ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
21,
1984
In the matter of:
)
PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES
)
R84—1
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
)
FACILITIES
)
In the matter of:
)
PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES
)
R84—7
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
(FINAL RULE)
)
FINAL ORDER.
ADOPTED EMERGENCY RULE
(R84-1)
FINAL OPINION OF THE BOARD
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST NOTICE (R84~7)
PROPOSED OPINION OF
TIlE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matter
concerns a proposal by the
Illinois
Environ-
mental
Protection Agency (Agency) that the Board
adopt a
schedule of
permit and inspection fees
for
hazardous waste
disposal sites requiring a RCRA permit.
The proposal was
filed pursuant to Section 5(f) of the
Environmental Protection
Act (Act), as amended by P.A. 83~O938,
otherwise
known as
S.B.
143, which became effective on
December
12, 1983.
The
relevant portion is Sections
5(f)
and 5(g),
which read as
follows:
(f)
Not later than January 1,
1984,
the Agency
shall recommend a schedule of reasonable
permit and
inspection fees for hazardous waste
disposal facilities
requiring a RCRA permit under subsection (f)
of
Section
21 of this Act.
Not later than March
1,
1984,
the
Board shall prescribe such a
fee schedule,
Such fees
in the aggregate shall
be sufficient
to adeq~ately
cover all costs to the State
for the
Agencyes permit
and inspection activities applicable to
hazardous waste
disposal facilities requiring a RCRA
permit.
Section
27(b)
of this Act shall not be applicable
to rulemaking
under this Section.
(g)
The Board may prescribe reasonable
fees for
permits required pursuant to this
Act,
Such
fees in
the aggregate may not exceed the total
cost to the
Agency for its inspection and permit
systems.
The Agency filed its proposal
in
4 pieces:
57-241
1.
Recommended Schedule and First
Statement of
Reasons, January 3,
1984,
2.
Second Statement of Reasons, January 11,
1984,
3.
Proposed
Codification and Third
Statement of
Reasons, January 23,
1984.
4,
~rnendmentto Proposed Codification,
January 23,
1984.
The Board conducted
3
public hearings,
as follows:
1.
Springfield, February
16,
1984;
2.
Chicago, February 17,
1984;
3.
Chicago, February 23,
1984.
During the course of the hearings and
afterwards, the
Board received written comments as follows:
1.
Standard Oil
(Indiana), Ms. Melanie
S.
Toepfer,
February 17, 1984
2.
Clayton Chemical Co., Mr.
Dave Wieties,
February 23,
1984
3.
Illinois Power Co.
and Johns’-Manville
Sales Corp.,
Ms. Carolyn A.
Lown, February 24, 1984
4.
Chemical Waste Management,
Ms.
Sheri K.
Swibel,
February 27,
1984
5.
Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.,
J.
M. Blundon,
February 27,
1984
6.
Hydropoll,
Inc.,
Dr.
Rauf Piskin, February
29,
1984
7.
Allied Chemical,
Mr.
Richard L. Purgason,
February 29,
1984,
On February 29, 1984,
in order to comply
with
the time
limit specified in Section 5(f) of the Act,
the
Board adopted
35 111. Mm.
Code 718 as an emergency rule.
At the
same
time the Board opened Docket Number R84—7, and
proposed to
adopt Part 718 as
a permanent rule,
On March 6,
1984 the
Hearing Officer incorporated the entire
record in R84—l into
R84-7,
so that it became in essence a continuation
of R84—1.
57-242
—3—
REASONS FOR EMERGENCY
Section 5(f)
of the Act provides that rulemaking to
establish
the permit and inspection fees
for hazardous waste
disposal
facilities requiring a RCRA permit
is not subject
to Section 27(b)
of the Act, which requires
an economic
impact
study by the Department of Energy
and Natural Resources.
The Board was able to
complete
the
procedures required by
Section 27(a) before the March
1, 1984 deadline
of Section 5(f).
The comment period of Section 102.163 was shortened by
the
Hearing Officer in order to get comments before the
Board
prior to February 29.
Section 28 of the Act requires notice at least
20 days
in advance of a public hearing.
Considering the time
delays
involved in getting a notice published, and in getting the
transcripts of the hearing, the earliest the Board could
have possibly acted was around February
1;
the
delay to
February 29,
1984 was largely caused by initial
uncertainty
as to whether the Agency had filed a proposal
which met the
requirements of Section 28 of the Act and Section
102.120.
Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
rulemaking requires
90
days, plus whatever time is needed to actually
carry
out the
various filings.
The Board could not have
completed regular APA
rulemaking by March
1,
1984 had it been able
to initiate it on
February 1,
1984, or even on December 12,
1983.
The legislature
must have intended that some other route be
used.
Section 5.02 of the APA allows emergency
rulemaking
where an agency finds that an ~emergency~ exists which
requires adoption of a rule in fewer days than is
required
for regular rulemaking.
