Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0029-0095
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-05-06T04:00Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.
Financial
return
on
investment
in
waste
management
plant
&

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

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

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

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

!
Waste
containers
(
45%)

!
Waste
containment
buildings
(
1%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact
Category
Type
of
Economic
Impact
Scope
#
1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

°
RCRA
permits
required
under
40
CFR
270.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the
USEPA
developed
the
following
units­
per­
facility
size
classes:

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

Medium
facility
3
to
6
units
28%

Large
facility
7
or
more
units
29%

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

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

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

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

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

°
Above­
ground.

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

°
Underground
 
these
are
excluded
from
standardized
permit
eligibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

surface
impoundments,
landfills,
land
treatment).

Explanatory
Notes:

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

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

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

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

1
Containers
and
Containment
buildings
29.3%

2
Surface
impoundments
23.2%

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

All
tanks
(
storage
&
treatment)
=

Above­
ground
=

In­
ground
=

Underground
=
100%**

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

4
Landfills
11.0%

5
Incinerators,
boilers
&
industrial
furnaces
6.9%

6
Waste
piles
4.9%

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

8
Drip
pads
1.2%

Column
total
=
100%

Explanatory
Notes:

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

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

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

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

!
In­
ground:
390
1,056
1,446
(
17%)

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

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

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

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

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

!
59%
to
64%
(
for
LQGs)

!
28%
to
73%
(
for
TSDFs)

!
104%
to
113%
(
for
transporters)

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

Facility
Category
Type
of
Facility
Facility
Count*

All
USEPA
regulated
facilities
(
air,
water,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on­
site
units
Alternative
2:**

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

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

treatment
6
S06
=
containment
building
­

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

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

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

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

shown
in
this
table.

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

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

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

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

1,687

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

query
option,
according
to
the
following
query
criteria:

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

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

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

­­
Tank
Storage
(
S02)

­­
Containment
Building
Storage
(
S06)

­­
Tank
Treatment
(
T01)

­­
Containment
Building
Treatment
(
T94)

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

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

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

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

2004
Baseline
Counts
of
RCRA
Facilities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

universities,
and
hospitals,
to
small
businesses
and
laboratories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevalence
=
45%
54%
1%
100%

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

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

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

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

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

http://
www.
gao.
gov).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5
Implementation
Serve
as
a
RCRA
regulatory
program
implementation
mechanism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(
01
July
2000
CFR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory
Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory
Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National
Annual
RCRA
Permit
Actions
for
1981­
1999:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

itemized
estimation
methods:

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

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

Impact
#
2:
Closure
financial
assurance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!
NDT:
Non­
discounted
total
impacts
over
the
POA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rate
representing
regulations
which
primarily
and
directly
affect
private
consumption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

permit
modifications,
permit
renewals,
and
permit
conversions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12
Groundwater
monitoring
(
for
detection,
compliance,

corrective
action)
264.97­

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

13
Closure
plan
requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

14
Post­
closure
requirements:

14a
Post­
closure
plan
264.118
Not
applicable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!
Making
40
CFR
264.97
correction
action
requirements
more
flexible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(
d)
"
Loaded"
costs
above
are
not
intended
to
double­
count
clerical
labor
costs
in
overhead.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
57
Step
4:
Annual
burden
reduction:
This
step
involved
the
multiplication
of
the
monetary
(
dollar)
value
of
burden
hour
subtotals
per
permit
action
generated
in
Step
3
(
displayed
in
a
table
below),
times
the
respective
future
annual
nationwide
frequency
of
permit
actions
(
arrayed
in
Attachment
A)
associated
with:

°
Four
types
of
permit
actions.

°
Three
types
of
eligible
units.

Future
permit
actions
and
associated
burden
reduction
cost
savings
are
arrayed
according
to
a
consequence
flow
diagram
or
schedule,
consisting
of
two
timeline
elements:

Attachment
A
at
the
end
of
this
document
present
the
respective
estimated
cost
savings
(
i.
e.
combined
savings,

TSFs
savings
only,
and
permitting
authorities
savings
only).
A
Table
below
presents
the
estimated
future
average
annual
frequency
of
the
four
types
of
RCRA
permitting
actions,
as
expected
to
apply
to
eligible
TSFs.
Attachment
B
arrays
these
annual
actions
according
to
the
30­
year
POA.
This
future
average
frequency
is
a
borrowed
working
assumption
in
this
economic
analysis
from
ICR
"
Source
C".
(
Note
that
Section
IV
of
this
document
presents
a
sensitivity
analysis
of
cost
savings
to
alternative
non­
constant,
future
permit
action
frequencies).

A
Table
below
summarizes
the
AAE
results
of
this
step
separately
for
both
eligible
TSFs
and
for
permitting
authorities,
as
well
as
on
combined
national
cost
savings
basis
(
i.
e.
eligible
TSFs
+
permitting
authorities).

Estimate
of
Potential
National
Cost
Savings
Associated
With
the
Paperwork
Burden
Reduction
Features
for
OSW's
RCRA
"
Standardized"
Permit
Final
Rule
(
2001$)

Burden
Reduction
Cost
Savings
Recipient
Average
Annual
Savings*
($
millions/
year)
Percentag
e
Share
Scope
#
1:

On­
site
units
only
Scope
#
2:

On­
site
&
off­
site
units
1.
Eligible
hazardous
waste
TSFs
$
0.74
$
0.94
35%

2.
USEPA
Regional
Offices
&
State
Permit
Authorities
$
1.35
$
1.68
65%

Combined
National
Savings
(
1+
2)
=
$
2.09
$
2.62
100%

With
Estimation
Uncertainty
Assigned**:

Lower­
bound
estimate
(­
10%)=
$
1.88
$
2.36
Upper­
bound
estimate
(+
30%)
=
$
2.72
$
3.41
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Average
annual
savings
estimated
over
a
future
30­
year
period
2005­
2034,
at
constant
2001$
using
7%
discount
rate.

(
b)
*
Uncertainty:
An
overall
cost
savings
estimation
uncertainty
bound
of
­
10%
to
+
30%
applied
per
"
Recommended
Practice
Nr.
18R­

97"
(
15
June
1998,
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Cost
Engineering
http://
www.
aacei.
org
).
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
58
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
59
On
a
per­
permit
basis,
the
"
standardized"
permit
will
affect
a
decrease
in
average
RCRA
permitting
costs
(
i.
e.
a
reduction
in
administrative
burden),

ranging
in
combined
value
to
eligible
TSFs
and
to
permitting
authorities,
from
about
$
100
to
$
20,800
per
permit
action
(
2001$),
depending
upon
the
type
of
permit
action
involved
(
i.
e.
a
reduction
ranging
from
2
to
480
hours
per
permit
action).

The
potential
economic
incentive
to
eligible
TSFs
of
converting
(
i.
e.
switching)
to
a
standardized
permit
is
evidenced
by
the
average
$
459
permit
conversion
cost
being
almost
completely
offset
by
the
$
400
savings
to
TSFs
of
a
single
"
significant"
modification
(
or
of
the
savings
from
about
four
"
routine"
modifications:
4
x
$
106
=
$
424).
At
a
very
minimum
in
absence
of
future
permit
modification
savings,
the
$
6,020
savings
to
TSFs
from
future
permit
renewals
after
conversion,
results
in
a
minimum
net
savings
of
$
5,561
per
permit
(
i.
e.
$
6,020
­
$
459).

In
contrast
to
expected
cost
savings,
permit
conversion
actions
(
i.
e.
switching
conventional
RCRA
permits
to
"
standardized"
RCRA
permits
before
expiration),
are
expected
to
result
in
a
temporary
increase
in
permitting
costs
of
about
$
500
per
conversion
action
because
conversion
actions
would
not
occur
under
the
conventional
RCRA
permitting
process
baseline.

The
next
table
compares
the
estimated
cost
savings
for
a
standardized
permit
action,
to
the
average
burden
cost
associated
with
conventional
RCRA
permit
actions.
The
average
burden
reduction
ranges
between
4%
to
40%,
depending
upon
(
a)
the
type
of
permit
action,
and
(
b)
whether
burden
hours
or
burden
cost
are
used
as
a
comparative
measure
of
burden.

Estimated
Reduction
in
RCRA
Permit
Burden,
as
a
Percentage
of
Average
Burden
for
a
Conventional
RCRA
Permit
Action
Type
of
Permit
Action
%
Hour
Savings
%
Cost
Savings
A.
New
Permits
&
Permit
Renewals:

A1.
Containers
33%
25%

A2.
Tank
systems
34%
26%

A3.
Cont
bldgs
40%
31%

B.
Permit
modifications:

B1.
Routine
9%
8%

B2.
Significant
4%
4%

Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Source:
See
supporting
data
and
computations
in
Table
provided
as
Attachment
to
this
document.

(
b)
Percentage
hour
and
percentage
cost
savings
are
slightly
different
because
of
differences
in
labor
category
wage
rates
and
the
relative
proportion
of
four
labor
categories
in
contributing
to
savings.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
60
II­
D.
Impact
Category
#
2:

Changes
to
Closure
Financial
Assurance
Requirements
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
61
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
Financial
Assurance
for
Facility
Closure
Effect
of
a
Shorter
Trust
Fund**
Pay­
in
Period
(
3­
Years
Compared
to
10­
Years)

Item
POA
Year
A.
10­
Year
Pay­
In
B.
3­
Year
Pay­
In
Annual
Management
Fee***
Capital
Investment
Installments****
Annual
Management
Fee***
Capital
Investment
Installments****

Base
fee*
Low­
end
Median
High­
end
Low­
end
Median
High­
end
Base
fee**
Low­
end
Median
High­
end
Low­
end
Median
High­
end
1
2005
$
637
$
15
$
651
$
17,049
$
1,414
$
60,813
$
3,983,373
$
637
$
50
$
2,169
$
56,829
$
4,714
$
202,711
$
13,277,911
2
2006
$
0
$
30
$
1,272
$
33,339
$
1,252
$
53,851
$
3,527,317
$
0
$
101
$
4,333
$
113,520
$
4,372
$
188,024
$
12,315,926
3
2007
$
0
$
43
$
1,867
$
48,905
$
1,098
$
47,198
$
3,091,550
$
0
$
141
$
4,257
$
159,335
$
3,141
$
135,078
$
8,847,866
4
2008
$
0
$
58
$
2,483
$
65,050
$
1,055
$
45,379
$
2,972,412
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
5
2009
$
0
$
72
$
3,115
$
81,605
$
995
$
42,810
$
2,804,107
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
6
2010
$
0
$
87
$
3,753
$
98,326
$
913
$
39,267
$
2,572,053
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
7
2011
$
0
$
102
$
4,384
$
114,861
$
801
$
34,431
$
2,255,262
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
8
2012
$
0
$
116
$
4,988
$
130,698
$
647
$
27,811
$
1,821,674
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
9
2013
$
0
$
129
$
3,876
$
145,060
$
432
$
18,595
$
1,217,990
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
10
2014
$
0
$
141
$
4,257
$
159,335
$
342
$
14,698
$
962,767
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
11
2015
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
12
2016
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
13
2017
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
14
2018
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
15
2019
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
16
2020
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
17
2021
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
18
2022
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
19
2023
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
20
2024
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
21
2025
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
22
2026
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
23
2027
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
24
2028
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
25
2029
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
26
2030
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
27
2031
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
28
2032
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
29
2033
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
30
2034
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Nondiscounted
totals
=
$
637
$
794
$
30,645
$
894,228
$
8,949
$
384,852
$
25,208,507
$
637
$
293
$
10,759
$
329,684
$
12,227
$
525,813
$
34,441,703
Net
present
value
=
$
637
$
537
$
21,147
$
605,407
$
7,189
$
309,143
$
20,249,450
$
637
$
268
$
9,936
$
302,092
$
11,543
$
496,417
$
32,516,191
Avg
annual
equivalent
=
$
51
$
43
$
1,704
$
48,788
$
579
$
24,913
$
1,631,830
$
51
$
22
$
801
$
24,345
$
930
$
40,004
$
2,620,363
Difference
Between
Pay­
In
Periods:
Fees
Funding
Total
NPV
=
($
11,211)
$
187,273
$
176,062
AAE
=
($
903)
$
15,092
$
14,188
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Trust
funds
represent
one
of
seven
different
types
of
facility
closure
financial
assurance
mechanisms,
used
by
about
12%
of
RCRA
TSDFs.

(
b)
**
Base
fee
is
an
initial
administrative
cost
only
in
the
first
year
to
set­
up
the
trust
fund
(
from
ICR
"
Source
C"
Exhibit
8).

(
c)
***
Annual
management
fee
is
variable
in
relation
to
cumulative
value
of
trust
fund.

Fee
Cumulative
Value
1.0%
<
$
500,000
0.7%
<
$
1,000,000
0.5%
<
$
1,500,000
0.4%
>$
1,500,000
Source:
"
Financial
Responsibility
for
Hazardous
Waste
Facilities",
ICF
Inc.,
09
Nov
1993,
p.
9.

(
d)
****
Capital
investment
installments
(
annual
payments)
based
on
two
components:
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
62
(
1)
TSF
closure
financial
assurance
trustfund
payment
formula
required
by
40
CFR
264.143(
a)(
3)
&
265.143(
a)(
3)
for
interim
status
TSFs.

(
2)
15
Oct
1996
USEPA
Region
4
study
containing
facility
closure
cost
estimates
made
by
a
non­
random
sample
of
100
TSDF
owners/
operators
between
1988­
1995
(
Table
1,
p.
7):

Annual
interest
payout
possible
when
cumulative
value
of
trustfund
exceeds
closure
cost
estimate,
upon
written
request
(
40
CFR
264.143(
a)(
7))
&
265.143(
a)(
7)
for
interim
status
TSFs).

The
following
inflation­
adjusted
closure
cost
estimates
are
used
above
as
trustfund
investment
total
pay­
in
target
values
(
although
high­
end
value
may
not
apply
to
eligible
TSFs):

1994$
2002$

Low­
end
$
11,697
$
14,141
Median
$
503,025
$
608,132
High­
end
$
32,949,040
$
39,833,732
Closure
cost
inflation
update
factor
(
2002$/
1994$)
is
based
on
the
Engineering
News­
Record
magazine
"
Construction
Cost
Index"
for
the
USA
=
1.209
(
e)
Discount
rate
for
computation
of
net
present
value
(
NPV)
and
average
annual
equivalent
(
AAE)
over
the
period
of
analysis
=
7%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
63
"
Standardized"
RCRA
Permit
Financial
Assurance
for
Facility
Closure
Computation
of
Annual
Pay­
in
Investment
Required
Under
10­
Year
and
3­
Year
Pay­
In
Periods
Item
Period
of
analysis
(
POA)

year
I.
Year­
end
Investment
Cumulative
Value
Ii.
Remaining
Closure
Cost
to
Fund
at
Year­
end
A.
10­
Year
Pay­
In
B.
3­
Year
Pay­
In
A.
10­
Year
Pay­
In
B.
3­
Year
Pay­
In
Low­
end
Median
High­
end
Low­
end
Median
High­
end
Low­
end
Median
High­
end
Low­
end
Median
High­
end
1
2005
$
1,513
$
65,070
$
4,262,209
$
5,044
$
216,900
$
14,207,364
$
12,628
$
543,062
$
35,571,523
$
9,097
$
391,232
$
25,626,368
2
2006
$
2,959
$
127,245
$
8,334,793
$
10,075
$
433,269
$
28,379,921
$
11,182
$
480,887
$
31,498,939
$
4,066
$
174,863
$
11,453,811
3
2007
$
4,340
$
186,654
$
12,226,187
$
14,141
$
608,132
$
39,833,732
$
9,801
$
421,478
$
27,607,545
$
0
$
0
$
0
4
2008
$
5,773
$
248,276
$
16,262,502
$
8,368
$
359,856
$
23,571,230
5
2009
$
7,243
$
311,461
$
20,401,271
$
6,899
$
296,671
$
19,432,461
6
2010
$
8,726
$
375,279
$
24,581,457
$
5,415
$
232,853
$
15,252,275
7
2011
$
10,194
$
438,389
$
28,715,290
$
3,947
$
169,743
$
11,118,443
8
2012
$
11,600
$
498,834
$
32,674,552
$
2,542
$
109,297
$
7,159,181
9
2013
$
12,874
$
553,649
$
36,265,020
$
1,267
$
54,483
$
3,568,712
10
2014
$
14,141
$
608,132
$
39,833,732
$
0
$
0
$
0
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Capital
investment
installments
(
annual
payments)
based
on
two
components:

!
TSF
closure
financial
assurance
trustfund
payment
formula
required
by
40
CFR
264.143(
a)(
3)
&
265.143(
a)(
3)
for
interim
status
TSFs.

