1 ECONOMICS BACKGROUND DOCUMENT ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL NATIONAL REGULATORY COST SAVINGS FOR USEPA'S RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT " STANDARDIZED" PERMIT FINAL RULE Prepared by:

Mark Eads, Economist US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ( Mailstop 5307W)

Washington, DC 20460 USA Phone: 703 308 8615 Fax: 703 308 0509 http:// www. epa. gov/ osw 29 March 2005 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ADDENDUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 I A. How Does a " Standardized" Permit Compare to Other Types of Streamlined Permits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 I B. Do Any State Agencies Have Existing " Standardized" Permit Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 I C. What Types of Hazardous Waste Management Units are Potentially Eligible for " Standardized" Permits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 I D. What is the Universe of Potentially Eligible RCRA Waste Management Facilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 I E. Which Industry Sectors Own & Operate Potentially Eligible Facilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 I F. What is the Purpose of a RCRA Permit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 I G. What Types of Industrial Wastes May Be Covered by RCRA Permits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 I H. What Types of Hazardous Industrial Waste Management Activities Require RCRA Permits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 I I. What are the Basic Components and Steps of the RCRA Permit Process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 I J. Are There Different Types of RCRA Permitting Actions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 I K. What is the Annual Frequency of RCRA Permitting Actions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 II. ECONOMIC IMPACT ESTIMATION FRAMEWORK & RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 II A. What Public Comments Did OSW Receive on the October 2001 Proposed Rule " Economics Background Document"? . . . . . . 35 II B. What is the Economic Analysis Framework Applied in this Study? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 II C. Impact Category # 1: Potential Cost Savings from Reduction in RCRA Permit Paperwork Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ! Estimation " Method A" ( aggregate cost data estimation method) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ! Estimation " Method B" ( itemized burden hour data estimation method) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 II D. Impact Category # 2: Potential Impacts of Changes to Facility Closure Financial Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 II E. Impact Category # 3: Potential Added Cost for Site Audit Report for Compliance Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 ! Option A: Self Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 ! Option B: Third party audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 II F. Impact Category # 4: Potential Enhancement of Financial Return to Hazardous Waste Management Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 II G. Impact Category # 5: Potential Reduction in State Government Fees for RCRA Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 III. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 III A. Does National Cost Savings Depend Upon the Period of Analysis and the Discount Rate Applied? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 III B. Does National Cost Savings Depend Upon the Level of Future RCRA Permitting Actions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 III C. How Does Monetary Inflation Affect Estimated Cost Savings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 ATTACHMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Attachment A: RCRA Permit Unit Hour Paperwork Burden Reduction Computation Spreadsheets ( for Impact # 1 " Method B") . . . . . . . 80 Attachment B: National Cost Savings Computation Spreadsheets for RCRA Paperwork Reduction Features of Rule ( for Impact # 1) . . 89 Attachment C: Improvement in Financial Return on Assets ( ROA) for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities ( for Impact # 4) . . . . 101 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 3 Attachment D: Sensitivity Analyses for Paperwork Burden Reduction Features of Rule ( for Impact # 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 4 ADDENDUM Prior to OMB's review and OSW's finalization in March 2005 of all elements in this final rule, OSW completed a draft economic analysis for this final rule in May 2004, based on two general options pertaining to eligible facilities:

! onsite only ! onsite + offsite Furthermore, the draft analysis for both options assumed a 120 day permit review extension period. However, the actual scope of the final rule determined after March 2005 finalization, is " onsite + same company offsite", with 30 day permit review extension period. Relative to 120 days, the actual condition of 30 days improves the " financial return"

benefit category of the analysis, whereas the " same company offsite" condition falls between the two options analyzed. Consequently, the economic analysis in this document did not specifically evaluate the incremental impact of these two actual final rule conditions. As presented in this document, OSW estimates the final rule ( assuming this final rule is adopted by all states) may generate between $ 2.8 to $ 3.5 million/ year in permitting burden reduction benefits, and between $ 7.2 to $ 8.8 million/ year reduction in state government permitting fees collected ( transfer effect), for between 870 and 1,130 hazardous waste management facilities ( which represent 35% to 46% of the 2,479 hazardous waste management facility universe identified in EPA's 2001 RCRA Hazardous Waste Report).

It is important to note that the impact estimates in this document represent hypothetical adoption of this rule by all state governments. However, the net benefits of the rule may be less than estimated because not all states may act immediately to change their state laws in order to adopt the standardized permit. Such an assumption is unlikely to occur in practice because ( 1) it will take states some time to change their laws, and ( 2) some states may choose not to adopt the EPA rule. For example, five states ( AR, GA, MI, TN, WA) oppose offsite facility eligibility based on state government comments to OSW's October 2001 proposed rule. These five states accounted for 64 of the 595 ( 11%) offsite facility universe in the 2001 RCRA Biennial Report count of waste management facilities ( i. e.

facilities which received RCRA hazardous waste shipments from offsite). Presuming that these five states do not adopt the voluntary final rule, results in an 11% smaller net benefit estimate for this final rule. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 5 SUMMARY ( Page 1 of 3)

Building upon the USEPA Office of Solid Waste's ( OSW's) May 2000 " Economics Background Document" ( EBD, 74 pages) in support of the 12 October 2001 RCRA " standardized" permit proposed rule ( http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ permit/ perm docket/ economic. pdf), this document presents updated and expanded economic impact findings in support of OSW's RCRA " standardized" permit final rule. Compared to the May 2000 EBD   which monetized the potential regulatory paperwork burden reduction benefits ( cost savings) and impacts of changes to closure financial assurance of the proposed rule ( impacts # 1 & # 2 below)   this final rule EBD expands the scope of potential impacts monetized to include five impact categories:

Impact Category Expansion to Scope of This Study: Comparison to Scope of the May 2000 " Economics Background Document" ( EBD)

1. Paperwork burden for permitting process This impact category simulates the expected reduction in average annual future paperwork burden to both permit applicants and to state permitting authorities. This impact category is similar in computational structure and data elements to the May 2000 economics document, with two revisions:

! Eligible facilities: ! On site units: The scope of eligible facilities in the May 2000 EBD was limited to only on site ( captive) RCRA hazardous waste management units ( existing baseline of 866 permitted facilities with 3,530 on site units).

! Off site units: This document expands the scope to include the option of both on site and off site hazardous waste management units ( baseline of 1,133 permitted facilities with 4,620 units), which includes waste recyclers.

This document estimates impacts according to these alternative sets of eligible facilities ( i. e. 866 facilities and 1,133 facilities).

! Burden baseline: The burden hours assigned for the RCRA permit application " notice of deficiency" ( NOD) baseline activity for conventional permits   consisting of 0.6 state agency hours and 3.5 applicant hours per permit for sending and for responding to,

respectively, a single NOD letter during the RCRA Part A permit application   has been expanded in this document to include an estimate of NOD burden hours for the RCRA Part B permit application not included in the May 2000 EBD, because there is not a Part B permit NOD burden item in the burden data source applied in the May 2000 document ( i. e. RCRA Part B Permit " Information Collection Request" Nr. 1573, 27 Oct 1999). The multiplier derived and applied is 2.28.

2. Changes to closure financial assurance ! Pay in period: Accelerate pay in according to a 3 year pay in period, rather than over the 10 year lifespan of a RCRA permit.

! Financial test: Reduce the financial test corporate guarantee ratio from < 2.0 to < 1.5 of total liability: to: total worth.

! Audit report: Eliminate the financial test special audit report requirement prepared by an independent certified public accountant.

3. Permit compliance certification audit Incremental cost impact to facilities of a site audit and audit report requirement in the " standardized" permit application process. The May 2000 economics document did not include the full possible extent of this potential impact item, because the paperwork burden reduction monetization methodology in the May 2000 document was based on the burden impact itemization and corresponding burden hour estimates supplied in the 16 Nov 1999 draft " Information Collection Request" ( ICR) Nr. 1935.01 for the proposed rule ( http:// www. epa. gov/ icr/ icrs/ 1935_ 01. html), which included 0.6 hours ($ 35.34) per permit applicant ( respondent) burden to " Prepare and sign the certification of compliance with Part 267", but did not include the costs of: ( a) completing a site audit and ( b) compliance audit report. This document presents cost estimates for two alternative certification options: ! Self audit: On site personnel conduct certification site audit & write certification report.

! Third party audit: Off site personnel ( e. g. contractor) conduct certification site audit & write certification report.

4. Financial return on investment in waste management plant &

equipment assets This impact category estimates the expected future enhancement of the financial return on business investments in plant & equipment assets at eligible hazardous waste management facilities. Section III. A. 1 of the May 2000 economics document identified this impact category as a qualitative ( non monetized) potential economic benefit. This document presents a quantified ( monetized) estimate of this type of expected economic impact,

which was not included in the May 2000 document. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 6 5. State government RCRA permit application fees Potential reduction in state fees paid by RCRA permit applicants. This is not a national economic ( real resource) type impact because state fees represent a form of macro economic " transfer payment" in this document because the real cost ( savings) of paperwork burden to states for the permit process are addressed as a separate impact category. Although not a " real resource" impact, the state fee impact category is added to this document in response to public comment received on the May 2000 document, which did not include this impact element. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 7 SUMMARY ( Page 2 of 3)

! Waste units: The " standardized" permit rule applies to facilities which store and/ or non thermally treat RCRA hazardous waste using three types of industrial hazardous waste management units as defined at 40 CFR 260.10 ( relative prevalence shown in parenthesis):

! Waste tank systems ( 54%)   in ground & underground tanks not eligible for standardized permits.

! Waste containers ( 45%)

! Waste containment buildings ( 1%)

! Facilities: Relative to the 1999 RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report ( BR) universe of 1,575 RCRA permitted hazardous waste management facilities, EPA estimates the following number of facilities and waste management units ( both private sector &

Federal) may be eligible for " standardized" permits ( assuming all states adopt):

! If on site units only: 866 facilities ! If on site + off site units: 1,133 facilities ! Permit actions: The purpose of the RCRA hazardous waste " standardized" permit rule is to streamline the RCRA permitting process by reducing paperwork burden associated with:

If onsite If on+ offsite ! New permits: 2/ year 3/ year New permit applications from future newly constructed hazardous waste management units.

! Permit modifications: 25/ year 33/ year Applications for modifications to permits ( 40 CFR 270.42).

! Permit renewals: 139/ year 168/ year 10 year permit renewal ( includes " interim status" units + existing units that convert before expiring).

Total actions: 166/ year 202/ year Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 8 ! Economic impacts: ! Benefits: ! Paperwork burden reduction: Potential average annual cost savings to 866 eligible on site facilities of $ 100 to $ 20,800 per permit action ( i. e., between 2 to 480 paperwork burden hours reduction per permit action),

which represents a 4% to 40% reduction in burden hours compared to the conventional RCRA permit process,

depending on the type of future permit action ( i. e. new or interim status permits, conversion of existing permits,

permit renewals, or permit modifications), and the type of eligible waste management unit ( i. e. tank, container,

or containment building). Aggregated over an average annual 166 future RCRA standardized permit actions,

produces an expected national paperwork cost savings benefit of $ 1.3 million to $ 2.7 million annually. This annual savings consists of 35% to 94% of benefits to eligible facilities, and 6% to 65% of benefits to EPA/ state permit authorities ( numerical ranges reflect two alternative estimation methods).

! Capital assets: $ 0.01 million to $ 0.1 million in average annual potential improvement in financial return to eligible hazardous waste management capital assets/ investments ( i. e. tanks, containers, containment buildings), from expediting by 2.5 to 28 months per permit action, the time required for the RCRA permit process.

! State fees: Potential $ 12.7 million/ year savings in hazardous waste permitting fees paid by eligible facilities to state governments, which represents a " transfer payment" impact rather than a real resource " economic impact".

! Costs: Net annual cost of $ 0.03 million to $ 0.04 million associated with changes to closure financial assurance, and potential annual costs of $ 0.005 million ( if self audit) to $ 2.05 million ( if third party audit) for certification audit.

! Net impact: $ 2.8 million/ year real resource economic impact ( excludes state fee " transfer payment" impact).

! Facilities: $ 13.4 million to $ 14.0 million in average annual cost savings to eligible facilities ( economic + transfer effects). Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 9 SUMMARY ( Page 3 of 3)

Summary of Average Annual Economic Impacts Estimated in this Document ( parentheses below denote net cost rather than net savings; $ million/ year)

Impact Category Type of Economic Impact Scope # 1:

On Site Waste Management Units Only ( 866 facilities) Scope # 2:

If On Site + Off Site Waste Units ( 1,133 facilities)

1 RCRA permit paperwork burden reduction Alternative burden reduction estimation methods* > Aggregate method Itemized estimate Aggregate method Itemized estimate Burden reduction to facilities $ 1.26 $ 0.74 $ 1.59 $ 0.94 Burden reduction to states $ 0.079 $ 1.35 $ 0.097 $ 1.68 Subtotal burden reduction impact = $ 1.34 $ 1.88 to $ 2.72 $ 1.68 $ 2.36 to $ 3.41 2 Changes to closure financial assurance 3 year trust fund pay in period ($ 0.03) ($ 0.04)

Financial ratio test ( corporate guarantee) This change is expected to reduce bankruptcy at closure. Although the financial test and corporate guarantee are used by 45% of TSDFs, bankruptcy occurs in only 1% of TSDF closure cases ( based on USEPA Region 4 1996 study of 100 TSDFs).