~‘Emergency~is defined as
“the
existence of any situation which an agency finds
reasonably
constitutes a threat to the public interest,
safety or
welfare,u
In establishing the March
1,
1984
deadline, the
legislature must have intended the Board to proceed
by
emergency rulemaking procedures since this
is
the only
avenue by which the Board could have met the date,
Pursuant
to this legislative intent,
the Board
finds that
the present
manner of funding of Agency permit and inspection
activities
at hazardous waste disposal facilities requiring
a RCRA
permit, and the resulting constraints on the
Agency’s permit
and inspection levels,
constitute a threat to the
public
interest, safety and welfare,
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS
At the first hearing the Agency presented a single
witness and exhibits
in support of its proposal.
At the
57-243
third hearing it modified many of its figures,
and presented
the data
on which the emergency rules are
largely based.
The
Board received public testimony at all
three hearings,
all
of which
testimony opposed at least some
aspects of the
proposal.
Included in the major criticisms
were the following:
1.
Whether the legislature intended the
Agency to
expand its inspection program, or
merely to
recover the costs of its existing
program
(R.
117);
2,
Whether the proposed inspection
schedule was
reasonable;
3.
Whether the extent of federal grant
funding
was to
be considered in determining the
Agency’s costs
(R.
360,
574, 580,
592,
596);
4,
Whether fees should be charged for
actual or
projected inspections;
5.
Whether injection wells were to be
included as
“hazardous waste disposal facilities
requiring a
RCRA permit”
(R.
93,
127, 247);
6.
Whether the volume disposed of criterion
was fair
to injection wells which dispose of
large volumes
of dilute waste
CR.
94);
7,
Whether to reduce the number of
inspections for
facilities with good operating histories
(R.
88,
111, 267);
8.
Whether the fees should be payable
on an annual or
shorter basis
CR,
73, 154,
415, 439,
452);
9,
Whether permit fees could be charged
for permits
other than the actual RCRA permit
(R.
403,
409,
415, 417,
432);
10.
Whether to allow credits for shutdowns
(R.
413,
426,
558)
;
11,
Whether the Agency~soverhead was
properly accounted
for;
12.
Whether the criteria concerning the
distances from
the facility to wells or residences
were fair to
on—site facilities where the disposal
activities
are conducted on a small portion of the
facility;
57-244
—5.-
13.
Whether to include start-up costs;
14.
Whether to reduce first-year fees to allow for a
phase—in of the program
(R.
593);
15.
Whether all of the fees should be payable on
July
1,
1984,
The Board has addressed many of these issues in the
emergency rules,
Moreover, Docket No, R84-7 has been opened
and an additional hearing has been scheduled to obtain more
input prior to adoption of a final rule.
The Board intends
to
act
on the permanent rules before July
1,
1984.
SCOPE OF FEE REQUIREMENT
Section
5(f)
requires the Board to adopt a schedule of
reasonable
permit
and inspection fees for hazardous waste
disposal
facilities requiring a RCRA permit.
The Board has
adopted a
definition of
“hazardous waste disposal facilities
requiring a RCRA
permit”
which interprets
Section 5(f)
and
determines the
scope of the fee
requirements.
The definition
of “hazardous
waste disposal facility requiring a RCRA
permit”, found
in Section 718.102,
reads as follows:
a)
A
facility as defined in 35 Ill, Adm, Code 720,
b)
Which requires a RCRA permit pursuant
to Section
21(f)
of the Act,
c)
Which includes one of the following:
1)
A landfill at which hazardous waste disposal
takes place;
or
2)
A waste pile or surface impoundment, receiving
hazardous waste, in which waste residues are
expected to remain after closure; or
3)
A land treatment unit receiving hazardous
waste;
or,
4)
A well injecting hazardous waste,
The Section 5(f)
fees will apply to facilities which
“require” a RCRA permit, regardless of whether the permit
has actually been issued,
The permit fees will recover
costs of other waste permitting activities at these facilities;
the inspection fee may be charged for inspections of portions
of the facility which are not directly involved with the
RCRA permit.
57-245
—6—
Paragraph
(c)
of the definition deals with the element
of ‘hazardous waste disposal” in Section 5(f)
(R. 127, 156).
These follow the definition of “disposal facility” in 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 720.110 and the distinction made in 35 Ill.
Mm.
Code 724 between disposal facilities on the one hand
and
treatment or storage facilities on the other.
The
simplest
type
of hazardous waste disposal facility is a
landfill disposing of hazardous waste.
The others are
subject to some controversy
as
to whether the legislature
intended them to be included under Section 5(f).
Surface impoundments and waste piles are included if
they receive hazardous waste and if waste residues are
expected to remain on closure.
Note that it does not matter
whether the residues would be hazardous
(see Sections 724.328
and 724.358).
If the waste residues are to be removed
periodically or at closure, the lagoon or pile is a treat-
ment
unit
which would not cause the facility to be subject
to the fee system.
Land treatment units receiving hazardous waste are
subject to the fee system as disposal units since waste
residues will remain after closure
(R.