!
Source:
15
Oct
1996
USEPA
Region
4
study
containing
facility
closure
cost
estimates
based
on
a
non­
random
sample
of
100
TSDF
owners/
operators
between
1988­
1995
(
Table
1,
p.
7).

(
b)
Annual
interest
payout
possible
when
cumulative
value
of
trustfund
exceeds
closure
cost
estimate,
upon
written
request
(
40
CFR
264.143(
a)(
7))
&
265.143(
a)(
7)
for
interim
status
TSFs).

(
c)
The
following
inflation­
adjusted
closure
cost
estimates
are
used
above
as
trustfund
investment
total
pay­
in
target
values:

1994$
2002$

Low­
end
$
11,697
$
14,141
Median
$
503,025
$
608,132
High­
end
$
32,949,040
$
39,833,732
(
d)
Closure
cost
inflation
update
factor
(
2002$/
1994$)
is
based
on
the
Engineering
News­
Record
magazine
"
Construction
Cost
Index"
for
the
USA
=
1.209
(
e)
Discount
rate
for
computation
of
net
present
value
(
NPV)
and
average
annual
equivalent
(
AAE)
over
the
period
of
analysis
=
7%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
64
Estimate
of
National
Total
Annual
Increased
Cost
From
Reduction
in
Pay­
In
Period
from
10­
Years
to
3­
Years
Associated
with
Closure
Financial
Assurance
Using
Trust
Funds
for
RCRA
"
Standarized"
Permits
Final
Rule
Scope
Annual
Number
of
Affected
Facilities
Median
Impact
Per
Facility
(
Added
Cost)*
National
Impact
(
Added
Cost)

#
1:
If
on­
site
only
TSFs
2
new
permits/
year
$
14,200/
year
per
TSF
$
28,400
#
2
If
on­
site
+
off­
site
TSFs
3
new
permits/
year
$
14,200/
year
per
TSF
$
42,600
*
Derivation
of
median
impact
per
facility
provided
in
a
table
in
the
Attachments
to
this
document.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
65
Financial
Test
for
"
Standardized"
RCRA
Permits
Savings
for
Not
Requiring
an
Independent
Audit
Report
Item
Year
Scope
#
1:
If
on­
site
waste
units
only
Scope
#
2:
If
on­
site
&
off­
site
waste
units
Avg
annual
eligible
new
TSFs*
Average
%

using
financial
test**
Average
annual
applicable
TSFs
Average
annual
cost
savings
Avg
annual
eligible
new
TSFs*
Average
%

using
financial
test**
Average
annual
applicable
TSFs
Average
annual
cost
savings
1
2005
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
2
2006
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
3
2007
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
4
2008
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
5
2009
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
6
2010
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
7
2011
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
8
2012
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
9
2013
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
10
2014
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
11
2015
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
12
2016
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
13
2017
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
14
2018
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
15
2019
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
16
2020
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
17
2021
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
18
2022
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
19
2023
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
20
2024
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
21
2025
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
22
2026
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
23
2027
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
24
2028
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
25
2029
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
26
2030
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
27
2031
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
28
2032
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
29
2033
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
30
2034
2
45%
0.9
$
222
3
45%
1.4
$
333
Column
totals=
60
27
$
6,669
90
42
$
10,004
Net
Present
Value
(
NPV)
=
$
2,952
$
4,427
Average
Annual
Equivalent
(
AAE)
=
$
238
$
357
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Average
annual
eligible
new
TSFs
obtaining
a
standardized
permit
from
ICR
"
Source
C".

(
b)
**
Percent
of
eligible
new
TSFs
using
financial
test
or
corporate
guarantee
financial
assurance
for
TSF
closure,
based
on
1996
USEPA
Region
4
study
of
100
TSFs.

(
c)
Assumed
average
burden
cost
reduction
per
permit
action
based
on
the
same
burden
as
preparation
and
submittal
of
a
CFO
letter
(
from
1999
ICR
"
Source
C"
Exhibit
8)
=
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
66
$
247
(
d)
NPV
and
AAE
computed
using
discount
rate
=
7%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
67
II­
E.
Impact
Category
#
3:

Potential
Added
Cost
for
Site
Audit
Report
for
Compliance
Certification
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
68
Option
A:
Self
Audit
The
following
assumptions
constitute
the
basis
for
developing
a
cost
estimate
for
the
final
rule's
site
audit
and
audit
report
requirements
(
40
CFR
270.275(
f)
&
270.280)
for
submitting
a
notice
of
intent
compliance
certification.

Compliance
Certification
Self
Audit
Unit
Cost
Assumptions
(
includes
cost
of
conducting
audit
&
writing/
submitting
an
audit
report)

Facility
Waste
Unit
Size
Type
of
Personnel
Involved
Audit
Tasks
&
Labor
Time
Assumption*
Estimated
Cost**

Small
unit
Assume
similar
labor
mix
as
medium­
size
Assume
50%
of
medium­
size
cost:*

56
hours
x
50%
=
28
hours
Assume
50%
of
medium­
size
cost:*

$
2,840
x
50%
=
$
1,420
Medium
unit
Geologist/
engineer/
scientist
3
days
inspecting
site
(
30
hours)
+
16
hours
in
office
(
46
hours)
x
($
53/
hour)
=
$
2,440
Program
manager/
lawyer
2
hours
(
review,
meetings)
(
2
hours)
x
($
88/
hour)
=
$
180
Staff
assistant/
typist
8
hours
(
typing,
graphics,
maps)
(
8
hours)
x
($
27/
hour)
=
$
220
Medium
unit
subtotals
=
56
hours
$
2,840
Large
unit
Assume
similar
labor
mix
as
medium­
size
Assume
135%
of
medium­
size
cost:***

56
hours
x
135%
=
76
hours
Assume
135%
of
medium­
size
cost:***

$
2,840
x
135%
=
$
3,840
Prevalence­
weighted
averages
=
50
hours
$
2,500
Explanatory
Notes:

(
e)
*
Small­
and
medium­
size
unit
labor
time
assumptions
formulated
29
Oct
2002
by
Ross
Elliott,
Environmental
Protection
Specialist,
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Division,
based
on
prior
professional
experience
in
conducting
industry
site
audits.

(
f)
**
Labor
wage
rates
($/
hour)
are
from
the
labor
wage
rate
table
for
legal,
managerial,
technical,
and
clerical
labor
categories,
as
displayed
elsewhere
in
this
background
document,
which
includes
labor
fringe
benefits
and
labor
overhead
costs.
The
labor
wage
applied
in
this
table
for
the
program
manager/
lawyer
line
item
(
medium
unit
size)
represents
the
average
wage
for
managers
and
lawyers
from
the
labor
wage
rate
reference
table
displayed
elsewhere
in
this
background
document.

(
g)
***
Large­
size
unit
cost
135%
multiplier
assumption
developed
by
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
Economics,
Methods
&
Risk
Analysis
Division,
based
on
analysis
of
a
1997
cost
data
for
64
RCRA
hazardous
waste
management
permitting
paperwork
requirements
in
the
USEPA
report
"
Estimating
Costs
for
the
Economic
Benefits
of
RCRA
Noncompliance",
Sept
1997,
Office
of
Enforcement
&
Compliance
Assistance
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
f006/
s0004.
pdf).
A
table
in
Attachment
A
to
this
document
presents
the
data
spreadsheet.

(
h)
Prevalence
weights:
small
units
=
43%;
medium
units
=
28%;
large
units
=
29%.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
69
Option
B:
Third­
Party
Audit
Compared
to
the
final
rule's
self­
audit
procedure
for
compliance
certification,
another
audit
option
considered
by
OSW
was
to
require
a
third­
party
audit
including
the
following
audit
requirements:

(
a)
Independent
third­
party
audit
personnel
(
e.
g.
contractor
or
consultant)

(
b)
ISO­
14012
audit
personnel
certification
(
c)
The
auditor
must
follow
the
procedures
and
instructions
in
USEPA
Office
of
Enforcement
&
Compliance
Assistance
(
OECA)
audit
guidance.

As
displayed
in
the
next
table,
the
US
Department
of
Labor
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(
BLS)
provides
national
average
wage
rate
data
for
three
alternative
occupational
categories
which
are
specific
(
unique)
to
the
activity
of
compliance
auditing/
certification
(
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
oes/
2000/
oes_
nat.
htm).
The
second
table
below
presents
an
estimate
of
the
total
cost
for
a
third­
party
compliance
audit
according
to
small,
medium,
and
large
waste
management
unit
size
categories.

Labor
Wage
Rates
for
Compliance
Auditing
Personnel
Standard
Occupational
Classification
(
SOC)
Code
Occupational
Description
Year
2000
US
mean
wage
($/
hour)

SOC
13­
1041
Compliance
officers
Examine,
evaluate
and
investigate
eligibility
for
or
conformity
with
laws
and
regulations
governing
licenses
and
permits;
excludes
financial
examiners.
$
21.22
SOC
13­
2011
Auditors
Examine,
analyze,
and
interpret
accounting
records
(
e.
g.
costs
or
other
financial
&

budgetary
data)
for
purpose
of
giving
advice
or
preparing
statements.
$
23.12
SOC
19­
2041
Environmental
specialists
Conduct
research
or
perform
investigation
for
the
purpose
of
identifying,
abating,
or
eliminating
sources
of
pollutants
or
hazards
that
affect
either
the
environment
or
the
health
of
the
population.
$
23.12
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
70
Estimate
of
Average
Cost
for
Third­
Party
Certification
of
Compliance
with
RCRA
"
Standardized
Permit"
Part
267
Facility
Standards
At
Time
of
Permit
Application
Item
Type
of
Audit
Cost
Element
Average
Cost
Per
Audit
(
year
2000$)

Small
unit
Medium
unit
Large
unit
1*
Third­
party
auditor
labor
cost
(
contractor
or
consultant)
$
6,400
$
18,800
$
25,400
2
Auditor
equipment
cost
(
estimated
as
@
5%
x
item
1
for
pro­
rated
equipment
purchase/
depreciation
cost)
$
300
$
900
$
1,300
3**
Auditor
travel
to
facility
&
over­
night
lodging
$
500
$
1,000
$
1,500
4**
Auditor's
per­
diem
(
a
range
representing
one
to
five
workdays)
$
50
$
150
$
250
5
Auditor's
miscellaneous
costs
for
telephone,
fax,
photocopies,
etc.

(
estimated
as
@
3%
x
item
1)
$
200
$
550
$
750
Column
totals
=
$
7,450
$
21,400
$
29,200
Prevalence­
weighted
average
=
$
17,700
Explanatory
Notes:

(
b)
*
Item
1
costs
based
on
the
September
1997
USEPA
Office
of
Compliance
&
Enforcement
Assistance
(
OECA)
report
"
Estimating
Costs
for
the
Economic
Benefits
of
RCRA
Noncompliance",
which
presents
an
environmental
audit
cost
range
of
$
5,639
to
$
16,616
for
small
to
medium­
sized
facilities
for
hiring
a
third­
party
certified
auditor
(
in
1996$).
This
1997
OECA
cost
range
is
based
on
labor
costs
that
include
wages,
fringe
benefits
@
50%
of
wage
rate,
and
labor
overhead
+
profit
@
100%
of
wage
rate.
Updated
to
year
2000$
using
a
labor
cost
update
multiplier
of
1.133
derived
from
the
US
Department
of
Labor
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(
BLS)
wage
and
compensation
data
on
private
sector
service
industry
"
white
collar:
professional
specialty
&
technical
occupations"
(
http://
www.
bls.
gov/
ncs/
ect/
home.
htm).
The
update
multiplier
is
based
on
this
relatively
more
generic
occupational
classification
rather
than
on
specific
audit­
related
occupational
classification
codes
because
the
BLS
website
database
does
not
contain
1996
historical
data
for
use
as
a
denominator
in
this
2000:
to:
1996
update
multiplier:

[(
year
2000
mean
wage
rate
=
$
31.64
per
hour)
/
(
year
1996
mean
wage
rate
=
$
27.93
per
hour)]
=
1.133
update
multiplier
Because
the
upper­
end
of
the
1997
OECA
report
environmental
audit
cost
range
represents
a
medium­
size
facility,
the
upper­
end
is
extended
in
this
table
to
represent
the
cost
to
a
typical
large­
size
facility,
by
multiplying
the
1997
OECA
report
upper­
end
cost
by
1.35.
This
large:
to:
medium
facility
size
multiplier
represents
an
average
ratio
from
64
unit
costs
for
paperwork
burden
activities
concerning
RCRA
contingency
plans,
RCRA
Part
A
permit
preparation,
and
RCRA
Part
B
permit
preparation
also
presented
in
the
1997
OECA
report.
Atable
in
Attachment
A
to
this
document
presents
these
1997
reference
cost
data
and
derivation
of
this
multiplier.

(
c)
**
Item
3
&
4
costs
developed
from
estimate
for
medium­
sized
facility
formulated
29
Oct
2002
by
Ross
Elliott,
Environmental
Protection
Specialist,
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Division,
based
on
prior
professional
experience
in
conducting
industry
site
audits.
OSW­
EMRAD
formulated
an
estimate
for
small­
and
large­
sized
facilities
for
these
cost
items
by
scaling
relative
to
medium­
size
estimate.

(
d)
Prevalences
for
weighting:
small
units
=
43%;
medium
units
=
28%;
large
units
=
29%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
71
Estimate
of
Added
Cost
for
Conducting
Site
Audit
of
Waste
Management
Unit
for
Permit
Application
Notice
of
Intent
Certification
Alternative
Scope
for
Audits
Option
A:
If
Self
Audit
Option
B:
If
Third­
Party
Audit
Average
annual
number
of
audits
Average
Annual
Cost
of
Audits
Average
annual
number
of
audits
Average
Annual
Cost
of
Audits
Scope
#
1:

onsite
units
only
Scope
#
2:

onsite
+
of­
site
units
Scope
#
1:

onsite
units
only
Scope
#
2:

onsite
+
of­
site
units
If
new
permits
only
2
$
5,000
$
5,000
2
$
35,000
$
35,000
If
both
new
+
renewals
110
$
290,000
$
364,000
139
$
2,054,000
$
2,574,000
Source:
Based
on
multiplying
the
unit
costs
displayed
in
the
prior
two
tables,
by
the
number
of
annual
audits
for
each
type
of
permit.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
72
II­
F.
Impact
Category
#
4:

Potential
Enhancement
of
Financial
Return
to
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Facilities
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
6
For
example,
as
of
Dec
2002,
the
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
(
TNRCC)
characterized
its
RCRA
permitting
process
as
consisting
of
633
days
(
21.1
months)
for
both
hazardous
waste
management
new
permit
applications
and
for
permit
renewals
(
i.
e.
"
Path
1"
of
the
RCRA
permit
processing
flowchart
at
http://
www.
tnrcc.
state.
tx.
us/
permitting/
wasteperm/
ihwperm/
new.
pdf).
The
RCRA
permit
processing
time
period
findings
from
both
the
FY1999
and
the
prior
1996
studies
are
summarized
in
a
30
March
1999
USEPA
Office
of
Inspector
General
memorandum
"
EPA
Controls
Over
RCRA
Permit
Renewals"
(
report
no.
E1DSF9­
11­
0002­
9100115,
8
pages,

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oigearth/
ereading_
room/
list399/
9100115.
pdf).
73
In
Fiscal
Year
1999,
the
USEPA
Office
of
Inspector
General
(
OIG)
released
a
survey
assessment
report
of
the
time
required
to
complete
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
management
permitting
process.
The
OIG
conducted
its
assessment
in
November
1998,
based
on:
(
a)
RCRA
permit
renewals
in
(
b)
USEPA
Region
3
and
in
two
states
(
Pennsylvania
&
West
Virginia).
The
time
to
complete
original
(
initial)
new
RCRA
permit
applications
was
not
included
in
the
assessment.

