Document ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0173-0020
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2020-03-03T05:00Z

Regulatory Impact Analysis
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                        EPA's 2019 RCRA Proposed Rule
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of CCR; A Holistic Approach to Closure Part B: Alternate Demonstration for Unlined Surface Impoundments; Implementation of Closure
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
              Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR)
                 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Mailstop 5305P)
                           Washington DC, 20460 USA
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                 February 2020
                               Table of Contents
Executive Summary	1
Chapter 1. Background: The Need for Revising the 2015 RCRA  Final Rule Regulating Coal Combustion Landfills and Surface Impoundments at Electric Utility Power Plants	1
Chapter 2. Affected Universe and Baseline Costs	2-1
2.1	Affected Electric Utility Facilities	2-1
2.1.1	Original Baseline: 2015 CCR Regulatory Impact Analysis Universe	2-2
2.1.2	2018 Phase One Final Rule Universe	2-2
2.1.3	2019 Proposed Part A and Part B Rule Universe	2-2
2.2	Changes to Baseline Closure Process under Proposed Part B Rule Provisions	2-5
2.3	Planned Closure of CCR Units at Affected Electric Utility Facilities	2-7
3.2.1	Potential Impacts on Planned Closure Timelines due to the December 2, 2019 Published Proposed Part A Rule 	2-8
2.4	Baseline Costs	2-9
Chapter 3.	3-13
Estimated Costs and Cost Savings Under the Proposed Part B Rule	3-13
3.1	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 1: Alternate Liner Demonstration	3-14
3.1.1	Application to Submit an Alternate Liner Demonstration	3-16
3.1.2 	Demonstration of Suitability of Existing Liner	3-16
3.1.3 	Cost Savings due to Closure Delays for Units with Accepted Demonstrations	3-17
3.2	Provision 2: Use of CCR in Units Subject to Forced Closure	3-19
3.2.1	Summary of Provision 2 Co-Proposed Options	3-20
3.2.2 	Universe of Facilities and Units Likely to Change Practices Under Provision 2 	3-22
3.2.3	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Co-Proposed Option 1: Use of CCR during closure of a unit under an approved closure plan	3-26
3.2.4	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2: Beneficially using CCR during closure of a unit	3-35
3.3	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 3: Closure of CCR Units by Removal of CCR	3-46
3.3.1	Costs Associated with Documentation	3-48
3.3.2	Cost Savings Associated with Avoided Documentation	3-48
3.4 	Costs Associated with Provision 4: Revised Notice of Intent to Close and Annual Closure Progress Reports	3-50
3.4.1 	Notice of Intent to Close Revisions	3-51
3.4.2 	Documentation Component 2: Annual Closure Progress Reports	3-51
3.5 	Interaction Effects Across Provisions	3-52
3.6	Summary of Expected Costs and Cost Savings	3-55
Chapter 4. Incremental Benefits of the Proposed Part B Rule	4-1
4.1	Beneficial Use Market Impacts	4-1
3.2	Human Health and Environmental Impacts associated with Groundwater Contamination	4-5
Chapter 5. Other Required Analyses	5-1
5.1	Electricity Price and Energy Market Impacts (Executive Order 13211)	5-1
5.2	Small Business Impact Analysis (RFA/SBREFA)	5-2
5.3	Potential Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898)	5-3
5.4	Potential Impacts to Children (Executive Order 13045)	5-3
5.5	Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) and Federalism Implications Analysis (Executive Order 13132)	5-4
5.5.1	Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA)	5-4
5.5.2.	Federalism (Executive Order 13132)	5-4
5.5.3.	Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175)	5-4
5.6	Effects on Employment	5-5
Appendix A Baseline CCR Management Costs Considered and Not Considered in this RIA	5-1

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

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

Scenario 2: Low Application Rate
                                      10

         Provision 2  -  Use of CCR in units subject to forced closure
Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Use of CCR during closure under an approved closure plan
                                      211
Surface impoundments that will still be open after 2020, not located in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place, and that successfully demonstrated compliance with the unstable areas location restriction in 40 CFR § 257.64.
                                       
Co-Proposed Option 2  -  Beneficial use of CCR during closure
                                      277
Surface impoundments that will still be open after 2020, not located in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place, and that are not located in states with strict beneficial use restrictions.
Provision 3  -  Closure of CCR units by removal of CCR
                                      63
Surface impoundments closing via removal that are still open, not subject to forced closure and not leaking.
Provision 4
Notice of Intent to Close Revisions
                                      163
All surface impoundments and landfills subject to forced closure that have posted NOIs but have not yet closed.
                                       
Annual Closure Progress Reports
                                    407[b]
All closing units.
a Chapter 3 of this document describes the methodology for identifying the affected unit universe for each provision, as well as the description of the cost calculations.
b The analysis in the RIA for the Part A rule identified 427 closing surface impoundments, excluding closures prior to 2020. The corresponding figure in this table is 407, reflecting 20 surface impoundments that have since completed closure. 

Each of the provisions of the proposed Part B rule considered in this RIA pertain to various aspects of the "closure" of CCR management units. The closure of CCR management units is a multi-stage process that can span several years, and includes the following steps:
        Closure Plan: Before initiating closure for a unit, facilities are required to post closure plans detailing which of two closure methods will be used.
        Notice of Intent to Close: As a first step in initiating the closure process, facilities must post a brief "Notice of Intent to Close" document, indicating that the facility intends to close a unit.
        Cease Receipt of CCR Deadline: Units subject to forced closure must comply with a "cease receipt of CCR deadline" that takes effect on the day that the unit enters closure. Under the 2015 CCR Rule, as of the cease receipt of CCR deadline, no CCR can be placed in the closing unit for any reason. 
        Closure Operations: As of the cease receipt of CCR deadline, the unit begins closure operations. Activities include the dewatering of the unit, any required corrective measures for decontamination, and, if the unit is clean closing, removal of all CCR. The unit's supporting structure is also modified to a new shape for closure (sometimes requiring the use of non-CCR "fill" materials) to accommodate a final cover system. The length of time to complete these "closure activities" varies by unit, but may, for some units, take up to 15 years).
        Completion of Closure. Once all closure operations are complete, the facility must obtain a professional engineer's "certification of completion of closure," verifying that the closure process has been completed consistent with requirements under 40 CFR 257.102. The unit then enters the post-closure care period, in which some activities, such as groundwater monitoring at units that closed with waste in place, continue.
Exhibit ES-2 outlines the various steps of the closure process and the associated applicability of the proposed Part B rule's provisions.
                                 Exhibit ES-2
           Closure Activities and Applicability to Part B Provisions
                         Category Relevant to this RIA
                         Applicable Part B Provisions
                             Changes Under Part B
Closure Plan
Provision 2
Revised closure plans detailing use of CCR in closure
Notice of Intent to Close 
Provision 4
Revised NOIs containing expected date of closure
Cease Receipt of CCR Deadline
Provision 1
Delays of the cease receipt of CCR deadline
Closure Operations
Provision 2, Provision 4
Use of CCR in closure, annual closure progress reports
Completion of Closure
Provision 3
Earlier certification of closure completion for clean closing units
Each of these categories of closure activities are key aspects of the calculations of the costs and cost savings of the proposed Part B rule, described in Chapter 3 of this RIA.
Estimated Costs and Cost Savings Under the Proposed Part B Rule
The costs and cost savings associated with the provisions of the proposed Part B rule fall into several general types, including:
 Recordkeeping and reporting costs and cost savings: Several of the provisions include new requirements for closure plans or other paperwork, or enable facilities to reduce recordkeeping and reporting costs and other compliance costs. 
 Time value of money: Changes in the timing of anticipated expenditures under proposed Part B rule provisions changes the present value cost of those expenditures; for large capital expenditures such as those related to closure, changes in timing can have significant cost implications.
 Operational changes: Under Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule, facilities may opt to change closure methods or other operational plans due to changes in requirements that change the relative cost-effectiveness of different options. 
                                       
Consistent with EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, the cost estimates in this RIA rely on the principle that facility decision makers are rational economic actors, and will choose the most cost-effective approach to CCR management at the facility (or company) level.
This RIA also assumes full compliance with requirements under the proposed Part B rule and all related regulations. Where the intersection of regulatory requirements and enabling definitions (e.g., the definition of beneficial use) is unclear, this RIA assumes that facilities will interpret the requirements to maximize cost savings.
Finally, consistent with requirements under OMB's Circular A-4, this RIA employs seven percent and three percent discount rates to account for multi-year costs and cost reductions, and identifies seven percent values in the text.
Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 1: Alternate Liner Demonstration
Provision 1 of the proposed Part B rule allows owners/operators CCR surface impoundments whose existing liners are insufficient to qualify as lined under the 2015 CCR Rule to attempt an "alternate liner demonstration." Under the 2015 CCR Rule, owners/operators of each CCR surface impoundment are required to develop a liner demonstration and determine whether the unit is lined as defined by 40 CFR 257.71. As a result of this demonstration each surface impoundment has been identified as either (a) lined or (b) unlined under the 40 CFR 257.71 criteria. While the 2015 CCR Rule did not require any change in management of unlined units that had not documented leaks or failed location restrictions, the 2018 court decisions (the baseline for this rulemaking) required that all units identified as unlined, including clay lined, must enter forced closure by August 2020, regardless of whether or not they are leaking. 
Provision 1 of the proposed Part B rule provides facilities operating CCR surface impoundments considered unlined per the 40 CFR 257.71 criteria with an opportunity to develop an "alternate liner demonstration" that would allow approved units to continue to operate. Upon approval of a successful application and demonstration for a unit, that unit would be considered lined, and therefore not be required to enter forced closure by August 2020 as required under the 2018 court decisions baseline. This provision does not impose any involuntary compliance activities on owners/operators of CCR management units. Because the costs of closure are considerable, this RIA assumes that a significant portion of owners/operators with potentially eligible units will prepare and submit an initial application, and if approved, will prepare and submit an alternate liner demonstration. We present two scenarios for a "high" and "low" number of applications to submit the liner demonstration. Units potentially eligible for Provision 1 include units that: (1) are not closed, (2) are not lined under the design criteria specified at 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), (3) are not leaking, (4) have groundwater monitoring systems in place, and (5) have passed all required location restrictions. 
The cost savings associated with Provision 1 are summarized in Exhibit ES-3 and Exhibit ES-4.
Exhibit ES-3
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 1  -  Alternate Liner Demonstration
            Scenario 1: High Application Rate
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                       Total cost savings (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
Application to submit alternate liner demonstration 
                                    $0.011 
                                      20
                                    $0.215 
                                    $0.006 
                                    $0.209 
                                    $0.014 
                                    $0.201 
Demonstration of suitability of existing liner
                                    $0.108 
                                      20 
                                    $2.15 
                                    $0.066 
                                    $2.09 
                                    $0.141 
                                    $2.01 
Subtotal: Documentation Costs
                                       
                                       
                                    $2.37 
                                    $0.072 
                                    $2.29 
                                    $0.155 
                                    $2.21 
Closure Timeline Adjustments
Closure delays due to successful demonstrations
                                                                             3%
                                    (15.9)
                                      10 
                                    ($164)
                                    ($5.05)
                                    ($160)
                                       
                                       

                                                                             7%
                                    (12.5)
                                      10 
                                    ($134)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($8.79)
                                    ($125)
Subtotal: Closure Timeline Adjustments 
                                       
                                       
                                    ($298)
                                    ($5.05)
                                    ($160)
                                    ($8.79)
                                    ($125)
                                                                          TOTAL
                                                                               
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                    ($4.98)
                                    ($157)
                                    ($8.63)
                                    ($123)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

Exhibit ES-4
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 1  -  Alternate Liner Demonstration
             Scenario 2: Low Application Rate
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                       Total cost savings (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
Application to submit alternate liner demonstration 
                                    $0.011 
                                      10
                                    $0.108 
                                    $0.003 
                                    $0.209 
                                    $0.014 
                                    $0.201 
Demonstration of suitability of existing liner
                                    $0.108 
                                      10 
                                    $1.08 
                                    $0.033 
                                    $2.09 
                                    $0.141 
                                    $2.01 
Subtotal: Documentation Costs
                                       
                                       
                                    $1.18 
                                    $0.036 
                                    $2.29 
                                    $0.155 
                                    $2.21 
Closure Timeline Adjustments
Closure delays due to successful demonstrations
                                                                             3%
                                    (15.9)
                                      5 
                                    ($82.2)
                                    ($2.52)
                                    ($79.8)
                                       
                                       

                                                                             7%
                                    (12.5)
                                      5 
                                    ($67.1)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($4.39)
                                    ($62.7)
Subtotal: Closure Timeline Adjustments 
                                       
                                       
                                    ($149)
                                    ($2.52)
                                    ($79.8)
                                    ($4.39)
                                    ($62.7)
                                                                          TOTAL
                                                                               
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                    ($2.49)
                                    ($77.5)
                                    ($4.24)
                                    ($60.5)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

Cost Savings Associated with Provision 2: Use of CCR in Units Subject to Forced Closure 
EPA is co-proposing two options under Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule. Each co-proposed option would alter the 2015 CCR Rule's current prohibition on the placement of CCR in units after they begin the closure process (the cease receipt of CCR deadline). Under each of the co-proposed options, facilities could continue to place CCR in units that have begun the closure process, in effect removing the cease receipt of CCR deadline and eliminating the prohibition of CCR placement in closing units under specified circumstances. 
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 allows facilities to place CCR in surface impoundments subject to forced closure, contingent upon the submittal of a demonstration and a revised closure plan to the EPA Administrator (Administrator) or Participating State Director, and the approval of all such submissions by EPA or participating states. 
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 also revises the 2015 CCR Rule's prohibition on placement of CCR in surface impoundments subject to forced closure, but it does so by allowing CCR placement in these surface impoundments as beneficial use, provided that a revised closure plan is prepared by the facility. 
Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Co-Proposed Option 1: Placement of CCR during closure of a unit under an approved closure plan
The proposed Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 would allow continued CCR placement into surface impoundments subject to forced closure, subject to the submittal of a demonstration and revised closure plan to be reviewed and approved by EPA. This provision has three key costs/cost savings: 
 Costs associated with developing and submitting the demonstration and revised closure plan, 
 Avoided costs of disposal of the CCR that is approved by EPA to be used in unit closure at facilities that undertake successful demonstrations, and 
 Avoided cost of fill that would otherwise be required for closure at facilities that are successful in their demonstrations. 
Due to uncertainty regarding the quality of applications and demonstrations that EPA will receive and its ultimate rates of rejection or approval of these submissions, this RIA presents costs and cost savings for two scenarios reflecting different EPA approval rates: 
 Scenario 1 assumes that EPA will reject the placement of CCR during closure in some units upon review of the submitted documentation. Specifically, Scenario 1 considers that EPA will deny use of CCR in closure to 50 percent of units that are leaking or have failed the aquifer location restriction. 
 Scenario 2 assumes that all applications and demonstrations for placement of CCR during closure will be successful and will therefore be approved by EPA. 
The only difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 is the number of units that will be able to change practice under the Provision (Exhibit ES-5 and Exhibit ES-6). The derivation of the affected universes for each scenario are outlined in Exhibit 3-2, Exhibit 3-3, and Exhibit 3-4.