340).
Well injection is also regarded as disposal.
However,
well injection itself is subject to the UIC rather than the
RCRA permit requirement.
It is possible that a facility
could have an injection well with a UIC permit but no
RCRA
permit.
Such a facility would not be subject to the fee
system because of paragraph
(b).
However, associated surface
facilities usually require a RCRA permit
(R.
121, 303, 306).
LEVELS
OF
SURVEILLANCE
The
Agency proposed to divide the facilities subject to
the
fees
into
three
categories to define the level of
surveillance,
which
would
determine
in
part
the
fee
to
be
paid.
The
levels of
surveillance
proposed
by
the
Agency
were as follows
(R.
108):
Continuous
(260 inspections per year)
Intensive
(52 inspections per year)
Routine
(26 inspections per year)
The Board has adopted this concept, but has renamed
these as surveillance levels
“5”,
“3” and “I”
CR.
270).
This will leave room for the possible later definition of
two intermediate surveillance levels.
57-246
I—
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BILLABLE
INSPECTIONS
The
Board
has
removed
the
number
of
inspections
from
the
definitions
of
the
levels
of
surveillance:
the
level
is
determined
only
by
the
listed
criteria,
which
are
discussed
below.
The
numbers
of
inspections
associated
with
the
levels
of
survei:Llance
were
used
in
the
Agency
proposal
to
project the
costs of the program,
and hence to set
the
proposed annual fees.
The
same numbers have been used to
project
the
quarterly
fees
in
the
Board
proposal;
however,
the proposal also includes a per-inspection fee,
The Board
has specified the maximum
number
of billable inspections for
each surveillance level in order to avoid billing for exces-
sive inspections.
It should be noted that the maximum number of billable
inspections for each surveillance level
is the same as the
number of inspections projected
to determine
the costs of
the program to be covered by the quarterly fees.
These
numbers do not
have
to he
the
same,
For example, the Agency
could be given
start-up
money and an overhead fee to compensate
it for an average proj
acted
level of inspections, but be
allowed to bill its
direct
costs up
to
a
higher
maximum.
The Board solicits
comments on this,
The Agency
will be allowed to bill
for all inspections
at a facility
subject
to
the fee
system, whether the inspection
deals directly
with activities
subject to the RCRA permit or
not
CR.
183).
A
site
visit will
be one inspection even if
several Agency
employees take
part
(R.
202),
CRITERIA
FOR
DETERMIN:tNG
LEVEL
OF
SURVEILLANCE
The
Board
has
included
criteria
for
determining
the
level
of
surveillance
in
the
text
of
the
rules,
The
criteria
closely
follow
the
crIteria
included
with
the
Agency’s
proposal.
The
criteria
are
as
follow:
1.
Size of
the
waste management area
(R.
35,
82,
130)
2.
Diversity
of
operations
(R,
37,
131,
361)
3.
Flood
plain
(R.
37,
100,
131)
4.
Type
of
operation
CR.
39,
132,
152,
192,
361)
5.
Waste
volume
(R.
41,
134)
6.
Compatibility/stability
of
wastestreams
(R.
42,
136)
57~247
—8—
7.
Physical state
of
wastes
(R.
44,
137,
361)
8.
Proximity
to
populations
(R.
45,
138)
9.
Pathways
to
migration
CR.
51,
140)
10.
Distance
to
private
wells
(R.
51,
114,
141,
362)
11.
Distance
to
public
water
supplies
CR.
51,
141,
362)
The
major
change
is
in
the
first
criterion:
the Board
has
specified
the
size
of
the
waste
management area instead
of the entire facility,
“Waste management area”
is defined
in Section 718.301 as the smallest rectangular area which
encloses all activities for which a RCRA permit is required
(R.
83).
This could avoid penalizing on-site facilities,
which may have only a small portion of the total facility
devoted to waste management,
and yet still incorporates the
Agency’s stated purpose in setting 100 acres as the cut—off:
that the manager of a small facility should be able to see
the entire operation at one time
CR.
36).
The Agency’s proposal
was
essentially a binary choice
on each criterion,
The Board has replaced thi.s with ten
points per criterion, although the rule only allows for
awarding ten points or zero.
Several of the criteria may,
in the future, lend themselves
to establishment of inter-
mediate point awards.
The
Board solicits comments on what,
if any, the appropriate intermediate points should be.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The Agency’s proposal started out as a schedule of 12
fees
payable
according
to type of facility and surveillance
level.
This
was
fleshed
out
in
the
modifications
to
the
proposal
and
testimony
at
the
hearings.
The
Board
has
replaced
the
Agency’s
system
of
12
fees
with
4
fees,
the
amount
of
which
would
depend
on
the
type
of
facility
or
surveillance
level,
The
4
fees
are
as
follows:
1.
Permit
fee,
payable
quarterly
in
advance,
based
on
the
estimated
hours
spent
in
permitting
activities
for
facilities
of
3
types.
2.