The
OIG
assessment
found
that
the
time
required
to
complete
the
RCRA
permit
renewals
ranged
from
450
to
1,090
days
(
i.
e.
15.0
to
36.3
months).
In
comparison,
an
earlier
1996
study
of
RCRA
permit
processing
time
in
16
states
revealed
an
overall
processing
time
range
of
195
to
760
days
(
i.
e.
6.5
to
25.3
months).
6
For
purpose
of
this
impact
category,
the
overall
range
implied
by
both
studies
of
195
to
1,090
days
(
i.
e.
6.5
to
36.3
months)
is
applied
in
this
document
as
the
baseline
permit
processing
time
for
all
three
existing
types
of
RCRA
permit
actions
(
i.
e.
new
permits,
permit
renewals,
and
permit
modifications).

In
comparison,
the
RCRA
"
standardized"
permit
restricts
the
permit
processing
time
to
a
maximum
of
120
days
(
4.0
months),
with
possibility
for
a
one­
time
extension
for
state
authority
review
of
a
permit
application
of
an
additional
120
days
(
thereby
totaling
8.0
maximum
months).
The
2.5
to
28.3
months
difference
between
the
baseline
permit
processing
time
of
6.5
to
36.3
months
compared
to
the
standardized
permit
processing
time
of
4.0
to
8.0
months
constitutes
the
quantitative
basis
for
this
impact
category
(
i.
e.
6.5
minus
4.0
months,
to
36.3
minus
8.0
months).

The
economic
basis
for
this
impact
category
is
the
faster
on­
set
of
financial
return
on
investments
made
in
waste
management
plant
&

equipment
assets.
Under
both
the
RCRA
conventional
permit
process
and
the
RCRA
"
standardized"
permit
process,
construction
and
installation
of
new
waste
management
units
is
prohibited
until
the
permitting
process
is
complete
(
40
CFR
270.1(
b)).
Consequently,
the
financial
return
on
capital
investments
in
waste
management
units
may
begin
2.5
to
28.3
months
earlier
under
the
"
standardized"
permit
process,
compared
to
the
conventional
RCRA
permit
process.

The
economic
benefit
of
an
earlier
on­
set
of
financial
return
may
be
monetized
as
the
improvement
in
the
time­
discounted
future
financial
return
on
plant
assets.
Return
on
assets
is
a
ratio
that
measures
the
sum
of
annual
interest
expense
and
annual
net
income
to
a
company
(
as
numerator),
compared
to
the
average
total
assets
of
the
company
over
the
same
year
(
as
denominator).
The
table
below
presents
assumptions
about
the
value
of
investments
(
i.
e.
purchase
or
construction
costs)
for
the
three
types
of
waste
management
units
(
i.
e.
plant
&
equipment
assets)

eligible
for
RCRA
"
standardized"
permits
Based
on
the
capital
cost
assumptions
presented
in
the
table
below,
which
range
from
$
1,060
to
$
5,244,000
per
eligible
type
of
waste
management
unit,
the
average
annual
return
on
assets
(
ROA)
ranges
from
$
90
to
$
434,700
per
unit,
computed
at
the
five­
year
(
1997­
2001)

average
annual
8.29%
ROA
for
the
S&
P500.
On
a
monthly
equivalent
basis,
the
ROA
ranges
from
$
10
to
$
37,810
per
unit.
The
earlier
on­
set
of
operations
provided
by
the
permit
processing
time
period
threshold
under
the
"
standardized"
permit,
results
in
a
3%
to
35%
(@
3%
discount
rate)

to
4%
to
43%
(@
7%
rate)
improvement
in
the
ROA
(
i.
e.
company
profitability)
over
a
10­
year
period
beginning
at
the
time
of
permit
application
submission
to
the
state
reviewing
agency,
equivalent
to
$
23
to
$
1,025,000
(@
3%
discount
rate)
to
$
22
to
$
950,000
(@
7%
rate)
in
10­
year
net
present
value
of
improved
profits
per
waste
management
unit.
The
supporting
spreadsheets
for
these
computations
are
provided
in
Attachment
C
to
this
document.

Based
on
the
assumption
that
an
average
of
two
new
units
are
permitted
annually,
the
average
annual
economic
benefit
to
improvement
in
financial
return
on
assets
is
estimated
at
$
13,000
to
$
121,000
per
year
(@
3%
discount
rate)
to
$
16,000
to
$
138,000
per
year
(@
7%
rate).
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
74
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
75
Average
Purchase
or
Construction
Costs
for
the
Three
Types
of
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Units
Eligible
for
RCRA
"
Standardized"
Permits
Type
of
Unit
Size
Category
Typical
Size*
of
Unit
Typical
Cost
for
Purchase
or
Construction
of
Unit
Financial
Return
on
Asset**

Annual
Monthly
Containers
Small
(
55
gallon/
drum)
x
(
10
drums/
unit)
($
106/
drum)
x
(
10
drums/
unit)
=
$
1,060
$
90
$
10
Medium
(
20
cubic
yard
roll­
off
bin)
x
(
2
bins/
unit)
($
6,600/
bin)
x
(
2
bins/
unit)
=
$
13,200
$
1,100
$
100
Large
(
20
cubic
yard
roll­
off
bin)
x
(
10
bins/
unit)
($
6,600/
bin)
x
(
10
bins/
unit)
=
$
66,000
$
5,500
$
480
Tank
Systems
Small
(
3,000
gallons/
tank)
x
(
4
tanks/
unit)
($
12,000/
tank)
x
(
4
tanks)
=
$
48,000
$
4,000
$
350
Medium
(
10,000
gallons/
tank)
x
(
4
tanks/
unit)
($
25,000/
tank)
x
(
4
tanks)
=
$
100,000
$
8,300
$
720
Large
(
125,000
gallons/
tank)
x
(
4
tanks/
unit)
($
185,000/
tank)
x
(
4
tanks)
=
$
740,000
$
61,400
$
5,340
Containment
Buildings
Small
(
1,500
square
feet)
x
(
1
bldg/
unit)
$
439,000/
bldg
$
36,400
$
3,170
Medium
(
8,200
square
feet)
x
(
1
bldg/
unit)
$
1,008,000/
bldg
$
83,600
$
7,270
Large
(
68,000
square
feet)
x
(
1
bldg/
unit)
$
5,244,000/
bldg
$
434,700
$
37,810
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Data
sources
for
typical
sizes
and
costs:

!
Containers:
Costs
per
container
from
cost
item
examples
F.
6.1
and
F.
6.2
for
containers
provided
in
the
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
"
Unit
Cost
Compendium"

(
30
Sept
2000).
Number
of
containers
per
container
unit
based
on
EMRAD
judgement.

!
Tanks:
Typical
tank
sizes
and
tank
costs
(
with
secondary
containment,
updated
to
year
2000$)
from
size
classes
for
above­
ground
hazardous
waste
tanks
from
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
report
"
Economic
Analysis
of
RCRA
Regulations
for
Hazardous
Waste
Tank
Facilities",
(
prepared
by
ICF
Inc.),

June
1986,
Exhibit
2­
7
(
page
2­
9).
Four
tanks/
unit
is
median
number
for
hazardous
waste
storage
tanks
from
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
report
"
Hazardous
Waste
Tanks
Risk
Analysis",
(
prepared
by
ICF
Inc.
&
Pope­
Reid
Associates),
June
1986,
page
4­
21.

!
Cntmt
Bldgs:
Sizes
based
on
floor
area
dimensions
displayed
in
Exhibit
3­
12
in
the
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
report
"
Cost
and
Economic
Impact
Analysis
of
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
for
Newly
Listed
Wastes
and
Contaminated
Debris
(
Phase
I
LDRs)
Final
Rule",
Regulatory
Analysis
Branch,
10
June
1992
(
page
3­
17).
Construction
costs
updated
to
year
2000$
from
Appendix
E
of
the
same
reference
report.

(
b)
**
Return
on
assets:
Return
on
plant
assets
(
ROA)
is
used
as
a
key
financial
indicator
for
measuring
the
profitability
of
a
company.
It
is
a
numerical
ratio
which
compares
net
profits
(
i.
e.
net
income
and
interest
expenses)
after
taxes,
with
average
total
assets
used
to
earn
such
profits.
Total
assets
may
include
both
depreciated
value
of:

!
physical
assets
(
land,
buildings,
machinery
&
equipment,
land
improvements,
natural
resources)
and
!
intangible
assets
(
patents,
copyrights,
trademarks,
tradenames,
franchises,
licenses,
leaseholds,
goodwill).

This
table
applies
the
8.29%
average
annual
rate
of
return
on
assets
for
the
Standard
&
Poor's
(
S&
P)
500
industrial
company
five­
year
average
1997­
2001,
which
is
assumed
for
application
in
this
document
to
be
an
"
effective"
rate
rather
than
a
"
nominal"
rate
(
http://
www.
marketguide.
com/
MGI/
education.
asp?
target=%
2Fstocks%
2Feducation%
2Fratio).
This
annual
effective
rate
is
equivalent
to
a
0.67%

effective
monthly
rate.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
76
II­
G.
Impact
Category
#
5:

Potential
Reduction
in
State
Government
Fees
(
State
Revenues)

for
Processing
RCRA
Permits
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
77
Although
this
impact
category
represents
a
"
transfer
effect"
within
the
framework
of
this
economic
analysis
because
it
potentially
overlaps
(
i.
e.

double­
counts
in
part
or
in
whole)
the
"
real
resource"
administrative
paperwork
economic
Impact
Category
#
1,
it
is
included
in
this
document
because
of
public
request
for
estimation
of
impact
on
state
fees
in
public
response
to
the
October
2001
proposed
rule.

The
table
below
presents
a
summary
of
a
non­
random
convenience
sample
of
state
government
fees
for
issuing
and
renewing
RCRA
hazardous
waste
permits.
The
sample
is
based
on
eight
states
which
collectively
represent
32%
of
the
1999
universe
of
RCRA
hazardous
waste
management
facilities
(
i.
e.
498
of
the
1,575
RCRA
TSDF
universe
in
year
1999;
another
table
below
presents
a
state­
by­
state
descending
ranking
count
of
TSDFs).
This
overall
range
in
state
fees
is
applied
in
this
document
for
purpose
of
estimating
potential
impacts
of
the
"
standardized"

permit
process
on
the
payment
of
state
fees
by
applicants
(
i.
e.
potential
reduction
in
annual
revenues
to
state
governments
from
RCRA
permitting).
Summary
of
State
Government
Fees
for
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Permits
for
Operation
of
Storage
or
Non­
Thermal
Treatment
Units
(
Excluding
Waste
Disposal,
Unit
Closure,
Unit
Post­
Closure,
or
Unit
Corrective
Action
Permit
Fees)

Item
State
Type
of
RCRA
Permit
Action
Initial
Application
Fee
($/
unit)
Annual
Recurring
Fee
($/
unit)

Minimum
fee
Maximum
fee
Minimum
fee
Maximum
fee
A.
Internet
Search
Sample
of
State
Fees
for
RCRA
Permits:

1
California
New
permit
$
24,965
$
88,108
$
5,779
$
69,351
Permit
renewal
$
12,483
$
44,054
Permit
mod
class
1
$
0
Permit
mod
class
2
$
3,745
$
17,622
Permit
mod
class
3
$
7,490
$
35,243
2
Illinois
New
permit
&
renewal
$
0
$
250
$
1,000
3
Louisiana
New
permit
$
3,300
$
33,000
$
6,270
$
22,836
Permit
mod
class
1
or
2
$
240
Permit
mod
class
3
$
900
4
Michigan
New
permit
$
7,000
$
10,000
$
500
5
Ohio
New
permit
&
renewals
$
1,500
$
500
$
700
6
Oregon
New
permit
Varies:
based
on
actual
cost
to
state
$
18,750
$
37,500
7
Tennessee
New
permit
$
12,000
$
27,000
$
5,000
$
20,000
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Item
State
Type
of
RCRA
Permit
Action
Initial
Application
Fee
($/
unit)
Annual
Recurring
Fee
($/
unit)

Minimum
fee
Maximum
fee
Minimum
fee
Maximum
fee
78
Permit
renewal
$
10,400
$
25,400
Permit
mod
class
1
$
500
$
3,000
Permit
mod
class
2
$
7,000
$
9,000
Permit
mod
class
3
$
10,000
$
12,000
8
Texas
New
permit
$
2,050
$
2,500
$
25,000
Permit
renewal
$
2,015
Permit
mod
class
1
$
150
Permit
mod
class
2
or
3
$
550
$
8,050
B.
Summary
of
State
Fee
Sample:
Summary
metrics
=
Avg
min
Midpoint
Avg
max
Avg
min
Midpoint
Avg
max
New
permit
$
7,300
$
15,200
$
23,100
$
4,900
$
13,500
$
22,100
Permit
renewal
$
5,300
$
9,900
$
14,600
Permit
mod
class
1
$
200
$
500
$
800
Permit
mod
class
2
$
2,900
$
5,800
$
8,700
Permit
mod
class
3
$
4,700
$
9,300
$
14,000
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Data
source:
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
EMRAD
Division)
internet
search
in
Nov/
Dec
2002
using
the
"
State
And
Local
Government
on
the
Net"
website
(
http://
www.
statelocalgov.
net/).

(
b)
Fee
ranges:
Ranges
in
state
government
hazardous
waste
management
permit
fees
usually
reflect
fees
for
different:

!
Size
of
waste
unit
(
i.
e.
waste
flow
capacities)

!
Type
of
waste
unit
(
e.
g.
storage
or
treatment)

!
Locations
(
i.
e.
on­
site
or
off­
site)
of
storage
and
non­
thermal
treatment
units
!
Renewal
of
existing
facility
permit
or
new
permit
application
!
RCRA
permit
part
(
i.
e
Part
A
or
Part
B
 
in
such
cases
this
table
presents
fees
for
both
Part
A
and
Part
B)

!
Operating,
closure,
or
post­
closure
permits
(
in
such
cases
this
table
presents
fees
for
operating
permits).

In
comparison
to
the
state
fee
sample
summary
ranges
displayed
in
the
table
above,
the
potential
reduction
in
RCRA
permit
fees
paid
under
the
"
standardized"
permit,
may
be
estimated
by
subtracting
the
fee
for
processing
"
Part
B"
of
the
conventional
RCRA
permit,
because
Part
B
will
not
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
79
be
submitted
to
state
governments
under
the
"
standardized"
permit;
it
will
be
maintained
at
the
applicant's
site.
Based
on
the
two
state
government
examples
below,
the
implied
reduction
in
RCRA
permit
fees
could
range
from
to
49%
to
96%
reduction
in
initial
fees
(
midpoint
=

72%),
and
60%
to
83%
reduction
in
annual
fees
(
midpoint
=
72%),
for
the
"
standardized"
permit
fee,
compared
to
the
conventional
RCRA
permit
fee:

!
California:
Initial
fee:
Charges
$
6,238
to
$
37,497
initial
fee
for
this
State's
existing
version
of
a
"
standardized"
RCRA
hazardous
waste
new
permit,
compared
to
$
24,965
to
$
88,108
initial
fee
for
a
conventional
RCRA
new
permit.
This
represents
a
49%
to
75%
reduction
in
initial
permit
fees
(
midpoint
=

62%).