Consequently, closure payment transfer benefits in the form of avoided bankruptcy cases are not estimated in this document.

Independent financial audit report $ 0.0002 $ 0.0004 Subtotal financial assurance impact = ($ 0.03) ($ 0.04)

3 Added paperwork cost for certification audit ( self or thirdparty ($ 0.005 to $ 2.05) ($ 0.005 to $ 2.57)

4 Improved financial return on waste management capital assets ( associated with future new construction &

modification of waste units) $ 0.013 ( if 2.5 months faster) to $ 0.12 ( if 28.2 months faster)

Total economic impact ( 1+ 2 3+ 4) = ($ 0.73) to $ 2.81 ($ 1.92) to $ 3.48 5 Potential reduction in state fees for RCRA permitting ( transfer effect, not real resource economic effect)** $ 7.2 $ 8.8 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 10 Explanatory Notes:

( a) This table only includes quantitative impacts as monetized in this background document; other potential qualitative impacts of the " standardized" permit rule may include: Some existing RCRA hazardous waste generators who now transport wastes ( in partial loads) for management off site every 90 days to avoid the burden ( cost) of applying and maintaining a RCRA waste management permit, may consider applying for a " standardized" permit and begin to store or manage the waste onsite ( e. g. consolidate waste into fewer annual and/ or full offsite shipments, or reduce the annual waste quantity transported off site).

( b) Average annualized impacts in this table estimated using a 30 year period of analysis ( 2004 to 2033) and year 2000$ analytic framework with 7% discount rate.

( c) * Both burden reduction estimation methods based on 1999 EPA Office of Solid Waste " Information Collection Requests" for conventional & standardized permits. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 11 I. INTRODUCTION I A. How Does a " Standardized" Permit Compare to Other Types of Streamlined Permits?

The USEPA designed the " standardized" RCRA permit as a time and administrative resource saving, streamlined alternative to the conventional RCRA permit program. The development and rationale of the " standardized" RCRA permit are explained in the preamble to the Federal Register announcement for the Oct 2001 proposed rule.

As summarized in the table below, in comparison to the RCRA " standardized" permit, there are also two RCRA permit administrative streamlining mechanisms already in place in the RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 124.4. Some RCRA authorized state permitting authorities also may also use at least two other types of RCRA permit streamlining mechanisms.

Examples of Alternative Streamlined Application Process Approaches to Environmental Related Regulatory Permits Item Streamlining Mechanism Description 1 Permit consolidation Whenever a given facility requires a permit under the following four environmental regulatory programs, processing of two or more permit applications may be consolidated upon request of the applicant facility, or at the discretion of the permitting authority ( also sometimes called " uniform permitting" by states):

° RCRA permits required under 40 CFR 270.1.

° Safe Water Drinking Act " underground injection control" ( UIC) program permits required under 40 CFR 144.1.

° Clean Air Act air quality " prevention of significant deterioration" ( PSD) permits under 40 CFR 52.21.

° Clean Water Act " National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" ( NPDES) permits under 40 CFR 122.1.

The first step in consolidation is to prepare and submit to USEPA/ states each permit application at the same time.

The respective permit application public hearings and comment periods may also be consolidated into a single hearing and comment period ( 40 CFR 124.82).

2 Permit coordination 40 CFR 124.4 also allows USEPA regional offices and authorized state level environmental programs to consolidate permit processing when draft permits are prepared, to issue the final permits together, and to coordinate the expiration dates of any new permits with the expiration dates of existing permits so that all permits at a given facility expire simultaneously.

3 General permits Which cover more than one waste source ( e. g. air emissions, wastewater and solid waste).

4 Tiered permits Which follow specified processing procedures ( e. g. as of Sept 1998, the California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control has a five tier RCRA hazardous waste permitting program ( http:// www. dtsc. ca. gov/ PublicationsForms/ hazwaste_ facility_ permits. pdf). Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 12 Source: USEPA Office of Solid Waste, " Existing State Permitting Programs: Draft Report", 30 May 1997, 5pp. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 13 I B. Do Any State Environmental Agencies Have Existing " Standardized" Permit Programs?

As of November 2002, an internet search conducted by the USEPA Office of Solid Waste ( Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division) revealed that at least eight state environmental agencies ( see next table) have established, or are considering establishing, different types of " standardized"

environmental regulatory permits ( i. e. permits with " standardized" conditions, contents, features, and/ or application processes):

States With Existing or Planned " Standardized" Environmental Permits Item State Description 1 Alaska According to the FY2003 Governor's Operating Budget ( 15 Dec 2001), the Department of Environmental Conservation,

Air and Water Quality Division will reinstate the work that was delayed in FY2002 for the development of " streamlined"

wastewater permitting for lower risk discharges ( http:// www. gov. state. ak. us/ omb/ 03OMB/ budget/ DEC/ bru206. pdf).

2 California As of March 2000, the California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control RCRA hazardous waste management " standardized permit" program ( http:// www. dtsc. ca. gov/ HazardousWaste/ standardized permit factsheet. pdf).

3 Illinois The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water Permit Section defines its general NPDES stormwater permit as a " standardized permit" with pre determined conditions for similar discharges: " You can review a general permit and decide ahead of time whether to apply for it rather than for an individualized permit. A one page application is available for most general storm water NPDES permits. The simplified permit is usually issued within 2 weeks of receipt of the application." ( http:// www. epa. state. il. us/ small business/ need water permit. html).

4 Kansas One aspect of the State of Kansas' approach to minimizing stormwater pollution is to issue a " General NPDES permit."

A general permit is a standardized permit which can be applied to or readily used by most businesses or persons who conduct similar industrial activities. A general permit has the same conditions for everyone who applies for coverage under it ( http:// www. kdhe. state. ks. us/ stormwater/ resources/ Q A. pdf).

5 Maryland General permits with " standardized permit conditions" have been established for:

! Land permits ( http:// www. mde. state. md. us/ permits/ wastemanagementpermits/ landpermits_ home/ index. asp)

! Water permits ( http:// www. mde. state. md. us/ water/ water_ permits/ index. asp)

! Air permits ( http:// www. mde. state. md. us/ permits/ airmanagementpermits/ airpermits_ home/ index. asp)

6 New Jersey In 1997, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection proposed to issue seven new general permits under its air pollution control permitting program. A general permit covers a class of sources which are similar enough to be governed by " standardized permit conditions". Once the general permit is issued, a source need only file a registration to qualify for the permit. Among the sources proposed to be covered are certain: ( 1) gasoline service station tanks and pumps, ( 2) woodworking equipment ( 3) small natural gas or number two fuel oil tanks ( 4) small diesel fuel or natural gas emergency generators, ( 5) bulk solid materials receiving and storage systems, ( 6) enclosed abrasive blasting equipment and ( 7) stationary VOC storage tanks ( http:// www. mgklaw. com/ alert/ 9709. html and http:// www. state. nj. us/ dep/ enforcement/ apca. htm). Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 1 Duerksen, Cristopher J., Environmental Regulation of Industrial Plant Siting: How to Make it Work Better, The Conservation Foundation, Washington DC, 1983, 272pp.

Three chapters from this published study provide a survey of permit streamlining in the 1970s and 1980s:

° Chapter 4: " The Permitting Maze Syndrome" ( pp. 79 108).

° Chapter 5: " Attempts to Improve the [ Multiple Permit Problem] Rules: Reforms of the 1970s" ( pp. 109 148).

° Chapter 6: " Responses to the Real Problems: Permit System Innovations for the 1980s" ( pp. 149 204).

The Conservation Foundation was founded in 1948 as a nonprofit research and communication organization dedicated to encouraging human conduct to sustain and enrich life on Earth. At the date of this study. the Foundation was headed by William K. Reilly, who became Administrator of the USEPA from February 1989 to January 1993.

14 7 Oregon The Division of State Lands announced in Dec 1997 that it will work with ODFW, DEQ, the Corps of Engineers, NMFS,

and other agencies to update its standard permit conditions" to reflect Best Management Practices ( BMPs) for various types of removal fill activities ( e. g., commercial gravel removal, erosion control);

( http:// www. oregon plan. org/ archives/ steelhead_ dec1997/ st 14a10. html).

8 Washington The Washington State Department of Ecology's " Hazardous Waste Plan" ( Section 3.16, page 46, Publication 92 05,

Jan 1992) proposes to implement simpler permits for simpler hazardous waste management facilities: " Storage facilities, however, are relatively simple and the conditions at one are very similar to those at another; custom tailoring permits for such facilities is an unnecessary time expenditure without significant increase in environmental protection.

Similarly, it should not be necessary to develop a completely new permit for each new site of a mobile treatment unit,

because the basic technology remains unchanged. Site specific considerations do need to be accounted for, and public input addressed." ( http:// www. ecy. wa. gov/ pubs/ 9205. pdf).

The concept of regulatory permit streamlining dates back in the USA to the 1970s, before the start of the USEPA's RCRA permit program. For example, the Conservation Foundation of Washington DC completed a four year " Industrial Siting Project1" in 1983, which served to survey and summarize the various different types of permit streamlining mechanisms in place during the 1970s and 1980s. Although not specific to the USEPA RCRA permit program, the published findings of that project provide one source of descriptive documentation about prior regulatory permit streamlining ideas and applications.

More recently, although largely stemming from a different context and on a separate regulatory development track from the RCRA standardized permit, USEPA published a " Notice of Data Availability" on 18 June 1999 ( Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 117, pp. 32859 32868), announcing the Agency's ideas and intention to streamline the RCRA hazardous waste information reporting and recordkeeping burden to the RCRA regulated community.

The June 1999 RCRA streamlining announcement seeks public comment ( by 20 Sept 1999) on four RCRA program burden reduction ideas   electronic reporting, reduced reporting, longer self inspection intervals, and reduced training   and the announcement identifies 15 other burden reduction efforts ( nine specific to the RCRA program, and six broader Agency burden reduction initiatives) underway in the USEPA. The following Internet website provides additional descriptive information about these other USEPA RCRA streamlining efforts:

http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ burdenreduction. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 15 I C. What Types of Hazardous Waste Management Units are Eligible for " Standardized" Permits?

Before identifying the types waste management units ( WMUs) eligible for " standardized" RCRA permits, it is important to define " units", in comparison to waste management " facilities". The USEPA RCRA program defines a hazardous waste management facility as:

" All contiguous land and structures, and other appurtenances and improvements on the land, used for treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal operational units ( e. g. one or more landfills, surface impoundments, or combinations of them)." ( 40 CFR 260.10)

According to nationwide data collected by the USEPA, the number of RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal ( TSD) units per RCRA permitted waste management facility, ranges from one to 500 units per facility ( including Federally operated hazardous waste TSD facilities). Based upon the overall distribution of number of units per facility across a regional sample of 100 RCRA permitted hazardous waste management facilities,

the USEPA developed the following units per facility size classes:

Size Classes for RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facility Size Number of RCRA Permitted Waste Management Units at Facility Prevalence Small facility 1 to 2 units 43%

Medium facility 3 to 6 units 28%

Large facility 7 or more units 29%

Source: The reference sample of 100 RCRA hazardous waste management facilities is a non random sample located in and selected by USEPA Region 4 ( which consists of eight states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee). The facility size classes are based on a sample of 100 datapoints that ranged from one to 155 units per facility, as reported in Revised Draft Report on Analysis of Cost Estimates for Closure and Post Closure Care, prepared for the USEPA Office of Solid Waste, by PRC Environmental Management Inc.

( Contract nr. 68 W4 0007, Work Assignment nr. R11007), 15 Oct 1996, 31pp.

As currently designed, the proposed " standardized" RCRA permit applies to facilities which store and/ or non thermally treat in any of the three types of hazardous waste management units indicated in the table below. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 16 Types of Hazardous Waste Management Units Potentially Eligible for RCRA " Standardized Permits"

Tank systems ! Stationary ( non portable) structural receptacle or vessel with associated ancillary equipment and secondary containment system, used to store or treat hazardous waste in accordance with the RCRA technical standards of 40 CFR 264 & 265 Subpart J. Tanks are widely used for storage, accumulation or treatment of large volumes of hazardous wastes, and may range in size from hundreds to millions of gallons in volume per tank. There are basically three possible tank design categories:

° Above ground.

° Above and below ground ( or " in ground")   these are excluded from standardized permit eligibility.

° Underground   these are excluded from standardized permit eligibility.

! Tanks may be covered or uncovered ( i. e. with or without roofs), and may be classified according to two " levels":

° " Level 1" tanks store wastes with low vapor pressure.

° " Level 2" tanks store wastes with high vapor pressure.