Inspection
fee,
payable
quarterly,
based
on
the
number
of
actual
inspections
and
the
estimated
cost
of
an
inspection
at
each
surveillance
level.
57-248
—9—
3.
Start-up
fee,
a one-time fee based on the
costs
to
buy equipment necessary to conduct inspections at
the
projected
surveillance
level,
4.
Inspection
overhead
fee,
payable
quarterly in
advance,
based
on
depreciation and maintenance of
the
equipment
included
in
the
start—up
fee,
and
labor
costs
for
laboratory
personnel.
These
fees
relate
directly
to
the
4
elements
which
are
added
together
to
make
each
of
the
Agency’s
proposed
12
fees
(Ex.
13).
The
4
fees
each
are
based
on
similar
costs
and
result
from
simpler calculations than the Agency’s system of
12
fees.
This
should
simplify
the
review
of
the
proposal
in
R84—7.
Splitting
the
fees
has
also
allowed
a
simpler
state-
ment
of
the
incidents
on
which each fee depends:
either the
type
of
permit
or
level
of
surveillance, but not both.
It
has also allowed the Board to specify different times of
payment and incidents:
3 are payable in advance,
1
is
payable
after the fact according to actual inspections;
3
others
are
permanent,
1
is
temporary.
BILLING
The Agency’s proposal did not require it
to
bill
for
these
fees.
This has been added (Sections 718.221 and
718.330).
Billing
will
be
appealable
(Section
718,315)(R,
158).
The
date of billing will determine the due date of the fee
(Section 718,330),
The Board has also specified some rules which
will
simplify
administration
of
the
fee
system:
a
closing
date
for
determination
of
the
level
of
surveillance;
limitations
on
credits
for
facilities
which
shut
down;
and
limitation
on
proration
for
new
facilities
CR.
70,
84).
The
system
could
become
unmanageable
if
the
level
of
surveillance
were
subject
to
daily
adjustment;
furthermore,
such
daily
adjustments
would
not
be
consistent
with
carrying
charges
on
the
long—
term
investments
which
the
Agency
will
have
to
make
to
carry
out
inspections
at
the
projected
level,
Section
718.313
specifies
the
first
day
of
the
quarter
as
a
closing
date
for
determination
of
the
level
of
surveil-
lance
for
the
rest
of
the
quarter.
The
level
of
surveillance
is
to
be
based
on
the
normal
level
of
operations,
excluding
temporary
conditions
not expected to last
more
than
one—
half of a quarter
CR.
334).
Modification of the level of surveillance can be initiated
by the Agency or the permittee;
in either
case,
30 days’
notice must be given.
If this
is missed,
the level of
57-249
—10—
surveillance
will
not be changed,
and the modification
will
be to the following quarter’s level,
Rather
than
prorating
the
fees
for
new
facilities
and
shut—downs,
the
Board
has
provided
for
no
advance
fees
during
the
first
partial
quarter
of
operation,
and
for
no
refunds during the quarter the facility is shut down (Sections
718.221,
718.343.
and
7l8.342)(R.
116).
Note,
however,
that
the Agency is expected to review the level of surveillance,
adjust its actual inspection level and bill at the end of
the
quarter
for
actual
inspections.
Section 718.331 provides a late payment charge of 1.5
per month.
This
is not stayed by an appeal of a bill or
determination, although it would be abated for any portion
of a fee which was determined to have been improper.
The
person appealing will have a choice of paying to avoid any
late charge, getting a credit if he wins, or of paying any
late charge on final resolution,
LABOR COST
In fiscal 1983 the Agency’s Waste Division had 104
employees and a budget of $4,289,000, including items from
the Agency’s overall budget attributable to the division’s
activities.
This results
in
an average labor cost of
$41,240 per employee
per year
in 1983
CR,
403, 405, 477,
519,
523, 570,
578,
582).
Multiplying by 1.05 two times,
to
allow for 5
inflation
in
1984 and 1985,
the
estimated 1985
labor cost is $45,468
per
employee per
year
CR.
478,
481).
Based
on a
7.5 hour
work day,
5 days
per week,
52 weeks
per year, the Agency’s work-year is 1950 hours
CR.
190).
Its estimated labor cost
per
work
hour is $45,468 divided by
1950 hours,
or $23.32/hour.
This method of
computing
the labor cost is subject to
criticism since it
includes indirect
overhead,
The way the
figure is
used below
assumes that
these
overhead items will
all
increase
in
proportion to increases in
permitting
and
inspection
levels
CR.
59,
123,
403,
405,
471,
480).
PERMIT FEE
The permit
fee
is based on the Agency’s estimates
of
time spent
on
permitting activities for different
categories
of
hazardous
waste
disposal
facilities
requiring
a
RCRA
permit.
These
facilities
are
divided
into
three
categories
for
purposes
of
cost
estimation:
57-250
~ll—
1.
Facilities disposing of waste generated at other
facilities by means other than well injection
(off—site RCRA);
2.