Annual
fee:
Charges
$
2,308
to
$
11,730
annual
fee
for
this
State's
existing
version
of
a
"
standardized"
RCRA
hazardous
waste
new
permit,
compared
to
$
5,779
to
$
69,351
annual
fee
for
a
conventional
RCRA
new
permit.
This
represents
a
60%
to
83%
reduction
in
annual
permit
fees
(
midpoint
=

72%).

!
Tennessee:
Initial
fee:
Charges
$
400
to
$
2,000
for
processing
"
Part
A"
of
a
RCRA
hazardous
waste
new
permit
application,
compared
to
$
10,000
to
$
25,000
for
processing
"
Part
B"
of
a
new
permit
application.

Removing
the
"
Part
B"
portion
of
the
fee
represents
a
93%
to
96%
reduction
(
midpoint
=
94%).

Estimation
of
Potential
Reduction
in
Annual
State
Fee
Revenues
for
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Permitting
Item
Type
of
RCRA
permit
action
Average
state
fee
for
conventional
RCRA
permit
actions
(
from
prior
table)
Potential
reduction
in
average
state
fee*
Two
Alternative
Future
Average
Annual
Permit
Action
Scenarios
Potential
Future
Average
Annual
Impact
on
State
Fee
Permitting
Revenues
($/
year)

Scope
#
1:

if
on­
site
units
only
Scope
#
2:

if
on­
&

offsite
units
%
of
states
charging
fees****
Scope
#
1
impact
(
if
on­
site
only)
Scope
#
2
impact
(
if
on­
&
off­
site)

A.
Impact
on
Initial
Fee
for
Permit
Applications:

1
New
permit
$
15,200
­$
10,900
2
2
57%
$
12,500
$
16,500
2
Permit
renewal
$
9,900
­$
7,100
94
123
$
382,000
$
495,900
3
Permit
mod
class
1
$
500
­$
400
9
12
$
2,300
$
2,900
4
Permit
mod
class
2
$
5,800
­$
4,200
9
12
$
21,700
$
27,900
5
Permit
mod
class
3
$
9,300
­$
6,700
7
9
$
26,800
$
34,800
6
Conversions**
$
9,900**
­$
7,100**
14**
15**
$
57,000
$
60,400
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
80
Column
totals
=
135
173
$
501,500/
yr
$
638,400/
yr
B.
Impact
on
Annual
Fee
for
Permit
Maintenance:

7
Permit
maintenance
$
13,500/
yr
­$
9,700/
yr
1,393***
1,688***
57%
$
6,719,000/
yr
$
8,164,000/
yr
Average
annual
total
impact
on
state
fees
=
$
7,221,000/
yr
$
8,802,000/
yr
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Potential
fee
reduction
based
on
average
72%
reduction
for
both
initial
RCRA
permit
application
fees
and
annual
recurring
RCRA
permit
fees,
as
computed
in
this
background
document
based
on
a
sample
of
eight
states.

(
b)
Range
in
number
of
permit
actions
based
on
two
alternative
eligibility
scopes:

!
Scope
#
1:
On­
site
units
only:
866
facility
baseline
(
3,532
hazardous
waste
management
units)

!
Scope
#
2:
On­
&
off­
site
units:
1,133
facility
baseline
(
4,622
hazardous
waste
management
units)

(
c)
**
Permit
conversions
(
switchting)
from
conventional
RCRA
permits
to
"
standardized"
RCRA
permits
expected
to
occur
during
the
initial
six
years
after
final
rule
promulgation,
at
a
rate
of
79
to
103/
year,
after
which
conversions
are
simulated
to
drop
to
zero
in
this
document.
The
number
of
units
shown
above
are
the
average
annualized
counts
over
the
30­
year
period­
of­
analysis
applied
in
this
document.

(
d)
***
Annual
permit
maintenance
fee
impact
based
on
cumulative
count
of
existing
permit
renewal
+
permit
oonversion
units
up
to
10­
year
phase­
in
period
(
after
which
all
permits
will
have
come­
up
for
renewal),
plus
all
future
annual
new
"
standardized"
permits.

(
e)
****
Based
on
OSW's
count
of
state's
which
have
hazardous
waste
permitting
fees
using
the
Army
Corps
of
Engineers'
hazardous
waste
state
tax/
fee
database
at
http://
www.
environmental.
usace.
army.
mil/
library/
pubs/
tsdf/
sec8­
2/
sec8­
2.
html),
only
24
states
charge
fees
for
RCRA
permits.
These
24
states*
accounted
for
1,404
(
57%)
of
the
2,479
RCRA
TSDFs
in
2001.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
81
State
Count
Descending
Sort
of
the
Universe
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Treatment,
Storage
&
Disposal
Facilities
(
TSDFs)

Source:
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
1999
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Biennial
Report
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
data/
brs99/
index.
htm)

Rank
State
TSDF
Count
Cumulative
count
Cumulative
%
Rank
State
TSDF
Count
Cumulative
count
Cumulative
%

1
California
144
144
9.1%
30
West
Virginia
22
1,400
88.9%

2
Texas
105
249
15.8%
31
Connecticut
20
1,420
90.2%

3
Illinois
86
335
21.3%
32
Mississippi
19
1,439
91.4%

4
North
Carolina
75
410
26.0%
33
Wisconsin
18
1,457
92.5%

5
Louisiana
68
478
30.3%
34
Colorado
18
1,475
93.7%

6
Michigan
61
539
34.2%
35
Arizona
16
1,491
94.7%

7
New
York
59
598
38.0%
36
Maine
10
1,501
95.3%

8
Missouri
51
649
41.2%
37
Vermont
7
1,508
95.7%

9
Pennsylvania
51
700
44.4%
38
North
Dakota
7
1,515
96.2%

10
Ohio
49
749
47.6%
39
New
Mexico
7
1,522
96.6%

11
Alabama
47
796
50.5%
40
Nebraska
6
1,528
97.0%

12
Florida
46
842
53.5%
41
Idaho
6
1,534
97.4%

13
New
Jersey
44
886
56.3%
42
Alaska
6
1,540
97.8%

14
Virginia
43
929
59.0%
43
Nevada
6
1,546
98.2%

15
Massachusetts
43
972
61.7%
44
Oregon
6
1,552
98.5%

16
Minnesota
40
1,012
64.3%
45
Delaware
5
1,557
98.9%

17
Georgia
37
1,049
66.6%
46
Rhode
Island
3
1,560
99.0%

18
Arkansas
35
1,084
68.8%
47
New
Hampshire
3
1,563
99.2%

19
Puerto
Rico
31
1,115
70.8%
48
Hawaii
3
1,566
99.4%

20
Indiana
30
1,145
72.7%
49
Guam
2
1,568
99.6%

21
Oklahoma
30
1,175
74.6%
50
Wyoming
2
1,570
99.7%

22
Tennessee
28
1,203
76.4%
51
CBI
data
1
1,571
99.7%

23
Utah
27
1,230
78.1%
52
Virgin
Islands
1
1,572
99.8%

24
Kentucky
27
1,257
79.8%
53
Trust
Territories
1
1,573
99.9%

25
Iowa
26
1,283
81.5%
54
South
Dakota
1
1,574
99.9%

26
South
Carolina
26
1,309
83.1%
55
District
of
Columbia
1
1,575
100.0%

27
Kansas
24
1,333
84.6%
56
Montana
0
1,575
100.0%

28
Washington
23
1,356
86.1%
57
Navajo
Nation
0
1,575
100.0%

29
Maryland
22
1,378
87.5%
Column
total
=
1,575
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
82
III.
SENSITIVITY
ANALYSES
This
section
illustrates
how
the
estimated
national
cost
savings
associated
with
the
paperwork
burden
reduction
features
of
fthe
RCRA
standardized
permit,
varies
according
to
four
parameters
(
Attachment
D
at
the
end
of
this
document
provides
supporting
data
and
computation
spreadsheets).
The
other
features
of
the
standardized
rule
are
not
included
in
this
sensitivity
analysis
because
the
average
annual
values
for
those
other
economic
effects
are
constant
and
thus
not
affected
by
discount
rate;
only
the
net
present
values
are
affected,
but
not
illustrated
in
this
section.
Note
that
the
two
alternative
scenarios
of
affected
entities
(
i.
e.
866
on­
site
facilities
versus
1,133
on­
site
+
off­
site
facilities)
are
presented
as
eligibility
scope
options
rather
than
as
a
sensitivity
analysis;
the
sensitivity
analyses
below
only
apply
to
"
Scope
#
1"
(
n
=
866
on­
site
eligible
facilities).

Item
Sensitivity
Parameters
Minimum
Mid­
Range
Maximum
1
Future
period­
of­
analysis
(
POA)
10
years
20
years
30
years
(
base­
case)

2
Future
discount
rate
(
per
annum)
0%
3%
7%
(
base­
case)
10%

3
Annual
number
of
future
RCRA
standardized
permit
actions
­
2.9%
annual
reduction
166
permit
actions
per
year
(
base­
case)
+
2.9%
annual
increase
4
Future
labor
cost
inflation
rate
(
per
annum)
0%
(
base­
case)
None
+
2.1%
annual
increase
III­
A.
Does
National
Burden
Cost
Savings
Depend
Upon
the
Period­
of­
Analysis
and
the
Discount
Rate
Applied?

Yes,
as
illustrated
in
the
next
table,
the
aggregate
economic
impact
results
are
sensitive
to
both
the
discount
rate
and
to
the
period­
of­
analysis.

Sensitivity
Analysis
of
Estimated
National
Paperwork
Burden
Cost
Savings
(
to
Both
Eligible
TSFs
and
to
Permitting
Authorities
Combined),

According
to
Alternative
Discount
Rates
and
Period­
of­
Analyses
($
millions)

Discount
Rates>
0%
3%
5%
7%
(
base­
case)
10%

A.
Average
Annual
Equivalent
(
AAE):

10­
year
POA
$
1.57
$
1.67
$
1.65
$
1.68
$
1.72
20­
year
POA
$
1.96
$
1.98
$
1.99
$
1.99
$
2.01
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
83
30­
year
POA
(
base­
case)
$
2.09
$
2.09
$
2.09
$
2.09
$
2.08
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
84
B.
Net
Present
Value
(
NPV):

10­
year
POA
$
15.7
$
13.8
$
12.7
$
11.8
$
10.6
20­
year
POA
$
39.1
$
29.4
$
24.8
$
21.1
$
17.1
30­
year
POA
(
base­
case)
$
62.7
$
41.1
$
32.2
$
25.9
$
19.6
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
The
zero
percent
(
0%)
discount
rate
represents
non­
discounted
total
cost
savings
over
the
respective
POAs.

(
b)
It
is
important
to
note
that
discounting
which
introduces
"
consumer
time
preference"
or
"
investor
opportunity
cost
of
resources"
into
analyses,
is
distinctly
different
from
the
phenomenon
and
analytical
treatment
of
price
inflation.
It
is
also
particularly
important
within
the
context
of
environmental
economics,
to
indicate
that
discounting
is
a
controversial
topic
amongst
economists.
For
example,
in
contrast
to
its
accepted
and
almost
universally­
prescribed
application
in
Federal
economic
analyses
and
in
other
public
and
private
sector
financial
investment
decision­
making
contexts,
some
economists
argue
that
the
practice
of
discounting
applied
in
an
environmental
decision­
making
context
is
inappropriate,
in
that
discounting
denies
human
intergenerational
and
ecological
equity,
and
excludes
natural
resource
preservation,
among
other
reasons.
For
contemporary
surveys
of
reasons
for
and
against
the
practice
of
discounting,
see:
(
a)
Portney,
Paul
R.
&
John
P.
Weyant,
eds,

Discounting
and
Intergenerational
Equity,
Resources
for
the
Future
(
RFF)
Press,
1999,
186pp.,
and
(
b)
Price,
Colin,
Time,
Discounting
&
Value,
Blackwell
Publishers
Oxford
UK,
1993,
411pp.

III­
B.
Does
National
Cost
Savings
Depend
Upon
the
Level
of
Future
RCRA
Permitting
Actions?

Although
a
constant
average
annual
future
stream
of
RCRA
permit
actions
is
applied
in
this
document
as
the
analytical
base
case,
it
is
conceivable
that
the
future
annual
RCRA
permit
action
frequency
may
deviate
from
this
historical
permit
action
trend,
because
of
numerous
economic
factors
including
but
not
limited
to
the
following:

Eligible
TSFs:
Future
change
(
i.
e.
net
increase
or
net
decrease)
in
the
US
national
number
of
operating
TSFs
eligible
for
"
standardized"
RCRA
permits.
Among
other
factors,
this
is
determined
by
the
number
of
new
TSF
construction
starts
and
the
number
of
future
TSF
closures.

Permit
Actions:
Future
change
in
the
number
and
type
of
RCRA
permit
actions
involving
eligible
TSFs.

RCRA
rules:
Future
additions/
subtractions
to
the
universe
of
RCRA
wastecodes
and
other
standards,
which
ultimately
determine
the
number
and
annual
quantity
of
wastestreams
which
may
be
managed
by
eligible
hazardous
waste
TSFs.

Consequently,
the
estimate
of
national
cost
savings
developed
in
this
study
is
sensitive
to
the
direction
of
change
in
these
and
other
factors
affecting
annual
count
of
RCRA
permit
actions.
Attachment
D
provides
supporting
data
and
computations
to
illustrate
this
sensitivity.

To
illustrate
this
point,
the
number
of
US
national
RCRA
permitted
TSDFs
as
reported
in
the
USEPA
"
Biennial
Reporting
System"
(
BRS)

national
survey
database
for
the
13­
year
period
1985­
1997
(
as
displayed
in
a
prior
Table
in
this
document),
are
presented
in
the
form
of
timeseries
data
graphs
in
Attachment
D
at
the
end
of
this
document.
This
Attachment
presents
two
alternative
graphs,
each
containing
two
lines:

one
line
which
connects
the
raw
BRS
datapoints,
and
a
second
line
which
depicts
the
linear­
regression
trend
based
on
the
datapoints
(
Attachment
D
presents
the
regression
results):
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
7
One
way
to
decide
quantitatively
how
well
a
straight
trendline
fits
a
set
of
datapoints,
is
to
note
the
extent
to
which
the
individual
datapoints
deviate
above
or
below
the
trendline.
This
deviation
is
measured
as
the
difference
in
numerical
values
between
the
datapoint
and
the
corresponding
value
along
the
trendline.
Deviations
from
trend
are
expressed
by
the
regression
"
R­
squared"
value,
which
may
range
from
0%
(
i.
e.
"
no
fit")
to
100%
(
i.
e
"
perfect
fit"),
as
the
representation
in
a
single
number,
of
the
"
goodness
of
fit"
of
a
regression
trendline
relative
to
its
datapoints.

8
Extreme
datapoints
(
observations)
that
are
detached
from
the
remainder
of
the
data
are
called
"
outliers",
and
they
usually
receive
special
attention
in
statistical
analyses.
Although
outliers
may
represent
legitimate
measurements,
they
are
more
often
"
mistakes",
i.
e.
incorrectly
recorded
observations,
miscoded
input
into
a
computer,
or
measurements
from
a
different
population
than
the
population
from
which
the
rest
of
the
sample
data
was
selected.
In
other
cases
when
outlying
data
are
correct,
further
analysis
of
outliers
may
reveal
special
cases,
factors
or
other
considerations.
Because
the
BRS
survey,
particularly
in
its
earlier
years
is
subject
to
national
sampling
variability
and
to
other
sources
of
survey
errors
(
e.
g.
because
of
data
flaws,
the
USEPA
did
not
release
the
1981
and
1983
BRS
databases),
the
exclusion
of
outlying
data
is
reasonable
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
overall
time
trends
in
the
BRS
database.
On
the
other
hand,
there
are
also
"
curvilinear"
regression
trendlines
which
may
better
"
fit"
all
of
the
seven
BRS
datapoints,
by
accounting
for
trend
curvature
over
time.
Because
most
data
relationships
(
i.
e.
correlations
or
associations)
with
another
data
variable
(
such
as
years)
possess
some
curvature,

curvilinear
trend
models
will
often
better
"
fit"
a
dataset.
For
additional
information
on
data
outliers
and
data
regression,
see
J.
T.
McClave
&
P.
G.
Benson,
Statistics
for
Business
and
Economics,
Dellen­
Macmillan,
1988.