! In ground and underground tanks are not eligible for RCRA standardized permits.

! For additional descriptive information about hazardous waste tank systems, see the RCRA Hotline training module EPA 530

R 97 072, Nov 1997, 24pp. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hotline/ training/ tank. pdf.

Containers ! Any portable device in which a hazardous waste is stored, transported, treated, disposed of , or otherwise handled in accordance with the RCRA technical standards of 40 CFR 264 & 265 Subpart I. Containers are one of the most commonly used and diverse forms of hazardous waste storage. Some examples include:

° 55 gallon drums ° Large tanker trucks ° Railroad cars ° Small buckets ° Test tubes ! Small containers are usually between 26 and 119 gallons, and large containers are greater than 119 gallons.

° " Level 1" containers: store wastes with low vapor pressure.

° " Level 2" containers: large containers which store wastes with high vapor pressure.

° " Level 3" containers: sed for waste stabilization.

! For additional descriptive information about hazardous waste containers, see the RCRA Hotline training module EPA 530 R

97 049, Nov 1997, 22pp. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hotline/ training/ ctain. pdf.

Containment buildings ! A completely enclosed, self supporting structure ( i. e. with four walls, a roof, and a floor), used to store or treat noncontainerized hazardous waste, under the RCRA technical standards of 40 CFR 264 & 265 Subpart DD.* Containment buildings are generally used for the management of hazardous waste debris and other bulky and high volume hazardous wastes, and also non liquid hazardous wastes. Containment buildings may also manage liquid wastes if special equipment has been installed. Unit size may range from less than 100 to over 100,000 square feet in floor area.

! For additional descriptive information about hazardous waste containment buildings, see the RCRA Hotline training module EPA 530 R 97 050, Nov 1997, 16pp. http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hotline/ training/ cbuld. pdf. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 17 Explanatory Notes:

( a) EPA's RCRA hazardous waste program provides regulatory definitions of the above three categories of eligible waste management units at 40 CFR 260.10.

( b) ! 40 CFR Part 264 establishes minimum national design and operating standards which define the acceptable management of RCRA hazardous wastes,

applicable to owners and operators of all facilities which treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste, except as specifically excluded from RCRA regulations ( specific waste exclusions from RCRA are listed in 40 CFR 261). These standards cover design, construction, operation,

maintenance, closure, and financial assurance requirements to ensure proper and safe operation of hazardous waste management units ( facilities).

! 40 CFR Part 265 is similar and in some instances almost identical to Part 264, although it applies to " interim status" hazardous waste TSD facilities, which are facilities already in existence and operating when regulatory amendments to RCRA become effective and render these facilities subject to permitting, as opposed to " permitted facilities" which are newly constructed TSDFs after such effective date. The RCRA " interim status" category recognizes and allows existing TSDFs to gradually come up to speed with the standards for ( new) permitted facilities. The " interim status"

standards of Part 265 are often less stringent than Part 264 standards, and there are circumstances where the standards for new facilities would be impracticable for existing " interim status" facilities to implement immediately.

Apart from general facility standards ( Subparts A H), many of the Subparts of both 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 address specific types of hazardous waste management units: Subpart I= containers, J= tank systems, K= surface impoundments, L= wastepiles, M= land treatment, N= landfills, O= incinerators, P= thermal treatment, Q= biological treatment, R= underground injection, S V= reserved for future use, W= drip pads, X Z= reserved for future use, AA= process vents, BB=

equipment leaks, CC= containers, DD= containment buildings, EE= munitions & explosives storage.

Furthermore, only these types of waste management units which meet RCRA's clean closure standards are eligible. The USEPA identified these three types of eligible waste management units because:

Reasons Why EPA Selected Tanks, Containers, & Containment Buildings for RCRA " Standardized" Permit Eligibility Basic design: These types of hazardous waste management units are allegedly relatively simple to design and properly construct. The engineering and construction knowledge and skills necessary to design and construct these units are relatively basic.

Off the shelf: These types of units are in common usage in many applications, and are frequently bought " off the shelf" or built from " off

theshelf designs. Furthermore, industry associations and standards organizations have developed engineering, material and operating standards for these three types of units which are in widespread use in the USA.*

Operation: Past experience with these types of units indicates that they are simpler to design, construct, and manage compared to other hazardous waste management units such as combustion units ( i. e. incinerators, boilers, furnaces) or land disposal units ( e. g.

surface impoundments, landfills, land treatment).

Explanatory Notes:

* Examples of industrial plant & equipment standards organizations include those that develop ( a) model safety codes, ( b) model building codes, ( c) fire codes, ( d) energy codes,

( e) mechanical codes, ( f) handicapped access codes, and ( g) National Electrical Code, such as:

! Building Officials and Code Administrators ( BOCA): http:// www. bocai. org ! Factory Mutual ( FM): http:// www. fmglobal. com ! International Code Council ( ICC): http:// www. intlcode. org ! International Conference of Building Officials ( ICBO): http:// www. icbo. org ! National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA): http:// www. nfpa. org ! Southern Building Code Congress International Inc. ( SBCCI): http:// www. sbcci. org ! Underwriters Laboratories ( UL): http:// www. ul. com Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 18 For purpose of providing a context relative to the universe of all types of RCRA hazardous waste management units, the next table presents the prevalence of all types of RCRA waste management units. Compared to the universe of all permitted unit types based on a 1996 sample in eight states, the three eligible units represent 44% of all the different types of RCRA TSD units ( i. e. 29.3% + ( 20.7% x 71%)).

Prevalence of Types of RCRA Waste Management Units Rank Type of RCRA Permitted Unit Prevalence*

1 Containers and Containment buildings 29.3%

2 Surface impoundments 23.2%

3 Tank systems ( above ground, in ground, underground) 20.7%

All tanks ( storage & treatment) =

Above ground =

In ground =

Underground = 100%**

71%** 17%** 12%**

4 Landfills 11.0%

5 Incinerators, boilers & industrial furnaces 6.9%

6 Waste piles 4.9%

7 Land treatment units ( aka " land application" or " land farming") 3.7%

8 Drip pads 1.2%

Column total = 100%

Explanatory Notes:

( c) * Source: Prevalence percentages above based on a non random sample of 100 RCRA hazardous waste permitted management facilities ( i. e. treatment, storage, disposal, recovery facilities, TSDRFs), located in USEPA Region 4 ( consisting of the eight southeastern states of AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), as reported in Revised Draft Report on Analysis of Cost Estimates for Closure and Post Closure Care, by PRC Environmental Management Inc, for the USEPA Office of Solid Waste, 15 Oct 1996, Table 3, p. 15.

( d) ** Source ( tank % s): Percentages based on national total tanks count estimates from Hazardous Waste Tanks Risk Analysis: Draft Report, by ICF Inc & Pope Reid Associates Inc, for the USEPA OSW, PB86 212 389/ AS,

June 1986, pp. 20, 22, per national tank counts displayed below from this data source:

Storage tanks Treatment tanks Row total tanks ! Above ground: 3,742 2,214 5,956 ( 71%)

! In ground: 390 1,056 1,446 ( 17%)

! Underground: 949 73 1,022 ( 12%)

! Column totals: 5,081 3,343 8,424 ( 100%) Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 19 I D. What is the Universe of Potentially Eligible RCRA Waste Management Facilities?

! USEPA Regulated Universe The table below displays the universe of facilities which may be subject to USEPA's various permitting programs ( i. e. water, air, waste regulatory programs). As of May 2004, there are approximately 854,000 facilities which may be subject to USEPA permitting as contained in USEPA's Enforcement & Compliance History Online ( ECHO) database ( http:// www. epa. gov/ echo/ index. html), of which about 627,000 are classified as possibly subject to USEPA's RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program.

However, USEPA's " ECHO" database contains information on hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities ( TSDs) and other handlers regulated under RCRA that are no longer operating or handling hazardous waste. Because TSDs and other hazardous waste handlers are not required under Federal regulations to notify USEPA once they cease handling hazardous waste, the ECHO database ( which contains data drawn from USEPA's " RCRAInfo" database http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ rcris/ rcris_ query_ java. html), cannot distinguish between inactive and active hazardous waste handlers ( http:// www. epa. gov/ echo/ faq. html# all_ facilities_ operating).

For example, compared to recent data year USEPA Hazardous Waste Biennial Reports ( BRs) of operating facilities ( BR reports are available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ biennialreport/ index. htm)   using year 2001 BR data for mostly non wastewaters and using year 1995 for last year of BR reporting for both wastewaters and nonwastewaters   there are only between 19,024 to 20,873 active LQGs, between 756 to 1,983 active TSDFs, and between 18,860 to 20,497 active shippers ( aka transporters), which represent:

! 59% to 64% ( for LQGs)

! 28% to 73% ( for TSDFs)

! 104% to 113% ( for transporters)

of the respective RCRA regulated subset universes displayed in the table below ( the BR does not collect hazardous waste data from SQGs or CESQGs). Count of Facilities Subject to USEPA's Regulatory & Permitting Programs ( as of May 2004)

Facility Category Type of Facility Facility Count*

All USEPA regulated facilities ( air, water,

waste programs)** Major + minor facilities 853,947 Major facilities*** 97,153 Minor facilities**** 756,794 RCRA hazardous waste program regulated facilities All facility types ( major + minor)

Federal facilities subset 627,536 7,271 ( 1.2%)

LQGs ( major) 32,393 SQGs ( major) 165,137 CESQGs ( major) 160,765 TSDFs ( major) 2,722 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 20 Transporters ( major) 18,127 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Source: OSW May 2004 query of the USEPA Enforcement & Compliance History Online ( ECHO) public access database at: http:// www. epa. gov/ echo/ index. html.

( b) ** Air = Clear Air Act ( CAA); water = Clean Water Act ( CWA); waste = Resource Conservation & Recovery Act ( RCRA).

( c) *** Major facility: Larger facilities shown in default searches have a relatively higher level of pollutant discharge than do those known as " minor" facilities and are subject to full reporting of data to USEPA. The Clean Air Act program uses the term " federally reportable, the Clean Water Act program uses the term " major", and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program uses the terms " Large Quantity Generator" and " Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility." Facilities with these designations are more closely monitored than " minor" facilities. Examples of larger facilities are petroleum refineries,

electric utilities, and wastewater treatment plants with more than one million gallons of discharge per day.

( d) **** Minor facility: Examples of minor facilities are gas stations and neighborhood dry cleaners. CAA minor facilities are not required to be entered into Federal data systems. CWA minor permittees are required to be entered into USEPA data systems, however, information about violations and enforcement actions is not required.

! Lower Bound Estimate of Eligible Facilities Based on the estimate provided in OSW's May 2000 " Economics Background Document" for the Oct 2001 proposed rule, there is a minimum of 866 facilities which may become potentially eligible to participate in the standardized RCRA permit program, as summarized in the table below. This range represents the final rule's " on site" ( i. e. captive) units only eligibility scope. The table below also displays a slightly higher estimate of 1,133 eligible facilities representing the proposed rule's alternative " on site + off site" ( i. e. commercial) units eligibility scope. It is important to note that both estimates represent lower bounds, respectively, because these estimates are based on an initial data collection method ( a) restricted to only TSDFs ( i. e. does not include LQGs), and ( b) excluding Federally owned facilities.

Lower Bound Estimated Count of Potentially Eligible Facilities: Two Alternative Scopes of Eligibility Type of Eligible RCRA Haz Waste Unit Database Query Code ( RCRA waste unit type code) Alternative Scopes of Eligibility Alternative 1:*

on site units Alternative 2:**

on site + off site 1. Containers S01 = containers 800 1,078 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 21 2. Tank Systems Note: tank count overstates eligible tanks because count does not exclude in ground and underground tanks,

which are ineligible for standardized permits. T01 = tank treatment 470 S02 = tank storage 811 Tank subtotal = 623 862 3. Containment Buildings T94 = containment building

treatment 6 S06 = containment building

storage 38 Containment building subtotal = 22 40 Non duplicative column total = 866 1,133 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * On Site only data source: Table 1 in " Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request ( ICR) Nr. 1935.01: Standardized Permit for RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities", ICF Inc., 16 Nov 1999 ( http:// www. epa. gov/ icr/ icrs/ icrpages/ 1935ss01. PDF). These source data in the ICR are based on ICF Consulting Inc. analysis of the USEPA RCRA " Permitting Program Accomplishments Report" for the period 01 Oct 1980 to 04 Oct 1999, excluding Federally owned waste management units ( http:// www. epa. gov/ oswfiles/ rcraweb/ web_ reporting/ permit. htm).

( b) ** On Site + Off Site data source: November 2002 OSW query of the EPA Office of Solid Waste RCRAInfo database ( http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ rcris/ rcris_ query_ java. html).

( c) The number of individual eligible waste management " units" ( not shown in this table) is larger than the number of eligible " facilities"

shown in this table.