Facilities
disposing of hazardous
waste
only
by
well injection
(UIC);
3.
Facilities
disposing of only hazardous waste
generated
on
the same facility by
means
other
than
well
injection
(On-site RCRA),
The
second
category
is abbreviated as “UIC”,
after the
underground
injection
control
permit
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
704,
730).
However,
the
existence of this permit
is
irrelevant
to
the
applicability
of
this Part, which is
determined
by
the presence or absence of a
RCRA
permit,
Such
permit
will
usually
be
required
for storage areas associated
with
well
injection
CR.
303,
306).
To avoid confusion, the abbrevia-
tion “UIC”
has
been
deleted from the Agency’s
proposal,
but
it will
be used in
the tables which follow.
The
Board
has
worded
the permit fee requirement
so as
to
avoid
the
possibility
that a facility
might
meet
more
than
one
criterion
for
permit
fees,
The
intention
is
to
charge
only
one
permit
fee per facility
(R.
115,
193).
The
Agency
estimates that it devotes the following
times
each
year
to
the
three categories of permits,
with
the
hourly cost figured as above
(R.
30,
165,
462,
465,
467):
Permit Type
Off—site RCRA
864
$23.32
$20,148
uIC
359
$23.32
$
8,372
On—site
RCRA
197
$23.32
$
4,594
The hours per year estimates include all permitting
activities
associated
with this category of facility:
Part
807 permits, Part 809 permits,
supplemental wastestream
permits
and
UIC
permits,
as well as projections of the
hours
which
will
be
required
to review actual RCRA
permits
(R.
144,
189,
572,
594).
Section 5(f) appears to require the Board
to adopt fee schedules
to recover costs of all permitting
activities
at
hazardous
waste disposal facilities requiring
a RCRA permit.
The projected
hours represent annualized estimates of
the
costs
of
issuing,
reissuing and maintaining the permits
for the type of
facility,
The estimate for the RCRA permit
57-251
assumes that RCRA permits will be issued for an average of
5 years,
so that it includes one~fifthof the estimated
hours to review the application
(A,
143, 412,
467).
An
alternative would be a schedule of charges for each type of
permit actually held by the facility, possibly payable
on
application
CR. 416,
428,
430,
450).
Quarterly permit fees of Section 718.201 have
been
established by
dividing
the quarterly estimated costs
by 4
and rounding to the
nearest $100,
INSPECTION FEE
The Agency estimates that it spends two hours each way
traveling to sites to perform inspections.
It proposes to
spend
more
time
per
inspection at surveillance level
5
sites
than
the
level
3
or
1 sites,
It estimates that the time
spent on
paperwork
following an inspection equals the time
spent at the facility,
The following summarizes
the
projected
hours
per inspection for each surveillance level:
Surveillance
_____
____
_________________
Level
Travel
~~~ork
Total
5
4
12
3
4
10
1
4
2
8
The Agency proposes to spend fewer hours per
visit
at
the sites receiving fewer inspections,
There is a
question
as to whether this is appropriate
(A.
34,
182,
406,
566).
Two hours may represent the historical time spent per inspec-
tion at sites projected to receive level
5 surveillance
(R.
564)
The
travel
time is based on average travel time to all
facilities
in
Illinois, rather than time to existing facili-
ties
presently
thought to be subject to the fee
schedules.
It has been suggested that two hours round trip is
sufficient
for two facilities expected to receive level
5 surveillance
CR.
405).
However,
the four hours includes travel time
necessary to deliver samples to laboratories
CR.
33,
176).
Travel time is 1/3 of the total time involved in
inspec-
tions at surveillance level
5,
facilities projected to
be
inspected 5 times per week,
It has been suggested that
stationing full-time inspectors at surveillance level
5
facilities
could
result in longer inspections at a lower
cost
(R.
75, 153,
414, 446).
However,
the Agency was
con-
cerned that the public would not be satisfied with the
57-252
—13—
inspection program if the inspector were perceived to be too
closely associated with the facility
(R,
56).
The following table summarizes the
Agency’s
direct
cost
per inspection for the three levels of surveillance:
Surveillance
Hours per
$
Per
$
Per
Level
I~~on
Hour
5
12
$23.32
$280
3
10
$23.32
$233
1
8
$23.32
$187
These figures have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
$10
to
arrive at the inspection
fee schedule in Section 718.321.
NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND
INSPECTIONS
The Agency presented a list of 16 facilities which it
believes are hazardous waste disposal sites requiring RCRA
permits
(A.
77,
104,
Ex.
7 and 12).
These
were
ranked
according to the Agency~sproposed criteria,
The
following
table summarizes the projected distribution of inspections
among these facilities
CR.
82, Ex,
7,
12):
Annual
Total
Surveillance
#
Inspections
Annual
Level
Sites
Per Site
~E~2tions
5
8
260
2080
3
6
52
312
1
2
26
52
Total
~T4~
The Agency presently conducts about 68 inspections per
year of the 16 facilities thought to be
subject
to
this
proposal.