9
It
is
important
to
distinguish
between
two
fundamentally
different
conceptual
orientations
to
forecasting:

°
Prediction:
Indicating
what
the
future
will
(
probably
or
presumably)
be
by
informative
specifications
attempting
to
preindicate
what
will
happen
(
i.
e.

concern
with
actualities).

°
Scenario
projection:
Indicating
what
the
future
might
be
by
surveying
possible
courses
of
future
developments
by
formulating
imaginative
speculations
about
what
might
happen
(
i.
e.
concern
with
possibilities).

The
latter
rather
than
the
former
is
the
conceptual
orientation
applied
in
the
historical
data
trendline
projections
of
this
study
for
purpose
of
sensitivity
analysis.
One
recent
academic
reference
to
the
theory
of
forecasting
is
Nicholas
Rescher,
Predicting
the
Future:
An
Introduction
to
the
Theory
of
Forecasting,
State
University
of
New
York
85
All
data:
The
first
graph
displayed
in
Attachment
D
plots
all
seven
BRS
datapoints
(
i.
e.
the
national
number
of
TSDFs
for
BRS
datayears
1985,
1987,
1989,
1991,
1993,
1995,
1997).
Visual
inspection
of
this
first
graph
indicates
that
four
of
the
BRS
datapoints
appear
to
fall
along
the
same
downward
sloping
trendline,

while
three
BRS
datapoints
appear
as
"
outliers"
located
above
or
below
this
trendline.
The
overall
"
fit"
of
the
linear­
regression
trendline
to
these
seven
datapoints
is
only
76%.
7
Non­
outlying
data:
The
second
graph
displayed
in
Attachment
D
plots
five
non­
outlying
datapoints
from
the
seven
(
i.
e.
the
national
number
of
TSDFs
for
BRS
datayears
1987,
1989,
1993,
1995,
1997).
The
two
"
outlying"

datapoints
(
i.
e.
BRS
datayears
1985
and
1991)
represent
deviations
greater
than
+/­
10%
from
the
linear
regression
expected
trend
value
for
those
years
based
on
the
overall
linear
regression
trendline
established
by
the
other
four
"
non­
outlying"
datapoints.
Removal
of
the
two
outlier
datapoints
improves
the
overall
"
fit"
of
the
regression
trendline
to
95%.
8
Both
the
datapoint
lines
and
the
simple
linear
regression
trendlines
in
each
graph
show
that
the
US
national
number
of
all
RCRA­
permitted
TSDFs
has
declined
significantly
during
this
13­
year
data
period
(
1985
to
1997).

Linear
Scenario
Projection
These
historical
BRS
data
provide
one
simple
and
convenient
basis
for
establishing
a
scenario
for
the
future
number
of
eligible
TSFs,
which
may
serve
as
a
proxy
or
indicator
for
the
possible
number
of
future
RCRA
permitting
actions.
Although
the
activity
of
forecasting
is
often
controversial,
from
an
inferential
statistics
theoretical
perspective9,
one
of
the
most
prominent
and
least
expensive
of
formal
forecasting
methods
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Press,
1998,
315pp.
86
is
afforded
by
trend
projection
involving
linear
extrapolation
of
prevailing
(
i.
e.
historical
and
current)
trends.
(
However,
forecasting
theorists
warn
that
the
crucial
premisses
of
this
trend
projection
reasoning
 
the
continuation
of
present
trends
 
is
usually
very
unlikely
to
be
realized.)

Trend
projection
involves
extrapolation
of
the
timeseries
trendline
inherent
in
the
past
and
current
datapoints.
As
displayed
in
Attachment
D
to
this
document,
using
linear
(
i.
e.
straight­
line)
trend
projection
as
alternatively
applied
to
both
the
full
BRS
dataset
(
i.
e.
seven
datapoints)
and
to
the
non­
outlying
dataset
(
i.
e.
five
BRS
datapoints),
the
forecasted
future
number
of
RCRA
TSDFs
is
projected
(
unreasonably)

to
decrease
to
zero
by
the
year
2007
and
2011,
respectively.

This
unreasonable
linear
trend
projection
result
suggests
that
a
"
curvilinear"
(
i.
e.
second­
or
third­
order)
rather
than
a
"
linear"
(
i.
e.

firstorder
regression
 
upon
which
to
base
a
trend
projection
forecast
 
may
better
"
fit"
a
more
reasonable
trendline
to
the
historical
data,
as
well
as
provide
a
more
reasonable
scenario
projection
of
the
future
national
number
of
TSDF.

Curvilinear
Scenario
Projection
The
subfield
of
statistical
science
associated
with
trend
projection
is
called
"
model
building",
which
is
defined
as
developing
a
statistical
model
that
will:
°
Provide
a
good
fit
to
a
set
of
data
°
Give
good
projections
or
predictions
of
future
values
of
the
data.

Statistical
models
may
take
many
different
mathematical
functional
forms,
but
at
the
risk
of
oversimplification,
the
most
common
models
are
usually
the
following
linear
(
single
variable)
and
two
curvilinear
(
polynomial
variable)
forms:

First­
order
(
linear)

=
 
+
 1*
 
or
Log(

)
=
 
+
 1*
 
Second­
order
(
curvilinear)

=
 
+
 1*
 
+
 2*
 
2
Third­
order
(
curvilinear)

=
 
+
 1*
 
+
 2*
 
2
+
 3*
 
3
Where:

=
dependent
data
variable
(
annual
count
of
TSDFs)

 
=
constant
term
(
estimated
by
statistical
regression)

 
=
coefficient
(
estimated
by
statistical
regression)

 
=
independent
data
variable
(
data
year
in
time
series)

Log
=
either
natural
or
base­
10
logarithm.

In
general,
a
graph
of
a
nth­
order
polynomial
(
curvilinear)
model
will
contain
a
total
of
(
n­
1)
peaks
and
troughs
(
i.
e
inflexion
points),
such
that
time
series
data
which
exhibit
a
single
change
in
curve
slope
may
be
fit
with
a
second­
order
curvilinear
model,
whereas
data
which
exhibit
two
or
more
changes
in
curve
slopes
may
be
better
fit
with
a
third­
order
(
or
higher)
curvilinear
model.

Attachment
D
presents
the
resultant
curvilinear
trend
projection
graphs
and
data
associated
with
second­
and
third­
order
curvilinear
modeling
based
on
the
13­
year
TSDF
universe
historical
data
(
i.
e.
1985­
1997),
along
with
a
scenario
projection
for
the
future
30­
year
period­
of­
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
87
analysis
(
i.
e.
2005­
2034
POA).
As
shown
by
both
the
resultant
data­
fit
curves
and
the
R­
squared
values
in
Attachment
D,
the
third­
order
curvilinear
model
both:

Historical
data
fit
Better
"
fits"
the
data
(
as
evidenced
by
an
R­
squared
value
of
86%
for
the
third­
order
model,
compared
to
80%
for
the
second­
order
model).

Future
projection
Provides
a
reasonable
scenario
projection
out
to
the
year
2030
(
the
third­
order
model
reasonably
projects
a
slightly­
declining
TSDF
universe
at
an
average
annual
rate
of
2.9%,
whereas
the
second­
order
model
unreasonably
projects
a
zero
TSDF
universe
by
the
year
2013).

It
is
important
to
emphasize
that
in
contrast
to
this
regression­
projected
decrease
in
the
future
TSDF
universe,
it
is
possible
that
this
declining
scenario
projection
is
not
an
accurate
prediction,
because
the
number
of
TSDFs
in
the
USA
may
grow
overtime
as
a
result
of
future
economic
factors
such
as:
Demand­
side
°
Annual
hazardous
waste
generation
quantities
may
increase
overtime
as
industries
and
markets
grow
domestically
and
globally,
thereby
increasing
the
market
demand
for
TSDFs.

°
Expansion
over
time
of
the
number
of
industrial
wastestreams
brought
into
the
RCRA
"
hazardous"
waste
regulated
universe,
which
may
place
an
increased
demand
for
TSDF
services,
and
a
consequent
growth
in
the
size
and/
or
number
of
TSDFs.

Supply­
side
The
universe
of
TSDFs
may
grown
as
a
result
of
regulatory
streamlining
such
as
the
RCRA
standardized
permit
or
other
"
deregulatory"
actions
within
the
RCRA
program,
which
makes
the
cost
of
permitting
and
operating
an
affected
TSDF
relatively
less
expensive,
thereby
increasing
the
supply
of
such
facilities.

Consequently,
it
is
important
to
consider
this
sensitivity
analysis
exercise
as
a
projection
rather
than
prediction.

As
shown
in
Attachment
D,
applying
the
projected
2.9%
average
annual
decline
in
the
TSDF
universe
to
the
base
case
 
consisting
of
the
30­
year
(
2005­
2034)
POA
and
7%
discount
rate
­­
the
estimate
of
national
cost
savings
decreases
slightly,
as
summarized
in
the
next
Table.

For
purpose
of
scenario
bounding,
applying
a
symmetric
2.9%
average
annual
increase
as
a
second
alternative
scenario
projection
relative
to
the
base
case,
increases
national
cost
savings
slightly,
as
also
displayed
in
the
next
Table.

Sensitivity
Analysis:

Effect
of
Alternative
Future
Annual
Levels
of
Eligible
Permitting
Actions
on
the
Paperwork
Burden
Reduction
Features
of
the
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
($
millions
over
the
30­
year
POA
2005­
2034)

Cost
Savings
Metric
Base
Case*
Alternative
Scenarios**

­
2.9%
+
2.9%

Non­
discounted
total
savings
$
62.7
$
60.8
$
64.5
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
88
Net
present
value
savings
$
25.9
$
25.2
$
26.7
Average
annual
equivalent
savings
$
2.09
$
2.03
$
2.15
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
*
Base
Case
=
Beginning
with
200
average
annual
eligible
RCRA
permit
actions
in
baseyear
2005,
leveling
off
(
after
79
average
annual
conversion
actions
phase­
out
after
the
sixth
year
(
2006)),
to
121
average
annual
actions
through
the
end
of
the
30­
year
POA
(
2034),
for
an
overall
average
annual
166
permit
actions
over
the
POA
(
for
"
Scope
#
1
n=
866
eligible
facilities).

(
b)
**
Alternative
scenarios
reflect
­/+
bounding
projections
in
the
future
annual
count
of
eligible
RCRA
permitting
actions,
relative
to
the
constant
annual
count
"
base
case".

III­
C.
How
Does
Monetary
Inflation
Affect
Estimated
Cost
Savings?

The
next
Table
displays
the
results
of
relaxing
the
"
constant
dollar"
economic
analysis
valuation
framework,
by
applying
inflation
to
the
labor
wage
rates
which
underlie
the
cost
savings
estimates.
In
general,
inflation
is
defined
as
an
increase
in
either
a
specific
(
i.
e.
single
price)
or
general
(
i.
e.
weighted
average)
price
level
of
goods
and
services
available
in
a
particular
market,
or
on
a
broader
multi­
market,
regional
or
national
basis.
Another
way
to
describe
inflation
is
in
terms
of
decreasing
purchasing
power
of
a
unit
of
currency
(
e.
g.
one
dollar).

Inflation
is
usually
measured
by
a
price
level
index
that
assigns
a
value
of
100
to
a
reference
base­
year.
The
most
widely
used
general
inflation
index
in
the
USA
is
the
"
Consumer
Price
Index"
(
CPI),
which
is
based
on
the
weighted
average
of
prices
in
a
sample
of
food,
clothing,

shelter,
transportation,
and
other
items
purchased
by
the
average
urban
consumer
(
see
the
following
website
for
the
Department
of
Labor
Bureau
of
Statistics
"
CPI"
and
other
types
of
price
indexes:
http://
stats.
bls.
gov/
datahome.
htm
).

Apart
from
this
sensitivity
analysis,
this
study
did
not
apply
inflation
in
the
"
base
case",
because
economic
analyses
usually
apply
a
constant
dollar
valuation
framework
with
time­
discounting,
for
the
purpose
of
standardizing
monetized
values
(
e.
g.
monetized
benefits
and
monetized
costs)
to
a
single
"
base
year"
reference.
The
analytical
method
of
discounting
provides
time
value
"
economic
equivalence"
of
cash
flows
which
occur
at
different
points
in
time.

However,
for
purpose
in
this
study
of
supplying
an
estimate
of
the
potential
financial
cost
savings
in
relation
to
the
nominal
dollar
value
of
cost
savings
in
future
budget
years,
the
inflation
rate
is
included
as
a
fourth
sensitivity
analysis
element.

Sensitivity
Analysis:

Effect
of
Inflation
on
Estimated
National
Cost
Savings
Associated
With
the
Paperwork
Burden
Reduction
Features
of
the
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
($
millions
for
the
30­
Year
POA
2005
to
2034)

Cost
Savings
Metric
Base
Case*
Inflation**

1.
Non­
discounted
total
POA
savings
$
62.7
$
89.6
2.
Non­
discounted
average
annual
savings
$
2.09
$
2.99
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
89
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Attachment
D
at
the
end
of
this
document
provides
detailed
inflation
computations.

(
b)
*
Base
Case
=
0%
inflation
rate
or
"
constant"
dollars
(
shaded
cells
above).

(
c)
**
Inflation
=
projection
and
application
of
white­
collar
employment
cost
index
to
estimated
future
cost
savings.

(
d)
Values
in
this
table
have
not
been
discounted
as
in
previous
tables
in
this
report.

There
are
two
general
causal
mechanisms
for
inflation:

"
Cost­
push"
inflation:
Occurs
when
prices
are
largely
determined
by
the
cost
of
producing
them
(
e.
g.
raw
materials,

labor,
energy,
overhead).

"
Demand­
pull"
inflation:
Occurs
when
the
recipients
of
increasing
disposable
income
attempt
to
spend
the
additional
income
on
a
fixed
flow
(
i.
e.
static
or
constrained
supply)
of
goods
and
services.

Because
labor
costs
underlie
the
monetary
value
of
permitting
cost
savings
in
this
study,
a
cost­
push
type
inflation
is
modeled
and
applied.