Compared to the 2001 RCRA permitted hazardous waste management facility universe of 2,479 TSD facilities ( i. e. treatment, storage and disposal facilities combined), these 866 to 1,133 potentially eligible baseline facilities, represent 35% to 46% of the 2001 RCRA permitted hazardous waste TSDF universe. As a historical note, the universe of RCRA permitted hazardous waste management facilities ( i. e. " treatment, storage & disposal"

facilities or " TSDFs") has decreased since 1985, as shown in the table below and the associated histogram.

1985 2001 Universe of RCRA Permitted Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Facilities ( Count Below Includes All Types of Waste Management Units, Both On Site & Off Site)

Row item Data Year ( a) Treatment or Disposal Storage Only Total Count of TSDFs ( c) TSDFs Receiving Offsite Waste 1 2001 756 2,479 488 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 22 2 1999 ( b) 526 1,049 1,575 288 3 1997 ( b) 947 1,078 2,025 543 4 1995 900 1,083 1,983 644 5 1993 1,032 1,552 2,584 739 6 1991 1,203 2,659 3,862 794 7 1989 1,308 1,770 3,078 1,240 8 1987

1,687

1,620 3,308 969 9 1985 NA NA 4,944 2,022 Explanatory Notes:

( d) The RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage & disposal facility ( TSDF) universe is enumerated in the USEPA Office of Solid Waste's Hazardous Waste Biennial Report. Row item years displayed in this table correspond to the USEPA Office of Solid Waste's RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report data years, which began in 1981. OSW did not approve public distribution of both the 1981 and 1983 Biennial Report data because of data quality flaws.

! National summary reports based on the RCRA Hazardous Waste Biennial Report database are available to the public at:

http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ index. htm# br.

! The public may query the RCRA Biennial Report database for data years 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 1997 at:

http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ brs/ brs_ query. html.

( e) Both the 1999 and 1997 data years exclude wastewater management data in the National Summary Biennial Reports ( which were collected in prior data years), so comparisons and trend analysis using 1999 and 1997 data may be inconsistent.

( f) A single waste management " facility" may operate more than one waste handling/ processing equipment " unit" at a single site;

consequently the associated count of " units" ( not shown) exceeds the count of " facilities" displayed in this table. For example,

Table 2 of the ICR reference source " B" cited elsewhere in this background document indicates an average of 13 container " units" per RCRA permitted container facility, and an average of 22 tank " units" per RCRA permitted tank system facility.

( g) " NA" = data not available from USEPA national summary reports. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 23 4,944 3,308 3,078 3,862 2,584 1,983 2,025 1,575 2,479 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Data Year 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Count of Operating Facilities Source: USEPA Office of Solid Waste RCRA Hazardous Waste " Biennial Report":

http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ index. htm# br US National Universe of Facilities Which Reported Managing RCRA Hazardous Waste ( onsite & offsit 17 Year Trend ( 1985 2001) Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 24 ! Upper Bound Estimate of Eligible Facilities In revising this " Economics Background Document" for the final rule, OSW applied a second alternative data collection method, to identify and count potentially eligible facilities ( and associated waste management units), by querying USEPA's public access " Envirofact's" website, using the " RCRAInfo"

query option, according to the following query criteria:

1. Go to USEPA's Envirofacts public website for access to the RCRAInfo: http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ rcris/ rcris_ query_ java. html 2. Select " Geography Search" = To search for a single facility, type in the name or USEPA ID number, or street address of a particular facility To search for multiple facilities, type in a city, state, zipcode, county, industry NAICS code or USEPA region 3. Select " Handler Universe" = " Treatment, Disposal, Storage Facilities" & " Permit Workload Universe"

4. Select the following multiple " Process Search" Options:

 Container ( although not shown, this is RCRA process code = S01)

 Tank Storage ( S02)

 Containment Building Storage ( S06)

 Tank Treatment ( T01)

 Containment Building Treatment ( T94)

5. Select " Search Values" = " Use RCRAInfo facility information only to perform facility search"

6. Select " Output Selection" = " Process Information" ( this option provides a waste management unit by unit breakdown for each facility)

7. Click the " Search" button Note that the above query will generate a list of facilities ( i. e. database " hits") with waste management units representing the following mix of RCRA permit " legal operating status", not all of which are eligible for, or relevant to, the standardized permitting process/ actions:

! Proposed  Before Construction ! Proposed  Constructed, Not Yet Managing Hazardous Waste ! Permitted  Operating, Actively Managing RCRA regulated Waste ! Requested But Not Approved  Operating, Actively Managing RCRA regulated Waste ! Interim Status  Operating, Actively Managing RCRA regulated Waste ! Interim Status Terminated  Operating, Actively Managing RCRA regulated Waste ! Never Regulated as a TSD  Protective Filer ! Never Regulated As a TSD  Conducting Activities Not Requiring a Permit ! Permitted  Referred to Corrective Action ! Permitted  Inactive/ closing, But Not Yet RCRA Closed ! Interim Status  Inactive/ closing, But Not Yet RCRA Closed ! Loss Of Interim Status  Converted But Not RCRA Closed ! Loss Of Interim Status  Closed With Waste In Place ! Interim Status Terminated  Closed With Waste In Place ! Interim Status Terminated  Clean Closed ! Permit Terminated/ permit Expired, Not Continued  Clean Closed ! Permitted  Clean Closed ! Post closure Permitted  Clean Closed ! Non notifier/ illegal  Inactive/ closing, But Not Yet RCRA Closed Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 25 ! Non notifier/ illegal  Clean Closed ! RCRIS value was blank or missing [ i. e. data missing on legal operating status in RCRAInfo database] Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 26 OSW's May 2004 test run of the Envirofacts RCRAInfo internet database using the above criteria, generated the facility counts displayed in the table below according to USEPA region breakdown. Because of the fact that the standardized permit is limited to ( a) onsite units only ( i. e. units which only store or treat waste generated onsite at the same facility), and ( b) for tanks, limited to above ground, the counts displayed in the right column of the table below are an over estimate of eligible facilities because not every " legal operating status" of waste management unit is relevant to the standardized permit process. For purpose of benchmarking, the corresponding facility counts for the entire RCRA regulated universe ( i. e. permitted & non permitted facilities) are also displayed in this table.

2004 Baseline Counts of RCRA Facilities:

RCRA Regulated Facilities & RCRA Permit Workload Facilities USEPA Region** States/ Territories Within USEPA Region** RCRA Regulated Universe ( Permitted & Non permitted in ECHO*) Permitted Facility Counts ( RCRA Permit Workload Universe in RCRAInfo*) Potentially Eligible RCRA Permitting Facilities ( PAR*)

Count of All*** Facilities Subset Count of LQG Facilities Subset Count of TSD Facilities Count of All*** Facilities Subset Count of LQG Facilities Subset Count of TSD Facilities LQGs +

TSDFs Count of All*** Facilities Count of Operating Facilities Region 1 6 = CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT 38,658 1,473 213 414 222 46 268 169 52 Region 2 4 = NJ, NY, PR, VI 80,879 5,238 235 1,545 614 117 731 201 133 Region 3 6 = DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV 59,508 2,938 256 997 506 141 647 241 140 Region 4 7 = AL, FL, GA, KY, MI, NC,

SC 89,789 2,731 505 1,137 518 212 730 574 237 Region 5 6 = IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI 156,810 10,029 581 2,163 990 193 1,183 496 214 Region 6 5 = AR, LA, NM, OK, TX 57,076 3,091 384 959 442 209 651 474 252 Region 7 4 = IA, KS, MO, IL 35,063 1,002 170 556 169 63 232 168 85 Region 8 6 = CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY 18,763 340 76 170 81 34 115 96 50 Region 9 6 = AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU 63,683 4,592 269 647 339 122 461 247 149 Region 10 4 = AK, ID, OR, WA 27,313 972 66 141 88 32 120 86 40 Totals = N = 54 619,288 32,393 2,722 8,729 3,969 1,169 5,138 2,752 1,352 Upper bound estimate of potentially eligible facilities ( if 91% of RCRA PAR facility counts are eligible****) = 1,230 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 27 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Data sources ( OSW May 2004 queries):

! ECHO: USEPA Enforcement & Compliance History Online ( ECHO) public access database at: http:// www. epa. gov/ echo/ index. html. The RCRA information in the ECHO database includes permitted and non permitted facilities; there are certain situations where a company is not required to obtain a RCRA a permit. Businesses that generate hazardous waste and transport it off site without storing it for long periods of time do not need a RCRA permit. Businesses that transport hazardous waste do not need a RCRA permit. Businesses that store hazardous waste for short periods of time without treating it do not need a permit. Under the RCRA statute, no regulatory requirements mandate that facilities that once handled hazardous waste notify that they have ceased waste management activities. As a result, the RCRAInfo database ( which feeds ECHO) contains a listing of all regulated facilities that at one point managed hazardous waste. The ECHO database includes both active facilities and those that are no longer managing RCRA hazardous waste and/ or are permanently closed. Including all facilities assists USEPA and the public in determining prior uses of land. Users of ECHO should not conclude that listing within ECHO means that a site is active. Furthermore, the RCRA data in ECHO does not distinguish between " major" or " minor" facilities. As of OSW's 14 May 2004 query date, the RCRA data in ECHO was last updated on 03 May 2004.

! RCRAInfo: USEPA's public access " Envirofacts" internet website using the " RCRAInfo" database at:

http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ rcris/ rcris_ query_ java. html. As of OSW's 12 May 2004 query date, the RCRAInfo database was last updated on 18 Dec 2003. OSW's Envirofacts RCRAInfo database query criteria were limited to only five types of waste management units within the eligibility scope of the RCRA " standardized" permit:

( 1) containers ( 2) tank storage ( 3) containment building storage ( 4) tank treatment, and ( 5) containment building treatment.

Eligibility facility counts involving tank units may be over counted in this table because the RCRAInfo database does distinguish ineligible underground tanks, in ground tanks, or underground piping.

! RCRA PAR: USEPA RCRA Hazardous Waste Permitting Accomplishments Report ( PAR) database,

http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ permit/ pgprarpt. htm. As of OSW's 14 May 2004 query date, the PAR was last updated on 28 Jan 2004.

In general, the PAR RCRA permiting facility count baseline includes facilities that had or needed a RCRA operating permit or RCRA post closure permit as of 01 Oct 1997. Many facilities were in operation before RCRA permitting requirements became effective   those facilities were allowed to operate under RCRA " interim status" standards until they were permitted ( or to clean up and close the facility if they did not wish to continue operating). The GPRA RCRA baseline consists mainly of interim status facilities, permitted facilities, and newer units/ facilities with RCRA permit applications pending before 01 Oct 1997.

( b) ** A map of the ten USEPA regional office jurisdictions is provided at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epahome/ locate2. htm ( c) *** All facilities: ( 1) hazardous waste LQGs ( large quantity generators), ( 2) hazardous waste SQGs ( small quantity generators), ( 3) hazardous waste CESQGs ( conditionally exempt small quantity generators), ( 4) hazardous waste TSDFs ( treatment, storage, disposal facilities), ( 5) hazardous waste transporters, and ( 6) used oil universe. Separate counts of SQGs, CESQGs, transporters, and used oil universe facilities not displayed in this table because such facilities are generally not subject to the 40 CFR 270 RCRA permitting program, if they follow the waste storage time and quantity limits, or other terms specified in 40 CFR 262.34, 40 CFR 261.5, 40 CFR 263.12, and 40 CFR 279, respectively.

( d) 91%: Fraction of the 182 total PAR facilities in the two smallest PAR count Regions ( Regions 8 & 10) used by OSW as a convenience sample to establish this %

factor; OSW inspection of regional specific PAR data estimated 8 facilities in each region not eligible/ relevant ( http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ permit/ pgprarpt. htm). Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 28 I E. Which Industry Sectors & How Many Facilities Are Eligible?

Under USEPA's RCRA " cradle to grave" regulations, solid waste generators must determine if their waste is hazardous, and must oversee the ultimate fate of their waste. Hazardous waste generators include various types of facilities and businesses, ranging from large manufacturing operations,

universities, and hospitals, to small businesses and laboratories.

Depending upon a number of factors, generators may own and operate waste management units " onsite" ( i. e. at the same location as the waste generation), and/ or generators may transport some or all of their hazardous wastes to " offsite" waste management facilities, which may be owned and operated by other companies within or outside of the original generating industry sector. Consequently, the list of industry sectors which own and operate RCRA hazardous waste management units, includes not only the commercial hazardous waste management service sector ( i. e. SIC code 4953 & NAICS code 562), but also includes numerous other waste generating industries and economic sectors. The table below displays counts of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities and associated units, which may be eligible for standardized RCRA permits, according to ten economic sectors, and according to ( a) " on site only" units and ( b) " on site + off site" units.