Exhibit ES-5
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 1; EPA Approves 50 Percent of Units Applying with Failed Aquifer Location Restriction, Groundwater Protection Standard Exceedance
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                       Units likely to change practices
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

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

                                      7%
                                    ($1.65)
                                     132 
                                    ($226)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($13.8)
                                    ($198)
                             Avoided cost of fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                    100[a] 
                                    ($446)
                                    ($13.3)
                                    ($421)
                                    ($27.3)
                                    ($390)
                        Subtotal: Timeline Adjustments
                                       
                                       
                                    ($672)
                                    ($23.1)
                                    ($729)
                                    ($41.2)
                                    ($587)
                                     TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                    ($666)
                                    ($22.8)
                                    ($722)
                                    ($40.7)
                                    ($581)
[a] Reflects 98 surface impoundments closing with waste in place, and two expected to switch from clean closure to closure with waste in place. These 100 units are expected to place CCR during closure and avoid costs associated with purchasing fill. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 for additional information.
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

                 Exhibit ES-6
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2; All Units Applying Are Able to Use CCR in Closure
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                       Units likely to change practices
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                                  Total (3%)
                                  Total (7%)

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

                                      7%
                                    ($1.66)
                                     211 
                                    ($350)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($21.4)
                                    ($305)
                             Avoided cost of fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                   163[a]  
                                    ($725)
                                    ($22.3)
                                    ($704)
                                    ($44.4)
                                    ($633)
                        Subtotal: Timeline Adjustments
                                       
                                       
                                   ($1,070)
                                    ($37.4)
                                   ($1,180)
                                    ($65.8)
                                    ($939)
                                     TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                   ($1,070)
                                    ($37.2)
                                   ($1,170)
                                    ($65.3)
                                    ($932)
[a] Reflects 146 surface impoundments closing with waste in place, and 17 expected to switch from clean closure to closure with waste in place. These 163 units are expected to place CCR during closure and avoid costs associated with purchasing fill. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 for additional information.
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2: Beneficially using CCR as fill during Closure of a Unit 
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 also revises the 2015 CCR Rule prohibition on placement of CCR in closing units. Option 2 allows facilities to place CCR in units undergoing forced closure as a "beneficial use" of fill following the submission of a revised closure plan. The continued placement of CCR in Co-Proposed Option 2 is self-implementing. 
Like Provision 1, activities associated with this provision are voluntary. However, they are likely to result in substantial cost savings on and above the paperwork costs required to receive approval to use CCR during closure from EPA. Therefore, this RIA assumes that all eligible facilities will pursue the paperwork development and submission needed to be able to use CCR during closure as allowed under this provision. In the absence of any specific clarification of the definition of beneficial use that would restrict the use of CCR as fill in a unit initially designed for its disposal, this analysis also assumes that all eligible facilities will pursue the use of CCR as "fill" in a beneficial use application that essentially places CCR in the unit in sufficient quantities to fill the unit as designed and cap it, even if those designs do not represent the options requiring the least amount of fill, or the approach that would have been most cost-effective under the 2015 CCR Rule's prohibition on placement of CCR units undertaking closure. 
This provision also consists of two scenarios. 
 Scenario 1 considers that beneficially used CCR in closure will equal the volume of fill already planned for use in closure, and is therefore consistent with assumptions made regarding the volume of CCR placed in units subject to forced closure in Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1. 
 Scenario 2 considers that half of the relevant universe will use a volume of CCR in closure equaling the volume of fill already planned for use in closure, while the other half will beneficially use CCR in closure at a quantity that exceeds the expected fill requirements.
   Exhibit ES-7 and Exhibit ES-8 summarize the cost savings under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. The universes of affected units for each scenario are outlined in Exhibit 3-2, Exhibit 3-3, and Exhibit 3-4.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
                 Exhibit ES-7
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2  -  Scenario 1: Standard Expected Per-Unit Fill Capacity
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Costs (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

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

                                                                             7%
                                    ($1.65)
                                     277 
                                    ($457)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($28.0)
                                    ($399)
                             Avoided Cost of Fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                    212 a 
                                    ($945)
                                    ($28.2)
                                    ($891)
                                    ($57.9)
                                    ($826)
                                  Subtotal: 
                                CCR in Closure
                                       
                                       
                                   ($1,610)
                                    ($47.9)
                                   ($1,510)
                                    ($85.8)
                                   ($1,220)
                                                                          TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                   ($1,390)
                                    ($47.7)
                                   ($1,510)
                                    ($85.2)
                                   ($1,220)
[a] Reflects 185 surface impoundments closing with waste in place, and 27 expected to switch from clean closure to closure with waste in place. These 212 units are expected to place CCR during closure and avoid costs associated with purchasing fill. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 for additional information.
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

                 Exhibit ES-8
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2  -  Scenario 2; High-End Expected Per-Unit Fill Capacity
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                      Units expected to change practices
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                                  Total (3%)
                                  Total (7%)

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

                                                                             7%
                                    ($4.86)
                                      277
                                   ($1,340)
                                       
                                       
                                     ($82)
                                   ($1,170)
                             Avoided Cost of Fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                     212 a
                                    ($945)
                                    ($28.2)
                                    ($891)
                                    ($57.9)
                                    ($826)
                                  Subtotal: 
                                CCR in Closure
                                       
                                       
                                   ($2,290)
                                    ($86.3)
                                   ($2,730)
                                    ($140)
                                   ($2,000)
                                                                          TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                   ($2,280)
                                    ($86.0)
                                   ($2,720)
                                    ($140)
                                   ($1,990)
[a] Reflects 185 surface impoundments closing with waste in place, and 27 expected to switch from clean closure to closure with waste in place. These 212 units are expected to place CCR during closure and avoid costs associated with purchasing fill. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 for additional information.
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 3: Closure of CCR Units by Removal of CCR
The 2015 CCR Rule required all units closing by removal of CCR to complete all removal and decontamination activities, including groundwater corrective action, prior to certifying completion of closure. At the time that the original rule was finalized, the extent of existing contamination at operating units was not fully understood and was underestimated. EPA is revisiting the requirements for documenting closure at the subset of leaking units that are "clean closing" (i.e., removing all CCR from the unit), to separate the requirements associated with closure from those associated with longer-term remediation of prior contamination. 
This provision allows units closing by removal of CCR to certify closure once all removal and decontamination activities, aside from groundwater corrective action, are complete. Groundwater corrective action would be allowed to continue during the post-closure care period until remediation is complete and would not preclude the unit from certifying that closure has been completed.  
Exhibit ES-9 summarizes the costs and cost savings of Provision 3. The universe of affected units for this provision is outlined in Exhibit 3-18.
Exhibit ES-9
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 3
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Costs (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
                            Closure Plan revisions
                                   $0.0325 
                                      63 
                                    $2.05 
                                   $0.0629 
                                    $1.99 
                                    $0.134 
                                    $1.91 
                          Post-Closure Plan revisions
                                   $0.0325 
                                      63 
                                    $2.05 
                                   $0.0629 
                                    $1.99 
                                    $0.134 
                                    $1.91 
                            Property deed notation
                                   $0.00100 
                                      63 
                                   $0.0630 
                                   $0.00188 
                                   $0.0593 
                                   $0.00385 
                                   $0.0549 
                         Subtotal: Documentation Costs
                                       
                                       
                                    $4.16 
                                    $0.128 
                                    $4.04 
                                    $0.272 
                                    $3.88 
Avoided Documentation Costs
              Avoided documentation costs due to earlier closure
                                  ($0.00741)
                                      63 
                                   ($0.467)
                                   ($0.0139)
                                   ($0.440)
                                   ($0.0267)
                                   ($0.382)
                                     TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                    $3.70 
                                    $0.114 
                                    $3.60 
                                    $0.245 
                                    $3.49 
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

Costs Associated with Provision 4: Revised Notice of Intent to Close and Annual Closure Progress Reports
Provision 4 requires changes to paperwork requirements that apply to two different subsets of units depending on the paperwork already submitted for the units. The first requires all previously-submitted Notices of Intent to Close (NOIs) to be updated with an intended date of closure. The second is a new requirement for annual closure progress reports. EPA is proposing these changes to the paperwork requirements to increase transparency around the closure process and to provide a system of accountability for facilities' closure targets. Exhibit ES-10 summarizes and costs associated with Provision 4.
Exhibit ES-10
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 4: Revised Notice of Intent to Close and Annual Closure Progress Reports
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Costs (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
Notice of Intent to Close revisions
                                  $0.0000510 
                                     163 
                                   $0.00831 
                                  $0.000255 
                                   $0.00807 
                                  $0.000544 
                                   $0.00777 
Annual Closure Progress Reports
                                   $0.00346 
                                     407 
                                    $2.00 
                                   $0.0541 
                                    $1.71 
                                   $0.0986 
                                    $1.41 
                                                                          TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                    $2.01 
                                   $0.0544 
                                    $1.72 
                                   $0.0992 
                                    $1.42 
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                    $1.59 
                                    $1.56 
                                    $50.2 
                                    $49.3 
                                    $3.26 
                                    $3.20 
                                    $46.5 
                                    $45.6 
Interaction Effects, Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                       
                                    $2.30 
                                    $4.80 
                                    $72.7 
                                     $152 
                                    $4.71 
                                    $9.85 
                                    $67.3 
                                     $141 
                                       
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                              TOTAL COST SAVINGS
                                    ($23.3)
                                    ($86.0)
                                    ($745)
                                   ($2,719)
                                    ($41.4)
                                    ($138)
                                    ($591)
                                   ($1,967)
Scenario Assumptions
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1
   - Scenario 1: Assumes EPA rejects a share of modified closure plans detailing CCR to be used in closure, at a rate of 50 percent of units currently exceeding the Groundwater Protection Standards and 50% of units failing the aquifer location restriction.
   - Scenario 2: Assumes EPA accepts all modified closure plans.
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
   - Scenario 1: Assumes the quantities of beneficially used CCR in closure align with the same existing estimates of fill required in closure used in Co-Proposed Option 1.
   - Scenario 2: Assumes that 50 percent of units will beneficially use CCR in closure at quantities exceeding existing estimates of fill required in closure at a rate equaling that of the Yates facility in Georgia, which has closure plans on file detailing a 40 foot thick layer of CCR to be used in closure.

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

	
 
     
Background: The Need for Revising the 2015 RCRA 
Final Rule Regulating Coal Combustion Landfills and Surface Impoundments at Electric Utility Power Plants
On April 17, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Final Rule addressing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) as solid waste under subtitle D of RCRA (80 FR 21302). The "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities," (the "2015 CCR Rule") established national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments (CCR management units or "units") that receive the residuals (including fly ash, bottom ash, and other materials) from the combustion of coal to make electricity, as well as all lateral expansions of these units. The criteria include location restrictions, design and operating criteria, requirements for groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care, record keeping, and notification and internet posting. The rule also required any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated constituent's groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR by April 2019 and either retrofit or close, except in limited circumstances.
Litigation History
The 2015 CCR Rule was challenged by several different parties, including a coalition of regulated entities and a coalition of public interest environmental organizations. See Utilities and Solid Waste Advocacy Group (USWAG) et al. v EPA, No. 15-1219 (DC Cir. 2015). Four of the claims, which represent a subset of the provisions challenged by the industry and environmental petitioners were settled. As part of that settlement, on April 18, 2016 EPA requested the court to remand the four claims back to the Agency. On June 14, 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion.
One claim, which was settled by the vacatur of the provision allowing inactive surface impoundments to close early and thereby avoid groundwater monitoring, cleanup, and post-closure care requirements, was the subject of a 2016 rulemaking, Extension of Compliance Deadlines and Response to Partial Vacatur, that extended compliance deadlines for certain inactive CCR surface impoundments (81 FR 51802).
In March 2018, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2015 CCR Rule. These revisions, which resulted in a final rule, "Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Amendments to the National Regulations Finalized in 2018 (Phase One, Part One) published on July 30, 2018 (83 FR 36435) (referred to hereafter as the "2018 Phase One Final Rule") included: 
 Extension of Compliance Date for Aquifer Location Standards to October 31, 2020; 
 Modification of the Date by Which Unlined Surface Impoundments Must Cease Receiving Waste and Initiate Closure (to October 31, 2020); 
 Revision of the groundwater protection standards (GWPSs) for four constituents (cobalt, lead, lithium, and molybdenum) in Appendix IV to 40 CFR 257 for which maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act have not been established, in place of background levels of contamination under 40 CFR 257.95(h)(2). 
 The provision of two alternate performance standards that provide regulators in states with an EPA-approved CCR permit program under the December 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act to revise certain CCR requirements based on site specific conditions. These two alternate performance standards are:
 Suspension of groundwater monitoring requirements if a no migration demonstration can be made; and
 Allowing State Directors to issue certifications in lieu of the 2015 CCR Rule requirement to have professional engineers issue certifications.
The regulatory analysis for the 2018 Phase One Final Rule included a downward adjustment of the estimated compliance costs of the 2015 CCR Rule to reflect new data collected by EPA between 2015 and 2018 regarding the number of facilities (plants) subject to its provisions.
A subsequent rule proposed on December 2, 2019 and currently undergoing public review, "Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure" (hereafter referred to as the "Part A rule") contains provisions that revise the CFR to adhere to  the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, et al v. EPA (USWAG Decision), on August 21, 2018 and on October 15, 2018.  The Part A rule contains: 
 Revisions to the closure schedule for unlined CCR surface impoundments, §§ 257.101(a) and (b)(1) following both the vacatur from the USWAG decision that all unlined CCR surface impoundments, including those formally considered clay lined, must close, and the remand from the Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. et al v. EPA decision on the cease receipt of CCR deadline. EPA is proposing a new cease receipt of CCR deadline of October 2020 for the surface impoundments forced into initiation of closure (subject to "forced closure") due to either being an unlined or formally "clay lined" CCR surface impoundment (§ 257.101(a)) or if the CCR surface impoundment failed the location standard for the minimum depth to the uppermost aquifer (§ 257.101(b)(1)(i)).
 Revisions to the alternate closure provisions, §§ 257.103(a), (b), (e), and (f). These revisions will grant facilities the necessary time to find alternate capacity and initiate closure of unlined CCR surface impoundments and create an approach for facilities needing an alternate cease receipt of CCR deadline. Pending documentation and approval, some units may receive an extension of up to three years, resulting in a delayed cease receipt of CCR deadline of October 2023. Additionally, units at facilities closing by 2028 without access to alternate capacity are eligible to remain open until the facilities close, providing they meet reporting and size requirements.
The proposed rule considered in this regulatory impact analysis (RIA), herein referred to as the "Part B rule," contains further potential amendments to 2015 CCR Rule:
1)	A provision allowing for owners of CCR surface impoundments to demonstrate that the clay liner meet the § 4004(a) standard for sanitary landfill classification and therefore that the unit is classified as "lined" under the CCR Rule. Units that apply and see their demonstration accepted by EPA would be allowed to avoid forced closure and remain open past August 2020, following the 2018 court decisions.
2)	Co-proposed options allowing for the use of CCR in units subject to forced closure. Under both of these co-proposed options, CCR owners/operators can add CCR to closing surface impoundments after the cease receipt of CCR deadline, provided they meet the following requirements for each co-proposed option:
 Co-Proposed Option 1  - such placement is conducted under an approved closure plan. Under this option, such placement is implemented as an exemption to the cease receipt of CCR deadline specified in § 257.101.
         or
 Co-Proposed Option 2  - the use of CCR qualifies as "beneficial use" per the definition at § 257.53.
3)	A provision allowing an additional closure option for CCR units being closing by removal of all CCR ("closing by removal" or "clean closing"). The 2015 CCR Rule requires that units closing by removal of CCR complete all removal and decontamination activities, including groundwater corrective action, prior to certifying completion of closure. This provision under this proposed rule would allow units closing by removal of CCR to certify closure when all removal and decontamination activities are complete, but allow ongoing groundwater corrective action to continue during the post-closure care period. 
4)	A provision adding two new documentation requirements for closing units. First, facilities must re-post any prior Notices of Intent to Close, and the re-posted versions must specify an intended date of closure. Any future Notices of Intent to Close, i.e., non-re-postings, must also specify an intended date of closure. Second, all units undergoing closure must file annual closure progress reports.
  