This
effect
of
applying
inflation
to
future
cost
savings,
is
based
on
applying
the
US
Department
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
"
Employee
Cost
Index"
(
ECI),
to
the
future
stream
of
estimated
cost
savings,
for
both
RCRA
permitting
authorities
and
for
eligible
TSFs.
As
displayed
in
Attachment
D
at
the
end
of
this
document,
1983­
1999
historical
ECI
data
for
"
white­
collar
total
compensation"
for
both:

°
State
and
local
governments,
and
°
Private
industry,

were
used
as
a
basis
of
producing
regression­
fit
trendline
projections
over
the
30­
year
POA.
The
resultant
regression
trendline
projections
selected
as
the
basis
of
a
cost­
push
inflation
factor
are
indicated
by
column
shading
in
the
associated
tables
in
Attachment
D,
as
well
as
in
the
accompanying
graphs
in
Attachment
D.
The
overall
average
annual
percentage
inflation
rate
assigned
to
the
respective
inflation
rates
are
2.10%

and
2.06%,
based
on
regression­
projected
inflation
indexes
ranging
from
1.000
to
1.826
and
from
1.000
to
1.808,
respectively,
over
the
years
2005
to
2034
in
the
POA.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
90
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT
A:
RCRA
PERMIT
UNIT
HOUR
BURDEN
COMPUTATION
SPREADSHEETS
ATTACHMENT
B:
NATIONAL
COST
SAVINGS
COMPUTATION
SPREADSHEETS
FOR
RCRA
PAPERWORK
REDUCTION
ATTACHMENT
C:
IMPROVEMENT
IN
FINANCIAL
RETURN
ON
PLANT
ASSETS
(
ROA)

FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
ATTACHMENT
D:
SENSITIVITY
ANALYSES
SPREADSHEETS
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
91
ATTACHMENT
A
UNIT
HOUR
ADMINISTRATIVE
BURDEN
REDUCTION
DATA
AND
COMPUTATION
SPREADSHEETS
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
92
ATTACHMENT
A­
1
USEPA
RCRA
"
Standardized"
Permit
for
Hazardous
Waste
Units
Computation
Spreadsheet
for
Unit
Hour
Burden
Reduction
Assumptions:

Starting
Computational
Elements
40
CFR
Type
of
RCRA
Permit
Eligible
TSFs
(
Burden
Hours):
Permit
Authorities
(
Burden
Hours):

Data
source*
Legal
Mngrl
Tech
Clerical
Row
subtotals
Data
source*
Legal
Mngrl
Tech
Clerical
Row
subtotals
1.
Public
notice
at
Part
B
application
submittal
124.32
Conventional
permit>
B­
Ex3
0.00
0.25
1.00
0.25
1.50
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Standardized
permit>
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
CP
less
SP=
0.00
0.25
1.00
0.25
1.50
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.
Review
Part
B
application
for
completeness
124.3
Conventional
permit>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
A­
Ex2+
0.00
0.00
6.84
0.57
7.40
Standardized
permit>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CP
less
SP=
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
6.84
0.57
7.40
+
Includes
ICR
source
data
multiplied
by
NOD
burden
multiplier
=
2.28
3.
Issue
Part
B
notice
of
deficiency
(
NOD)
as
necessary
124.3
Conventional
permit>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
A­
Ex2+
0.00
0.00
1.14
0.23
1.37
Standardized
permit>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CP
less
SP=
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
1.14
0.23
1.37
+
Includes
ICR
source
data
multiplied
by
NOD
burden
multiplier
=
2.28
4.
Permit
applicant
responds
to
Part
B
notice
of
deficiency
(
NOD)
as
necessary
124.3
Conventional
permit>
A­
Ex1+
0.00
1.14
4.56
2.28
7.97
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Standardized
permit>
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
CP
less
SP=
0.00
1.14
4.56
2.28
7.97
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
+
Includes
ICR
source
data
multiplied
by
NOD
burden
multiplier
=
2.28
5.
Determine
Part
B
permit
application
is
complete
124.3
Conventional
permit>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
A­
Ex2
0
0
1.71
0
1.71
Standardized
permit>
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CP
less
SP=
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
1.71
0.00
1.71
+
Includes
ICR
source
data
multiplied
by
NOD
burden
multiplier
=
2.28
6.
Part
B
permit
content
requirements
270.10
Conventional
permit>
B­
Ex2
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Standardized
permit>
C­
Ex1
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
1.00
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
CP
less
SP=
1.00
­
0.50
0.50
0.00
1.00
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Item
6
unit
hours
represent
difference
for
"
read
the
regulations"
estimated
in
reference
documents
under
Exhibit
item
"
Permit
Application
270.10".

7.
Submittal
&
review
of
Part
B
application
(
assumes
excludes
burden
for
reviewing
groundwater
monitoring
270.14(
c)
&
SWMUs
270.14(
d))

270.10
Conventional
permit>
B­
Ex2
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
7.50
CP>
B­
Ex6
0.00
4.56
320.69
12.87
338.12
<
If
containers
Standardized
permit>
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CP>
B­
Ex6
0.00
4.56
343.47
12.87
360.90
<
If
tanks
CP
less
SP=
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
7.50
CP>
B­
Ex6
0.00
4.56
443.73
12.87
461.16
<
If
cont.
bldgs
SP>
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
+
Includes
ICR
source
data
multiplied
by
NOD
burden
multiplier
=
2.28
CP
less
SP=
0.00
4.56
320.69
12.87
338.12
<
If
containers
CP
less
SP=
0.00
4.56
343.47
12.87
360.90
<
If
tanks
CP
less
SP=
0.00
4.56
443.73
12.87
461.16
<
If
cont.
bldgs
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
93
Note:
OSW­
EMRAD
estimated
clerical
hours
in
red
cell
by
multiplying
0.5
unit
hours
per
submittal,
times
15
Part
B
submittal
items
listed
in
B­
Ex2.

Item
7
(
Part
B
submittal)
is
large
source
of
savings
to
permit
authorities
because
they
no
longer
will
review
Part
B
which
remains
at
the
TSF.

8.
Permit
modification
requirements
270.42
Conventional
permit>
B­
Ex3
3.00
2.25
12.00
2.35
19.60
<
Cls1
B­
Ex7
0.00
0.75
3.00
0.10
3.85
Standardized
permit>
C­
Ex2
3.00
2.25
10.00
2.25
17.50
<
Cls1
C­
Ex11
0.00
0.75
3.00
0.10
3.85
CP
less
SP=
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.10
2.10
<
Cls1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<
If
class
1or
2
Conventional
permit>
B­
Ex3
7.00
17.00
88.00
13.60
125.60
<
Cls3
B­
Ex7
20.00
1.25
41.00
0.10
62.35
Standardized
permit>
C­
Ex2
7.00
16.25
82.00
12.25
117.50
<
Cls3
C­
Ex11
20.00
1.25
41.00
0.10
62.35
Discrepanc
y
CP
less
SP=
0.00
0.75
6.00
1.35
8.10
<
Cls3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
<
If
class
3
9.
Permit
renewals:

270.51
Conventional
permit>
B­
Ex3
5.50
15.10
80.15
12.00
112.75
B­
Ex6&
7+
0.00
3.99
288.79
9.80
302.58
Standardized
permit>
C­
Ex1
0.50
1.25
2.25
0.50
4.50
C­
Ex10
0.00
1.00
40.00
0.50
41.50
CP
less
SP=
5.00
13.85
77.90
11.50
108.25
0.00
2.99
248.79
9.30
261.08
+
Includes
ICR
source
data
multiplied
by
NOD
burden
multiplier
=
2.28
13a.
Submit
closure
plan:

264.112
Conventional
permit>
C­
Ex7***
0.00
2.25
34.25
4.00
40.50
No
data
0.00
0.00
23.00
0.00
23.00
Standardized
permit>
C­
Ex7
0.00
2.25
34.25
4.00
40.50
C­
Ex16
0.00
0.00
23.00
0.00
23.00
CP
less
SP=
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
***
Note:
SP
data
used
for
CP
in
this
case
because
closure
plan
required
under
both,
but
plan
may
be
deferred
under
SP.

13b.
Submit
closure
cost
estimate:

264.142
Conventional
permit>
B­
Ex2
0.00
1.00
8.00
1.00
10.00
B­
Ex6
4.00
1.00
16.00
0.00
21.00
Standardized
permit>
C­
Ex7
0.00
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.50
C­
Ex17**
2.00
0.50
8.00
0.00
10.50
CP
less
SP=
0.00
0.75
7.75
1.00
9.50
2.00
0.50
8.00
0.00
10.50
**
Assumes
EPA's
closure
cost
estimating
models
provide
50%
reduction
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
CP=
Conventional
(
i.
e.
"
existing"
or
"
baseline")
RCRA
TSF
permit
process.

SP=
Standardized
RCRA
TSF
permit
(
i.
e.
proposed
streamlined
alternative
RCRA
permit
process).

NR=
Not
relevant
to
labor
category
and/
or
permit
activity.

(
b)
*
Source=
First
letter
designates
identity
of
reference
document,
"
Ex"
designates
the
unit
hour
data
exhibit
number
in
the
reference
document.

Source
A:
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
ICR
Nr.
262.09
(
RCRA
Part
A
Permit
Application
Requirements),
22
Oct
1999.

Source
B:
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
ICR
Nr.
1573
(
RCRA
Part
B
Permit
Application
Requirements),
27
Oct
1999.

Source
C:
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
ICR
Nr.
1935.01
(
RCRA
"
Standardized"
Permit
Application
Requirements),
16
Nov
1999.

(
c)
Burden
savings
items
correspond
to
the
same
numbered
savings
items
as
listed
in
a
table
contained
in
the
"
Economics
Background
Document".

(
d)
Burden
hour
items
above
may
represent
subtotals
based
on
more
than
one
burden
hour
item
from
the
ICR
reference
document
exhibits.

(
e)
To
reconcile
SP
data
discrepancy,
blue
cell
in
item
8
assumed
identical
to
CP
burden
hours.

(
f)
NA=
This
permit
activity
not
applicable
(
i.
e.
not
required)
under
standardized
permit,
so
zero
unit
hours
assigned
for
SP.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
94
ATTACHMENT
A­
2
Computation
of
Cost
Savings
per
Permit
Action
For
Administrative
Burden
under
the
RCRA
"
Standardized"
Permit
Intermediate
Computational
Elements
I.
Burden
Hour
Changes
per
Permit
Action
to:

Savings
Items
Item
Eligible
TSFs:
Permit
Authorities:
Totals
Legal
Mngrl
Tech
Clerical
Subtotal
Legal
Mngrl
Tech
Clerical
Subtotal
1
0.00
0.25
1.00
0.25
1.50
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.50
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
6.84
0.57
7.40
7.40
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
1.14
0.23
1.37
1.37
4
0.00
1.14
4.56
2.28
7.97
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
7.97
5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.00
0.00
1.71
0.00
1.71
1.71
6
1.00
­
0.50
0.50
0.00
1.00
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.00
Containers>
7a
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
7.50
0.00
4.56
320.69
12.87
338.12
345.62
Tanks>
7b
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
7.50
0.00
4.56
343.47
12.87
360.90
368.40
Cont.
bldgs>
7c
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
7.50
0.00
4.56
443.73
12.87
461.16
468.66
Routine
mods>
8a
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.10
2.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.10
Signfnct
mods>
8b
0.00
0.75
6.00
1.35
8.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.10
Renewals>
9
5.00
13.85
77.90
11.50
108.25
0.00
2.99
248.79
9.30
261.08
369.33
13a
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13b
0.00
0.75
7.75
1.00
9.50
2.00
0.50
8.00
0.00
10.50
20.00
Subtotals
for
Items
Relevant
to
New
Permits:
Items
in
subtotals
Containers>
7a
1.00
1.64
13.81
11.03
27.47
2.00
5.06
338.37
13.67
359.10
<<(
1+...+
6+
7a+
13a+
13b)
386.58
Tanks>
7b
1.00
1.64
13.81
11.03
27.47
2.00
5.06
361.16
13.67
381.88
<<(
1+...+
6+
7b+
13a+
13b)
409.36
Cont.
bldgs>
7c
1.00
1.64
13.81
11.03
27.47
2.00
5.06
461.41
13.67
482.14
<<(
1+...+
6+
7c+
13a+
13b)
509.61
Switching**>
0.50
1.25
2.25
0.50
4.50
0.00
0.25
1.00
0.00
1.25
5.75
II.
Value
of
Burden
Hour
Changes
per
Permit
Action:

Loaded
wage*>
$
110
$
85
$
52
$
21
$
60
$
51
$
41
$
21
1
$
0
$
21
$
52
$
5
$
79
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
$
79
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
$
0
$
0
$
280
$
12
$
292
$
292
3
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
$
0
$
0
$
47
$
5
$
51
$
51
4
$
0
$
97
$
237
$
48
$
382
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
$
382
5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
$
0
$
0
$
70
$
0
$
70
$
70
6
$
110
($
43)
$
26
$
0
$
94
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
$
94
Containers>
7a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
158
$
158
$
0
$
232
$
13,148
$
270
$
13,651
$
13,809
Tanks>
7b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
158
$
158
$
0
$
232
$
14,082
$
270
$
14,585
$
14,743
Cont.
bldgs>
7c
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
158
$
158
$
0
$
232
$
18,193
$
270
$
18,695
$
18,853
Routine
mods>
8a
$
0
$
0
$
104
$
2
$
106
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
106
Signfnct
mods>
8b
$
0
$
64
$
312
$
28
$
404
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
404
Renewals>
9
$
550
$
1,177
$
4,051
$
242
$
6,020
$
0
$
152
$
10,200
$
195
$
10,548
$
16,568
13a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
95
13b
$
0
$
64
$
403
$
21
$
488
$
120
$
26
$
328
$
0
$
474
$
961
Subtotals
for
Items
Relevant
to
New
Permits:

Containers>
7a
$
110
$
139
$
718
$
232
$
1,199
$
120
$
258
$
13,873
$
287
$
14,538
<<(
1+...+
6+
7a+
13a+
13b)
$
15,737
Tanks>
7b
$
110
$
139
$
718
$
232
$
1,199
$
120
$
258
$
14,807
$
287
$
15,472
<<(
1+...+
6+
7b+
13a+
13b)
$
16,671
Cont.
bldgs>
7c
$
110
$
139
$
718
$
232
$
1,199
$
120
$
258
$
18,918
$
287
$
19,583
<<(
1+...+
6+
7c+
13a+
13b)
$
20,782
Switching**>
$
55
$
138
$
248
$
55
$
495
$
0
$
13
$
41
$
0
$
54
$
549
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
For
definition
of
savings
items
numbers,
see
explanatory
footnotes
in
the
tables
within
the
text
of
the
"
Economics
Background
Document".

(
b)
Negative
dollar
values
(
in
parentheses)
indicate
additional
incremental
cost
under
the
standardized
permit,
not
a
cost
savings.

(
c)
Green
shaded
cells
above
indicate
subtotals
to
be
carried
over
as
intermediate
computational
elements
in
estimation
of
national
cost
savings.

(
d)
*
2001
"
loaded
wage"
rates
in
red­
shaded
cells
above
derived
from
US
Dept
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Occupational
Employment
Statistics.

(
e)
**
"
Switching"
involves
converting
a
conventional
permit
to
a
standardized
permit
prior
to
its
10­
year
expiration
date
(
ICR
"
Source
C"
Exh1
&

Exh11):

Note:
In
contrast
to
burden
hour
reduction,
"
switching"
(
or
conversion)
involves
added
burden
hours
because
switching
would
not
occur
in
the
baseline.

Potential
benefits
to
some
facilities
of
switching
to
a
"
standardized"
permit
before
conventional
permit
expiration
are:

(
1)
Subsequent
permit
modification
actions
will
be
less
burdensome
(
i.
e.
less
costly).

(
2)
Subsequent
annual
state
fees
for
permit
maintenance
(
i.
e.
permit
operating
fees)
may
be
less.