Economic Sector Count of Existing Facilities and Hazardous Waste Management Units Potentially Eligible for a RCRA " Standardized Permit"

SIC code Economic Sector NAICS code equivalent Containers Tank Systems Containment Buildings Row Totals Facilities Units Facilities Units Facilities Units Units %

ALTERNATIVE ELIGIBILITY SCOPE # 1: ON SITE ( CAPTIVE) ONLY WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS* ( i. e Waste Generator Only Units):

0 Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 11 21 26 12 23 0 0 49 0.7%

1 Mining, Oil/ Gas & Construction 21,23 26 34 16 32 0 0 66 1.0%

2 Manufacturing 31 33, 511 427 814 313 981 5 10 1,805 26.1%

3 Manufacturing ( continued) 31 33 285 465 136 354 17 28 847 12.3%

4 Transport, Communication, Utilities 22, 48, 49, 513, 562 272 678 201 877 10 12 1,567 22.7%

5 Wholesale & Retail Trade 42, 44, 45 175 221 132 241 3 5 467 6.8%

6 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 52, 53 5 7 2 3 0 0 10 0.1%

7 Services 71, 72, 512, 514, 811, 812 221 437 183 421 2 2 860 12.4%

8 Services ( continued) 54, 55, 561, 61, 62, 813, 814 90 256 38 177 0 0 433 6.3%

9 Public Admin, Environment & NEC 92 200 508 85 288 4 14 810 11.7%

Non duplicative column totals ( year 2000)* = 800 1,601** 623 1,893** 22 38** 3,532 100%

Prevalence = 45% 54% 1% 100%

ALTERNATIVE ELIGIBILITY SCOPE # 2: ON SITE + OFF SITE UNITS ( i. e. Scope Extended to Include Off Site Units):

Non duplicative totals ( year 2002)*** = 1,047 2,095 ( 45%) 815 2,477 ( 54%) 29 50 ( 1%) 4,622 ( 100%) Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 29 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Source: USEPA Office of Solid Waste ( OSW) customized in house query of the OSW RCRIS and OSW Biennial Report databases ( as of March 2000). This year 2000 data query relates to a total 866 facilities as identified in the May 2000 " Economics Background Document" for the Oct 2001 proposed rule. This count is an over estimate because it includes all tank types although in ground and underground tanks are not eligible for standardized permits, and is an underestimate because it does not include Federally owned facilities which could also be eligible for RCRA standardized permits.

It is important to note that the RCRIS database does not necessarily contain accurate data on the RCRA permitted universe of hazardous waste management facilities and units:

! 1995 study of RCRIS: A 22 Aug 1995 US General Accounting Office ( GAO) report concluded that " The [ RCRIS] system is difficult to use and its data are unreliable." (" Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited", GAO/ AIMD 95 167, 23pp.

http:// www. gao. gov).

! 1999 study of RCRIS: A 30 March 1999 USEPA Office of Inspector General ( OIG) study reported " EPA officials did not have basic programmatic data such as the actual number of facilities in the permitting universe, the number of facilities with original permits, the number needing renewal, etc." ( OIG memorandum " EPA Controls Over RCRA Permit Renewals", report no. E1DSF9 11 0002

9100115, 8 pages, http:// www. epa. gov/ oigearth/ ereading_ room/ list399/ 9100115. pdf).

( b) SIC = " Standard Industrial Classification" system.

NAICS = " North American Industry Classification System", adopted by the US Federal Government in 1997, which replaced the SIC code system ( for NAICS and SIC conversion tables, see http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ www/ naics. html).

( c) ** Some facilities designated multiple SIC codes in the source database, which results in duplicative totals if column items are added directly. OSW estimated nonduplicative unit column totals by using respective ratio of non duplicative column total facilities ( as numerator) to the duplicative facility totals ( as denominator):

800/ 1,722 = 0.465, 623/ 1,118 = 0.557, and 22/ 41 = 0.537, respectively.

( d) *** Estimated counts of eligible facilities and eligible waste management units for " On Site + Off Site" based on multiplying " On Site" counts by 1.31, which represents the respective total facility counts [ i. e. ( 1133 on site + off site facilities) / ( 866 on site facilities) = 1.31 multiplier]; the " On Site + Off Site" facility count is based on November 2002 OSW query of the EPA Office of Solid Waste RCRAInfo database ( http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ rcris/ rcris_ query_ java. html).

The following table provides a break down of hazardous waste TSDRFs, according to both on and off site management of waste, and according to categories of recycling and fuel blending   categories which OSW gave special consideration for standardized permit eligibility determination during formulation of the final rule. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 30 1999 Count of RCRA Hazardous Waste Recycling & Fuel Blending Facilities Item Waste system code Waste System Type Description Facility Count On site waste only Receive waste from off site Metals Recovery ( for reuse)

1 M011 High temperature metals recovery 88 10 2 M012 Retorting 118 12 3 M013 Secondary smelting 40 14 4 M014 Other metals recovery for reuse ( e. g. ion exchange, reverse osmosis, acid leaching) 83 20 5 M019 Metals recovery  type unknown 73 7 Subtotal = 268 67 Solvents Recovery 6 M021 Fractionation/ distillation 139 29 7 M022 Thin film evaporation 24 14 8 M023 Solvent extraction 17 4 9 M024 Other solvent recovery 9 2 10 M029 Solvents recovery  type unknown 42 2 Subtotal = 206 52 Other Recovery 11 M031 Acid regeneration 21 5 12 M032 Other recovery ( e. g. waste oil recovery, nonsolvent organics recovery) 76 16 13 M039 Other recovery  type unknown 48 6 Subtotal = 131 28 Energy Recovery ( reuse as fuel)

14 M051 Energy recovery  liquids 181 42 15 M052 Energy recovery  sludges 30 4 16 M053 Energy recovery  solids 61 12 17 M059 Energy recovery  type unknown 9 1 Subtotal = 216 51 Fuel Blending 18 M061 Fuel blending 330 96 Column totals ( non duplicative) = 567 161 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 31 I F. What is the Purpose of a RCRA Permit?

In general, owners of hazardous waste management facilities ( i. e. hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal facilities, or " TSDFs") located in the USA are required to obtain Federal government permission to operate such facilities, in the form of a RCRA hazardous waste management unit operating permit, for six basic purposes:

General Purposes to EPA's RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Permitting Program Item Purpose Explanation of Purpose 1 Authority Provide facilities with the legal authority to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.

2 Standards Establish the administrative and technical conditions at the facility ( i. e. waste management unit) level, under which waste at the facility must be managed.

3 Compliance Detail how facilities must comply with the EPA hazardous waste regulations.

4 Protection Ensure that hazardous waste is handled in a controlled manner that is protective of human health and the environment.

5 Implementation Serve as a RCRA regulatory program implementation mechanism.

6 Tracking Serve as a means by which USEPA may track waste management at facilities that handle hazardous waste.

Note: Additional introductory information about RCRA permits is provided in the " RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Training Module" ( USEPA report nr. EPA 530 R 97 062;

NTIS report nr. PB 98 108 178; Nov 1997, 25pp.), which is available to the public via the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hotline/ training/ perm. pdf .

The USEPA views RCRA permits as living documents that can be modified to allow industrial waste management facilities to implement technological improvements, comply with new environmental standards, respond to changing wastestreams, and generally improve waste management practices.

As itemized in the table below, there are also special types of RCRA hazardous waste operating permits ( 40 CFR 270 Subpart F) which provide flexibility to develop and apply permit conditions and procedures in unique circumstances. However, RCRA special permits are not within the scope of ( i. e. eligible for) the standardized permitting process. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 32 Special Types of RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Permits that Are Not Covered by the RCRA " Standardized" Permit Process Item RCRA Special Permits Code of Federal Regulations 1 Permits by rule 40 CFR 270.60 2 Emergency permits 40 CFR 270.61 3 Incinerator permits 40 CFR 270.62 4 Land treatment demonstration permits 40 CFR 270.63 5 Underground injection wells 40 CFR 270.64 6 Research, development & demonstration permits 40 CFR 270.65 7 Industrial boiler and furnace permits 40 CFR 270.66 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 33 I G. What Types of Industrial Wastes May be Covered by RCRA Permits?

Under Congressional authority contained in Subtitle C ( Section 3005) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ( RCRA), the USEPA established a " hazardous" waste management operating permit, for the treatment, storage, and disposal of industrial hazardous wastes identified or listed in 40 CFR Part 261. The permit describes the terms, conditions, and schedules of compliance, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

As listed below according to there associated generic wastecode, there are basically five categories of RCRA hazardous industrial wastes,

as currently defined by the USEPA in the RCRA regulations ( associated generic form of RCRA wastecodes in parentheses):

Overview of RCRA Regulatory Classification of Industrial Hazardous Solid Wastes Waste code category Waste codes ( 01 July 2000) Definition of RCRA Hazardous Wastecode Waste code count*

( 01 July 2000 CFR)

Dxxx Solid wastes which exhibit one or more of four chemical characteristics: 43 D001 Ignitability ( D001) 1 D002 Corrosivity ( D002) 1 D003 Reactivity ( D003) 1 D004 to D043 Toxicity ( D004 D043) wastes which contain certain listed leachable chemicals 40 Fxxx F001 to F039 Certain listed wastes generated by non specific industrial sources 28 Kxxx K001 to K172 Certain listed wastes generated by specific industrial sources 120 Pxxx P001 to P205 Certain listed " acutely hazardous" discarded, off spec, container or spill residues of commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical intermediates. 205 Uxxx U001 to U410 Certain listed " toxic" discarded, off spec, container or spill residues of commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical intermediates. 410 Total RCRA wastecodes ( as of 01 July 2000 CFR) = 778 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * RCRA hazardous wastecode counts in this table do not necessarily correspond to the count implied by the ranges in codes shown. For example, the range F001 to F039 implies a total of 39 wastecodes for the Fxxx series, however, the code range is discontinuously numbered in the CFR ( i. e. Fxxx series wastecodes F013 F018,

F029 F031, F033, and F036 do not exist as of 01 July 2000.

( b) Since the 1976 Congressional authorization for the RCRA hazardous waste listing program, the number of RCRA wastecodes in each of these five categories has grown over time, as the USEPA Office of Solid Wastes adds new " listings" to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations ( 40 CFR 261.11 lists EPA's RCRA program hazardous waste listing criteria). Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 34 I H. What Types of Hazardous Industrial Waste Management Activities Require RCRA Permits?

As defined in the USEPA's RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste permitting program ( 40 CFR 270.1( c) & 270.2), owners and operators of hazardous waste management units which conduct any of the following three categories of waste handling activities, require RCRA operating permits. [ When a TSF is operated by a different party than the owner, it is the operator's duty to obtain a permit, except that the owner must also sign the permit application; 40 CFR 270.10( b).] USEPA's regional offices and RCRA authorized states currently review and issue these permits according to the particular waste management process to be permitted at an individual site ( i. e. facility):

General Categories of Hazardous Waste Management Activities Requiring RCRA Permits Waste Treatment ! Definition: Any method, technique, or process including neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of any hazardous waste, so as to neutralize such wastes, or so as to recover energy or material resources from the waste, or so as to render such waste non hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. Treatment in totally enclosed treatment units ( TETUs), elementary neutralization units ( ENUs), and wastewater treatment units ( WWTUs) are exempt from RCRA permitting.

! Eligibility: Note that only three types of non thermal treatment units   tanks ( above ground), containers, and/ or containment buildings   are eligible for standardized permits.

Waste Storage ! Definition: Holding of hazardous waste for a temporary period exceeding ten days, at the end of which the hazardous waste is treated, disposed, or stored elsewhere. Temporary storage of a RCRA manifested hazardous waste shipment for less than ten days before transfer is a " transfer facility", not subject to RCRA permitting standards.

! Eligibility: Note that only three types of storage units   tanks ( above ground), containers, and/ or containment buildings   are eligible for standardized permits.

Waste Disposal ! Definition: Intentional or unintentional discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any hazardous waste into or on any land or water, so that such hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including groundwater. A disposal unit ( facility) is any site where hazardous waste is intentionally placed and where the waste will remain after a TSDF stops operation ( i. e. discontinues receiving waste).

! Eligibility: Note that disposal units are not eligible for standardized permits.

Explanatory Notes:

( a) The three categories of solid waste management activities identified in this table, apply to the overall scope of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste permits.

( b) The RCRA permit regulations also cite " specific inclusions" and " specific exclusions" as applied to particular types of waste management units and operations.

( c) For additional descriptive information about hazardous waste storage, treatment & disposal activities, see USEPA's website http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ osw/ tsd. htm. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 2 " Authorized state" = State governments may be authorized by the USEPA to administer hazardous waste management programs ( including the RCRA permit application review and approval process), in lieu of the Federal RCRA program. RCRA permit applicants must comply with the specific application requirements of such authorized states. State authorization is a rulemaking process through which USEPA delegates the primary responsibility of implementing the RCRA hazardous waste program to individual states in lieu of USEPA. This process ensures national consistency and minimum standards while providing flexibility to states in implementing rules. As of 1999, USEPA has granted 49 states and territories authority to implement the base or initial RCRA hazardous waste program. Many states are also authorized to implement additional parts of the RCRA program that the USEPA has since promulgated, such as Corrective Action and the Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDRs). State RCRA programs must always be at least as stringent as Federal requirements, but states may adopt more stringent requirements as well. For more information about RCRA state authorization see http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ state/ index. htm. 35 I I. What are the Basic Components and Steps of the RCRA Permit Process?