Affected Universe and Baseline Costs
This chapter consists of four sections: Section 2.1 defines the current universe of facilities and identifies the number of units that will be subject to each provision of the proposed Part B rule. This universe reflects changes to the 2015 CCR Rule universe resulting from industry and market changes, and changes resulting from the 2018 Phase One Final Rule and the 2018 court decisions. Section 2.2 discusses the planned closure timelines associated with the current CCR rules and court decisions in place that affect this universe. Section 2.3 discusses the array of baseline costs relevant to the proposed Part B rule's assessment of incremental costs and cost savings. Section 2.4 outlines the baseline costs considered in this analysis. In simple terms, this chapter describes the facilities, CCR management units, management practices, and regulatory requirements that are in place in 2019, and represent the "starting point" for measuring the effects of the rule.
2.1	Affected Electric Utility Facilities 
Consistent with requirements for examining the impacts of regulations that have been established by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the OMB Circular A-4 publication, this RIA first establishes a baseline from which to measure the incremental costs, cost savings, and benefits that are attributable specifically to the proposed Part B rule. Prior regulatory actions related to the management and closure of CCR surface impoundments include the original 2015 CCR Rule, as modified by the 2018 Phase One Final Rule and by the 2018 court decisions, both of which affect the timing of and reasons for closure of surface impoundments. In addition, more recent and detailed information about the universe and operation of surface impoundments has become available to EPA through regulatory reporting requirements under the 2015 CCR Rule. To isolate and measure the impacts of the proposed Part B rule, it is necessary to adjust the different universe data to reflect an accurate 2020 regulatory and cost baseline. 
The sections below briefly describe each of the needed adjustments; Exhibit 2-1 provides a final summary of the universe of facilities and management units subject to by the proposed Part B rule.
2.1.1	Original Baseline: 2015 CCR Regulatory Impact Analysis Universe
The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2015 CCR Rule ("2015 CCR RIA") identified a regulatory universe of 478 potentially affected coal-fired electric utility facilities (assigned to the utility sector North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 22). 
Of these 478 facilities, the 2015 CCR RIA identified and removed 64 facilities that were expected to fully close all coal-fired units before the rule took effect in 2016, based on the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) v.5.13 database. The final universe of affected facilities in the 2015 CCR RIA included 414 affected facilities (i.e., 478 facilities minus 64 facilities); within that universe 308 facilities had 922 onsite CCR management units, including 286 on-site CCR landfills and 636 on-site CCR surface impoundments. Because the 2015 CCR rule included several general provisions regarding reports on CCR management operations, this regulatory universe consisted of all coal-fired electric utility facilities, including 106 with no on-site units for disposal of their generated CCR off-site or whose generated CCR was beneficially used in its entirety. In other words, the 922 on-site CCR management units were located at roughly 308 of the 414 facilities.
2.1.2	2018 Phase One Final Rule Universe
As part of the 2018 Phase One rulemaking, an additional 23 facilities were removed from the affected universe, because data available at the time show that these facilities closed before incurring any costs under the rule. This resulted in an adjusted affected universe of 391 facilities subject to the provisions of the 2018 Phase One Final Rule (i.e. 414 facilities minus 23 facilities). Consistent with the 2015 CCR RIA universe, the universe in the 2018 Phase One rulemaking included all operating coal-fired electric utility facilities, including those with on-site CCR management units and those with no on-such units that disposed of their generated CCR off-site or whose generated CCR was beneficially used in its entirety.
2.1.3	2019 Proposed Part A and Part B Rule Universe
The 2015 CCR Rule requires regulated facilities to document compliance with rule requirements on publicly available websites. These reports address numerous requirements with different implementation deadlines, including dust control plans, construction histories, notifications of changes in operations (such as closure), inspection documents, and a series of groundwater monitoring reports. 
A review of the data posted as of September 2019 provides an accurate update to the number of facilities and units in the 2018 Phase One Final Rule universe regulated under the 2015 CCR Rule, and to the operating status of each of these units. The current (September 2019) universe of facilities and units subject to the 2015 CCR Rule includes 300 facilities, with 768 CCR units, (including 522 existing surface impoundments, 11 new and retrofitted surface impoundments) and 235 landfills). Two factors drive the difference in apparent universe size between the prior estimates and the current 2019 universe:
 The definition of a unit: the 2015 CCR Rule universe treated each surface impoundment as a separate unit, but the rule allows flexibility in identifying management units. Some facilities in the universe report two or more interconnected surface impoundments as a single unit. This consolidation in reporting conventions has reduced the total number of units relative to prior assessments of the CCR management unit universe. 
 Not all facilities have affected units: Not all facilities in the 2018 Phase One Final Rule universe have on-site CCR units. According to the current database of regulated CCR units, 300 affected facilities have on-site CCR landfills or surface impoundments. Roughly 100 existing coal-fired electrical generating facilities with no on-site CCR units do not incur compliance costs associated with the 2015 CCR Rule, and the provisions of the Proposed Part A and Part B rules do not apply. Therefore, these facilities are not considered in the universe for these proposed rules.
Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the CCR unit counts in the current universe and the original 2015 CCR Rule universe. Exhibit 2-2 lists the CCR unit counts potentially subject to each of the provisions in the proposed Part B rule. Throughout this analysis, units are assumed to be subject to a provision if either 1) new requirements require that facilities operating the unit take action, resulting in costs or cost savings, or 2) changes to financial incentives allows operating facilities to opt to change unit management practices, resulting in costs or cost savings. Exhibit 2-2 identifies the total universe of units potentially subject to each provision, though some facilities may opt not to change operations under some provisions. Chapter 3 of this RIA describes the methods used to identify the universe of facilities and units likely to take action and incur costs or cost savings under each provision, and presents the anticipated costs and cost savings associated with each provision.

                                  Exhibit 2-1
Universe of Facilities and CCR Units Subject to the 2015 CCR Rule and Subsequent Rulemakings
                                       
              Universe of Facilities Subject to Regulation[a][,b]
                             Surface Impoundments
                                   Landfills
                                Total CCR Units
                               2015 CCR Rule RIA
                                      414
            (includes roughly 100 facilities with no on-site units)
                                      636
                                      286
                                      922
                           2018 Phase One Final Rule
                                      391
            (includes roughly 100 facilities with no on-site units)
                                      596
                                      272
                                      868
                   2019 Proposed Part A and Part B rules[c]
                                      300
                 (includes only facilities with on-site units)
                                    533[b]
                                    235[b]
                                      768
Notes:
[a] The 2015 CCR Rule provisions included all facilities in the relevant industrial sector, because all of these facilities were required to read, understand, and comply with relevant parts of the rule, and because the universe of impoundments and landfills had not been verified. The 2018 Phase One universe relied on the same information, adjusted to remove a number of facilities that had ceased burning coal and/or closed. The 2019 proposed rules address only facilities with management units subject to various provisions. A review of data supporting the RIAs for the 2015 CCR Rule and the 2018 Phase One Final Rule suggests that actual closure of plants with on-site management of units since 2015 is closer to 10 plants. 
b The change in the number of units in the universes of the 2018 Phase One Final Rule and the 2019 proposed rules is due in part to the definition of a unit as determined by regulated facilities. The 2015 CCR Rule universe treated each surface impoundment as a separate unit, but the rule allows flexibility in identifying management units. As of 2019, some facilities have identified two or more interconnected surface impoundments as a single unit in their reporting, reducing the number of overall units (without changing total capacity or operational requirements). 
c Under the 2015 CCR rule, off-site CCR disposal units must comply with the same requirements applicable on-site CCR disposal units located at coal-fired electric utility plants. The count of 300 facilities includes a few (less than 10) off-site disposal units considered to be facilities subject to the 2015 CCR Rule and subsequent rulemakings in the baseline.
                                  Exhibit 2-2
Estimated Number of Units Potentially Subject to Proposed Part B Rule Provisions
                                       
      Surface Impoundments and Landfills potentially subject to provision
                           Type of Units Affected[a]
Provision 1  -  Alternate liner demonstration
Scenario 1: High Application Rate
                                      20
A portion of the existing unlined non-leaking surface impoundments with liner systems (e.g., compacted soil or clay liners) that are not consistent with 40 CFR § 257.71(a)(1)(ii) or (iii).

Scenario 2: Low Application Rate
                                      10

         Provision 2  -  Use of CCR in units subject to forced closure
Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Use of CCR during closure under an approved closure plan
                                      211
Surface impoundments that will still be open after 2020, not located in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place, and that successfully demonstrated compliance with the unstable areas location restriction in 40 CFR § 257.64.
                                       
Co-Proposed Option 2  -  Beneficial use of CCR during closure
                                      277
Surface impoundments that will still be open after 2020, not located in states that no longer allow closure with waste in place, and that are not located in states with strict beneficial use restrictions.
Provision 3  -  Closure of CCR units by removal of CCR
                                      63
Surface impoundments closing via removal that are still open, not subject to forced closure and not leaking.
Provision 4
Notice of Intent to Close Revisions
                                      163
All surface impoundments and landfills subject to forced closure that have posted NOIs but have not yet closed.
                                       
Annual Closure Progress Reports
                                    407[b]
All closing units.
a Chapter 3 of this document describes the methodology for identifying the affected unit universe for each provision, as well as the description of the cost calculations.
b The analysis in the RIA for the Part A rule identified 427 closing surface impoundments, excluding closures prior to 2020. The corresponding figure in this table is 407, reflecting 20 surface impoundments that have since completed closure. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lined
NA
Not Leaking
                                                                              9
No closure
                                                                              0
No closure
                                     Total
                                                                            432
                                                                               
                                                                             90
                                                                               
[a] These data reflect publicly available documents posted on relevant facilities' CCR compliance websites, as part of the data collection for the proposed Part A rule completed July 12[th], 2019.
[b] A unit is assumed to be "leaking" if groundwater monitoring efforts have identified either an Appendix III Statistically Significant Increase relative to baseline monitoring or Appendix IV Statistically Significant Levels without demonstrating an alternative source for the contaminants.
c This table does not include 11 new and retrofitted units, which are not subject to forced closure. The 432 active units and 90 inactive units captured in this table represent the remaining share of the surface impoundments in the universe. The count of 533 surface impoundments elsewhere throughout this RIA includes these 11 new and retrofitted units; the count of 522 surface impoundments in this table does not.
[d] Inactive units' cease receipt of CCR deadline are unchanged under the 2018 court decisions.
e Detailed review of the five active units identified as required to commence closure as of April 2019 indicates that these units are commencing with closure activities, consistent with the requirements of the 2015 CCR Rule and the court decisions baseline. The 64 inactive units identified as required to commence closure as of April 2019 are no longer receiving CCR by nature of their inactive status.
[f] "NOI" refers to Notice of Intent to Close. CCR surface impoundments that posted an NOI ahead of regulatory deadlines are subject to different, later due dates for certain documentation requirements, including location restrictions demonstrations. Units identified in these rows had not posted their location restrictions demonstrations at the time of analysis. 
3.2.1	Potential Impacts on Planned Closure Timelines due to the December 2, 2019 Published Proposed Part A Rule 
The proposed Part B rule is EPA's second rulemaking following the 2018 court decisions. EPA's proposed Part A rule (84 FR 65941 (December 2, 2019)), if finalized, would modify several of the regulatory requirements that are relevant to this proposed Part B rulemaking, including adjustments to closure timelines for 360 unlined and clay-lined units. Under the proposed Part A rule, the cease receipt of CCR deadlines for these units may be extended beyond the August 2020 deadline established by the 2018 court decisions. Beyond this, the proposed Part A rule, if finalized in its current form, would grant cease receipt of CCR deadline extensions to an additional 37 units across 22 facilities through the remaining life of their respective facilities. Each of these 37 units and 22 facilities would cease receipt of CCR and enter closure no later than 2028. 
 Per EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, the cease receipt of CCR deadline extensions granted by the Part A rule are not included in the baseline for this proposed Part B rulemaking because the respective regulatory timelines for finalizing and enacting the proposed Part A and Part B rules are not yet established. However, it is possible that the Part A rule, as proposed, will be finalized before, or contemporaneously with, this Part B rule. EPA is committed to issuing one final rulemaking that consolidates the provisions of the Part A and B rules.  
2.4	Baseline Costs
In regulatory analyses, baseline costs include all relevant costs that occur in a "business as usual" scenario that does not include the proposed regulation. Baseline costs relevant to the proposed Part B rule would therefore include all costs that are currently associated with the management of CCR, including costs that would have been incurred prior to the passage of the 2015 CCR rule, as well as costs associated with the 2015 CCR rule, and all subsequent amendments to that rule and court decisions discussed in Chapter 1. These costs include ongoing unit operation and maintenance (including dust controls and run-on/run-off controls), inspections, monitoring and testing of groundwater and structural integrity, expected closure/post-closure costs, corrective action costs, and costs associated with unit replacement. As noted, the various regulatory efforts have changed both the requirements and the timing of these requirements for various units, both of which affect the estimated cost to the regulated community. The 2015 CCR RIA included a baseline assessment of costs associated with the management of CCR generated at coal-fired electric utility plants in on-site and off-site units, focused on pollution controls implemented at these units, including pollution controls required by existing state regulatory regimes, and calculated costs incremental to that baseline. However, subsequent rulemaking efforts have changed the implementation of several provisions, affecting costs. 
Conceptually, the baseline costs measured in 2015, combined with all CCR management costs associated with the 2015 CCR rule and all subsequent finalized amendments and court decisions, forms the baseline regulatory costs for this rulemaking. Ideally, the incremental costs and cost savings of the rules considered after 2015 could simply be added to the costs in the 2015 CCR RIA to identify a comprehensive baseline. However, the total baseline costs for any regulation are also driven by the number of facilities and units subject to that regulation. The universe of CCR management units subject to the requirements of the proposed Part B rule has been updated with new information EPA has collected from the reporting requirements of the 2015 CCR rule. This information includes both the number of the facilities, as well as their operating status, and the facilities' plans for closure and post-closure care for regulated CCR management units. In some cases this new information conflicts with (and corrects) the data used to estimate both baseline and regulatory costs for the 2015 rule.  
Specifically, the following substantial changes in practice and EPA's understanding of practices have occurred between the publication of the 2015 CCR Rule and the September 2019 data used in the Part B RIA:
 Universe and market changes, including the closure of CCR-generating electric utility facilities and individual CCR management units, changes to the classification and structure of existing CCR management units, and the opening of a limited number of new CCR management units;
 Subsequent legal decisions and regulatory actions with implications for the universe subject to the 2015 CCR Rule, including the 2018 court decisions that imposed a forced cease receipt of CCR deadline on all unlined surface impoundments of August 2020, and final rules such as the 2018 Phase One Final Rule, which affected certain compliance deadlines;
 Operational changes relative to the types of facility actions and activities modeled in the analysis of the 2015 CCR Rule's impacts, including frequency and necessity of corrective action associated with groundwater contamination, frequency of wet-dry conversion activities, and planned closure methods for CCR management units.
These changes are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of the RIA for the December 2, 2018 proposed Part A rule, which included a partial update to the costs estimated in the 2015 CCR RIA to reflect changes in the timing of anticipated closure activities.
Ideally, the baseline for this proposed Part B rule would include a complete recalculation of the  actual costs faced by the affected universe of coal-fired electric utility facilities and associated CCR management units, as understood given the recent data collected by EPA from facilities summarizing CCR management units, and reflecting the regulatory and legal requirements imposed on this universe by the 2015 CCR Rule, EPA's subsequent final rulemakings, and the 2018 court decisions. This ideal baseline would also re-examine a number of economic assumptions such as the 100-year regulatory time frame for analysis that was established for the 2015 rule and preserved for comparability, and would further include an updated analysis of the risks and human health benefits associated with the existing regulatory requirements governing CCR management since 2015 that correspond to the baseline affected by the requirements proposed in this rulemaking. However, development of this comprehensive baseline is not feasible in the time frame of this rulemaking, as it requires both an updated risk assessment and an updated version of the linear programming model used to estimate cost impacts of the 2015 CCR RIA. Therefore, this RIA uses the same regulatory cost baseline as used by the Part A rule, including the 2018 court decisions as the most recent update to unit closure timelines and the cost impacts associated with this change. This RIA presents estimates of incremental costs and cost savings (Chapter 3) and discusses benefits (Chapter 4) relative to the baseline by developing cost estimates for the individual activities (e.g., paperwork costs) and operational changes associated with the provisions of this rulemaking. 
The proposed Part A rule, which was able to develop an updated baseline limited to closure costs, because the provisions of that rule only affected closure timelines and therefore only the closure costs faced by the affected universe. In contrast, the baseline costs affected by this proposed Part B rule are more wide-ranging and involve cost estimates that would require new analysis or significant revisions to the 2015 CCR RIA cost analysis, as described below:
 Provision 1 consists of documentation costs and cost savings associated with delaying closure. Both of these costs have partially-modeled baseline costs against which the post-Part B rule costs can be compared. Specifically, the 2015 CCR rule and subsequent amendments have captured incremental documentation (paperwork) costs, though at no point was a complete baseline cost for all paperwork associated with CCR management (including paperwork required pre-2015 CCR rule) developed (though it was not likely a large cost). With respect to closure and post-closure care costs, the RIA for the 2015 CCR rule and the proposed Part A rule each developed baseline and incremental cost estimates; the analysis in Chapter 4 draws upon these estimates.
 Provision 2 consists of documentation costs, avoided disposal costs, avoided fill costs, and in Co-Proposed Option 2 of Provision 2, beneficial use market impacts. Of these, fill costs were generally not separately assessed in EPA's prior analyses and baselines, in part because the 2015 modeling assumed that most units were not leaking, and would close at the end of their lifespan. Furthermore, the assessment of disposal costs for this provision relies on modeling performed in the 2015 CCR RIA, which has not been updated to account for substantial market and universe changes that have taken place since the publication of the 2015 CCR Rule. 
 Provisions 3 and 4 consist of documentation costs. These costs have modeled baseline costs against which the post-Part B rule costs can be compared.
In summary, the complexity of Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule prevents the development of a comparable cost and risk baseline without significant effort, not possible within the short time frame of this rulemaking. Therefore, the assessment of the proposed Part B rule's impacts in Chapters 3 and 4 presents incremental costs and cost savings, consistent with guidance in OMB Circular A-4, and does not provide a comprehensive assessment of changes in baseline costs or a comprehensive discussion of total baseline risks or incremental changes in risk resulting from the proposed Part B rule. Appendix A summarizes the array of pollution controls and activities assessed for the 2015 CCR Rule, whether these activities are affected by the proposed Part A and Part B rules, and the potential effort needed to update the baseline estimates for each activity originally developed for the 2015 CCR Rule.

