enters the post-closure care period, in which some activities, such as groundwater monitoring at units that closed with waste in place, continue.
A facility's decision about how to close a unit (i.e., whether to clean close or close with waste in place) involves several factors specific to the unit and other units at the facility. The surface area, total volume, quantity of CCR that must be removed, remaining capacity, and structure of the unit, as well as the proximity and cost of alternative on-site and off-site disposal options for the facility, determine the cost of clean closure. Waste-in-place closures do not require the cost of relocating the CCR and may require less fill, but have long-term groundwater monitoring requirements that can be significant. In general, because the cost of closure itself can be higher when large quantities of CCR must be moved, it is more likely that waste-in-place closure is more economical for larger units, and clean closure is more economical for smaller units, particularly if alternate capacity is available in a larger unit closing with waste in place that is co-located at the facility. However, other factors such as concerns about future liability, anticipating property transactions, or state closure requirements can also affect closure options.
Provision 1 changes the date upon which some units must cease receipt of waste; Provisions 1 and 2 both require revised closure planning documents from facilities wishing to change management practices. In addition, because the closure process can be complex, spanning multiple years and involving large volumes of CCR that could potentially be placed in existing surface impoundments after the cease receipt of CCR deadline has passed, 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. Provision 3 affects the requirements for completion of closure, and Provision 4 affects both the Notice of Intent to close and activities during closure operations. Exhibit 2-3 outlines the various steps of the closure process and the associated applicability of the proposed Part B rule's provisions.

                                  Exhibit 2-3
           Closure Activities and Applicability to Part B Provisions
                         Category Relevant to this RIA
                         Applicable Part B Provisions
                             Changes Under Part B
Closure Plan
Provision 2
Revised closure plans detailing use of CCR in closure
Notice of Intent to Close
Provision 4
Revised NOIs containing expected date of closure
Cease Receipt of CCR Deadline
Provision 1
Delays of the cease receipt of CCR deadline
Closure Operations
Provision 2, Provision 4
Use of CCR in closure, annual closure progress reports
Completion of Closure
Provision 3
Earlier certification of closure completion for clean closing units
Each of these categories of closure activities are key aspects of the calculations of the costs and cost savings of the proposed Part B rule, described in Chapter 3 of this RIA.

2.3	Planned Closure of CCR Units at Affected Electric Utility Facilities
The number of units found to be leaking since 2015 is higher than predicted in the analyses conducted for the 2015 CCR Rule, as is the number of units found to fail various location restrictions. In addition, the Phase One Final Rule and the 2018 court decisions altered cease receipt of CCR deadlines for surface impoundments with certain characteristics. These new cease receipt of CCR deadlines constitute the baseline requirements and timeline for this RIA. Exhibit 2-4 summarizes the baseline cease receipt of CCR deadlines for surface impoundments subject to forced closure, reflecting information collected from facilities as of September, 2019 and the 2018 court decisions. The universe is grouped by liner type, compliance with the location restrictions requirements, and leaking status. Landfills are not subject to forced closure and are not included in the universe.

Exhibit 2-4
Summary of 2018 Court Decision-driven Cease Receipt of CCR Deadlines by Unit Type[a][, b, c]
                               Unit Information
                            Active, Existing Units
                          Inactive, Existing Units[d]
                                     Group
                                  Liner Type
                         Location Restrictions Status
                               Leaking Status[d]
                                Number of Units
                       Cease Receipt of CCR Deadline[e]
                                Number of Units
                        Cease Receipt of CCR Deadline
                                       1
                                Already Closed
                                                                             48
Closed Prior 2020
                                                                              0
Closed Prior 2020
                                       2
Unlined
NA
Leaking
                                                                            249
Close August 2020
                                                                             22
Close Oct 2020

Unlined
Fail Aquifer Only
Not Leaking
                                                                             15
Close August 2020
                                                                              1
Close Oct 2020

Unlined
Fail Aquifer Only
Not Reported
                                                                              4
Close August 2020
                                                                              0
Close Oct 2020
                                       3
Unlined
Fail other
Not Leaking
                                                                              4
Close Apr 2019
                                                                              0
Close Apr 2019

Unlined
Fail other
Not Reported
                                                                              1
Close Apr 2019
                                                                              0
Close Apr 2019

Unlined
n  -  NOI[f]
Not Leaking
                                                                              0
Close Apr 2019
                                                                              1
Close Apr 2019