(
f)
NR
=
Not
relevant
to
affected
entity
under
the
RCRA
standardized
permit.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
96
ATTACHMENT
A­
3
Comparison
of
RCRA
Administrative
Compliance
Unit
Costs
by
Facility
Size
Category
Data
source:
USEPA­
OECA
"
Estimating
Costs
for
the
Economic
Benefits
of
RCRA
Noncompliance",
Sept
1997
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hazwaste/
gener/
f006/
s0004.
pdf)

Item
Regulatory
Administrative
Category
Paperwork
or
Activity
Required
Unit
Cost
by
Facility
Size
Large
as
multiple
of
medium
Unit
Cost
Source*

Small
(
1997$)
Medium
(
1997$)
Large
(
1997$)

1
Contingency
plan
Oversight
of
plan
development
$
152
$
304
$
456
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
2
Contingency
plan
Actions
of
facility's
emergency
coordinator
$
1,234
$
2,057
$
2,880
1.40
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
3
Contingency
plan
Prepare
facility
familiarization
fact
sheet
$
411
$
1,234
$
2,469
2.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
4
Contingency
plan
Assist
project
manager
$
149
$
248
$
347
1.40
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
5
Contingency
plan
Assist
project
engineer
(
consultant)
$
318
$
529
$
688
1.30
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
6
Contingency
plan
Meet
with
local
authorities
&
facility
staff
$
206
$
309
$
411
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
7
Contingency
plan
Assist
project
engineer
(
facility)
$
101
$
96
$
204
2.13
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
8
Contingency
plan
Describe
arrangements
in
contingency
plan
$
309
$
617
$
926
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
9
Contingency
plan
Names
&
addresses
of
qualified
ECs
$
53
$
53
$
53
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
10
Contingency
plan
Emergency
equipment
at
the
facility
$
159
$
265
$
371
1.40
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
11
Contingency
plan
Assist
engineering
assistant
$
50
$
99
$
149
1.51
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
12
Contingency
plan
Describe
evacuation
plan
$
309
$
514
$
720
1.40
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
13
Contingency
plan
Review
plan
&
technical
support
$
610
$
1,106
$
1,644
1.49
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
14
Contingency
plan
Assist
project
manager
$
166
$
300
$
447
1.49
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
15
Contingency
plan
Submit
copies
of
plan
to
local
authorities
$
106
$
106
$
106
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Tables
8­
1,
8­
2,
8­
3
16
Part
A
Permit
Provide
info
to
consutant
$
405
$
607
$
810
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
2
17
Part
A
Permit
Complete
part
A
form
$
823
$
1,234
$
1,646
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
2
18
Part
A
Permit
Prepare
scale
drawing
$
99
$
198
$
297
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
2
19
Part
A
Permit
Photos
of
facility
$
106
$
106
$
212
2.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
2
20
Part
A
Permit
Topographical
map
$
206
$
411
$
617
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
2
21
Part
A
Permit
Topographical
map
assistance
$
212
$
424
$
635
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
2
22
Part
A
Permit
Review
info
&
provide
support
$
369
$
595
$
850
1.43
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
2
23
Part
A
Permit
Clerical
support
$
100
$
162
$
231
1.43
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
2
24
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Brief
description
of
facility
$
206
$
309
$
411
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
25
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Description
of
haz
waste
managed
$
206
$
617
$
823
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
26
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
laboratory
report
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
27
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
waste
analysis
report
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
28
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Description
of
security
procedures
$
206
$
411
$
617
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
29
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
general
inspection
schedule
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
30
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
of
contingency
plan
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
31
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Description
of
procedures,
structure
or
equipment
$
617
$
1,234
$
1,646
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
32
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Description
of
precautions
to
prevent
ignition
$
103
$
411
$
617
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
33
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Description
of
traffic
patterns
$
206
$
411
$
617
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
34
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
Traffic
pattern
drawings
$
50
$
99
$
198
2.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Item
Regulatory
Administrative
Category
Paperwork
or
Activity
Required
Unit
Cost
by
Facility
Size
Large
as
multiple
of
medium
Unit
Cost
Source*

Small
(
1997$)
Medium
(
1997$)
Large
(
1997$)

97
­
1.
General
info
35
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Identify
political
jurisdiction
$
103
$
103
$
103
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
36
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Review
published
reports
$
411
$
617
$
823
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
37
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Review
published
reports
(
assistance)
$
635
$
847
$
953
1.13
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
38
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Obtain
aerial
published
photographs
$
212
$
318
$
424
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
39
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Analyze
aerial
photographs
$
206
$
411
$
617
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
40
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Analyze
aerial
photographs
(
assistance)
$
424
$
635
$
847
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
41
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Walking
reconnaissance
$
411
$
617
$
823
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
42
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Report
preparation
$
1,234
$
1,851
$
2,469
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
43
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Report
preparation
(
assistance)
$
212
$
318
$
424
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
44
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Obtain
&
review
FIA
maps
$
411
$
617
$
823
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
45
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Obtain
&
review
FIA
maps
(
assistance)
$
106
$
159
$
212
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
46
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Option1:
engineering
study
of
100­
yr
flood
$
1,648
$
2,472
$
3,296
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
47
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Option1:
engineering
study
of
100­
yr
flood
$
212
$
265
$
318
1.20
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
48
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Option1:
engineering
study
of
100­
yr
flood
$
200
$
300
$
400
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
49
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Option2:
detailed
flood
removal
plan
$
1,236
$
2,472
$
4,120
1.67
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
50
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Option2:
detailed
flood
removal
plan
$
200
$
300
$
400
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
51
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Plan
&
schedule
to
comply
with
floodplain
$
824
$
1,236
$
1,648
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
52
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Plan
&
schedule
to
comply
with
floodplain
$
200
$
300
$
400
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
53
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Outline
of
intro
&
training
plan
$
618
$
824
$
1,236
1.50
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
54
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
of
closure
plan
&
cost
estimate
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
55
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
of
post­
closure
plan
&
cost
estimate
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
56
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
of
closure
financial
assurance
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
57
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
of
3rd
party
liability
financial
mechanism
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
58
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Provide
oversight
of
topographical
map
prep
$
412
$
618
$
824
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
59
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
Obtain
map
&
assist
with
research
$
848
$
1,272
$
1,696
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Item
Regulatory
Administrative
Category
Paperwork
or
Activity
Required
Unit
Cost
by
Facility
Size
Large
as
multiple
of
medium
Unit
Cost
Source*

Small
(
1997$)
Medium
(
1997$)
Large
(
1997$)

98
­
1.
General
info
60
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Prepare
may
with
information
$
400
$
600
$
800
1.33
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
61
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Copy
of
notice
of
approval
for
LDRs
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
62
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Review
info
&
provide
support
$
2,130
$
3,266
$
4,402
1.35
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
63
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Clerical
support
$
598
$
910
$
1,196
1.31
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
64
Permit
B
Permit
­
General
facility
­
1.
General
info
Assist
consultant
$
765
$
1,173
$
1,581
1.35
OECA
Sept
1997
Table
9­
3
Statistical
Summary:
Minimum
=
$
26
$
26
$
26
1.00
Maximum
=
$
2,130
$
3,266
$
4,402
2.13
Average
=
$
362
$
591
$
831
1.35
Median
=
$
206
$
411
$
617
1.33
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
99
ATTACHMENT
A­
4
Estimation
of
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Part
B
Permit
Application
"
Notice
of
Deficiency"
(
NOD)
Burden
Multiplier
For
Adjustment
of
the
ICR
Data
Applied
in
this
"
Economics
Background
Document"

to
Include
Multiple
NOD
Iterations
Per
Permit
Application,
Rather
Than
Only
One
Iteration
(
ICR
Assumption)

A.
Source:
ICR
1573
(
27
Oct
1999)
Exhibit
2
­
Respondent
Burden
Per­
Permit
Burden
Averages
Item
ICR
page
Number
of
respondents
Burden
hours
per
year
Total
burden
(
hours/
yr
x
3)
Burden
cost
per
year
Total
cost
(
cost/
year
x
3)
Total
hours
per
applicant
Total
cost
per
applicant
Implied
avg
cost
$/
hour
1
Page
68
subtotal
­
general
facility
requirements
943
36,611
109,833
$
4,327,360
$
12,982,080
116
$
13,767
$
118.20
2
Page
69
subtotal
­
general
facility
requirements
(
continued)
1,172
8,865
26,595
$
1,696,515
$
5,089,545
23
$
4,343
$
191.37
3
Page
70
subtotal
­
general
facility
requirements
(
continued)
728
7,481
22,443
$
2,831,728
$
8,495,184
31
$
11,669
$
378.52
4a
Page
71
subtotal
­
containers
754
5,026
15,078
$
1,205,534
$
3,616,602
20
$
4,797
$
239.86
4b
Page
71
subtotal
­
tank
systems
1,122
39,718
119,154
$
6,680,394
$
20,041,182
106
$
17,862
$
168.20
4c
Page
74
subtotal
­
misc
units
(
assume
applies
to
containmt
bldgs)
103
7,276
21,828
$
2,669,934
$
8,009,802
212
$
77,765
$
366.95
5
Total
­
containers
(
items
1+
2+
3+
4a)
=
57,983
173,949
$
10,061,137
$
30,183,411
190
$
34,575
$
181.98
6
Total
­
tank
systems
(
items
1+
2+
3+
4b)
=
92,675
255,582
$
15,535,997
$
46,607,991
276
$
47,641
$
172.49
7
Total
­
misc
units
(
assume
applies
to
containment
bldgs
­
item
5)
=
57,983
173,949
$
10,061,137
$
30,183,411
190
$
34,575
$
181.98
B.
Source:
OECA
Sept
1997
report
"
Estimating
Costs
for
the
Economic
Benefits
of
RCRA
Noncompliance"

(
as
updated
in
the
30
Sept
2000
USEPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
EMRAD
"
Unit
Cost
Compendium"
to
year
2000$)

RCRA
Part
B
Permit
Cost
for:
One­
time
cost
Difference
between
Source
B
minus
A
Implied
multiplier
(
Sources
B/
A)

8
General
facility
requirements
$
47,014
9
Container
requirements
$
10,083
10
Tank
system
requirements
$
9,447
11
Containment
bldg
requirements:
assume
multiplier
of
container
based
on
ICR
1573
=
$
106,855
12
Total
­
containers
(
items
8+
9)
=
$
57,097
$
22,522
1.65
13
Total
­
tank
systems
(
items
8+
10)
=
$
56,461
$
8,820
1.19
14
Total
­
containment
bldgs
(
items
8+
11)
=
$
153,869
$
119,294
4.45
Composite
multiplier
based
on
respective
prevalence
weights
>
2.28
Containers
&
Cont.
bldgs
>
58.6%

Tank
systems
>
41.4%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
100
ATTACHMENT
B
COMPUTATION
OF
NATIONAL
COST
SAVINGS
FOR
RCRA
PAPERWORK
BURDEN
REDUCTION
 
SAVINGS
COMBINED
(
TSDFs
+
AUTHORITIES)

 
SAVINGS
TO
ELIGIBLE
RCRA
TSDFs
 
SAVINGS
TO
RCRA
PERMIT
AUTHORITIES
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
101
ATTACHMENT
B­
1
(
if
Scope
#
1:
n
=
866
on­
site
eligible
facilities)

RCRA
Standardized
Permits:

Assumed
Annual
Number
of
Future
"
Standardized"
Permit
Actions
Prevalence
>
55%
43%
2%
Universe
count
of
existing
eligible
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
units
>
866
Item
POA*

Year
Renewals**
Conversions
Interim
Status**
New
Facilities**
Modifications**
Row
totals
Contrs
Tanks
Cnt.
Bldg
Contrs
Tanks
Cnt.
Bldg
Contrs
Tanks
Cnt.
Bldg
Routine
Signfct
1
2005
6
8
0
79
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
200
2
2006
6
8
0
79
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
200
3
2007
6
8
0
79
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
200
4
2008
6
8
0
79
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
200
5
2009
6
8
0
58
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
179
6
2010
6
8
0
58
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
179
7
2011
6
8
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
121
8
2012
6
8
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
121
9
2013
6
8
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
121
10
2014
6
8
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
121
11
2015
50
43
2
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
202
12
2016
50
43
2
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
202
13
2017
50
43
2
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
202
14
2018
50
43
2
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
202
15
2019
39
34
1
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
181
16
2020
39
34
1
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
181
17
2021
7
9
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
123
18
2022
7
9
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
123
19
2023
7
9
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
123
20
2024
7
9
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
123
21
2025
51
44
2
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
204
22
2026
51
44
2
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
204
23
2027
51
44
2
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
204
24
2028
51
44
2
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
204
25
2029
40
35
1
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
183
26
2030
40
35
1
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
183
27
2031
6
8
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
121
28
2032
6
8
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
121
29
2033
6
8
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
121
30
2034
6
8
0
0
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
121
Column
totals=
678
634
17
433
270
2010
120
30
30
0
540
210
4972
Avg
annual
=
23
21
1
14
9
67
4
1
1
0
18
7
166
Limit>
433
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
102
Explanatory
Notes:

(
a)
Source:
Count
of
average
annual
permit
action
for
standardized
permits
from
Table
2
of
ICR
reference
"
Source
C".

(
b)
*
POA
=
Period­
of­
analysis
(
30
years),
relative
to
base
year
(
2001)
which
represents
first
possible
year
of
implementation.

(
c)
**
Translation
of
unit­
based
data
from
ICR
"
Source
C"
(
Table
2),
to
facility­
based
annual
permit
action
count
data
in
table
above,
based
on
using
tank
and
container
bldg
units
as
facility
permit
counts,
then
assigning
residual
facility
count
as
container
facility
permits:

ICR
"
Source
C"
unit
count
distribution:
Translated
facility
permit
count
basis:

Contnrs
Tanks
C.
bldgs
Facilities
Contnrs
Tanks
C.
bldgs
Facilities
Renewals:
12
8
0
14
6
8
0
14
Interim
status:
79
67
4
80
9
67
4
80
New
permits:
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
Modifications
annual
count
from
Section
6(
d)
"
Maintaining
a
Standardized
Permit"
of
ICR
reference
"
Source
C".

(
d)
***
Conversion
involves
switching
an
existing
individual
permit
before
expiration
to
a
standardized
permit.

Conversions
limited
to
six
years
and
433,
because
total
number
is
limited
to
50%
of
existing
permitted
eligible
TSFs:

Existing
fully­
permitted
eligible
TSFs:
584
x
50%
=
292
Existing
interim­
status
eligible
TSFs:
281
x
50%
=
140
Total
number
of
possible
future
conversions
=
292
+
141
=
433
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
103
ATTACHMENT
B­
2
(
if
Scope
#
2:
n
=
1,133
eligible
on­
site
&
off­
site
facilities)

STANDARDIZED
RCRA
PERMITS:

Assumed
Annual
Number
of
Future
"
Standardized"
Permit
Actions
Prevalence
>
55%
43%
2%
Universe
count
of
existing
eligible
RCRA­
permitted
hazardous
waste
units
>
1133
Item
POA*

Year
Renewals**
Conversions
Interim
Status**
New
Facilities**
Modifications**
Row
totals
Contrs
Tanks
Cnt.
Bldg
Contrs
Tanks
Cnt.
Bldg
Contrs
Tanks
Cnt.
Bldg
Routine
Signfct
1
2005
8
10
0
103
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
261
2
2006
8
10
0
103
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
261
3
2007
8
10
0
103
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
261
4
2008
8
10
0
103
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
261
5
2009
8
10
0
10
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
167
6
2010
8
10
0
10
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
167
7
2011
8
10
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
158
8
2012
8
10
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
158
9
2013
8
10
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
158
10
2014
8
10
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
158
11
2015
66
56
2
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
263
12
2016
66
56
2
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
263
13
2017
66
56
2
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
263
14
2018
66
56
2
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
263
15
2019
14
16
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
169
16
2020
14
16
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
169
17
2021
9
11
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
160
18
2022
9
11
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
160
19
2023
9
11
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
160
20
2024
9
11
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
160
21
2025
67
57
2
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
265
22
2026
67
57
2
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
265
23
2027
67
57
2
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
265
24
2028
67
57
2
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
265
25
2029
15
17
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
171
26
2030
15
17
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
171
27
2031
8
10
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
158
28
2032
8
10
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
158
29
2033
8
10
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
158
30
2034
8
10
0
0
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
158
Column
totals=
733
708
17
433
353
2630
157
30
30
0
706
275
6072
Avg
annual
=
24
24
1
14
12
88
5
1
1
0
24
9
202
Limit>
433
For
Explanatory
Notes,
see
prior
table.
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
104
ATTACHMENT
B­
3
(
if
Scope
#
1
n
=
866
facilities)
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
105
ATTACHMENT
B­
4
(
if
Scope
#
2:
n
=
1,133
eligible
facilities)
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
106
ATTACHMENT
B­
5
(
if
Scope
#
1:
n
=
866
eligible
facilities)
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
107
ATTACHMENT
B­
6
(
if
Scope
#
2:
n
=
1,133
eligible
facilities)
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
108
ATTACHMENT
B­
7
(
if
Scope
#
1:
n
=
866
eligible
facilities)
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
109
ATTACHMENT
B­
8
(
if
Scope
#
2:
n
=
1,133
eligible
facilities)
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
110
ATTACHMENT
B­
9
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
111
ATTACHMENT
B­
10
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
112
ATTACHMENT
C
IMPROVEMENT
IN
FINANCIAL
RETURN
ON
PLANT
ASSETS
(
ROA)