 Estimated Costs and Cost Savings Under the Proposed Part B Rule
This chapter outlines the anticipated incremental costs and cost savings associated with the proposed Part B rule, organized by provision. The proposed rule includes four provisions, outlined below:
 Provision 1 (Section 3.1): Alternate liner demonstration 
 Provision 2 (Section 3.2): Use of CCR in units subject to forced closure
 Co-Proposed Option 1: Placement of CCR during closure of a unit under an approved closure plan 
 Co-Proposed Option 2: Beneficially using CCR as fill material during closure of a unit 
 Provision 3 (Section 3.3): Closure of CCR units by removal of CCR
 Provision 4 (Section 3.4): Annual closure progress reports and revised notice of intent to close 
The costs and cost savings associated with the provisions of the proposed Part B rule fall into several general types, including:
 Documentation costs: Several of the provisions include new requirements for closure plans or other paperwork, or enable facilities to reduce paperwork costs and other compliance costs. 
 Time value of money: Changes in the timing of anticipated expenditures under proposed Part B rule provisions changes the present value cost of those expenditures; for large capital expenditures such as those related to closure, changes in timing can have significant cost implications.
 Operational changes: Under Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule, facilities may opt to change closure methods or other operational plans due to changes in requirements that change the relative cost-effectiveness of different options. 
Consistent with EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, the cost estimates in this RIA relies on the principle that facility decision makers are rational economic actors and will choose the most cost-effective approach to CCR management at the facility (or company) level. Therefore, while some of the costs under the proposed Part B rule are "optional" (e.g., applying for a variance) and facilities could choose not to undertake them, this analysis assumes facilities will pursue non-mandatory activities if they represent the most cost-effective solution to CCR management when considering associated cost savings across all CCR management units. Similarly, this analysis assumes facilities will consider state-level requirements in identifying the most economically rational path. 
This RIA also assumes full compliance with requirements under the proposed Part B rule and all related regulations. Where the intersection of regulatory requirements and enabling definitions (e.g., the definition of beneficial use) is unclear, this RIA assumes that facilities will interpret the requirements to maximize cost savings.
Finally, consistent with requirements under OMB's Circular A-4, this RIA employs seven percent and three percent discount rates to account for multi-year costs and cost reductions, and identifies seven percent values in the text. We discount all costs to the year 2019. Annualized estimates assume a 100-year timescale, preserved from the 2015 CCR RIA to enable comparability across the original rule and the proposed Part B amendments. 
3.1	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 1: Alternate Liner Demonstration
Provision 1 of the proposed Part B rule allows owners/operators of CCR surface impoundment units whose existing liners are insufficient to qualify as lined under the 2015 CCR Rule to attempt an "alternate liner demonstration." 
Under the 2015 CCR Rule, owners/operators of each CCR surface impoundment are required to develop a liner demonstration and determine whether the unit is lined as defined by 40 CFR 257.71. As a result of this demonstration each surface impoundment has been identified as either (a) lined or (b) unlined under the 40 CFR 257.71 criteria. While the 2015 CCR Rule did not require any change in management of unlined units that had not documented leaks or failed location restrictions, the 2018 court decisions (the baseline for this rulemaking) required that all units identified as unlined, including clay lined units, must enter forced closure by August 2020, regardless of whether or not they are leaking. 
Provision 1 of the proposed Part B rule provides facilities operating CCR surface impoundments considered unlined per the 40 CFR 257.71 criteria with an opportunity to develop an "alternate liner demonstration" that would allow qualifying unlined units to avoid closure. Upon approval of a successful demonstration for an unlined CCR unit, that unit would be considered lined, and therefore not be required to enter forced closure by August 2020 as required under the 2018 court decisions baseline. To receive an approved alternate liner demonstration, facilities must:
 Prepare and submit an initial application for approval to undertake an alternative liner demonstration. EPA will review applications and determine which unlined units are eligible to undertake an alternate liner demonstration. Unlined units with rejected applications will be considered ineligible for an alternate liner demonstration and must close in accordance with the 2018 court decisions baseline. Unlined units with successful applications can proceed to submit the alternate liner demonstration.
 Undertake an alternate liner demonstration. For unlined units with applications approved by EPA, facilities may prepare and submit a full alternate liner demonstration. EPA will review demonstrations and determine whether each unlined unit is to be considered lined (if the demonstration is accepted), or maintains its unlined status (if the demonstration is rejected). Rejected unlined units must enter forced closure; accepted unlined units, which EPA has reclassified as lined units, can remain open.
Note that this provision does not impose any mandatory compliance activities on owners/operators of CCR management units. Rather, owners/operators may voluntarily choose to submit applications and, if permitted, demonstrations to EPA, if the cost savings associated with delaying closure past the August 2020 deadline for any unlined unit in the 2018 court decisions justify the cost of the submissions. This RIA presents two scenarios accounting for "high" and "low" numbers of applications to submit the liner demonstrations. These unit counts are based on EPA knowledge of likely action of the owners/operators of units potentially eligible to apply, out of a set of units meeting the criteria set forth in the proposed rule. These units are those that: (1) are not closed, (2) are unlined under the design criteria specified at 40 CFR 257.71, (3) are not leaking, (4) have groundwater monitoring systems in place, and (5) have passed all required location restrictions. 
While Provision 1 and Provision 2 provide different and mutually exclusive opportunities to effectively delay the costs associated with closure of surface impoundments, the analyses in this RIA assumes that all potentially eligible facilities with unlined units will first attempt to follow the exemption from forced closure due to Provision 1 before relying on the use of CCR in closure as allowed under Provision 2, because unlined units approved under Provision 1 as having alternate liners can operate indefinitely. Facilities with unlined units that fail to obtain approval under Provision 1 are then assumed to pursue relevant cost savings to the extent possible under Provision 2. In other words, the universe of eligible unlined units in Provision 1 is not affected by Provision 2. However, the unlined units that are reclassified as lined under Provision 1 does affect the units affected by Provision 2.
The implementation of this provision will result in four distinct costs or cost savings. Two documentation costs are associated with submitting the application and completing and submitting the alternate liner demonstration. The potential cost savings are time-value-of-money impacts from delays in unit closure associated with the alternative liner demonstration. The costs and cost savings associated with Provision 1 are described in Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.4.
3.1.1	Application to Submit an Alternate Liner Demonstration 
Prior to preparing the full alternate liner demonstration, an interested facility with an eligible surface impoundment considered unlined per the 40 CFR 257.71 criteria must submit an application to EPA. If EPA approves the application, the facility can then develop and submit a full demonstration. This RIA assumes that between 10 and 20 units will submit the application. Units that do not meet the conditions above that are explicitly outlined in the proposed rule language are not expected to submit the application. EPA assumes that the cost of an application is 10 percent of the cost of the full demonstration, or $10,700 (2016$). The costs of the demonstration itself is based on unit cost estimates from the 2015 CCR RIA and outlined in Section 3.1.2 below. The total undiscounted cost to file the application for the 20 relevant units in Scenario 1 is approximately $0.216 million, or $0.014 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate. The total undiscounted cost to file the application for the 10 relevant units in Scenario 2 is approximately $0.108 million, or $0.006 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate.
3.1.2 	Demonstration of Suitability of Existing Liner 
Any facility whose application is approved by EPA is eligible to submit an alternate liner demonstration for approved units. EPA expects all applications to submit the liner demonstration will be approved, in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Therefore, demonstration costs accrue to the same subsets of units that submitting applications as described in Section 3.1.1. The universe of units expected to submit demonstrations is 20 units in Scenario 1 and 10 units in Scenario 2.
The per-unit cost of submitting a demonstration is approximately $0.108 million. To estimate the cost of an alternate liner demonstration, this RIA relies on paperwork cost estimates for the following three activities from the 2015 CCR RIA, listed below with approximate costs.
 Alternate liner demonstration: $921
 Groundwater monitoring well certification: $492
 Groundwater monitoring system design certification: $106,000
The total cost across the 20 relevant units in Scenario 1 is approximately $2.15 million, or $0.141 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate. The total cost across the 10 relevant units in Scenario 2 is approximately $1.08 million, or $0.071 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate.
33
3.1.3 	Cost Savings due to Closure Delays for Units with Accepted Demonstrations 
This RIA assumes that EPA will ultimately accept (i.e., approve) 50 percent of the alternate liner demonstrations it receives and reviews, or  10 of the 20 demonstrations in Scenario 1 and five of the 10 demonstrations in Scenario 2. This RIA assumes that units with successful applications will continue to operate, on average, for an additional 16 years prior to commencing closure, instead of closing in August 2020 as required under the 2018 court decisions. This 16-year figure is derived from the 2015 RIA, which assumed the average unit lifespan to be 40 years and that the average remaining lifespan in 2015 was 20 years. Because four years have elapsed since 2015, units are expected to have an average of 16 years of useful life remaining.
The per-unit cost savings as a result of a 16-year closure delay is approximately $12.5 million, an estimate of the time value of money associated with moving per-unit closure costs as estimated in the 2015 CCR RIA out in time (i.e. delaying closure) by 16 years. This per-unit closure cost is approximately $20.3 million and reflects the average (2016$) present value per closure under a seven percent discount rate. This method is the same as that used in the proposed Part A rule RIA to simplify the realignment of closure costs over time. The total, present value cost savings for the 10 affected units in Scenario 1 are approximately $125 million, or $8.79 million annualized across 100 years at a seven percent discount rate. The total, present value cost savings for the 5 affected units in Scenario 2 are approximately $62.7 million, or $4.39 million annualized across 100 years at a seven percent discount rate. Note that this cost savings accrues to units whose alternate liner demonstrations were accepted by EPA.
The cost savings associated with Provision 1 are summarized in Exhibit 3-1-A and Exhibit 3-1-B.
Exhibit 3-1-A
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 1  -  Alternate Liner Demonstration
                        Scenario 1
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Cost (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                       Total cost savings (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
Application to submit alternate liner demonstration 
                                    $0.011 
                                      20
                                    $0.215 
                                    $0.006 
                                    $0.209 
                                    $0.014 
                                    $0.201 
Demonstration of suitability of existing liner
                                    $0.108 
                                      20 
                                    $2.15 
                                    $0.066 
                                    $2.09 
                                    $0.141 
                                    $2.01 
Subtotal: Documentation Costs
                                       
                                       
                                    $2.37 
                                    $0.072 
                                    $2.29 
                                    $0.155 
                                    $2.21 
Closure Timeline Adjustments
Closure delays due to successful demonstrations
                                                                             3%
                                    (15.9)
                                      10 
                                    ($164)
                                    ($5.05)
                                    ($160)
                                       
                                       

                                                                             7%
                                    (12.5)
                                      10 
                                    ($134)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($8.79)
                                    ($125)
Subtotal: Closure Timeline Adjustments 
                                       
                                       
                                    ($298)
                                    ($5.05)
                                    ($160)
                                    ($8.79)
                                    ($125)
                                                                          TOTAL
                                                                               
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                    ($4.98)
                                    ($157)
                                    ($8.63)
                                    ($123)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

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

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
Application to submit alternate liner demonstration 
                                    $0.011 
                                      10
                                    $0.108 
                                    $0.003 
                                    $0.209 
                                    $0.014 
                                    $0.201 
Demonstration of suitability of existing liner
                                    $0.108 
                                      10 
                                    $1.08 
                                    $0.033 
                                    $2.09 
                                    $0.141 
                                    $2.01 
Subtotal: Documentation Costs
                                       
                                       
                                    $1.18 
                                    $0.036 
                                    $2.29 
                                    $0.155 
                                    $2.21 
Closure Timeline Adjustments
Closure delays due to successful demonstrations
                                                                             3%
                                    (15.9)
                                      5 
                                    ($82.2)
                                    ($2.52)
                                    ($79.8)
                                       
                                       

                                                                             7%
                                    (12.5)
                                      5 
                                    ($67.1)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($4.39)
                                    ($62.7)
Subtotal: Closure Timeline Adjustments 
                                       
                                       
                                    ($149)
                                    ($2.52)
                                    ($79.8)
                                    ($4.39)
                                    ($62.7)
                                                                          TOTAL
                                                                               
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                    ($2.49)
                                    ($77.5)
                                    ($4.24)
                                    ($60.5)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

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

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

                               Scenarios 1 and 2
Surface Impoundments
                                      533
Adjusted to remove 117 units not subject to forced closure
                                      416
Adjusted to remove 52 units that have already certified completion of closure or plan to do so before the end of 2020
                                      364
Adjusted to remove 68 units located in states not allowing closure with waste in place (NC, VA, IN)
                                      296
Adjusted to remove 7 units located in states with stringent beneficial use standards (PA)
                                      289
Adjusted to remove 12 units switching from clean closing to waste in place that are smaller than three acres in size
                                      277
                Final Proposed Part B Rule Provision 2 Universe
                                   277 Units
                                  Exhibit 3-4
CCR Surface Impoundments Likely to Change Practices Due to Provision 2, by Closure Strategy
                      Closure Strategy under the Baseline
                           All Surface Impoundments
                      Closure Strategy under Provision 2
                             Co-Proposed Option 1
                             Co-Proposed Option 2 
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                              (Scenarios 1 and 2)
Waste in Place
                                      310
                             Waste in Place (WIP)
                                      98
                                      146
                                      185
Clean Close
                                      223
            Clean Closing at Facilities with Units also Closing WIP
                                      32
                                      48
                                      65