Unlined
n  -  NOI
Not Reported
                                                                              0
Close Apr 2019
                                                                             62
Close Apr 2019
                                       4
Unlined
Missing all
Not Leaking
                                                                              8
Close August 2020
                                                                              1
Close when leak

Unlined
Pass all
Not Leaking
                                                                             37
Close August 2020
                                                                              0
Close when leak

Unlined
Missing all
Not Reported
                                                                              9
Close August 2020
                                                                              2
Close when leak

Unlined
Pass all
Not Reported
                                                                             10
Close August 2020
                                                                              0
Close when leak
                                       5
Clay Lined
n  -  NOI
Not Reported
                                                                              0
Close Apr 2019
                                                                              1
Close Apr 2019
                                       6
Clay Lined
No NOI
Leaking
                                                                             16
Close August 2020
                                                                              0
No closure

Clay Lined
No NOI
Not Leaking
                                                                              9
Close August 2020
                                                                              0
No closure

Clay Lined
No NOI
Not Reported
                                                                              3
Close August 2020
                                                                              0
No closure
                                       7
Lined
NA
Leaking
                                                                             10
No closure
                                                                              0
No closure

Lined
NA
Not Leaking
                                                                              9
No closure
                                                                              0
No closure
                                     Total
                                                                            432

                                                                             90

[a] These data reflect publicly available documents posted on relevant facilities' CCR compliance websites, as part of the data collection for the proposed Part A rule completed July 12[th], 2019.
[b] A unit is assumed to be "leaking" if groundwater monitoring efforts have identified either an Appendix III Statistically Significant Increase relative to baseline monitoring or Appendix IV Statistically Significant Levels without demonstrating an alternative source for the contaminants.
c This table does not include 11 new and retrofitted units, which are not subject to forced closure. The 432 active units and 90 inactive units captured in this table represent the remaining share of the surface impoundments in the universe. The count of 533 surface impoundments elsewhere throughout this RIA includes these 11 new and retrofitted units; the count of 522 surface impoundments in this table does not.
[d] Inactive units' cease receipt of CCR deadline are unchanged under the 2018 court decisions.
e Detailed review of the five active units identified as required to commence closure as of April 2019 indicates that these units are commencing with closure activities, consistent with the requirements of the 2015 CCR Rule and the court decisions baseline. The 64 inactive units identified as required to commence closure as of April 2019 are no longer receiving CCR by nature of their inactive status.
[f] "NOI" refers to Notice of Intent to Close. CCR surface impoundments that posted an NOI ahead of regulatory deadlines are subject to different, later due dates for certain documentation requirements, including location restrictions demonstrations. Units identified in these rows had not posted their location restrictions demonstrations at the time of analysis.
3.2.1	Potential Impacts on Planned Closure Timelines due to the December 2, 2019 Published Proposed Part A Rule
The proposed Part B rule is EPA's second rulemaking following the 2018 court decisions. EPA's proposed Part A rule (84 FR 65941 (December 2, 2019)), if finalized, would modify several of the regulatory requirements that are relevant to this proposed Part B rulemaking, including adjustments to closure timelines for 360 unlined and clay-lined units. Under the proposed Part A rule, the cease receipt of CCR deadlines for these units may be extended beyond the August 2020 deadline established by the 2018 court decisions. Beyond this, the proposed Part A rule, if finalized in its current form, would grant cease receipt of CCR deadline extensions to an additional 37 units across 22 facilities through the remaining life of their respective facilities. Each of these 37 units and 22 facilities would cease receipt of CCR and enter closure no later than 2028.
 Per EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, the cease receipt of CCR deadline extensions granted by the Part A rule are not included in the baseline for this proposed Part B rulemaking because the respective regulatory timelines for finalizing and enacting the proposed Part A and Part B rules are not yet established. However, it is possible that the Part A rule, as proposed, will be finalized before, or contemporaneously with, this Part B rule. EPA is committed to issuing one final rulemaking that consolidates the provisions of the Part A and B rules.
2.4	Baseline Costs
In regulatory analyses, baseline costs include all relevant costs that occur in a "business as usual" scenario that does not include the proposed regulation. Baseline costs relevant to the proposed Part B rule would therefore include all costs that are currently associated with the management of CCR, including costs that would have been incurred prior to the passage of the 2015 CCR rule, as well as costs associated with the 2015 CCR rule, and all subsequent amendments to that rule and court decisions discussed in Chapter 1. These costs include ongoing unit operation and maintenance (including dust controls and run-on/run-off controls), inspections, monitoring and testing of groundwater and structural integrity, expected closure/post-closure costs, corrective action costs, and costs associated with unit replacement. As noted, the various regulatory efforts have changed both the requirements and the timing of these requirements for various units, both of which affect the estimated cost to the regulated community. The 2015 CCR RIA included a baseline assessment of costs associated with the management of CCR generated at coal-fired electric utility plants in on-site and off-site units, focused on pollution controls implemented at these units, including pollution controls required by existing state regulatory regimes, and calculated costs incremental to that baseline. However, subsequent rulemaking efforts have changed the implementation of several provisions, affecting costs.