This amounts to an increase by a factor of about
36 over the existing level
CR. 179,
199, 455,
562).
Some
commentors questioned whether such an increase was intended
by the legislature in requiring the fee, and whether stepped
up inspection levels would increase the protection of the
environment
(A.
117,
214,
247,
332,
362,
375, Ex,
6)
However, Waste Management,
Inc., which is projected to
receive over 20
of the total inspections
at two of its
sites, specifically endorsed the proposal to require 260
inspections per year at surveillance level
5 sites
(R.
402).
START-UP COSTS
To increase the inspection level by a factor of 36 will
require a substantial initial investment in equipment.
The
57-253
—14-’
most expensive item is a ~g,c./mass—spec”, a
mass
spec-
trometer connected to a gas chromatograph, and two gas
chromatographs,
These will be necessary to efficiently
analyze waste samples for traces of organic chemicals.
They
are expected to cost $170,000 together
(R.
178,
180,
515).
The remaining start—up costs are
for vans,
CR.
488,
492)
and for safety and sampling equipement
for
the
inspectors
CR.
483,
493,
501,
503,
506,
544, 552,
561).
Each
inspector
will require a van with a complete set
of equipment.
Deter-
mination of the cost requires estimation
of the man—years
required for the inspection program.
The following table
summarizes the calculation of the
man-years for the program:
Total
Surveillance
Inspections
Hours
Per
Man—Hours
Level
Per Year
Inspection
Per
Year
2,080
12
24,960
312
10
3,120
52
8
416
28,496
Based on a work year of 1950 hours, the projected
inspection program will require 14.61 man—years,
The remain-
ing start~upcosts are based on purchase of vans and equip-
ment for 14,61 men:
Unit
Total
Cost
Cost
g,c./mass—spec
$170,000
$170,000
Vans
$
6,750
$
98,618
Safety & Sampling
14.61
$
7,200
$105,192
Total
~7T~Io
The Agency proposes to conduct inspections at night
and on the weekends
(A. 203),
It is possible that some of
this equipment could be shared by inspectors working
different shifts~ The Board solicits comment on this.
The start-up costs are distributed among the facilities
thought to be subject to the inspection fee according to the
number of inspections at the projected levels of surveillance,
To distribute these costs,
the fraction of the total projected
inspections to take place at a facility of each surveillance
level is computed
(A.
539):
57-254
—15—
Annual
Total
Surveillance
Inspections
Annual
Fraction
Level
Per Site
~~~~ions
Per
Site
5
260
2,080
0.1064
3
52
312
0.02128
1
26
52
0.01064
Total
The
start—up
cost
for
each facility at a given surveil-
lance
level,
distributed
according
to the fraction of
inspections at sites
of
each
surveillance
level, is calcu—
lated as follows
CR.
539, 589):
Annual
Annual
Surveillance
Program
Fraction
Cost
Level
Cost
Per
Site
$373,810
0.1064
$39,773
3
$373,810
0.02128
$
7,955
1
$373,810
0.01064
$
3,977
These figures have been rounded to the nearest $100
to arrive at the start-up fees of
Section
718.322.
INSPECTION OVERHEAD FEE
Maintenance and replacement of
the
equipment covered by
the start-up
fcc is provided by the
inspection overhead fee.
The depreciation and maintenance
charges
have
been
distributed
according to the projected level
of inspections, instead of
being included in the inspection fee, which is to be paid
according to actual inspections.
Purchase
of the
equipment
to acquire the capacity to inspect at the
indicated
level
of
surveillance is a long-term investment by the Agency.
The
depreciation and maintenance charges
would continue even if
the Agency did not actually inspect at the indicated level.
Maintenance on the vans and operating costs are pro-
jected at $2,300 per year per van
(R.
489).
Maintenance on
safety and sampling equipment has been
included in the
depreciation, since it mostly involves replacement of spent
items
(A.
505).
The Agency was not able to estimate mainten-
ance on the g,c,/mass-spec., and no
cost has been allowed,
Vans are projected to last
3 years,
safety and sampling
equipment,
5 years and the g.c,/mass—spec,,
10 years.
Straight line depreciation has been used
CR.
491,
502,
517).
57-255
—16—
Also included in the
inspection
overhead
fee is salary
for two organic chemists
to
operate the g.c./mass—spec.
These have been included
in
the
overhead
rather
than
the
inspection
£cc, so that
the
cost
will
be
distributed
acco...
ding
to projected rather
than actual inspections.
Costs of
$45,468
per employee per
year
have
been allowed, the same as
for
the
inspection
fee
CR.
518).
The
following
table
summarizes the projected costs to
be
recovered
under
the inspection
overhead fee:
Units
Annual
Item
Cost
Or
Rate
Cost
Maintenance
$
2,300
14.61
$
33,603
Depreciation:
Vans
$
98,618
1/3
$
32,873
Safety Equipment
$105,192
1/5
$
21,038
Lab Equipment
$170,000
1/10
$
17,000
Lab Personnel
$
45,468
2
$
90,936
Total
$195,450
The inspection overhead
costs are distributed according
to the fraction of
inspections at sites of a given level of
surveillance, which was
derived
in calculating the start—up
cost.