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

Sections 3.2.3.1  -  3.2.3.3 below describe the specific costs and cost savings associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1. 
3.2.3.1	Documentation costs
To obtain approval for use of CCR in closure under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1, facilities must submit both a demonstration for their new final cover system and a revised closure plan. The universe for this provision includes all units that are potentially eligible, regardless of closure strategy. The same number of units incur demonstration and closure plan revision costs under both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. The universe for the documentation costs is 211 units.
The per-unit cost for this cost is approximately $0.033 million. To estimate the cost of the demonstrations, this RIA relies on paperwork cost estimates for the following two activities from the 2015 CCR RIA, listed below with approximate costs.
 Final cover system demonstration: $117
 Revised closure plan: $32,500
The total cost across the relevant 211 units is approximately $6.42 million, or $0.450 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate.
3.2.3.2	Avoided disposal costs
Units using CCR in closure avoid paying to dispose of that CCR elsewhere. This avoided disposal cost could either reflect transportation costs and tipping fees for offsite disposal or the capital and operating costs associated with new on-site CCR management unit construction, operations and maintenance. Units that are approved by EPA under all three closure strategies accrue this benefit. Scenario 1 considers 132 units (of the 211 eligible units submitting demonstrations, 63 units are assumed to be unable to use CCR in closure due to location restriction failures or groundwater contamination, while an additional 16 clean-closing units located at facilities with rejected waste-in-place units are also removed). Scenario 2 considers all 211 eligible units.
The average per-unit cost savings for avoided disposal is approximately $1.65 million in Scenario 1 and $1.66 million in Scenario 2. These costs differ across the two scenarios because the groups of facilities that place CCR in closing units have different compositions of waste-in-place versus clean-closing units, which have a smaller average size, and represent a weighted average across the two closure types. 
The estimates of the quantities of CCR expected to be placed in each approved unit under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 are based on estimates from testimony by the Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky Utilities Energy (LGE-KU) utility company for fill requirements across the 16 units it operates at six facilities. These estimates are limited because they are drawn from a single company however, EPA believes these estimates are the best available and that they are reasonably representative of the CCR universe in terms of size and distribution between closure strategies. The fill estimates required for closure of these sixteen units averaged 4,280 cubic yards per acre of subgrade fill for both closure methods and, for units closing with waste in place, an additional 2,960 cubic yards per acre for capping fill. These values are multiplied by the median unit sizes of LGE-KU's units for each closure method to estimate total fill requirements for clean-closing and waste-in-place units. 
Because facilities are able to substitute CCR for fill use in closure under Provision 2, the per-unit estimated fill capacity is used to estimate per-unit use of CCR in closure. We assume that facilities will use CCR in closure to the greatest extent that is permissible under this provision, though the true quantities of CCR associated with this practice will vary with unit area, and with the amount of CCR in the unit at the beginning of closure. The average quantities estimated for per-unit use of CCR in closure are used to calculate the avoided disposal costs resulting from Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 using an average cost of CCR disposal estimated as $10 per ton, derived from total cost and CCR quantity values in the 2015 CCR Rule RIA. Exhibit 3-6 and Exhibit 3-7 provide the detailed calculations and assumptions that drive these cost savings estimates. 
                                  Exhibit 3-6
               Avoided Disposal Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 1; EPA Approves 50 Percent of Units Applying with Failed Aquifer Location Restriction, Groundwater Protection Standard Exceedance
                                       
                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                   Source[b]
                                      [1]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent.
                                     $507
                               millions of 2013$
                                     Input
                                       
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                      [2]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $527
                               millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                             [1] inflated to 2016$
                                      [3]
Average annual CCR tonnage disposed across the universe
                                     52.6
                              million tons of CCR
                                     Input
                          2015 CCR RIA, Section 3.3.2
                                     [4] 
Expected fill requirements for units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC) [a]
                                  7,240 (WIP)
                             cubic yards per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                       

                                  4,280 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      [5]
Median unit surface area
                                  36.5 (WIP)
                                     acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                       

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

                                    32 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      [7]
Average per-ton disposal cost at seven percent
                                      $10
                             2016$ per ton of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                   [2] / [3]
                                       
                                      [8]
Unit conversion: tons of CCR per cubic yard of CCR
                                     0.758
                                  tons of CCR
                                     Input
                                 2015 CCR RIA
                                      [9]
Expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 200,000 (WIP)
                                  tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                [4] x [5] x [8]
                                       

                                  48,000 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                     [10]
Estimated total CCR used as fill  across the universe
                                     21.5
                              million tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                        ([6-WIP] x [9-WIP]) + ([6-CC] x
                                    [9-CC])
                                     [11]
Total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure 
                                     $221
                               millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                  [10] x [7]
                                     [12]
Present value of total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $198
                               millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                     [13]
Annualized total avoided cost of disposal over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $13.8
                               millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [11] over 100 years at seven percent
a 7,242 cubic yards per acre, derived by adding the average per-acre subgrade fill requirements to the average capping fill requirements cited in the LGE-KU testimony: 4,278 cubic yards per acre for subgrade fill and 2,963 cubic yards per acre for capping fill.
[b] Calculations may not total due to rounding.

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

                                  Exhibit 3-7
               Avoided Disposal Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2; All Units Applying Are Able to Use CCR in Closure
                                       
                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                      [1]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent.
                                     $507
                               Millions of 2013$
                                     Input
                                       
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                      [2]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $527
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                             [1] inflated to 2016$
                                      [3]
Average annual CCR tonnage disposed across the universe
                                     52.6
                              Million tons of CCR
                                     Input
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                     [4] 
Expected fill requirements for units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC) [a]
                                  7,240 (WIP)
                             cubic yards per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                       

                                  4,280 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      [5]
Median unit surface area
                                  36.5 (WIP)
                                     acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                       

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

                                    48 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      [7]
Average per-ton disposal cost at seven percent
                                      $10
                             2016$ per ton of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                   [2] / [3]
                                       
                                      [8]
Unit conversion: tons of CCR per cubic yard of CCR
                                     0.758
                                  tons of CCR
                                     Input
                                 2015 CCR RIA
                                      [9]
Expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 200,000 (WIP)
                                  tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                [4] x [5] x [8]
                                       

                                  48,000 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                     [10]
Estimated total fill capacity across the universe
                                     34.9
                              Million tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                        ([6-WIP] x [9-WIP]) + ([6-CC] x
                                    [9-CC])
                                     [11]
Total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure 
                                     $349
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                  [10] x [7]
                                     [12]
Present value of total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $305
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                      [1]
Annualized total avoided cost of disposal over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $21.4
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [11] over 100 years at seven percent
a  7,242 cubic yards per acre, derived by adding the average per-acre subgrade fill requirements to the average capping fill requirements cited in the LGE-KU testimony: 4,278 cubic yards per acre for subgrade fill and 2,963 cubic yards per acre for capping fill.

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

The relevant universe is 100 units in Scenario 1 and 163 in Scenario 2. Estimates for per-unit fill requirements, or the volumes of fill no longer needed to be purchased as a result of changing practices under this provision, are the same as described in the previous subsection for the avoided costs of disposal. The fill estimates required for closure of these sixteen units averaged 4,280 cubic yards per acre of subgrade fill and, for units closing with waste in place, an additional 2,960 cubic yards per acre for capping fill. These values are multiplied by the median unit sizes of LGE-KU's units for each closure method to estimate total fill requirements for waste-in-place and clean closing units. These values are multiplied by the expected price of fill, $122,000 per acre also from the LGE-KU testimony. The per-unit cost savings estimate for the avoided cost of fill is $4.5 million in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. This value is derived using the methodology in Exhibits 3-8 and Exhibit 3-9 below:
                                  Exhibit 3-8
             Avoided Cost of Fill Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 1; EPA Approves 50 Percent of Units Applying with Failed Aquifer Location Restriction, Groundwater Protection Standard Exceedance
                                       
                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                     [1] 
                       Expected cost of fill per acre[a]
                                   $122,000
                                2016$ per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [2]
     Median unit surface area for units closing with waste in place (WIP)
                                     36.5
                                     Acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [3]
                         Per-unit avoided cost of fill
                                     $4.5
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [1] x [2]
                                      [4]
                  Relevant units closing with waste in place
                                      100
                                     Units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2
                                      [5]
     Avoided cost of fill material for units closing with waste in place.
                                     $466
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [3] x [4]
                                      [6]
    Present value of total avoided cost of fill due to using CCR in closure
                                     $390
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [5] from 2021 to 2019
                                      [7]
     Annualized total avoided cost of fill over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $27.3
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [6] over 100 years at seven percent
[a]The sum of $74,600 per acre for capping fill and $47,600 per acre for subgrade fill, from the LGE-KU testimony.

                                  Exhibit 3-9
             Avoided Cost of Fill Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2; All Units Applying Are Able to Use CCR in Closure
                                       
                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                     [1] 
Expected cost of fill per acre[a]
                                   $122,000
                                2016$ per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [2]
Median unit surface area for units closing with waste in place (WIP)
                                     36.5
                                     Acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [3]
Per-unit avoided cost of fill
                                     $4.5
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [1] x [2]
                                      [4]
Relevant units closing with waste in place
                                      163
                                     Units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2
                                      [5]
Avoided cost of fill material for units closing with waste in place.
                                     $725
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [3] x [4]
                                      [6]
Present value of total avoided cost of fill due to using CCR in closure
                                     $633
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [5] from 2021 to 2019
                                      [7]
Annualized total avoided cost of fill over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $44.4
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [6] over 100 years at seven percent
[a]The sum of $74,600 per acre for capping fill and $47,600 per acre for subgrade fill, from the LGE-KU testimony.

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

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

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

                                      7%
                                    ($1.65)
                                     132 
                                    ($226)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($13.8)
                                    ($198)
                             Avoided cost of fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                     100 
                                    ($446)
                                    ($13.3)
                                    ($421)
                                    ($27.3)
                                    ($390)
                        Subtotal: Timeline Adjustments
                                       
                                       
                                    ($672)
                                    ($23.1)
                                    ($729)
                                    ($41.2)
                                    ($587)
                                     TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                    ($666)
                                    ($22.8)
                                    ($722)
                                    ($40.7)
                                    ($581)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

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

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

                                      7%
                                    ($1.66)
                                     211 
                                    ($350)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($21.4)
                                    ($305)
                             Avoided cost of fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                     163 
                                    ($725)
                                    ($22.3)
                                    ($704)
                                    ($44.4)
                                    ($633)
                        Subtotal: Timeline Adjustments
                                       
                                       
                                   ($1,070)
                                    ($37.4)
                                   ($1,180)
                                    ($65.8)
                                    ($939)
                                     TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                   ($1,070)
                                    ($37.2)
                                   ($1,170)
                                    ($65.3)
                                    ($932)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.
3.2.4	Costs and Cost Savings Associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2: Beneficially using CCR during closure of a unit 
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 also revises the 2015 CCR Rule prohibition on placement of CCR in closing units. Option 2 allows facilities to place CCR in units undergoing forced closure as a "beneficial use" of fill following the submission of a revised closure plan. Under the baseline on the date when a CCR surface impoundment enters closure, the unit also becomes subject to a CCR placement prohibition that disallows any further CCR placement into the unit (the cease receipt of CCR deadline). Units subject to forced closure by specified dates, due to either the August 2020 deadline imposed by the 2018 court decisions baseline or provisions at 40 CFR 257.101, are subject to the prohibition as of those dates. 
While Co-Proposed Option 2 also allows continued CCR placement into surface impoundments subject to forced closure, it differs from Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 because it does not require specific EPA approval of the revised closure plan. Rather, the only requirements for the use of continued CCR placement into units subject to forced closure are that the closure plan be consistent with the performance standards identified in the 2015 CCR Rule, and that placement of CCR meet the definition of beneficial use at 40 CFR 257.53. The continued placement of CCR in Co-Proposed Option 2 is self-implementing.
This is in contrast to Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1, wherein EPA's review of submitted documentation specifically verifies certain aspects of CCR placement, including volumetric analyses to ensure that CCR placement is used only to the extent that CCR replaces fill that would otherwise be used, and temporal analyses to ensure that closure timelines are not extended as a result of the placement of CCR into the units. While the definition of beneficial use requires that CCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material and not be used in "excess quantities," the lack of specificity in this language, combined with the lack of affirmative review of planned owner/operator activities before CCR placement commences, engenders substantial uncertainty regarding the actual volumes of CCR that may be legitimately placed in units subject to forced closure under this provision and option. Under this option, a revised closure plan must still be developed, though this revised plan is not subject to formal EPA approval prior to implementation, or to any requirement that materials use be minimized.
Like Provision 1, activities associated with this provision are voluntary. However, they are likely to result in substantial cost savings above the paperwork costs required to receive approval to use CCR during closure from EPA. Therefore, this RIA assumes that all eligible facilities will pursue the paperwork development and submission needed to be able to use CCR during closure as allowed under this provision. In the absence of any specific clarification of the definition of beneficial use that would restrict the use of CCR as fill in a unit initially designed for its disposal, this analysis also assumes that all facilities will pursue the use of CCR as "fill" in a beneficial use application that essentially places CCR in the unit in sufficient quantities to fill the unit as designed and cap it, even if those designs do not represent the options requiring the least amount of fill, or the approach that would have been most cost-effective under the 2015 CCR Rule's prohibition on placement of CCR units undertaking closure. 
The implementation of this provision will result in three types of costs/cost savings:
 Costs associated with developing and submitting the closure plan, 
 Avoided costs of disposal of the CCR that is approved by EPA to be used in unit closure at facilities that undertake successful demonstrations, and 
 Avoided cost of fill that would otherwise be required for closure at facilities that are successful in their demonstrations.
Another impact of this provision, discussed in Chapter 4, is the reduction in economic benefits associated with the reduced sale of CCR into beneficial use markets compared to the sales originally quantified in the RIA for the 2015 CCR Rule. 
This provision also consists of two scenarios, though the two scenarios are not the same as those modeled for Co-Proposed Option 1. Due to the self-implementing nature of this provision and option, this RIA assumes that all facilities seeking to place CCR in existing surface impoundments as beneficial use will do so; units located in Pennsylvania are excluded from this analysis due to the state's restrictions on the beneficial use of CCR. In addition, a review of specific closure plans indicates that some facilities are likely to design waste-in-place closure of existing units in a way that maximizes placement of CCR within these units. Unlike the structure of Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1, wherein EPA's review and approval of the use of CCR in units subject to forced closure is subject to volumetric analyses that demonstrate that additional CCR is not placed in any units on and above quantities that replace the use of virgin materials (i.e., fill), this provision and option contains no review and approval process, and places no restrictions on revisions to closure plans that would allow facilities to design closures to use additional quantities of CCR in units subject to forced closure and closing with waste in place. Therefore, this provision and option considers two scenarios to capture the uncertainty associated in the quantities of CCR that will be used in such units.   
 Scenario 1 considers that beneficially used CCR in closure will equal the volume of fill already planned for use in closure, and is therefore consistent with assumptions made regarding the volume of CCR placed in units subject to forced closure in Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1. (See Section 3.2.3 for a discussion of estimates of fill volumes used in closing CCR surface impoundments.)
 Scenario 2 considers that half of the relevant universe will use a volume of CCR in closure equaling the volume of fill already planned for use in closure (just as in Scenario 1), while the other half will beneficially use CCR in closure at a quantity that exceeds the expected fill requirements. 
As described in Section 3.2.2, the universe of units likely to change practices under Co-Proposed Option 1 includes three different unit types, according to expected closure methods in the baseline; the costs and cost savings under this Provision vary depending on unit's expected closure strategy under the proposed provision: closing with waste in place, clean closing at facilities that also have waste-in-place units, and units incentivized to switch from clean closure to waste in place. Within each of these segments of the universe, this RIA assumes that Co-Proposed Option 2 excludes surface impoundments that are not already closed as of September 2019 and do not plan to close before the end of 2020, as well as units located in states with beneficial use regulations that may not be consistent with the placement of CCR in a closing unit (i.e., Pennsylvania). In addition, clean-closing units smaller than three acres in size and not located at a facility with units closing with waste in place and clean closing are not expected to change practices under this provision. These universe segments are summarized in Exhibit 3-12 and described in greater detail in Section 3.2.2.
                                 Exhibit 3-12
                  Units Changing Practice by Closure Strategy
                       Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
                               Universe Segment
                               Scenarios 1 and 2
                         Applicable Costs/Cost Savings
All Eligible Units
                                      277
                              Documentation Costs
Units Closing with Waste in Place
                                      185
                 Avoided Disposal Costs, Avoided Cost of Fill
Units Clean Closing at "Mixed Facilities" (excavated CCR placed in a co-located waste-in-place unit)
                                      65
                            Avoided Disposal Costs
Units Switching from Clean Closing to Waste in Place
                                      27
                 Avoided Disposal Costs, Avoided Cost of Fill