Conceptually, the baseline costs measured in 2015, combined with all CCR management costs associated with the 2015 CCR rule and all subsequent finalized amendments and court decisions, forms the baseline regulatory costs for this rulemaking. Ideally, the incremental costs and cost savings of the rules considered after 2015 could simply be added to the costs in the 2015 CCR RIA to identify a comprehensive baseline. However, the total baseline costs for any regulation are also driven by the number of facilities and units subject to that regulation. The universe of CCR management units subject to the requirements of the proposed Part B rule has been updated with new information EPA has collected from the reporting requirements of the 2015 CCR rule. This information includes both the number of the facilities, as well as their operating status, and the facilities' plans for closure and post-closure care for regulated CCR management units. In some cases this new information conflicts with (and corrects) the data used to estimate both baseline and regulatory costs for the 2015 rule.
Specifically, the following substantial changes in practice and EPA's understanding of practices have occurred between the publication of the 2015 CCR Rule and the September 2019 data used in the Part B RIA:
 Universe and market changes, including the closure of CCR-generating electric utility facilities and individual CCR management units, changes to the classification and structure of existing CCR management units, and the opening of a limited number of new CCR management units;
 Subsequent legal decisions and regulatory actions with implications for the universe subject to the 2015 CCR Rule, including the 2018 court decisions that imposed a forced cease receipt of CCR deadline on all unlined surface impoundments of August 2020, and final rules such as the 2018 Phase One Final Rule, which affected certain compliance deadlines;
 Operational changes relative to the types of facility actions and activities modeled in the analysis of the 2015 CCR Rule's impacts, including frequency and necessity of corrective action associated with groundwater contamination, frequency of wet-dry conversion activities, and planned closure methods for CCR management units.
These changes are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the RIA for the December 2, 2018 proposed Part A rule, which included a partial update to the costs estimated in the 2015 CCR RIA to reflect changes in the timing of anticipated closure activities.
Ideally, the baseline for this proposed Part B rule would include a complete recalculation of the  actual costs faced by the affected universe of coal-fired electric utility facilities and associated CCR management units, as understood given the recent data collected by EPA from facilities summarizing CCR management units, and reflecting the regulatory and legal requirements imposed on this universe by the 2015 CCR Rule, EPA's subsequent final rulemakings, and the 2018 court decisions. This ideal baseline would also re-examine a number of economic assumptions such as the 100-year regulatory time frame for analysis that was established for the 2015 rule and preserved for comparability, and would further include an updated analysis of the risks and human health benefits associated with the existing regulatory requirements governing CCR management since 2015 that correspond to the baseline affected by the requirements proposed in this rulemaking. However, development of this comprehensive baseline is not feasible in the time frame of this rulemaking, as it requires both an updated risk assessment and an updated version of the linear programming model used to estimate cost impacts of the 2015 CCR RIA. Therefore, this RIA uses the same regulatory cost baseline as used by the Part A rule, including the 2018 court decisions as the most recent update to unit closure timelines and the cost impacts associated with this change. This RIA presents estimates of incremental costs and cost savings (Chapter 3) and discusses benefits (Chapter 4) relative to the baseline by developing cost estimates for the individual activities (e.g., paperwork costs) and operational changes associated with the provisions of this rulemaking.
The proposed Part A rule, which was able to develop an updated baseline limited to closure costs, because the provisions of that rule only affected closure timelines and therefore only the closure costs faced by the affected universe. In contrast, the baseline costs affected by this proposed Part B rule are more wide-ranging and involve cost estimates that would require new analysis or significant revisions to the 2015 CCR RIA cost analysis, as described below:
 Provision 1 consists of documentation costs and cost savings associated with delaying closure. Both of these costs have partially-modeled baseline costs against which the post-Part B rule costs can be compared. Specifically, the 2015 CCR rule and subsequent amendments have captured incremental documentation (paperwork) costs, though at no point was a complete baseline cost for all paperwork associated with CCR management (including paperwork required pre-2015 CCR rule) developed (though it was not likely a large cost). With respect to closure and post-closure care costs, the RIA for the 2015 CCR rule and the proposed Part A rule each developed baseline and incremental cost estimates; the analysis in Chapter 4 draws upon these estimates.
 Provision 2 consists of documentation costs, avoided disposal costs, avoided fill costs, and in Co-Proposed Option 2 of Provision 2, beneficial use market impacts. Of these, fill costs were generally not separately assessed in EPA's prior analyses and baselines, in part because the 2015 modeling assumed that most units were not leaking, and would close at the end of their lifespan. Furthermore, the assessment of disposal costs for this provision relies on modeling performed in the 2015 CCR RIA, which has not been updated to account for substantial market and universe changes that have taken place since the publication of the 2015 CCR Rule.
 Provisions 3 and 4 consist of documentation costs. These costs have modeled baseline costs against which the post-Part B rule costs can be compared.
In summary, the complexity of Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule prevents the development of a comparable cost and risk baseline without significant effort, not possible within the short time frame of this rulemaking. Therefore, the assessment of the proposed Part B rule's impacts in Chapters 3 and 4 presents incremental costs and cost savings, consistent with guidance in OMB Circular A-4, and does not provide a comprehensive assessment of changes in baseline costs or a comprehensive discussion of total baseline risks or incremental changes in risk resulting from the proposed Part B rule. Appendix A summarizes the array of pollution controls and activities assessed for the 2015 CCR Rule, whether these activities are affected by the proposed Part A and Part B rules, and the potential effort needed to update the baseline estimates for each activity originally developed for the 2015 CCR Rule.