The following table
shows the distribution of the
inspection overhead costs
CR.
540):
Annual
Annual
Surveillance
Program
Cost Per
Level
Cost
Fraction
Site
$195,450
0.1064
$20,796
$195,450
0.02128
$
4,159
$195,450
0.01064
$
2,080
The annual cost per
site has been divided by 4 and
rounded to the nearest $100
to arrive
at
the
quarterly
inspection overhead fee of
Section
718.320.
AGGREGATE
COSTS
OF
PROGRAM
This Section will
summarize
the annual costs
to
the
Agency of conducting its permit
and
inspection
program
at
the indicated levels of
surveillance; the next section will
compute the anticipated
revenues from the Part 718 fees.
57-256
—17’-
Estimation of the
aggregate
costs
of
the
permit
program
requires a breakdown of the 16 facilities by permit type.
There are
5 off—site RCRA facilities,
4 UIC facilities and
7
on-site RCRA facilities
thought to be
subject to the
program
(Ex.
7),
The aggregate costs are as follows:
Permit
Cost Per
Total
Type
Sites
Permit
Cost
On—site RCRA
5
$20,148
$100,740
UIC
4
$
8,372
$
33,488
0ff—site
RCRA
7
$
4,594
$ 32,158
Total
16
$166,386
Computation
of the total inspection costs requires the
following
items
which
were
found
above:
the
cost
per
inspec-
tion
at
sites
for each level
of
surveillance;
and,
the
total
number
of
inspections to be
conducted
at
all
sites
of
that
level
of
surveillance,
The
following
table
summarizes
the
total
direct
cost of
inspections:
Surveillance
Cost Per
4t
Annual
Total
Level
Inspection
Inspections
Cost
5
$280
2,080
$582,400
3
$233
312
$
72,696
1
$187
52
$
9,724
2,444
This computation assumes that the Agency will actually
inspect at the projected level, which is approximately
equal to the maximum billable inspections,
The aggregate start-up and overhead costs were estimated
in the derivation of the start—up fee and inspection over-
head fee above,
The following summarizes the total projected
costs to the Agency at the
projected
levels of surveillance,
assuming that actual inspections take place at the maximum
projected level:
Permit Costs
$166,386
Inspection Costs
$664,820
Inspection Overhead Costs
$195,450
Total Annual Continuing Costs
$1,026,656
Start—up Costs
$373,810
Total First Year Cost
$1,400,466
AGGREGATE REVENUES
FROM
PROGRAM
The following annual revenues are anticipated from the
permit fees of Section 718,201:
57-257
—18--
Permit
Quarterly
Total
Type
Sites
Fee
Qtrs.
Revenue
On—site RCRA
$5,000
4
$100,000
UIC
4
$2,100
4
$
33,600
0ff—site RCRA
7
$1,200
4
$
~
Total
16
$167,200
The following
annual
revenues
are
anticipated
from
the
inspection fees
of
Section 718.321, based on the projected
level of
surveillance and assuming that the Agency will
actually conduct inspections at
the projected level:
Surveillance
Annual
Fee
Per
Total
Level
Inspections
Inspection
Revenue
5
2,080
$280
$582,400
3
3:12
$230
$
71,760
1
52
$190
$
9,880
Total
2444
$664,040
It should he not.ed that payment of the inspection fee
will occur at least
30 days
after the end of the
quarter
in which the inspection occurs,
depending
on
how
fast
the
Agency
bills,
Even assuming
instant
billing
at
the
end
of
the quarter, payment for inspections will be up to 120 days
late,
and
an average o~60
days late,
During the first fiscal
year
only
3 quarterly payments
will be made,
reducing
the first
year
projected revenue
by $166,010, to $498,030.
The
Board
anticipates that
the
Agency
may
experience
difficulties in bringing this
program
up
to
the
projected
level
of inspections
immediately,
but
that
its
expenses
will
he
incurred
over
a
period
of
time
as
it
purchases
the
necessary
equipment and
hires
additional
employees.
The
lag
associated
with collection of
the
inspection
fee
would
tend
to
compensate
for
a
first
year
surplus
which
might
result
if
all fees were collected
in advance, but could not
be
spent
at
once.
The following revenues are
anticipated
from
the
quar-
terly inspection overhead fee of Section 718.320, based on
the projected level of surveillance:
Surveillance
#
Quarterly
Total
Level
Sites
Fee
Qtrs.