The costs and cost savings associated with Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 are described in Sections 3.2.4.1-3.2.4.3.
3.2.4.1  Documentation costs
To take advantage of Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, facilities must submit a revised closure plan. The universe for this provision includes all three closure strategies discussed above, since any unit using CCR in closure must submit the documentation. The universe for the documentation costs is 277 units.
The per-unit cost of closure plan revisions is approximately $0.033 million. To estimate the cost of the closure plan revisions, this RIA relies on paperwork cost estimates for an amended closure plan from the 2015 CCR RIA with the approximate cost of $32,500. The total cost across the relevant 277 units is approximately $8.42 million, or $0.590 million annualized over 100 years at a seven percent discount rate.
3.2.4.2  Avoided disposal costs
Units using CCR in closure accrue cost savings from the CCR that would otherwise be disposed of elsewhere, incurring a per-ton disposal cost. This disposal cost reflects either transportation costs and tipping fees (if CCR is taken to an off-site landfill) or the capital and operating costs associated with CCR management unit construction, operations and maintenance (for on-site disposal). Units across all three closure strategies accrue this cost savings, for a unit count of 277 units. 
The estimates of the quantities of CCR expected to be placed in each approved unit under Provision 1 are based on estimates from testimony by LGE-KU for fill requirements across the 16 units it operates at six facilities, a reasonably representative sample of the CCR universe in terms of size and distribution between closure strategies The fill estimates required for closure of these sixteen units averaged 4,280 cubic yards per acre of subgrade fill for both closure methods and, for units closing with waste in place, an additional 2,960 cubic yards per acre for capping fill. These values are used in conjunction with the median unit sizes of LGE-KU's units to estimate total fill requirements for clean closing and waste in place units. 
Because facilities are able to substitute CCR for fill use in closure under Provision 2, the per-unit estimated fill capacity is used to estimate per-unit use of CCR in closure. We assume that facilities will use CCR in closure to the greatest extent that is permissible under this provision, though the true quantities of CCR associated with this practice will vary with unit area, and with the amount of CCR in the unit at the beginning of closure. The estimates for per-unit use of CCR in closure are used to calculate the avoided disposal costs resulting from Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 using an average cost of CCR disposal of $10 per ton, derived from total cost and disposal quantity values in the 2015 CCR Rule RIA. Based on these assumptions, the per-unit cost savings of avoided disposal is approximately $1.65 million in Scenario 1, which is consistent with the methodology in Co-Proposed Option 1. These cost savings are calculated using the methodology outlined in Exhibit 3-13.

                                 Exhibit 3-13
               Avoided Disposal Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 1: Standard Expected Per-Unit Fill Capacity
                                       
                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                      [1]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent.
                                     $507
                               Millions of 2013$
                                     Input
                                       
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                      [2]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $527
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                             [1] inflated to 2016$
                                      [3]
Average annual CCR tonnage disposed across the universe
                                     52.6
                              Million tons of CCR
                                     Input
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                     [4] 
Expected fill requirements for units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC)[a]
                                  7,240 (WIP)
                             cubic yards per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                       

                                  4,280 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      [5]
Median unit surface area
                                  36.5 (WIP)
                                     Acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                       

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

                                    65 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      [7]
Average per-ton disposal cost at seven percent
                                      $10
                             2016$ per ton of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                   [2] / [3]
                                       
                                      [8]
Unit conversion: tons of CCR per cubic yard of CCR
                                     0.758
                                  tons of CCR
                                     Input
                                 2015 CCR RIA
                                      [9]
Expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 200,000 (WIP)
                                  tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                                [4] x [5] x [8]
                                       

                                  48,000 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                     [10]
Estimated total fill capacity across the universe
                                     45.7
                              Million tons of CCR
                                  Calculated
                        ([6-WIP] x [9-WIP]) + ([6-CC] x
                                    [9-CC])
                                     [11]
Total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure 
                                     $457
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                  [10] x [7]
                                     [12]
Present value of total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                     $399
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                     [13]
Annualized total avoided cost of disposal over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $28.0
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [12] over 100 years at seven percent
a 7,242 cubic yards per acre, derived by adding the average per-acre subgrade fill requirements to the average capping fill requirements cited in the LGE-KU testimony: 4,278 cubic yards per acre for subgrade fill and 2,963 cubic yards per acre for capping fill.

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

                                 Exhibit 3-14
               Avoided Disposal Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1  -  Scenario 2: High-End Expected Per-Unit Fill Capacity
                                       
                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                      [1]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent.
                                     $507
                               Millions of 2013$
                                     Input
                                       
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                      [2]
Total annualized cost of the 2015 CCR Rule over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $527
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                             [1] inflated to 2016$
                                      [3]
Average annual CCR tonnage disposed across the universe
                                     52.6
                              Million tons of CCR
                                     Input
                           2015 CCR RIA, Exhibit 9-W
                                     [4] 
Expected fill requirements for units closing with waste in place (WIP) and clean closing (CC) [a]
                                  7,240 (WIP)
                             cubic yards per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                       

                                  4,280 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      [5]
Median unit surface area
                                  36.5 (WIP)
                                     acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                       

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

                                    65 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      [7]
Average per-ton disposal cost at seven percent
                                      $10
                             2016$ per ton of CCR
                                  Calculation
                                   [2] / [3]
                                       
                                      [8]
Unit conversion: tons of CCR per cubic yard of CCR
                                     0.758
                                  tons of CCR
                                     Input
                                 2015 CCR RIA
                                      [9]
Scenario 1 expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 200,000 (WIP)
                             tons of CCR per unit
                                  Calculation
                                [4] x [5] x [8]
                                       

                                  48,000 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                     [9a]
Yates facility example unit: potential high-end use of CCR in closure
                                   2,330,000
                           cubic yards CCR per unit
                                     Input
                          Yates facility closure plan
                                     [9b]
J R Whiting facility example unit: potential high-end use of CCR in closure
                                    400,000
                           cubic yards CCR per unit 
                                     Input
                       J R Whiting facility closure plan
                                     [9c]
Average high-end use of CCR in closure
                                   1,370,000
                           Cubic yards CCR per unit
                                  Calculated
                               ([9a] + [9b]) / 2
                                     [9d]
High-end use of CCR in closure, converted to tons
                                   1,030,000
                             tons of CCR per unit
                                  Calculated
                                  [9c] x [8]
                                     [9e]
High-end weighted total fill capacity for units closing with waste in place (WIP)
                                    618,000
                             tons of CCR per unit
                                  Calculation
                        (0.5 x [9d]) + (0.5 x [9-WIP])
                                     [9f]
Scenario 1 expected per-unit fill capacity
                                 618,000 (WIP)
                             tons of CCR per unit
                                  Calculation
                                [9e] and [9-CC]
                                       

                                  48,000 (CC)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                     [10]
Estimated total fill capacity across the universe
                                      134
                              Million tons of CCR
                                  Calculation
                       ([6-WIP] x [9f-WIP]) + ([6-CC] x
                                   [9f-CC])
                                     [11]
Total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure 
                                    $1,340
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculation
                                  [10] x [7]
                                     [12]
Present value of total avoided cost of disposal due to using CCR in closure
                                    $1,175
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculation
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                     [13]
Annualized total avoided cost of disposal over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $82.3
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculation
                Annualized [12] over 100 years at seven percent
a 7,242 cubic yards per acre, derived by adding the average per-acre subgrade fill requirements to the average capping fill requirements cited in the LGE-KU testimony: 4,278 cubic yards per acre for subgrade fill and 2,963 cubic yards per acre for capping fill.

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

                                 Exhibit 3-15
             Avoided Cost of Fill Cost (Cost Savings) Calculations
                       Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
                                       
                                  Description
                               Approximate Value
                                     Units
                                     Type
                                    Source
                                     [1] 
Expected cost of fill per acre[a]
                                   $122,000
                                2016$ per acre
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [2]
Median unit surface area for units closing with waste in place (WIP)
                                     36.5
                                     acres
                                     Input
                               LGE-KU testimony
                                      [3]
Per-unit avoided cost of fill
                                     $4.5
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [1] x [2]
                                      [4]
Relevant units closing with waste in place
                                      212
                                     units
                                     Input
                                  Exhibit 3-2
                                      [5]
Avoided cost of fill material for units closing with waste in place.
                                     $954
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                                   [3] x [4]
                                       
                                      [6]
Present value of total avoided cost of fill due to using CCR in closure
                                     $826
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                       Discounted [11] from 2021 to 2019
                                      [7]
Annualized total avoided cost of fill over 100 years at seven percent
                                     $57.8
                               Millions of 2016$
                                  Calculated
                Annualized [11] over 100 years at seven percent
a The sum of $74,600 per acre for capping fill and $47,600 per acre for subgrade fill, from the LGE-KU testimony

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

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

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

                                                                             7%
                                    ($1.65)
                                     277 
                                    ($457)
                                       
                                       
                                    ($28.0)
                                    ($399)
                             Avoided Cost of Fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                     212 
                                    ($945)
                                    ($28.2)
                                    ($891)
                                    ($57.9)
                                    ($826)
                                  Subtotal: 
                                CCR in Closure
                                       
                                       
                                   ($1,610)
                                    ($47.9)
                                   ($1,510)
                                    ($85.8)
                                   ($1,220)
                                                                          TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                   ($1,390)
                                    ($47.7)
                                   ($1,510)
                                    ($85.2)
                                   ($1,220)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

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

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

                                                                             7%
                                    ($4.86)
                                      277
                                   ($1,340)
                                       
                                       
                                     ($82)
                                   ($1,170)
                             Avoided Cost of Fill
                                    ($4.46)
                                      212
                                    ($945)
                                    ($28.2)
                                    ($891)
                                    ($57.9)
                                    ($826)
                                  Subtotal: 
                                CCR in Closure
                                       
                                       
                                   ($2,290)
                                    ($86.3)
                                   ($2,730)
                                    ($140)
                                   ($2,000)
                                                                          TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                   ($2,280)
                                    ($86.0)
                                   ($2,720)
                                    ($140)
                                   ($1,990)
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

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

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

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

Exhibit 3-19
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 3
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Costs (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
                            Closure Plan revisions
                                   $0.0325 
                                      63 
                                    $2.05 
                                   $0.0629 
                                    $1.99 
                                    $0.134 
                                    $1.91 
                          Post-Closure Plan revisions
                                   $0.0325 
                                      63 
                                    $2.05 
                                   $0.0629 
                                    $1.99 
                                    $0.134 
                                    $1.91 
                            Property deed notation
                                   $0.00100 
                                      63 
                                   $0.0630 
                                   $0.00188 
                                   $0.0593 
                                   $0.00385 
                                   $0.0549 
                         Subtotal: Documentation Costs
                                       
                                       
                                    $4.16 
                                    $0.128 
                                    $4.04 
                                    $0.272 
                                    $3.88 
Avoided Documentation Costs
              Avoided documentation costs due to earlier closure
                                  ($0.00741)
                                      63 
                                   ($0.467)
                                   ($0.0139)
                                   ($0.440)
                                   ($0.0267)
                                   ($0.382)
                                     TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                    $3.70 
                                    $0.114 
                                    $3.60 
                                    $0.245 
                                    $3.49 
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.
3.4 	Costs Associated with Provision 4: Revised Notice of Intent to Close and Annual Closure Progress Reports
Provision 4 requires changes to paperwork requirements that apply to two different subsets of units depending on the paperwork already submitted for the units. The first requires all previously-submitted Notices of Intent to Close (NOIs) to be updated with an intended date of closure. The second is a new requirement for annual closure progress reports. EPA is proposing these changes to the paperwork requirements to increase transparency around the closure process and to provide a system of accountability for facilities' closure targets.
The costs associated with Provision 4 are described in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2.
3.4.1 	Notice of Intent to Close Revisions
The first documentation cost is for facilities to re-post Notices of Intent to Close with an intended cease receipt of CCR date. At present, the notification requirements at 40 CFR 257 do not specify that an intended cease receipt of CCR date is a requirement of the NOI, and correspondingly, NOIs submitted to date generally do not discuss intended cease receipt of CCR date. This provision applies to all units that have already posted NOIs but have not yet closed. This universe contains 163 units. Exhibit 3-20 summarizes the universe derivation for the Provision 4 cost concerning re-posting Notices of Intent to Close.
          Exhibit 3-20
Provision 4: NOI Revisions Universe Derivation
Surface Impoundments
                                      533
Adjusted to remove 50 units already closed
                                      483
Adjusted to remove 320 units that have not already posted a Notice of Intent to Close
                                      163
Final Provision 3 Universe
                                   163 Units
 
The per-unit cost associated with this required documentation in 2020 is $51. This value is based on the NOI unit cost estimate from the 2015 CCR RIA and updated with 2018 labor rates. The total cost across the 163 units is $7,770, or $544 annualized across 100 years at seven percent.
There is no additional cost for this provision associated with future NOIs. The amendments to the NOI required under Provision 4 are minimal and will not require additional burden to complete; the only additional burden imposed by this cost is therefore the need to submit amended NOIs.
3.4.2 	Documentation Component 2: Annual Closure Progress Reports
The second documentation cost component is for facilities to post annual closure progress reports. At present, the notification and recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 257 do not require annual closure progress reports, and require only submissions associated with closure initiation and closure completion. This requirement affects the 407 units that have not yet certified completion of closure. Exhibit 3-21 summarizes the universe derivation for the closure plan revision requirement under Provision 4.
          Exhibit 3-21
Provision 4: NOI Revisions Universe Derivation
Surface Impoundments and Landfills
                                      768
Adjusted to remove 55 units already closed
                                      713
Adjusted to remove 306 units not planning to close
                                      407
                          Final Provision 4 Universe
                                   407 Units
Assuming a 10-year closure timeline, with the reporting requirements for this provision beginning in 2020, the per-unit total costs are $3,460. The per-report value is based on the annual inspection report item cost estimate from the 2015 CCR RIA with updated 2018 labor rates. The total cost across the 407 units is approximately $1.41 million, or $0.0992 million annualized across 100 years at seven percent. The incremental cost changes for Provision 4 are summarized in Exhibit 3-22.
Exhibit 3-22
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings) for Provision 4: Revised Notice of Intent to Close and Annual Closure Progress Reports
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Costs (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
                                  Annualized
                                 Present Value
Documentation Costs
Notice of Intent to Close revisions
                                  $0.0000510 
                                     163 
                                   $0.00831 
                                  $0.000255 
                                   $0.00807 
                                  $0.000544 
                                   $0.00777 
Annual Closure Progress Reports
                                   $0.00346 
                                     407 
                                    $2.00 
                                   $0.0541 
                                    $1.71 
                                   $0.0986 
                                    $1.41 
                                                                          TOTAL
                                       
                                       
                                    $2.01 
                                   $0.0544 
                                    $1.72 
                                   $0.0992 
                                    $1.42 
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.
3.5 	Interaction Effects Across Provisions
The proposed Part B rule includes four provisions that are analyzed separately in the sections above, effectively assuming that facilities undertake as many requirements and options under the various provisions as are relevant. This results in estimates of costs and cost savings as isolated potential changes to the baseline. However, certain provisions (particularly Provisions 1 and 2) represent different strategies and outcomes, and may affect other provisions (Provision 3 and Provision 4); Provision 2 changes the practices and costs associated with closure at participating facilities; facilities that successfully demonstrate alternative liners under Provision 1 may delay closure altogether for a number of years. A facility successfully demonstrating under Provision 1 is no longer subject to forced closure, and will not, therefore, change practices under Provision 2. Similarly, units changing from clean closure to waste-in-place closure strategies under Provision 2 will no longer be in the Provision 3 universe. In addition, changes in closure timing associated with Provision 1 change the timing of required annual closure reports under Provision 4, and may affect the incidence of changing documentation requirements under Provision 3. While in all cases the number and type of units that will ultimately change practices is uncertain, some intersection among the provisions is likely.
As a result, a final step in the estimation of costs in this RIA is to account for this intersection, based on an assumption that all four provisions become final. The analysis considers the likely changes to the respective universes of each provision as a result of facilities' expected behavior under the other provisions. A key assumption is that facilities' first preference will be for existing units to remain open as a result of successfully demonstrating under Provision 1. The Provision 1, Scenario 1 analysis estimates that roughly 10 existing units will be exempt from forced closure following successful demonstrations. These are excluded from the universes of units undergoing closure in Provisions 2. Provisions 3 and 4 comprise documentation costs that are minor in magnitude relative to Provisions 1 and 2; the effects of Provision 1 on delays in their paperwork are minimal and not separately assessed. 
For simplicity, the cost calculations for assessing the interaction effects among the provisions apply the appropriate unit counts to the average per-unit cost of the relevant aspects of the provision, effectively assuming that every unit that is affected is "average." These adjustments are presented as net changes (costs or cost savings) to the relevant provisions. We separate calculations for each co-proposed option in Provision 2, as well as each of the two scenarios for each co-proposed option. These results are summarized in Exhibit 3-23.