 Estimated Costs and Cost Savings Under the Proposed Part B Rule
This chapter outlines the anticipated incremental costs and cost savings associated with the proposed Part B rule, organized by provision. The proposed rule includes four provisions, outlined below:
 Provision 1 (Section 3.1): Alternate liner demonstration
 Provision 2 (Section 3.2): Use of CCR in units subject to forced closure
 Co-Proposed Option 1: Placement of CCR during closure of a unit under an approved closure plan
 Co-Proposed Option 2: Beneficially using CCR as fill material during closure of a unit
 Provision 3 (Section 3.3): Closure of CCR units by removal of CCR
 Provision 4 (Section 3.4): Annual closure progress reports and revised notice of intent to close
The costs and cost savings associated with the provisions of the proposed Part B rule fall into several general types, including:
 Documentation costs: Several of the provisions include new requirements for closure plans or other paperwork, or enable facilities to reduce paperwork costs and other compliance costs.
 Time value of money: Changes in the timing of anticipated expenditures under proposed Part B rule provisions changes the present value cost of those expenditures; for large capital expenditures such as those related to closure, changes in timing can have significant cost implications.
 Operational changes: Under Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule, facilities may opt to change closure methods or other operational plans due to changes in requirements that change the relative cost-effectiveness of different options.
Consistent with EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, the cost estimates in this RIA relies on the principle that facility decision makers are rational economic actors and will choose the most cost-effective approach to CCR management at the facility (or company) level. Therefore, while some of the costs under the proposed Part B rule are "optional" (e.g., applying for a variance) and facilities could choose not to undertake them, this analysis assumes facilities will pursue non-mandatory activities if they represent the most cost-effective solution to CCR management when considering associated cost savings across all CCR management units. Similarly, this analysis assumes facilities will consider state-level requirements in identifying the most economically rational path.
This RIA also assumes full compliance with requirements under the proposed Part B rule and all related regulations. Where the intersection of regulatory requirements and enabling definitions (e.g., the definition of beneficial use) is unclear, this RIA assumes that facilities will interpret the requirements to maximize cost savings.
Finally, consistent with requirements under OMB's Circular A-4, this RIA employs seven percent and three percent discount rates to account for multi-year costs and cost reductions, and identifies seven percent values in the text. We discount all costs to the year 2019. Annualized estimates assume a 100-year timescale, preserved from the 2015 CCR RIA to enable comparability across the original rule and the proposed Part B amendments.
3.1	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 1: Alternate Liner Demonstration
Provision 1 of the proposed Part B rule allows owners/operators of CCR surface impoundment units whose existing liners are insufficient to qualify as lined under the 2015 CCR Rule to attempt an "alternate liner demonstration."