Revenue
5
8
$5,200
4
$166,400
3
6
$1,000
4
$
24,000
1
2
$
500
4
$
4,000
Total
~~00
57-258
-
19—
The
fo3. lcwi:i
revenues are anticipated from
the
one-
time
start—up
fee ot
Section 7l8.322~based on the projected
level
of
surveillance:
Surveillance
Total
Level
Sites
Fee
Revenue
5
8
$39,800
$318,400
3
6
$
8,000
$
48,000
1
2
$
4,000
$
8,000
$51,800
~374,400
The
following table summarizes
the
aggregate
revenue
anticipated
from
Part
718, assuming the projected levels of
surveillance
and assuming
that
the
Agency
actually
conducts
inspections
at the maximum
projected
level:
Permit
Fee
$167,200
Inspection
Fee
$664!040
InspectiCu Overtead See
400
________________
Total Con
-~unnn hunnal Revenue
$1
025,640
As noted ado ‘e~sollaction
of
the inspection
fee is
significantly
daLayed~
reducing
the
above
projected
revenue
by $166, 010 the ti~snveer.
The start—up
fee will
only
be
col-
lected
the
firsi:
year.
The following represents the
projected
revenue for
fisca)
95
Permit
fee
$167,200
Inspection
Fee
(3/4
$498,030
inspection Over~endFee
$194~400
Start~upFee
$~Jj~400
Total First Scar Revenue
$:1,234,030
The
Bos’rd finds that the fees adopted as emergency
rules wil
in Ste acçqroqate,
be sufficient to adequately
cover all costs to the State of
the
Agency~
s permit and
inspection
activi.t:Les eoplicable to hazardous waste
disposal
facilities
requ:Lninq
a RC~d~
permit.,
The
Scarci has added ~3ection718.103 which
t~rovides
that
any determination ci inval:Ldity of any Section does not
affect the val:Ldiuy of
the entire Part,
As
noted above
the Soard has opened Docket No,
R84—7
and scheduled a ~Litc
hearing for March 29,
1983 to
obtain
additional
testimony from the Agency and public
prior
to
adoption of nermanent
rules
to replace the emergency
rules
adopted
i.n this docket.
In addition to the assues
generally
raised
in this
Dpinion.
and without
iniplvinq any limitation
on the scope of the hearing,
the Board asks that
the
Agency
57-259
-‘20—
have
witnesses available
to
answer
questions
concerning
the
following
general
areas:
1.
What
is
the
Agency’s
direct
labor
cost
for
permit
reviewers,
field
inspectors
and
organic
chemists?
2.
What
items
of
overhead,
included
in
the
above
calculation
of
hourly
labor
cost from the Waste
Division’s overall budget,
are
expected to increase
as a result of implementation of the increase in
the
level of inspections?
3.
Can vehicle operation and maintenance be fairly
allocated according to projected travel time for
inclusion in the inspection fee?
4.
What are the direct labor hours involved for
review of each type of permit application, reap-
plication
and
modification?
5.
Should an average projected level of inspections
be used to determine equipment needs instead of
the
maximum
billable inspections, and, if so,
what is a reasonable level?
6.
Can
the start-up costs for certain itmes be efficiently
spread over
two
years rather than one?
For example
could one g.c.,
7 moon suits, and any of the vans be
purchased in the second year of the program?
Likewise,
will the Agency be able to efficiently utilize both
chemists during the first year, or could one of the
two
chemists
come
on line during
the
second year?
Could the
Agency put its organic lab on two shifts to increase
present equipement utilization?
7.
Does
the
Agency
anticipate
having
all
proposed
inspectors
begin
work
immediately?
Can
the
Agency propose
a
schedule
to
gradually
increase
the
number
of
inspectors
and
inspections
over
a
two
year
period?
8.
Dow
much
Federal
grant
money is
currently
used
to
support
permit
and inspection activities at the 16 sites?
9.
Would it be feasible to use Federal matching funds to
purchase
some
or all of the start-up equipment which could
then be used to support inspection activities at all sites
in the State?
For
example, is it necessary that each van
be equipped
with a
moon
suit,
breathing
unit, and
other
expensive
equipment
or
could
this
equipment
be
kept
at
the
regional
office
for
use
at
any
site
as
a
specific
situation warranted?
57-260
jO,
Given
~ne
-~c~n’ t~e
3~
iteS, the
proposed
level
of irq- ~
~
‘i~
tion
to conduct
weekend
r~
i
~
~o
are 14 vans and sets
of equip1~erSnec~
iv,
or could one van based
at
one
regional offic
audio
several sites?
11,
Is the pi po~c~~
~
t ~hedu
e co~patib1ewith the
appropr~S~o
CE
o t~
-
eta~
sembly
or will
some fund’~Ic. cc avai
ad e dun ig tIe wrong
years?
This Opinion suopoits the Board~sOrce.r’
of February
29,
1984 in R84—l
and
PR~i 7
Board
Members
iT,
D,
Dumelle and 3
theodore
Meyer
dissented.
I,
Christan
L,
Moffet.~. ¼~lerkof the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby certi~ that t~eabove Opinion
was
adopted
on the
L~P
-
d y
~
1984 by a
vote
of ~
~‘
v~io Control
Board