Exhibit 3-23
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings): Interaction Effects Across Provisions
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                           Unit Costs (Cost Savings)
                                Units affected
                           Total cost (undiscounted)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

                                  Annualized
                                      PV
                                  Annualized
                                      PV
Provision 2
Units Removed from Co-Proposed Option 1, Scenario 1 and 2 Due to Accepted Demonstrations under Provision 1
                                    $5.05 
                                      10 
                                    $54.0 
                                    $1.61 
                                    $50.9 
                                    $3.31 
                                    $47.2 
Units Removed from Co-Proposed Option 2, Scenario 1 Due to Accepted Demonstrations under Provision 1
                                    $7.42 
                                      10 
                                    $79.4 
                                    $2.37 
                                    $74.8 
                                    $4.86 
                                    $69.4 
Units Removed from Co-Proposed Option 2, Scenario 2 Due to Accepted Demonstrations under Provision 1
                                    $15.3 
                                      10 
                                     $163 
                                    $4.87 
                                    $153.9 
                                    $10.0 
                                     $143 
Provision 3
Units Removed from Provision 3 Due to Accepted Demonstrations under Provision 1
                                   ($0.0587)
                                      10 
                                   ($0.628)
                                   ($0.0193)
                                   ($0.609)
                                   ($0.0411)
                                   ($0.587)
Units Removed from Provision 3 Due to Switching to Waste in Place Under Co-Proposed Option 1, Scenario 1
                                   ($0.0587)
                                      2 
                                   ($0.117)
                                   ($0.0036)
                                   ($0.114)
                                   ($0.0077)
                                   ($0.110)
Units Removed from Provision 3 Due to Switching to Waste in Place Under Co-Proposed Option 1, Scenario 2
                                   ($0.0587)
                                      17 
                                   ($0.997)
                                   ($0.0306)
                                   ($0.968)
                                   ($0.0653)
                                   ($0.932)
Units Removed from Provision 3 Due to Switching to Waste in Place Under Co-Proposed Option 2
                                   ($0.0587)
                                      27 
                                   ($1.584)
                                   ($0.0487)
                                   ($1.538)
                                   ($0.1037)
                                   ($1.480)
Provision 4
Units Removed from Provision 4, Annual Closure Progress Reports Due to Accepted Demonstrations Under Provision 1
                                  ($0.00346)
                                      10 
                                   ($0.0370)
                                  ($0.00114)
                                   ($0.0359)
                                  ($0.00242)
                                   ($0.0346)
Totals
TOTAL CHANGES UNDER CO-PROPOSED OPTION 1, SCENARIO 1
                                    $53.2 
                                   $1.5875 
                                    $50.2 
                                    $3.26 
                                    $46.5 
TOTAL CHANGES UNDER CO-PROPOSED OPTION 1, SCENARIO 2
                                    $52.4 
                                   $1.5605 
                                    $49.3 
                                    $3.20 
                                    $45.6 
TOTAL CHANGES UNDER CO-PROPOSED OPTION 1, SCENARIO 1
                                    $77.2 
                                    $2.30 
                                    $72.7 
                                    $4.71 
                                    $67.3 
TOTAL CHANGES UNDER CO-PROPOSED OPTION 1, SCENARIO 1
                                     $161 
                                    $4.80 
                                     $152 
                                    $9.85 
                                     $141 

3.6	Summary of Expected Costs and Cost Savings
The cost and cost savings calculations discussed in Sections 3.1-3.4 are summarized in Exhibit 3-24.
                 Exhibit 3-24
Summary of Costs (Cost Savings)
                   Proposed Part B Rule
 (Millions of 2016$)
                                 Cost Element
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3%)
                        Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7%)

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

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

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

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

                                    $1.59 
                                    $1.56 
                                    $50.2 
                                    $49.3 
                                    $3.26 
                                    $3.20 
                                    $46.5 
                                    $45.6 
Interaction Effects, Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                  Scenario 1
                                  Scenario 2
                                       
                                    $2.30 
                                    $4.80 
                                    $72.7 
                                     $152 
                                    $4.71 
                                    $9.85 
                                    $67.3 
                                     $141 
                                       
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                                    Low End
                                   High End
                              TOTAL COST SAVINGS
                                    ($23.3)
                                    ($86.0)
                                    ($745)
                                   ($2,719)
                                    ($41.5)
                                    ($138)
                                    ($591)
                                   ($1,967)
Scenario Assumptions
Provision 1
- Scenario 1: Assumes 20 units apply to submit demonstration, 20 units approved to submit the demonstration, and 10 see accepted demonstrations.
- Scenario 2: Assumes 10 units apply to submit demonstrations, 10 units are approved to submit the demonstration, and 5 see accepted demonstrations.
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1
- Scenario 1: Assumes EPA rejects a share of modified closure plans detailing CCR to be used in closure, at a rate of 50 percent of units currently exceeding the Groundwater Protection Standards and 50% of units failing the aquifer location restriction.
- Scenario 2: Assumes EPA accepts all modified closure plans.
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2
- Scenario 1: Assumes the quantities of beneficially used CCR in closure align with the same existing estimates of fill required in closure used in Co-Proposed Option 1.
- Scenario 2: Assumes that 50 percent of units will beneficially use CCR in closure at quantities exceeding existing estimates of fill required in closure at a rate equaling that of the Yates facility in Georgia, which has closure plans on file detailing a 40 foot thick layer of CCR to be used in closure.
Note: For a given present value, the associated annualized cost increases as the discount rate increases. This occurs because a greater annualized amount is needed to offset the greater discounting associated with a higher discount rate. For example, given a present value of $100, the annualized costs over 100 years are $7.01 under a seven percent discount rate, and $3.16 under a three percent discount rate. Where a stream of costs throughout a lengthy time horizon occurs, differing discount rates will lead to differing present values, because later years will be substantially more discounted with higher discount rates than lower ones; in these instances, the differential in present value can lead to an annualized cost that is lower under a lower discount rate than under a higher discount rate. However, the provisions of the proposed Part B rule consist of a series of costs and costs savings incurred towards the beginning of the 100-year period of analysis and then never again, leading to minimal differences in present values across discount rates, and creating a situation wherein annualized costs at seven percent tend to exceed annualized costs at three percent. If the costs and cost savings associated with these provisions were incurred or recurred in later years, it is likely that the annualized costs at seven percent would be less than the annualized costs at three percent.

    
Incremental Benefits of the Proposed Part B Rule

This chapter discusses the incremental benefits associated with the proposed Part B rule. These include impacts on the human health and environmental benefits estimated as resulting from the 2015 CCR Rule. This chapter qualitatively identifies and describes the following benefits impacts associated with the proposed Part B rule as follows:
 Section 4.1 -- Reduced benefits associated with beneficial use markets under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, resulting from the potential diversion of CCR away from structured beneficial use markets and high-value uses with significant environmental benefits to lower-value fill applications.  
 Section 4.2 -- Human health and environmental impacts (reduced benefits due to increased exposures) associated with increased potential for groundwater contamination resulting from increased placement of CCR in both open and closing units under Provisions 1 and 2. As well as potential benefits associated with unit consolidation.
4.1	Beneficial Use Market Impacts
The RIA for the 2015 CCR Rule applied a linear programming modeling effort to assess the impacts of that rule related to increased beneficial use of CCR in a range of applications. Specifically, that effort estimated the extent to which the increase in CCR disposal costs associated with that rule would create an additional economic incentive for coal-fired electric utility plants to divert CCR to beneficial use rather than disposal. This beneficial use market analysis culminated in two monetized benefits: avoided disposal costs, addressed in this RIA in Chapter 3; and environmental and human health benefits associated with a reduced use of virgin materials in various applications, due to projected increases in the use of CCR beneficial use applications including gypsum wallboard and concrete. These benefits are estimated at an annualized value of $21.9 million in the 2015 CCR RIA (under a seven percent discount rate, in 2013 dollars). 
The baseline for the proposed Part B rule includes the effects of the 2015 CCR Rule, and therefore the additional beneficial use prompted by that rule, inclusive of its environmental and human health benefits. By allowing more cost-effective placement of CCR in existing management units than allowed in the baseline, however, Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule, potentially reduces or removes the economic advantage of selling CCR into the established beneficial use market for off-site applications, and affects the estimated environmental and human health benefits of those applications.
Both Co-Proposed Option 1 and Option 2 of Provision 2 of the proposed Part B rule reduce the costs incurred by CCR-generating facilities. Currently, facilities with CCR management units subject to forced closure cannot continue to place CCR in a unit after the cease receipt of CCR deadline, and must choose among the following options for managing ongoing CCR generation: sending the material off-site for disposal, selling the CCR into the beneficial use market for use in offsite applications, or (where available) disposing of the CCR in a different on-site CCR management unit that is still operating.
Under the proposed Part B rule, these facilities also have the option of placing CCR into their subject-to-forced-closure unit(s). To the extent that facilities respond to this alternative array of options by placing additional CCR into unit(s) subject to forced closure in lieu of making it available for beneficial use, the overall quantity of CCR beneficially used in offsite applications may decline. Under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1, the CCR used to support closure of the CCR unit (e.g., for use in fill and capping operations) is not considered beneficial use at all, and the total beneficial use of CCR would be affected. Under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2, the designation of beneficial use still applies to the CCR, but it is assigned to a low-value use as fill and diverted from markets that may include high-value applications in concrete and other materials. If this occurs, the environmental and human health benefits associated with beneficial use of CCR will correspondingly decrease.
As described in the RIA for the 2015 CCR Rule, beneficial use of CCR is driven in large part by geographic and regional differences in CCR demand. At the facility level, additional decision-making drivers include the array of management units (either on-site and/or off-site) available for CCR placement, the costs (amortized construction, operation, and end-of-life costs, or tipping fees) associated with such placement, and transportation costs associated with moving the CCR from the generating facility to the beneficial use location. The quality of the CCR itself may also play a role in its suitability for beneficial use. The extent of impacts on beneficial use, and therefore on the environmental and human health benefits of this beneficial use, of Provision 2 depend entirely on these factors, and therefore cannot be directly estimated without a characterization of the markets and cost structures faced by each CCR-generating facility. 
For example, a hypothetical facility may be proximately located to multiple CCR beneficial users who express high demand for CCR as an input into their products (e.g., concrete). Regardless of the lower overall disposal cost faced by this facility under Provision 2, continuing to make CCR available for beneficial use may be the most cost-effective use of this facility's CCR. Therefore, for this hypothetical facility, Provision 2 may not result in decreased beneficial use, and therefore no impacts on human health and environmental benefits associated with beneficial use. 
However, a different hypothetical facility may be located in a low-demand area, or may have closure costs that are high due to the size and structure of the unit. Given the CCR placement prohibition associated with the cease receipt of CCR deadline in the baseline, as well as the full array of pollution controls required for CCR management units, this facility may still choose, under the baseline, to make its CCR available for beneficial use, to the extent that doing so results in a lower per-ton CCR management cost than disposing of the CCR in either its existing (non-subject to forced closure) units, or off site. Under Provision 2, the facility will be able to compare the per-ton cost of disposing the CCR in its unit(s) subject to forced closure to selling the CCR for off-site beneficial use. If the former is lower than the latter, the facility may choose to re-orient its CCR into its unit(s) subject to forced closure rather than continue to make it available for off-site beneficial use. In this instance, off-site beneficial use, including potentially some high-value uses with considerable environmental benefits, will decrease, as will the corresponding human health and environmental benefits.
The RIA for the 2015 CCR Rule estimated annualized human health and environmental benefits associated with avoided air pollution and resource use from a projected increased in beneficial use due to the changes in the cost of disposal under the rule. The annualized value of these benefits is approximately $21.9 million under a seven percent discount rate (2013$). Note that this figure is not adjusted to account for universe updates that have taken place since the 2015 CCR Rule went into effect, including closure of a number of facilities and implementation of state regulations requiring clean closure. As a result, the 2015 analysis may underestimate current benefits associated with this aspect of the 2015 CCR Rule, due to increased availability of ash from clean closing units, or may overestimate these benefits due to an overall reduction in CCR generation since 2015. 
According to information provided by American Coal Ash Association, CCR is currently being used in impoundment closure activities. ACAA production and use survey data indicate that 434,675 short tons of CCR were used in "CCR pond closure activities" in 2016, increasing to 4,469,130 short tons (approximately six percent of all CCR beneficial use) in 2017, and decreasing to 3,227,295 short tons (approximately five percent of all CCR beneficial use) in 2018. The 2015 CCR RIA estimated a per-ton environmental and human health benefit of the beneficial use of CCR associated with the avoided use of virgin materials, e.g., the benefit of using one ton CCR in lieu of virgin materials in the production of portland cement was estimated at $69.90 (2011 dollars). That RIA similarly estimated the environmental and human health benefit of using one ton of CCR in lieu of virgin fill materials as $2.28. Therefore, every ton of CCR diverted from higher-value productive uses as a result of Provision 2 results in a corresponding reduction in the benefits of the beneficial use of CCR. While Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 may nominally result in increased quantities of CCR dedicated to "beneficial use" overall, the placement of CCR in units subject to forced closure as "fill" is a lower-value use. As a result, the environmental benefits anticipated in the 2015 estimate will most likely decrease. Moreover it is not self-evident that use of CCR as fill will replace the use of virgin materials ton-for-ton or whether other, less materials-intensive closure options may be more economical, such as clean closure and re-purposing of the excavated ash towards higher-value beneficial uses.
Elimination of the annualized estimate of roughly $20 million in beneficial-use-related benefits (under a seven percent discount rate, 2013$) reflects one potential estimate of the potential impacts associated with Provision 2. If Provision 2 results in a reallocation of sufficient material away from high-end, off-site uses, it could eliminate some or all beneficial use-related benefits driven by the 2015 CCR Rule. To the extent that Provision 2 results in only a partial decrease in off-site beneficial use relative to the increases estimated in the 2015 CCR Rule, and affects only the lower-value uses (fill), the effects on the beneficial-use-related benefits of the 2015 CCR rule may be modest.
Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 2 places fewer restrictions on the placement of CCR in units subject to forced closure than Co-Proposed Option 1 (see Section 3.2). Therefore, potential reductions in human health and environmental benefits due to decreases in beneficial use will potentially be greater under Co-Proposed Option 2 than Co-Proposed Option 1. 
 