FOR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
COMPUTATION
SPREADSHEETS
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
113
ATTACHMENT
C­
1
Improvement
in
Financial
Return
on
Plant
Assets
(
ROA)

for
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Facilities
Computation
of
Non­
Discounted
Total
Value
of
ROA
Future
Streams
Over
10­
year
RCRA
Permit
Maximum
Validation
Period
I.
Capital
Cost
&
ROA
Rate
Assumptions:
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Size
Class
of
Waste
Management
Unit
=
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Asset
capital
cost
=
$
1,060
$
13,200
$
66,000
$
48,000
$
100,000
$
740,000
$
439,000
$
1,008,000
$
5,244,000
Given
annual
effective
ROA
rate
=
8.29%
$
88
$
1,094
$
5,471
$
3,979
$
8,290
$
61,346
$
36,393
$
83,563
$
434,728
Compute
monthly
effective
ROA
rate
=
0.67%
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
II.
ROA
Future
Streams:

Alternative
Periods
for
RCRA
Permit
Processing
(
assume
applies
to
both
new
permits
&
renewals)
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Submit
RCRA
permit
application>
1
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
2
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
3
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Case
A:
Earliest
ROA
start
under
"
standardized"
permit>
4
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
5
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
6
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Case
B:
2.5
month
minimum
delay
for
conventional
permit>
7
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
8
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
9
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
10
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
11
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
12
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
13
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
14
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
15
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
16
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
17
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
18
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
19
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
20
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
21
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
22
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
23
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
24
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
25
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
26
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
27
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
28
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
29
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
30
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
31
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Case
C:
28.3
month
maximum
delay
for
conventional
permit>
32
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
33
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
34
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
35
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
36
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
37
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Alternative
Periods
for
RCRA
Permit
Processing
(
assume
applies
to
both
new
permits
&
renewals)
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
114
38
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
39
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
40
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
41
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
42
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
43
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
44
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
45
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
46
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
47
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
48
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
49
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
50
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
51
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
52
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
53
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
54
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
55
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
56
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
57
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
58
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
59
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
60
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
61
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
62
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
63
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
64
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
65
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
66
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
67
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
68
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
69
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
70
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
71
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
72
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
73
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
74
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
75
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
76
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
77
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
78
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
79
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
80
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
81
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
82
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
83
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
84
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
85
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
86
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
87
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
88
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Alternative
Periods
for
RCRA
Permit
Processing
(
assume
applies
to
both
new
permits
&
renewals)
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
115
89
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
90
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
91
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
92
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
93
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
94
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
95
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
96
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
97
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
98
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
99
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
100
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
101
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
102
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
103
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
104
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
105
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
106
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
107
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
108
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
109
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
110
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
111
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
112
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
113
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
114
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
115
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
116
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
117
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
118
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
119
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
120
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Non­
Discounted
Sums
of
Alternative
ROA
Period
Streams:

Sum
w/
standardized
permit
Case
A
=
$
894
$
11,137
$
55,683
$
40,497
$
84,369
$
624,327
$
370,378
$
850,435
$
4,424,286
Sum
w/
minimum
delay
for
conventional
permit
Case
B
=
$
871
$
10,851
$
54,255
$
39,459
$
82,205
$
608,319
$
360,881
$
828,629
$
4,310,843
Percent
improvement
compared
to
conventional
permit
Case
B
=
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%

Sum
w/
maximum
delay
for
conventional
permit
Case
C
=
$
680
$
8,471
$
42,357
$
30,805
$
64,178
$
474,916
$
281,740
$
646,912
$
3,365,483
Percent
improvement
compared
to
conventional
permit
Case
C
=
31.5%
31.5%
31.5%
31.5%
31.5%
31.5%
31.5%
31.5%
31.5%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
116
ATTACHMENT
C­
2
Improvement
in
Return
on
Assets
(
ROA)

for
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Facilities
Case
A:
ROA
Streams
for
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
(
over
10­
years
permit
validation
lifespan)

Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Submit
RCRA
permit
application>
1
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
2
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
3
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Case
A:
Earliest
ROA
start
under
"
standardized"
permit>
4
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
5
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
6
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Case
B:
2.5
month
minimum
delay
for
conventional
permit>
7
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
8
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
9
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
10
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
11
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
12
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
13
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
14
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
15
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
16
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
17
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
18
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
19
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
20
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
21
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
22
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
23
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
24
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
25
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
26
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
27
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
28
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
29
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
30
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
31
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Case
C:
28.3
month
maximum
delay
for
conventional
permit>
32
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
33
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
34
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
35
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
36
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
37
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
38
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
39
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
40
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
41
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
42
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
43
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
117
44
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
45
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
46
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
47
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
48
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
49
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
50
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
51
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
52
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
53
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
54
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
55
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
56
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
57
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
58
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
59
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
60
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
61
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
62
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
63
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
64
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
65
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
66
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
67
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
68
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
69
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
70
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
71
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
72
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
73
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
74
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
75
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
76
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
77
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
78
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
79
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
80
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
81
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
82
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
83
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
84
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
85
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
86
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
87
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
88
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
89
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
90
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
91
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
92
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
93
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
94
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
118
95
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
96
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
97
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
98
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
99
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
100
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
101
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
102
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
103
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
104
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
105
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
106
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
107
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
108
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
109
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
110
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
111
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
112
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
113
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
114
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
115
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
116
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
117
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
118
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
119
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
120
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Case
A:
Discounted
Net
Present
Value
of
Streams:
NPV
=
$
635
$
7,905
$
39,524
$
28,744
$
59,884
$
443,144
$
262,892
$
603,633
$
3,140,331
Improvement
over
conventional
permit
Case
B
=
$
22
$
275
$
1,373
$
998
$
2,080
$
15,389
$
9,129
$
20,962
$
109,054
%
improvement
over
conventional
permit
Case
B
=
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%

Improvement
over
conventional
permit
Case
C
=
$
192
$
2,390
$
11,951
$
8,692
$
18,107
$
133,994
$
79,491
$
182,522
$
949,548
%
improvement
over
conventional
permit
Case
C
=
43.3%
43.3%
43.3%
43.3%
43.3%
43.3%
43.3%
43.3%
43.3%

Average
Annual
Equivalents:
AAE
=
$
90
$
1,125
$
5,627
$
4,093
$
8,526
$
63,094
$
37,430
$
85,944
$
447,112
Improvement
over
conventional
permit
Case
B
=
$
3
$
39
$
195
$
142
$
296
$
2,191
$
1,300
$
2,985
$
15,527
Size
prevalence
=
43%
28%
29%
43%
28%
29%
43%
28%
29%

Prevalence­
weighted
average
for
size
of
unit
=
$
69
$
779
$
5,897
Type
prevalence
=
45%
54%
1%

Prevalence­
weighted
average
for
type
of
unit
=
$
511
Improvement
over
conventional
permit
Case
C
=
$
27
$
340
$
1,702
$
1,237
$
2,578
$
19,078
$
11,318
$
25,987
$
135,194
Size
prevalence
=
43%
28%
29%
43%
28%
29%
43%
28%
29%

Prevalence­
weighted
average
for
size
of
unit
=
$
600
$
6,787
$
51,349
Type
prevalence
=
45%
54%
1%

Prevalence­
weighted
average
for
type
of
unit
=
$
4,448
Annual
discount
rate
for
computing
NPV
=
7.0%

Effective
monthly
discount
rate
=
0.6%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
119
ATTACHMENT
C­
3
Improvement
in
Return
on
Assets
(
ROA)

for
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Facilities
Case
B:
ROA
Streams
for
Minimum
Delay
For
Conventional
RCRA
Permit
(
Over
10­
Years
Permit
Validation
Lifespan)

Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Submit
RCRA
permit
application>
1
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
2
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
3
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Case
A:
Earliest
ROA
start
under
"
standardized"
permit>
4
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
5
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
6
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Case
B:
2.5
month
minimum
delay
for
conventional
permit>
7
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
8
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
9
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
10
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
11
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
12
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
13
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
14
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
15
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
16
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
17
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
18
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
19
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
20
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
21
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
22
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
23
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
24
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
25
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
26
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
27
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
28
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
29
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
30
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
31
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Case
C:
28.3
month
maximum
delay
for
conventional
permit>
32
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
33
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
34
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
35
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
36
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
37
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
38
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
39
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
40
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
41
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
42
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
43
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
120
44
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
45
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
46
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
47
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
48
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
49
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
50
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
51
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
52
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
53
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
54
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
55
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
56
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
57
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
58
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
59
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
60
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
61
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
62
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
63
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
64
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
65
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
66
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
67
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
68
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
69
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
70
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
71
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
72
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
73
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
74
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
75
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
76
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
77
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
78
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
79
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
80
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
81
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
82
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
83
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
84
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
85
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
86
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
87
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
88
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
89
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
90
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
91
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
92
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
93
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
94
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
121
95
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
96
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
97
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
98
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
99
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
100
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
101
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
102
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
103
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
104
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
105
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
106
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
107
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
108
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
109
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
110
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
111
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
112
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
113
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
114
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
115
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
116
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
117
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
118
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
119
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
120
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Discount
Net
Present
Value
(
NPV)
of
ROA
Streams:
Net
Present
Value
=
$
613
$
7,630
$
38,151
$
27,746
$
57,805
$
427,755
$
253,762
$
582,671
$
3,031,277
Average
Annual
Equivalent
(
AAE)
=
$
87
$
1,086
$
5,432
$
3,950
$
8,230
$
60,903
$
36,130
$
82,959
$
431,586
Annual
discount
rate
for
computing
NPV
=
7%

Effective
monthly
discount
rate
=
0.6%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
122
ATTACHMENT
C­
4
Improvement
in
Return
on
Assets
(
ROA)

for
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Facilities
Case
C:
ROA
Streams
for
Maximum
Delay
For
Conventional
RCRA
Permit
(
Over
10­
Years
Permit
Validation
Lifespan)

Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Submit
RCRA
permit
application>
1
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
2
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
3
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Case
A:
Earliest
ROA
start
under
"
standardized"
permit>
4
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
5
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
6
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Case
B:
2.5
month
minimum
delay
for
conventional
permit>
7
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
8
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
9
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
10
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
11
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
12
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
13
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
14
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
15
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
16
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
17
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
18
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
19
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
20
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
21
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
22
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
23
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
24
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
25
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
26
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
27
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
28
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
29
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
30
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
31
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Case
C:
28.3
month
maximum
delay
for
conventional
permit>
32
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
33
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
34
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
35
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
36
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
37
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
38
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
39
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
40
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
41
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
42
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
43
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
123
44
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
45
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
46
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
47
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
48
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
49
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
50
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
51
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
52
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
53
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
54
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
55
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
56
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
57
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
58
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
59
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
60
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
61
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
62
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
63
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
64
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
65
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
66
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
67
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
68
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
69
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
70
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
71
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
72
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
73
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
74
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
75
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
76
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
77
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
78
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
79
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
80
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
81
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
82
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
83
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
84
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
85
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
86
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
87
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
88
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
89
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
90
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
91
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
92
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
93
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
94
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
Alternative
Processing
Periods
Month
Containers:
Tank
Systems:
Containment
Buildings:

Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Medium
Large
124
95
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
96
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
97
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
98
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
99
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
100
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
101
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
102
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
103
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
104
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
105
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
106
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
107
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
108
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
109
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
110
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
111
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
112
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
113
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
114
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
115
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
116
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
117
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
118
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
119
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
120
$
8
$
95
$
476
$
346
$
721
$
5,336
$
3,166
$
7,269
$
37,814
Discount
Net
Present
Value
(
NPV)
of
ROA
Streams:
Net
Present
Value
=
$
443
$
5,515
$
27,573
$
20,053
$
41,777
$
309,149
$
183,401
$
421,112
$
2,190,783
Average
Annual
Equivalent
(
AAE)
=
$
63
$
785
$
3,926
$
2,855
$
5,948
$
44,016
$
26,112
$
59,957
$
311,918
Annual
discount
rate
for
computing
NPV
=
7%

Effective
monthly
discount
rate
=
0.6%
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
125
ATTACHMENT
C­
5
Estimation
of
Improved
Financial
Return
on
Assets
(
ROA)

Over
Future
30­
Year
Period­
of­
Analysis
Item
POA*

Year
Potential
Improvement
in
ROA
Count
of
annual
new
permits
Cumulative
new
permits
If
"
Case
B":

2.5
months
delay
If
"
Case
C":

28.3
months
delay
If
improvement
=

$
511
per
permit
per
year
unit­
type
prevalence
average
If
ROA
improvement
=

$
4,448
per
permit
per
year
unit­
type
prevalence
average
1
2005
2
2
$
1,022
$
8,897
2
2006
2
4
$
2,044
$
17,794
3
2007
2
6
$
3,065
$
26,691
4
2008
2
8
$
4,087
$
35,587
5
2009
2
10
$
5,109
$
44,484
6
2010
2
12
$
6,131
$
53,381
7
2011
2
14
$
7,153
$
62,278
8
2012
2
16
$
8,174
$
71,175
9
2013
2
18
$
9,196
$
80,072
10
2014
2
20
$
10,218
$
88,969
11
2015
2
22
$
11,240
$
97,866
12
2016
2
24
$
12,262
$
106,762
13
2017
2
26
$
13,283
$
115,659
14
2018
2
28
$
14,305
$
124,556
15
2019
2
30
$
15,327
$
133,453
16
2020
2
32
$
16,349
$
142,350
17
2021
2
34
$
17,370
$
151,247
18
2022
2
36
$
18,392
$
160,144
19
2023
2
38
$
19,414
$
169,041
20
2024
2
40
$
20,436
$
177,937
21
2025
2
42
$
21,458
$
186,834
22
2026
2
44
$
22,479
$
195,731
23
2027
2
46
$
23,501
$
204,628
24
2028
2
48
$
24,523
$
213,525
25
2029
2
50
$
25,545
$
222,422
26
2030
2
52
$
26,567
$
231,319
27
2031
2
54
$
27,588
$
240,215
28
2032
2
56
$
28,610
$
249,112
29
2033
2
58
$
29,632
$
258,009
30
2034
2
60
$
30,654
$
266,906
Column
totals=
60
$
475,134
$
4,137,044
Average
annual
=
2
$
15,838
$
137,901
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
126
ATTACHMENT
D
SENSITIVITY
ANALYSES:

 
DISCOUNT
RATE
 
PERIOD­
OF­
ANALYSIS
 
FORECAST
OF
FUTURE
ELIGIBLE
TSFs
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
127
ATTACHMENT
D­
1
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
128
ATTACHMENT
D­
2
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
129
ATTACHMENT
D­
3
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
130
ATTACHMENT
D­
4
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
131
ATTACHMENT
D­
5
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
132
ATTACHMENT
D­
6
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
133
ATTACHMENT
D­
7
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
134
ATTACHMENT
D­
8
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
135
ATTACHMENT
D­
9
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
136
ATTACHMENT
D­
10
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
137
ATTACHMENT
D­
11
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
138
ATTACHMENT
D­
12
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
139
ATTACHMENT
D­
13
(
for
n
=
866
on­
site
facilities)
Economics
Background
Document:
RCRA
Standardized
Permit
29
March
2005
140
ATTACHMENT
D­
14
(
for
n
=
1,133
on­
site
+
off­
site
facilities)