With some exceptions ( as listed at 40 CFR 270.1( c)( 2)&( 3)), owners and operators of hazardous waste management units must have RCRA permits during the active life ( including closure period) of the unit ( 40 CFR 270.1( c)). RCRA permits may be issued by USEPA's ten regional offices, authorized states2, or both.

The permitting agency has the authority to issue or deny RCRA permits, and is responsible for verifying that facilities are operating in compliance with the conditions set forth in each permit. Owners and operators of waste management facilities that do not comply with permit provisions are subject to possible RCRA enforcement actions, including financial penalties. RCRA permits are valid for a maximum duration of ten years ( 40 CFR 270.50( a)). The conventional RCRA hazardous waste management permit application process consists of the following sequential steps:

Basic Steps and Components of the Conventional RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Permit Application & Review Process Step 1 Public meeting The entity ( e. g. company) applicant which desires to start or continue a hazardous waste management facility operation, holds an initial public meeting prior to submitting a permit application.

Step 2 Permit application The applicant submits written Parts A and B of the permit application to permitting authority ( i. e. to a USEPA regional office and/ or RCRA authorized state agency):

! Part A: Is submitted on a designated, structured information form ( EPA Form 8700 23), and requires basic information about the TSD facility, such as the name of the facility owner and operator,

facility location, description and capacity of the hazardous waste management processes to be used, and specification of the types of hazardous wastes to be managed at the TSD facility ( 40 CFR 270.13).

! Part B: Is submitted in written narrative style ( i. e. there is not a special USEPA form) and provides detailed, site specific information associated with the waste management activities that will be conducted at the TSD facility, and includes geologic, hydrologic, and engineering data, and may consist of volumes of documents ( 40 CFR 270.14). Part B may be submitted voluntarily,

however, an applicant is not required to submit it until it is requested by USEPA or an authorized state. Applicants have up to six months to submit Part B. New TSDFs must submit Parts A and B simultaneously at least six months prior to the new facility ( or unit) construction start date. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 36 Step 3 Permit review ! Permitting authority and public review of submitted application; permitting authority either issues a " notice of deficiency" if application is incomplete, or begins evaluation of the application to determine whether to issue or deny a permit.

! Under the conventional RCRA permit process, determination of completeness must be made within 60 days ( 40 CFR 124.3( c)).

Step 4 Public comment If application is satisfactory, permitting authority prepares a draft permit, and opens a public comment period ( and may hold public hearing if requested).

Step 5 Final decision ! Permitting authority responds to public comments and may revise the draft permit, and makes final permit decision by denying or issuing the permit. There is no time limit for final decisions under the conventional RCRA permit process.

! The standardized RCRA permit proposes to limit the entire review process to 120 days.

Explanatory Notes:

( a) The five steps in this table represent a simplified generalization of the RCRA hazardous waste management permitting process; RCRA authorized states have unique variations of this process, consisting of additional or intermediate steps. For example, as of Nov 2002, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality describes its RCRA permit application process as consisting of nine steps ( http:// www. deq. state. org. us/ pubs/ permithandbook/ hwrcra. htm).

( b) USEPA Form 8700 " Hazardous Waste Permit Application Part A" ( 7 pages), and its instructions ( 28 pages), are available over the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ data/ form8700/ forms. htm.

( c) The elements and requirements of the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management permit program are described at:

40 CFR 124: Contains USEPA RCRA permit procedures for issuing, consolidating, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating, and public hearings/ comments and reviewing, for all RCRA permits ( and for three other types of USEPA permits: such as UIC permits for underground injection, and NPDES permits for industrial wastewater discharges to surface waters or to publicly owned treatment works).

40 CFR 124 contains six subparts, of which four subparts are applicable to RCRA permits ( i. e. Subparts A, B, E, & F).

40 CFR 270: Regulations in 40 CFR 270 are targeted at only RCRA hazardous waste permits, and pertain to permit application requirements,

hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal facility ( TSDF) technical requirements, TSDF permit conditions, and TSDF monitoring and reporting requirements under a permit. This Part also directs new TSDFs to comply with the technical standards in 40 CFR 264,

whereas existing TSDFs   as of the effective date of regulatory amendments that render a facility subject to acquiring a RCRA permits ( i. e. " interim status" TSDFs)  are directed to comply with the technical standards in 40 CFR 265 ( which are similar to those in Part 264).

( d) Additional, descriptive information about the RCRA hazardous waste management permit program is available on the Internet http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ permit/ index. htm. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 3As presented in the 01 July 1999 version of the CFR, the Appendix I permit modification class reference contains 12 examples for tanks, 9 examples for containers, and 11 examples for containment buildings, as summarized below:

RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Permit Modification Classes: Count of Examples Given in 40 CFR 270.42 Appendix Type of TSDF Unit Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Total 1. Tank systems 5 5 2 12 2. Containers 4 3 2 9 3. Containment 2 6 3 11 Column totals 11 14 7 32 37 I J. Are There Different Types of RCRA Permitting Actions?

Potential cost savings stem from expected reduction in average annual permitting resources for both the eligible universe of TSFs, and for USEPA/ state agencies (" permitting authorities"), associated with facilities preparing and with USEPA regional offices and RCRA authorized state agencies reviewing on an annual basis, four basic types of RCRA permitting actions:

Basic Types of RCRA Permit Actions Item Permit Action Definition 1 New permit New permit applications from " interim status" and for planned new constructed facilities.

2 Permit modification Applications by existing TSFs for modifications to existing permits. The RCRA program defines three " classes" of permit modifications ( 40 CFR 270.42 Appendix I): 3 ! Class 1: Cover routine changes to permits such as correcting typographical errors in the permit itself, or replacing equipment at a TSDF with functionally equivalent equipment.

! Class 2: Address common or frequently occurring changes needed to maintain a facility's level of safety or a TSDF's requirement to conform to new regulations, or increase of up to 25% in waste volume capacity.

! Class 3: Cover major changes that substantially alter the TSDF or its operations, such as > 25% increase waste volume capacity.

3 Permit renewal Applications by existing permitted facilities for renewal ( i. e. continuation) of existing permits upon expiration ( valid for a maximum 10 year permit period). Applications for permit renewal must be submitted at least 180 days prior to expiration ( 40 CFR 270.10( h)).

4 Permit conversion After promulgation, the standardized RCRA permit is expected to induce some TSFs into submitting applications for conversion ( i. e. switching) of conventional RCRA permits before expiration, to " standardized" permits. One benefit to waste management facilities of conversion is that subsequent permit modifications become less burdensome. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 38 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 39 I K. What is the Annual Frequency of RCRA Permitting Actions?

National Annual RCRA Permit Actions for 1981 1999:

RCRA Hazardous Waste Storage & Non Thermal Treatment Units Item Fiscal Year* Total permit determinations completed Subtotal permit renewals**

1 1981 0 0 2 1982 0 0 3 1983 31 0 4 1984 76 0 5 1985 34 0 6 1986 41 0 7 1987 55 0 8 1988 93 0 9 1989 121 5 10** 1990 134 11 11 1991 114 12 12 1992 108 22 13 1993 109 25 14 1994 90 33 15 1995 94 44 16 1996 83 52 17 1997 64 39 18 1998 75 47 19 1999 53 36 Column totals= 1,375 326 Annual averages: All 19 years = 72.4 17.2 Last 10 years = 92.4 32.1 Last 5 years = 73.8 43.6 Last 3 years = 64.0 40.7 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Fiscal Year = 01 October prior to year shown, to 30 September of year shown.

( b) ** Because RCRA permits once issued are valid for a fixed duration not to exceed ten years, permit renewal actions did not begin until the ninth year ( i. e. FY1989) into the RCRA permit program,

corresponding to permit renewal actions associated with the initial set of permits issued in 1980.

( c) Source: " Permitting Program Accomplishments Reports" ( PPAR) website:

http:// www. epa. gov/ oswfiles/ rcraweb/ web_ reporting/ permit. htm. Data reflect historical " Permit Workload Universe" of 1,257 facilities in the USA. which operated at least one storage and/ or nontreatment unit.

( d) The RCRA hazardous waste management permit program began in 1980, so FY1981 is first data year. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 40 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 41 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 42 II. ECONOMIC IMPACT ESTIMATION FRAMEWORK & RESULTS II A. What Public Comments Did OSW Receive on the Proposed Rule Economic Analysis?

OSW received a total of 46 sets of public comments on the 12 October 2001 proposed rule, of which one set ( Comment 38, Environmental Technology Council, 17 Dec 2001), contained the following comment topics concerning the May 2000 initial draft of this Economics Background Document for the October 2001 proposed rule:

° State permit fees are not accounted for in the economic analysis.

° Savings associated with elimination of the closure plan at the time of permit application should not be included.

° Permit renewal applications should not be considered as costly as new permit applications.

° The calculations in the economic analysis are based on 200 permit actions per year instead of the actual rate of 105 actions per year.

° No costs assumed for a potential induced rise in future storage permit applications.

OSW's responses to these comments are provided in a separate " Response to Comment" Document ( see the final rule Federal Register notice for public access to that other document).

II B. What is the Economic Analysis Framework Applied in this Document?

Economic Impact Estimation Framework Applied in this Document Framework Element Definition Impact Categories Impact # 1: Paperwork: Potential cost savings from reduction in RCRA permit paperwork burden to waste management facilities and to RCRA permit authorities; two alternative estimates presented using aggregate &

itemized estimation methods:

! Method A: Based on aggregate cost data per entire permit action.

! Method B: Based on itemized burden hour data per permit processing sub activities.

Impact # 2: Closure financial assurance:

! Pay in period: Accelerate pay in according to 3 year pay in period, rather than over 10 year lifespan of RCRA permit.

! Financial test: Reduce the financial test corporate guarantee ratio from < 2.0 to < 1.5 of total liability: to: total worth.

! Audit report: Eliminate the financial test special audit report requirement prepared by an independent certified public accountant. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 43 Impact # 3: Site audit: Incremental cost impact to facilities of a site audit and audit report requirement in the " standardized"

permit application process. The May 2000 economics document did not include the full possible extent of this potential impact item, because the paperwork burden reduction monetization methodology in the May 2000 document was based on the burden impact itemization and corresponding burden hour estimates supplied in the 16 Nov 1999 draft " Information Collection Request" ( ICR) Nr. 1935.01 for the proposed rule ( http:// www. epa. gov/ icr/ icrs/ 1935_ 01. html), which included 0.6 hours ($ 35.34) per permit applicant ( respondent) burden to " Prepare and sign the certification of compliance with Part 267", but did not include the costs of: ( a) completing a site audit and ( b) compliance audit report. This document presents cost estimates for two alternative certification options:

! Self audit: On site personnel conduct site audit & certification report.

! Third party audit: Off site personnel ( e. g. contractor) conduct site audit & certification report.

Impact # 4: Investment: This impact category estimates the expected future enhancement of the financial return on business investments in plant & equipment assets at eligible hazardous waste management facilities. Section III. A. 1 of the May 2000 economics document identified this impact category as a qualitative (

nonmonetized potential economic benefit. This document presents a quantified ( monetized) estimate of this type of expected economic impact, which was not included in the May 2000 document.

Impact # 5: State fees: Potential reduction in state fees paid by RCRA permit applicants. This is not a national economic ( real resource) type impact because state fees represent a form of macro economic " transfer payment" in this document because the real cost ( savings) of paperwork burden to states for the permit process are addressed as a separate impact category. Although not a " real resource" impact,

the state fee impact category is added to this document in response to public comment received on the May 2000 document, which did not include this impact element.

Economic Metrics This document presents economic impact estimates according to three complementary impact metrics over the 30 year POA:

! NDT: Non discounted total impacts over the POA.

! NPV: Discounted " net present value" of POA impacts.

! AEE: Discounted " average annual equivalent" of POA impacts.

The NPV and AAE metrics follow the cash flow equivalence computation technique generally known as the " Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost" ( EUAC) method. The " EUAC" economic equivalence and consequences flow method using the analytical method of time value " discounting", is described in numerous engineering economics textbooks, such as in H. M.

Steiner, Public and Private Investments: Socioeconomic Analysis, Books Associates, Washington DC, 1980. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 44 Discounting ! OMB Guidelines: In Section E of " Circular A 4: Regulatory Analysis" ( 17 Sept 2003;

http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ omb/ memoranda/ m03 21. html), the US Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) directs Federal regulatory agencies such as the USEPA, to apply the following discount rates to economic analyses of the benefits and costs of Federal regulations:

! 3% & 7% Use both 3% and 7%, which represents the 7% base case from OMB " Circular A 94:

Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit Cost Analysis of Federal Programs" ( 29 Oct 1992; http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ omb/ circulars/ a094/ a094. pdf; and a lower 3%

rate representing regulations which primarily and directly affect private consumption.