4.2	Human Health and Environmental Impacts associated with Groundwater Contamination
The 2015 CCR RIA identified an array of human health and environmental impacts, including avoided groundwater contamination by CCR surface impoundments, reduced incidence of cancer, avoided IQ losses and reduced need for specialized education, non-market water quality benefits, protection of threatened and endangered species, and reduced groundwater withdrawals. The annualized values of these benefits from the 2015 CCR rule were estimated as $21.9 million (seven percent discount rate, 2013 dollars). Such impacts generally revolved around reductions in groundwater and surface-water contamination associated with the 2015 CCR Rule, through reductions in the universe of unlined surface impoundments, as well as increased monitoring, detection, and corrective action/groundwater remediation requirements.
The 2018 court decisions baseline imposes a uniform closure date on all unlined, including clay lined, surface impoundments and therefore could further reduce human health and environmental impacts associated with groundwater contamination. However, under the proposed Part B rule, certain provisions may affect these types of benefits and result in an overall decrease in benefits to human health and the environment, while others may increase said benefists. 
Specifically, under Provision 1, and as noted in Chapter 3, a subset of units that submit successful applications but whose alternate liner demonstrations are ultimately rejected by EPA will effectively receive a modest closure deadline extension associated with the proposed alternate liner demonstration procedures. This would occur as a result of the proposed two-step process that includes an initial eligibility application followed by the submission of the actual liner demonstration. The effect of such a time extension (i.e., during the period when the liner demonstration is being evaluated by EPA or a Participating State Director) on groundwater contamination is unknown, but expected to be minimal because EPA (or a Participating State Director) will issue its decision on the liner demonstration submittal within four months of receiving a complete demonstration from the applicant.
For those CCR units that take advantage of Provision 2 (both under Co-Proposed Option 1 and Co-Proposed Option 2), the Agency estimates that these units (surface impoundments) will likely receive greater volumes of CCR for disposal as compared to the baseline. However, these volume increases would occur after the CCR unit has been dewatered and during closure of the unit. Moreover, these volume increases are expected to be mostly off-set by disposal volume decreases in other CCR units included in the baseline. EPA expects the CCR that would be used in the closure of units (e.g., used to achieve the subgrade elevations necessary to support the final cover system) would be sourced from other CCR units that will be closed by removal of CCR. To put another way, EPA expects most of the CCR used during closure to originate from unit consolidation of multiple units into a smaller number of units.
EPA believes there can be benefits associated with closing units under the conditions prescribed in this proposal, especially when unit consolidation is the source of CCR used to close a unit as EPA anticipates. For example, consolidating multiple units into a single unit would result in an overall smaller CCR unit footprint. Closing two 10-acre impoundments by removal of CCR and using the removed CCR for the purpose of achieving subgrade elevations necessary to support the closure and final cover system of a third 35-acre CCR unit is an example of consolidation resulting in a smaller CCR disposal footprint. One environmental benefit of this closure scenario would be the elimination of any long-term threat of impact to groundwater and surface water from 20 acres of land (two 10-acre units) as well as concerns about the long-term performance of a final cover system had these units been closed alternatively with CCR in place. In addition, upon closure of the two 10-acre impoundments, a total of 20 acres of land would become available for other uses. Finally, there may be benefits to allowing an owner or operator to focus their long-term monitoring, care and cleanup obligations on a single unit rather than multiple units.
Units closing with CCR under Provision 2, Co-Proposed Option 1 will need to demonstrate in the closure plan submitted to EPA (or Participating State Director) for approval that the unit will be closed in accordance with the closure performance standards under § 257.102(d) and that the placed CCR will remain contained (i.e., isolated) in the unit after closure. Doing so would limit CCR in the unit coming into contact with water and preventing releases to the environment, including releases through surface transport by precipitation runoff, releases to soil and groundwater, wind-blown dust, and catastrophic unit failures. EPA believes that units closed consistent with these proposed requirements, which also include volumetric and temporal limits on CCR placement, under a closure plan approved by the Administrator or Participating State Director would meet the RCRA section 4004(a) protectiveness standard. Units closing under Co-Proposed Option 2 would also need to be closed in accordance with the closure performance standards and would need to be closed consistent with the conditions specified in the definition of "beneficial use of CCR." The fourth criterion of this definition requires that when unencapsulated use of CCR involves placement on the land of 12,400 tons or more in non-roadway applications, the user must demonstrate that environmental releases to groundwater, surface water, soil, and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made without CCR, or that environmental releases to groundwater, surface water, soil, and air will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use. EPA's analyses indicate the mass of CCR that would be used during closure of a CCR unit under this option would exceed the 12,400-ton threshold, thus triggering the need for the owner or operator to conduct the environmental demonstration. Additional information can be found in the preamble to the 2015 CCR Rule (see 80 FR 21347-54).

  
Other Required Analyses
                                       
As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this chapter presents other supplemental analyses for the proposed Part B rule, including:
 Electricity Price and Energy Market Impacts (Executive Order 13211) 
 Small Business Impact Analysis  -  Regulatory Fairness Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA)
 Potential Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898)
 Potential Impacts to Children (Executive Order 13045)
 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA), Federalism Implications (Executive Order 13132), and Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175)
 Effects on Employment
 Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 13771)
5.1	Electricity Price and Energy Market Impacts (Executive Order 13211)
The 2001 Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," requires federal agencies to evaluate and prepare a statement on any potential adverse effects of economically-significant rulemakings on energy supply, distribution or use, including shortfall in energy supply, energy price increases, and increased use of foreign energy supplies. The Office of Management and Budget provides guidance for implementing this Executive Order, outlining nine numerical indicators (or thresholds) that may constitute "a significant adverse effect" when compared with the regulatory action under consideration. 
For the 2015 CCR Rule, EPA analyzed the potential impact on electricity prices relative to the "in excess of one percent" threshold. Using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), EPA concluded that the 2015 CCR Rule could potentially increase the weighted average nationwide wholesale price of electricity between 0.18 percent and 0.19 percent in the years 2020 and 2030, respectively. However, in the four years since 2015, wholesale and retail electricity prices in the U.S. have remained constant or declined in real terms, suggesting that continued changes in the price and availability of renewable energy and natural gas have offset any potential impact of the rule on wholesale and consumer prices. As the proposed Part B rule represents a cost savings rule relative to the 2015 CCR Rule, any potential impact on wholesale electricity prices would be to reduce the impact originally estimate for the 2015 CCR Rule. As a result, this proposed Part B rule is not expected to meet the criteria of a "significant adverse effect" on the electricity markets as defined by Executive Order 13211. 
5.2	Small Business Impact Analysis (RFA/SBREFA)
According to the requirements of the 1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the 1996 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), when a Federal agency publishes a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must make available for public comments a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required; however, if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Consistent with EPA's 2006 RFA/SBREFA guidance, the 2015 RIA analyzed impacts to small businesses by comparing the estimates of annualized regulatory compliance costs for each entity size category with estimates of annual revenues for each type of entity against the following three impact thresholds:
 Less than one percent of annual revenues;
 Between one percent and three percent of annual revenues; and
 More than three percent of annual revenues.
Based on these thresholds, the 2015 RIA concluded that the 2015 CCR Rule would not have a SISNOSE, specifically:
 For none of the categories of small entities do costs exceed three percent of revenues
 For three of the four categories (cities, companies, cooperatives), costs do not exceed one percent of revenues
 Of the 242 affected entities, 81 would be considered small entities for RFA purposes. Of the 81 small entities affected, only six entities (7.4 percent of affected small entities) were expected to experience costs exceeding one percent of revenues, and only one entity was expected to experience costs exceeding three percent of revenues. 
As the proposed Part B rule represents a reduction in the estimated costs of compliance as compared to the 2015 CCR Rule, for which EPA previously determined the 2015 rule would not have a SISNOSE, this RIA concludes that the proposed Part B rule will not have a SISNOSE.
5.3	Potential Impacts to Minority and Low-Income Populations (Executive Order 12898)
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The RIA for the 2015 CCR Rule evaluated the demographic characteristics of potentially affected communities and concluded that the rule would not result in new disproportionate risks to minority or low-income populations because the 2015 CCR Rule is risk-reducing. 
In the absence of an updated risk assessment identifying the impact of the larger number of unlined and leaking units than were originally modeled (including the role and timing of corrective action), the impact of the Part B rule on risks to human health and the environment is unclear relative to the updated baseline. Moreover, because the 2015 CCR Rule demographic screening assessment determined that coal-fired power plants tend to be located in areas characterized by low-income populations, the likely increased disposal of CCR on site at coal-fired power plants under this rule may have a disproportionate impact on those populations.
5.4	Potential Impacts to Children (Executive Order 13045)
The 2015 CCR Rule examined the potential impact of the 2015 CCR Rule on children's risk. This evaluation concluded that distribution of risk across the children's demographic is not likely to change significantly as a result of the 2015 CCR Rule. Furthermore, the analysis found that the percent of all plants with impoundments that exceed the national proportion of children is 38.5 percent (104 of 270 plants for which population data are available), suggesting that reductions in risk at these plants would benefit children. 
In the absence of an updated risk assessment identifying the impact of the larger number of unlined and leaking units than were originally modeled (including the role and timing of corrective action), the impact of the Part B rule on risks to human health and the environment is unclear relative to the baseline established by the 2015 CCR Rule. 
5.5	Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) and Federalism Implications Analysis (Executive Order 13132) 
These analyses evaluate the proposed Part B rule impacts relative to requirements under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 13132, Federalism Implications Analysis.
5.5.1	Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA)
Among its other purposes and federal agency rulemaking requirements, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in "any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year." As the proposed Part B rule is a cost savings rule, this analysis does not expect the rule to result in expenditures, in aggregate greater than $100 million in any one year; rather this analysis expects that expenditures of any state, local and tribal governments affected by the rule to decrease.
5.5.2.	Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 furthers the policies of UMRA by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state and local government consultation process for the development of federal regulations with implications for federalism. The proposed Part B rule is not expected to have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government because it is a cost savings rule. A portion of the cost savings associated with the proposed Part B rule will accrue to state and local governments that own or operate electric utilities.: 
5.5.3.	Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (Executive Order 13175)
The 2000 Executive Order 13175 directs federal agencies to coordinate and consult with Indian tribal governments whose interests might be directly and substantially affected by activities on federally administered lands. This action has tribal implications because it would impose requirements on facilities located in Indian country. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
EPA has identified that three of the 414 coal-fired electric utility plants (in operation as of 2012) are located on tribal lands. The three facilities are: (1) the Navajo Generating Station in Coconino County, Arizona, which is operated by the Arizona Salt River Project and owned by the Navajo Nation; (2) the Bonanza Power Plant in Uintah County, Utah, which is operated by the Deseret Generation and Transmission Cooperative and owned by the Ute Indian Tribe; and (3) the Four Corners Power Plant in San Juan County, New Mexico, which is operated by the Arizona Public Service Company and owned by the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant are on tribal trust lands belonging to the Navajo Nation, while the Bonanza Power Plant is located on tribal trust lands within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe. Because CCR units are land-based units, the fact that these CCR facilities are located on tribal trust land means that the facility owners within the meaning of the CCR Rule are the tribal trust beneficial landowner tribes. The Agency continues to believe that the facility operators will bear all direct compliance costs associated with the above-mentioned rules and proposed rules.  However, to the extent that an operator fails to comply with a federal CCR requirement, CCR facility owners may also be held liable.
Relative to the baseline, this RIA anticipates expenditures to remain the same or decrease at the three plants located on tribal lands. Specifically, this RIA expects cost savings to accrue to the Four Corners Power Plant in San Juan County, New Mexico. This plant has one surface impoundment and therefore may incur cost savings under Provision 2, modification of the date by which unlined surface impoundments must cease receiving CCR and initiate closure.
Accordingly, this RIA concludes that proposed Part B rule is not anticipated to have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.
5.6	Effects on Employment
The 2015 CCR RIA examined the potential effects on employment in the following seven sectors or sub-sectors, including coal fired electric utilities, pollution control supplier industries, virgin material suppliers, coal mining, natural gas extraction, natural gas utility plants, and sectors affiliated with constructing new gas power plants.
The analysis concluded that the 2015 CCR Rule would have at most modest impacts on employment, and would potentially drive increases in employment at utilities from the Operations and Maintenance costs related to compliance and at pollution control supplier industries from the capital costs related to the construction of impoundment liners and the conversion from wet to dry handling of CCR.
This rule may reduce some compliance-related effort but only by a marginal amount. The impact of CCR unit closures on jobs associated with beneficial use or wet-dry conversion are unknown, as these are market-driven, corporate-level decisions based on long-term capital planning and commodities markets, and schedules for unit closure represent only one of several factors that enter into these decisions. The impact that Provision 2 will have on the sale of CCR into existing beneficial use markets could affect employment in that sector relative to the 2015 CCR Rule baseline. Diversion of CCR to on-site uses may reduce projected growth in the CCR beneficial use market.

 Appendix A Baseline CCR Management Costs Considered and Not Considered in this RIA

                                   Exhibit A
    Baseline CCR Management Costs Considered and Not Considered in this RIA
                                 Cost Category
                Pre-2015 Baseline Calculated for 2015 CCR Rule
Incremental Cost in 2015 CCR Rule (millions of $, annualized at 7% over 100-year time horizon, 2013$)
                       Affected by Proposed Part A Rule?
                       Affected by Proposed Part B Rule?
                  Effort Needed to Update Baseline Estimates
Groundwater monitoring
                                      Yes
                                     $2.80
                                      No
                                      No
                  Moderate  -  requires research and modeling
Bottom liners
                                      Yes
                                     $297
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                        Moderate  -  requires modeling
Leachate collection systems
                                      Yes
                                     $18.4
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                        Moderate  -  requires modeling
Dust controls
                                      Yes
                                     $3.36
                                      No
                                      No
                  Moderate  -  requires research and modeling
Run-on/run-off controls
                                      Yes
                                     $13.0
                                      No
                                      No
                  Moderate  -  requires research and modeling
Location restrictions
                                      Yes
                                     $20.0
                                      No
                                      No
               High  -  requires extensive research and modeling
Closure capping
                                      Yes
                                     $12.0
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
               High  -  requires extensive research and modeling
Post-closure monitoring
                                      Yes
                                    $0.0430
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                  Moderate  -  requires research and modeling
Structural integrity inspections
                                      Yes
                                     $11.1
                                      No
                                      No
                        Moderate  -  requires research
Groundwater corrective action
                                      Yes
                                     $19.1
                                      No
                                      No
               High  -  requires extensive research and modeling
Reporting and recordkeeping
                                      No
                                     $27.3
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
                        Low  -  requires extrapolation
Conversion to dry handling
                                      Yes
                                     $57.3
                                      Yes
                                      Yes
               High  -  requires extensive research and modeling
Dewatering and capping costs for inactive impoundments
                                      No
                                     $26.7
                                      No
                                      No
                             No longer applicable
Total (per-ton) disposal costs
          Not directly, but can be calculated using existing analysis
          Not directly, but can be calculated using existing analysis
                            Yes, cost savings rule
                            Yes, cost savings rule
               Can be calculated once updated baseline developed
Fill costs
                                      No
                                      No
                                      No
                                      Yes
                     High  -  requires extensive research