! > 7% If uncertain about the nature of regulatory opportunity cost ( i. e. causes reallocation of capital away from private corporate investment), use a higher discount rate as a further sensitivity analysis ( e. g. 10%), as well as 3% and 7%; and ! < 3% If regulation will have important intergenerational benefits or costs, use a lower but positive discount rate as a further sensitivity analysis, in addition to 3% and 7%.

! EPA Guidelines: In addition, the USEPA's " Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses" ( EPA 240 R 00 003, Sept 2000, http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ ee/ epa/ eed. nsf/ webpages/ Guidelines. html, Section 6.3) directs USEPA Economists to apply:

! 0% discounting for policies/ regulations with potential intergenerational effects;

! 2% to 3% to represent the " consumption rate of interest" approach to defining discount rates; and ! 7% which is consistent with OMB's Guidelines " base case" for Federal regulatory agencies.

! This study: Applies 7% as the " base case" per OMB Guidelines, and provides a sensitivity analysis of the aggregate estimated national economic impacts for 0%, 3% and 10% alternative discount rates.

Other study framework considerations White House Executive Order ( EO) 12866 " Regulatory Planning and Review" ( 30 Sept 1993;

http:// www. archives. gov/ federal_ register/ executive_ orders/ pdf/ 12866. pdf) contains a statement of philosophy, principles,

procedures, guidelines and a planning mechanism, for Federal regulatory agencies to follow during the development,

evaluation, selection and finalization ( i. e. promulgation) of " significant" regulatory actions. EO 12866 applies to all existing regulations, as well as to new proposed and to new final Federal regulatory actions. Section 3( f) of EO 12866 defines " significant" regulatory actions as any action which may result in a rule that may:

! Have an annual [ adverse] effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more ( or other material effect).

! Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with another Federal agency.

! Materially alter the budgetary impact of Federal entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

! Raise novel legal or policy issues.

For " significant" regulations (>$ 100 million in annual effect), both EO 12866 and OMB's guidance prescribe regulatory development procedures and economic analysis requirements. As explained in the Federal Register announcement of the Oct 2001 proposed rule, the USEPA designated the RCRA " standardized" permit proposed rule as a " significant" regulatory action because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates ( i. e. per the fourth definition of " significant"

above). Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 45 As displayed in the table below, the economic analysis applies two alternative future permit action scenarios, according to the two alternative " standardized permit" scopes of eligibility ( i. e. on site units only, and both on and off site units).

Two Alternative Scenarios for Future Average Annual Frequency of RCRA " Standardized" Permit Actions Type of Eligible RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Unit Permit Renewals Permit Conversions*** New Permits Permit Modifications** Average annual permit actions New Units Interim Status Routine Significant Scope # 1: On Site Units Only*

1. Containers 6 79 1 9 18 7 135 2. Tank Systems 8 1 67 3. Containment Buildings 0 0 4 Non duplicative totals = 14 79 2 80 18 7 Scope # 2: On & Off Site Units****

1. Containers 8 103 1 12 24 9 173 2. Tank Systems 10 1 88 3. Containment Buildings 0 0 5 Non duplicative totals = 18 103 2 105 24 9 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Scope # 1: Relative to a baseline of 866 on site facilities; based on data supplied in Table 2 of the ICF Inc. report " Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Nr. 1935.01: Standardized Permit for RCRA Hazardous Waste Facilities", 16 Nov 1999. Data in that source are based on ICF Inc's analysis of the USEPA RCRA " Permitting Program Accomplishments Report" ( PPAR) for the period 01 Oct 1980 to 04 Oct 1999, excluding Federally owned TSFs; annual frequencies above based on USEPA professional judgement as reported in the ICF Inc. source report. The PPAR data are available via the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ oswfiles/ rcraweb/ web_ reporting/ permit. htm.

( b) ** As applied in the ICF Inc. source report, " routine" modifications assumed as 10% of subtotal renewals + conversions + new permits, and " significant" modifications assumed as 4% of this same subtotal.

( c) *** Conversions limited to six years and total of 433 ( i. e. 50% of existing eligible facilities; consequently, the average annual number of permit actions drops after six years.

( d) **** Scope # 2: Relative to an alternative baseline of 1,133 total on site + off site facilities; permit action counts estimated by the multiplier = 1.31 ( i. e. 1,133 / 866).

( e) The " Sensitivity Analysis" Section of this background document provides alternative ( i. e. non constant) future annual permit action assumptions. Because of the underlying cyclical nature of annual permit actions corresponding to 10 year permit validation periods, a uniform annual number of permit actions is a simplification. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 46 What Are the Key Uncertainties in the Impact Estimation?

The cost savings and other economic impacts estimated in this document are contingent upon at least four sources of estimation uncertainty:

! State Adoption: The ultimate future number of states which voluntarily adopt this type of permitting process in their Federally authorized state RCRA hazardous waste programs.

! Eligible Facilities: The future average annual number of eligible facilities which apply for this type of permit.

! Permit actions: The future average annual level, and proportional mix, of permitting activities involving new permits,

permit modifications, permit renewals, and permit conversions.

! Paperwork burden: Average number of burden hours and associated burden cost per permit activity ( e. g. future migration of EPA and authorized state paper based permitting processes to electronic ( computerized) format, may change the labor burden assumptions underlying the analysis in this document).

What Are the Qualitative Sources of Impacts Outside the Scope of This Study?

As a type of streamlined permit, RCRA standardized permits may also provide eligible TSFs with additional and indirect benefits in the form of improved efficiencies to company business budgeting, business planning, TSF waste management performance, and to induced business activities. For example, one feature of RCRA standardized permits is a 120 day time limit on the permit review/ decision process, compared to no time limit under the conventional RCRA permit process ( only determination of " completeness" by permitting authorities is subject to a 60 day limit under the convention RCRA permitting process, per 40 CFR 124.3( c)). Although not quantified or otherwise documented in this study, this time limit may conceivably provide eligible TSFs with increased certainty ( i. e. decreased uncertainty) in the status and timely disposition of their permit applications, which may translate into the following business management benefits to eligible TSFs:

! Business budgeting: Smaller annual company budget ( cash flow) contingencies required for waste management investment projects ( less uncertainty requires less contingency). Increased company efficiency in allocating capital to investment projects, and in forecasting and timing company capital budget needs and budget decision making. Guaranteed turn around time limit in permit actions may in effect, lower the financial cost ( e. g. borrowing funds) to eligible TSFs for funding unit modifications.

! Business planning: Shortened company business planning period requiring less strategic company resources ( e. g. less management and accounting personnel time spent in waste management planning activities).

! Waste mgmt performance: Increased technical/ engineering and financial performance of waste management units resulting from timelier ( and possibly more frequent) waste management equipment and/ or process modifications ( modernization). Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 47 ! Induced activities: If the effective net cost to a company of applying for new RCRA permits goes down using a standardized permit, compared to the cost of applying for a conventional RCRA permit,

this change in net cost may induce some companies to enter the hazardous waste market,

and/ or to expand existing waste management capacity at existing facilities. Such induced effects may provide an overall net reduction in costs ( or increased profitability), for example,

by reducing the frequency of hazardous waste transportation required under the baseline without permitted storage tanks, compared to future frequency with permitted storage tanks,

thereby allowing on site storage beyond the 90 day LQG accumulation limit ( 40 CFR 262.34)

without RCRA storage permits. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 48 II C. Impact Category # 1:

Potential Cost Savings From Reduction in RCRA Permit Paperwork Burden Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 49 Estimation of Potential Reduction in RCRA Permitting Paperwork Burden Costs Aggregate Estimation ( Method A)

Item Type of RCRA Permit Action Type of Permit Cost Item Annualized $

per permit action Scope # 1: Onsite Units Only ( 866 facility baseline in 1999) Scope # 2: On + Offsite Units ( 1,133 facility baseline in 1999)

Facilities States Annual permit actions Facilities States Annual permit actions Facilities States 1 New permits Conventional permit cost Containers ( 2%) $ 23,045 $ 4,160 2 $ 72,834 $ 10,150 3 $ 109,251 $ 15,225 Tanks ( 43%) $ 26,105 $ 4,429 Cont. bldgs ( 55%) $ 44,966 $ 5,613 Prevalence weighted average $ 36,417 $ 5,075 Standardized permit cost $ 6,779 $ 2,953 $ 13,558 $ 5,906 $ 20,337 $ 8,859 Cost savings = $ 29,638 $ 2,494 $ 59,276 $ 4,244 $ 88,914 $ 6,366 2 Permit renewals Conventional permit cost $ 6,190 $ 578 139 $ 860,410 $ 80,342 168 $ 1,039,920 $ 97,104 Standardized permit cost $ 275 $ 111* $ 38,225 $ 15,429* $ 46,200 $ 18,648*

Cost savings = $ 5,915 $ 467 $ 822,185 $ 64,913 $ 993,720 $ 78,456 3 Permit modifications Conventional permit cost Routine ( 50%) $ 7,580 $ 111 25 $ 502,000 $ 31,375 33 $ 662,640 $ 41,415 Significant ( 50%) $ 32,580 $ 2,398 Prevalence weighted average $ 20,080 $ 1,255 Standardized permit cost $ 4,851 $ 883 $ 121,275 $ 22,075 $ 160,083 $ 29,139 Cost savings = $ 15,229 $ 372 $ 380,725 $ 9,300 $ 502,557 $ 12,276 Column totals: Conventional permit cost = 166 $ 1,435,244 $ 121,867 203 $ 1,811,811 $ 153,744 Standardized permit cost = $ 173,058 $ 43,410 $ 226,620 $ 56,646 Cost savings = $ 1,262,186 $ 78,457 $ 1,585,191 $ 97,098 Total cost savings ( facilities + states) = $ 1,341,000 $ 1,682,000 Explanatory Notes:

( j) * Source: The burden hour/ cost data reference for this table: USEPA Office of Solid Waste " Information Collection Request" ( ICR) Nr. 1935.01, 16 Nov 1999.

( k) This data source does not contain an estimate of state agency burden hours/ cost for renewal of standardized permits; the cost for routine modification of a conventional permit is used as proxy in this table. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 50 ! Itemized Estimation ( Method B)

Because of its intentional streamlining design, the " standardized" permit is expected to provide net cost savings based on an incremental reduction in the administrative burden in comparison to existing ( i. e. " conventional") RCRA permitting process, to two parties:

! Eligible applicants ! RCRA permitting authorities ( i. e. USEPA regional offices and RCRA authorized state environmental offices).

The RCRA standardized permit contains three levels of potential administrative ( paperwork) cost savings to owners and operators of TSFs and to USEPA/ states, consisting of 15 cost savings items as described in the Federal Register announcement for the final rule:

! Permit application/ review savings: Of the 14 steps listed under the conventional RCRA permit process ( under 40 CFR 124 &

270), the standardized permit drops five of these 14 steps.

! Permit provisions savings: Of the 23 provisions associated with the conventional permit process ( i. e. under 40 CFR 270), the standardized permit reduces the administrative burden of four of these 23 provisions.

! Permit technical content savings: Of the 24 technical, general facility and unit specific standards associated with conventional permits ( i. e. 40 CFR 264), standardized permits reduce or eliminate six of these 24 technical standards ( as described in the proposed new part 40 CFR 267).

Compared to the RCRA conventional permitting process, the Table below summarizes how the " standardized" permitting process either reduces or eliminates paperwork burden elements: List of 15 Administrative Requirements Either Reduced or Eliminated Under the RCRA Standardized Permit,

Compared to the Conventional RCRA Permit Process Item Source of Cost Savings ( a) Existing 40 CFR Permit Citation Standardized Permit Change ( b) Cost Savings Beneficiary TSF Permit Authority A. Permit Application/ Review Cost Savings:

1 Public notice at Part B permit application submittal 124.32 Eliminate X 2 Review permit application for completeness 124.3 Eliminate X 3 Issue notice of deficiency ( NOD) as necessary 124.3 Eliminate X Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 Item Source of Cost Savings ( a) Existing 40 CFR Permit Citation Standardized Permit Change ( b) Cost Savings Beneficiary TSF Permit Authority 51 4 Permit applicant responds to notice of deficiency ( NOD) 124.3 Eliminate X 5 Determine permit application is complete 124.3 Eliminate X B. Permitting Provisions Cost Savings:

6 Permit application requirements 270.10 Modify X 7 Submittal & review of Part B permit application 270.1 ( c) Maintain on site X X 8 Permit modification requirements 270.42 Modify X X 9 Permit renewal after expiration 270.51 Reduced burden X X C. Part B Permit Technical Content Cost Savings( d):

10 Construction quality assurance program 264.19 Not applicable: The construction quality assurance program requirement ( 40 CFR 264.19) under the existing conventional RCRA permit is not applicable to RCRA standardized permits, because this requirement is only applicable to surface impoundments, wastepiles and landfills, types of units which are not eligible for standardized permits.

11 Manifests for wastes accepted from offsite 264.71 Not applicable: The use of manifest systems for accepting wastes from offsite ( 40 CFR 264.73) is not applicable to RCRA standardized permits,

because only on site TSF units are eligible for standardized permits.

However, use of manifests for shipping wastes to off site TSDFs is unchanged.

12 Groundwater monitoring ( for detection, compliance,

corrective action) 264.97

100 Not applicable: Existing RCRA groundwater monitoring requirements ( 40 CFR 264.97 100) are only applicable to land based units ( i. e. land treatment units, landfills, surface impoundments, and wastepiles).

13 Closure plan requirements:

13a Submit closure plan 264.112 No change 13b Submit closure cost estimate 264.142 Modify: USEPA developed two methods for simplifying cost estimation:

! standard form ! default multipliers X X Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 Item Source of Cost Savings ( a) Existing 40 CFR Permit Citation Standardized Permit Change ( b) Cost Savings Beneficiary TSF Permit Authority 52 13c Closure financial assurance 264.143 Modify: The standardized permit final rule provides for two changes to closure financial assurance, which are not included in the expected burden reduction estimates, but addressed elsewhere in this study:

! Specifies the shorter of the remaining TSF lifespan or a 3 year pay in period for trustfunds, rather than the 10 year life of a RCRA permit ( 40 CFR 264.143( a)( 3)).

! Revise the financial test ratio for closure   defined as total liabilities: to: total worth  from < 2.0, to < 1.5 ( 40 CFR 264.143( f)).

! Eliminate requirement for special report from independent certified public accountant ( 40 CFR 264.143( f)( iii)).

14 Post closure requirements:

14a Post closure plan 264.118 Not applicable:

! Clean closure required under standardized permit, as already required for containers under a conventional permit ( 40 CFR 264.178).

! Existing RCRA post closure requirements ( 40 CFR 264.118 120), and non sudden liability ( 40 CFR 264.147( b)), are only applicable to landbased disposal units which are not eligible for standardized permits.

14b Post closure cost estimate 264.144 14c Post closure financial assurance 264.145 14d Post closure notices ( land zoning & deed) 264.119 14e Post closure certification of completion 264.120 15 Financial assurance for non sudden liability 264.147b Explanatory Notes:

( f) Source: Cost savings items based on Tables 1, 3, and 4 of the preamble to the Federal Register ( FR) announcement of the 12 Oct 2001 proposed rule; http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA WASTE/ 2001/ October/ Day 12/ f24204. htm.

( g) The streamlined technical requirements of the RCRA " standardized" permit, once finalized and promulgated, will constitute a new part of the CFR ( i. e. as 40 CFR Part 267, which will be comparable in scope to Part 264 for conventional permits), and modify the corresponding sections of 40 CFR 124 and 270 to reflect standardized permit procedural and provision changes.

( h) Part B must still be completed but may be kept on site with the TSF; 40 CFR 270.1 contains the existing requirement that TSFs must submit Part B of the permit application; the required contents of Part B are contained in 40 CFR 270.14 to 270.28.

( i) This table does not include all changes to the regulations under the " standardized" permit process; for example, other technical changes include:

! Making 40 CFR 264.97 correction action requirements more flexible.

! " Variance" not allowed from tank system secondary containment ( 40 CFR 264.193( g)).

! 60 day limit for compensating pay in to underfunded closure trust fund upon receipt of standardized permit. Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 4 A " secondary source" is data and information which another person or organization has observed, gathered, measured, researched, analyzed, and/ or compiled for purposes other than the study at hand. In comparison, a " primary source" of data and information represents direct, original and personal involvement and connection to the data and information gathering and analysis for the study at hand. The use of " secondary data" in this background document serves constructively not only to save time and money in making use of available ( i. e. secondary) data rather than collection of original ( i. e. primary) data, but it also serves to provide analytic consistency with the Federal ICR burden accounting system.

5 Under the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 USC Chapter 35; see http:// www. nara. gov/ fedreg/ legal/ ), any Federal Government entity must obtain an approval from the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) to collect any information from the public. If an agency such as the USEPA decides to collect information, it must prepare an " Information Collection Request" ( ICR) and submit it for OMB approval. An ICR explains what information will be collected, why the information is needed, who will need to respond, and gives an estimate of the burden hours ( and of the burden cost in dollars) the public will incur to get and report the requested information. After reviewing an ICR, OMB may disapprove,

approve, or place conditions which must be met for approving the ICR. The ICR process was designed to ensure that unnecessary collections are not conducted and that the public burden for approved collections is minimized.

According to both the 1995 PRA and to OMB's implementing regulations ( 5 CFR Part 1320), Federal government agencies are to measure paperwork burden to affected individuals, households, businesses, and organizations, in terms of the time and financial resources the public devotes annually to meet one time and recurring Federal information requests. The term " burden" means the " time, effort, or financial resources" the public expends to provide information to or for a Federal agency, or otherwise fulfill statutory or regulatory requirements. For a list of Federal agency ICRs under review by OMB see the website: http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ library/ omb/ OMBPPRWK. HTM . For descriptive information and answers to frequently asked questions about ICRs, visit USEPA's ICR website: http:// www. epa. gov/ opperid1/ index. htm . In general, USEPA ICRs contain quantitative estimates of the:

Affected entities: Number of potentially affected entities associated with a regulatory action.

Burden hours: Estimate of the burden hours to affected entities associated with a regulatory action.

Burden costs: Estimate of the associated burden hour dollar costs to affected entities.

In 1999 OMB initiated a preliminary reevaluation of its guidance to agencies on estimating and reporting paperwork burden. As part of this effort, OMB seeks comment on how to increase the uniformity, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of agency burden measurement ( see http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ OMB/ fedreg/ 5cfr1320. html ).

53 The above itemized administrative streamlining features constitute the primary sources of cost savings  in comparison and incremental to the current RCRA conventional permitting process  which are quantified and monetized in this document below.

For the purpose of formulating an itemized method estimate of potential cost savings from paperwork reduction, this document makes use of secondary sources4 of quantitative information contained in USEPA " Information Collection Request" 5 ( ICR) documents. This background document references three USEPA ICRs dated 1999; two ICRs which were updated in 1999 related to the conventional RCRA permitting process,

and a new ( 1999) ICR developed specifically in support of the Oct 2001 proposed rule:

Source A: USEPA " Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Nr. 262.09: RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modif ication, Part A", Of f ice of Sol id Waste, 22 October 1999 ( http:// www. epa. gov/ icr/ icrs/ 0262_ 09. html).

Source B: USEPA " Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Nr. 1573: Part B Permit Application, Permit Modi f icat ions, and Special Permi ts", Of f ice of Sol id Waste, 27 October 1999 ( http:// www. epa. gov/ icr/ icrs/ 1573_ 06. html).

Source C: USEPA " Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Nr. 1935.01: Standardized Permit for RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Facilities", Office of Solid Waste, 16 November 1999 ( http:// www. epa. gov/ icr/ icrs/ 1935_ 01. html).

It is important to explain how this particular ICR and this " Economics Background Document" differ in their respective study frameworks and conclusions. The purpose of this reference ICR was to estimate the total annual burden hours and cost to affected entities ( i. e. eligible TSFs + permitting authorities) under the proposed standardized Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 54 RCRA permits rule, whereas the purpose of this " Economics Background Document" was to estimate the incremental change in annual burden hours and associated burden cost, relative to the baseline ( i. e. conventional)

RCRA permitting program. [ Because of its intentional streamlining design, the a priori expected incremental net change is reduction in permit burden.]

Consequently, because of these two different study frameworks, the reference ICR concluded that the proposed standardized permit would results in 24,593 annual burden hours and $ 1.846 million in associated labor annual costs, whereas this document provides an incremental net decrease ( i. e. savings) in annual burden hour and associated labor cost.

Currently, Federal agencies separately estimate the " burden hour" and " burden cost" of each particular information collection. This ensures that all types of paperwork and administrative burden are taken into account, but requires two calculations of burden, one in the form of " burden hours"

and the other in the form of " dollars". Consequently, this document also presents two separate, respective estimates of cost savings in the form of both annual burden hour reduction and annual burden cost reduction associated with the RCRA standardized permit.

The itemized estimation of the potential paperwork burden reduction benefits ( cost savings) consists of the following four step method:

Step 1: Itemized burden hours: Using burden hour data from the reference documents " Source A", " Source B" and " Source C" listed above, this first step estimated the expected change in burden hours separately to both eligible TSFs and to permitting authorities, associated with the 15 potential items of cost savings as identified in the Table above ( also see Attachment A).

The Table below presents the results of this first step. Burden hour entries in the Table with a "+" indicate an incremental burden cost increase relative to the conventional RCRA permit baseline burden hours, and unit hour entries with "" indicate burden cost savings.

Changes in burden hours are assumed in this study to occur completely within the year of the permit action,

because of the 120 day decision time limit for permitting authorities as proposed under the standardized permit.

Step 2: Burden hour subtotals: The second step involved computing respective burden hour change subtotals assigned to each of the:

° Three types of eligible TSF units ( i. e. containers, tank systems, and containment buildings), and ° Four types of RCRA permitting actions ( i. e. renewals, conversions, new permits, and modifications).

Another Table below separately displays the results of this step for eligible TSFs, for permitting authorities, and combined ( i. e. TSFs + permitting authorities). ( Also see Attachment A).

Step 3: Burden hour monetization: The respective burden hour reduction assumptions and burden hour subtotals generated in Steps 1 and 2, were monetized into dollar values on a " per permit action" basis, by multiplying burden hours with the 1999 overhead loaded, hourly labor wage rates ($ per hour) shown in another Table below: Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 55 Labor Costs Applied for Monetizing Burden Hours: Derivation of Loaded Hourly Wage ( 2001)

Affected Personnel Labor category > Labor Category Wage Rates & Loading Multipliers Legal Managerial Technical Clerical Dept of Labor SOC code > 23 1011 11 1021 17 0000 43 9061 Definition of SOC code> Lawyers General & Operations Manager Architecture &

Engineering General Office Clerks Eligible facilities A. US median wage rate* ( unloaded) $ 64 $ 49 $ 30 $ 12 B. Labor benefits loading multiplier** 1.372 1.372 1.372 1.372 C. Office overhead loading multiplier*** 1.356 1.356 1.356 1.356 Loaded wage rate ( A x ( B+ C 1)) $ 110 $ 85 $ 52 $ 21 State permit authorities A. US median wage rate* ( unloaded) $ 34 $ 29 $ 23 $ 12 B. Labor benefits loading multiplier** 1.408 1.408 1.408 1.408 C. Office overhead loading multiplier*** 1.356 1.356 1.356 1.356 Loaded wage rate ( A x ( B+ C 1)) $ 60 $ 51 $ 41 $ 21 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 56 Explanatory Notes:

( a) * Sources for unloaded wage rates from US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics:

! Eligible facilities: http:// www. bls. gov/ oes/ 2001/ oesi2_ 28. htm; OSW used the chemical manufacturing industry ( SIC code = 28) to represent eligible facilities because this industry generates a relatively large proportion of the annual RCRA hazardous waste in the US.

! State permit authorities: http:// www. bls. gov/ oes/ 2001/ oesi3_ 902. htm; state government employment ( SIC code = 902).

( b) ** Source for labor benefits multiplier: US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; " Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Total Benefits";

http:// data. bls. gov/ cgi bin/ surveymost? cc. Labor benefits defined in the BLS database include: ( 1) Paid leave ( vacation, holiday, sick, other); ( 2) Supplemental pay ( premium, shift differentials, non production bonuses); ( 3) Insurance ( life, health, short term disability, long term disability); ( 4) Retirement & savings ( defined benefit,

defined contribution); ( 5) Legally required benefits ( social security, OASDI, medicare, Federal & state unemployment insurance, worker's compensation); ( 6) Other benefits.

( c) *** Source for office overhead multiplier: Overhead defined as proportionate share of management and office support costs ( e. g. office rent, office equipment, office utilities); derived below as the average of three case studies provided in two US EPA full cost accounting reports for solid/ hazardous waste management:

Case data elements ( dept annual totals all labor) Case A1 Case A2 Case B Base labor wages/ salaries ( unloaded w/ o benefits) $ 843,046 $ 843,046 $ 3,038,226 Administrative ( office) overhead $ 598,279 $ 257,998 $ 157,223 Implied overhead multiplier ( relative to base wages) = 1.710 1.306 1.052 Average = 1.356 Case A: USEPA, " Full Cost Accounting in Action: Case Studies of Six Solid Waste Management Activities", EPA 530 R 98 018, Dec 1998, p. 13. Case A1 represents inclusion of the full set of 24 administrative operating cost items listed in the Case A study ( e. g. as may be representative of white collar overhead associated with RCRA LQGs, or with large company white collar occupations). Case A2 represents a subset of 13 cost items from Case A ( i. e.

excluding business travel, motor pool, dues/ memberships, subscriptions, and overhead cost from other depts); Case A2 may be representative of white collar overhead associated with RCRA SQGs or with small company white collar occupations, or representative of overhead associated with blue collar occupations.

Case B: USEPA, " Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook", EPA 530 R 95 041, Sept 1997, Exhibit 4 6, page 40.