Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

In contrast to the Exhibit 5A list of RCRA regulatory program benefits, because of time, data, and methodological limitations, the regulatory
benefits estimated in this RIA do not represent a complete list of expected benefits of the CCR proposed rule. For example, the benefits
analysis in this Chapter of the RIA does not estimate benefits of (a) reducing cancer risks associated with preventing direct effluent discharges
of CCR to surface waters, (b) ecological and ecosystem benefits, (c) off-site CCR disposal regulatory benefits, or (d) non-cancer human health
protection benefits. In contrast to this large number of possible benefit elements, this RIA monetizes only three benefit categories consisting of
five sub-elements.
1. Groundwater Protection Benefits at CCR Disposal Sites
a. Human health protection benefits (i.e., benefit of preventing cancer from arsenic exposure)
b. Groundwater remediation costs avoided
2. CCR Impoundment Catastrophic Failure Benefits
a. Future cleanup costs avoided
3. Benefits from Increase in Future CCR Beneficial Uses
a. Direct market benefits (economic benefits)
b. Lifecycle social benefits (economic + environmental benefits)
These monetized benefits are based on EPA’s initial analysis using existing information and analytical techniques. EPA requests public
comment on all data sources and analytical approaches used in estimating the benefits presented in this Chapter.
5A. Groundwater Protection Benefits (Avoided Future Cancer Risks & Groundwater Remediation Costs)
This section estimates the potential future benefits of reduced human cancer risks and avoided groundwater contamination remediation costs
associated with controlling arsenic from onsite CCR landfills and surface impoundments. The estimates are based on EPA’s risk assessment,
which predicts leaching behavior using SPLP and TCLP data. Recent research and damage cases indicate that these leaching tests underestimate
risks from dry disposal. 105 Human cancer risks avoided are based on the individual “excess” lifetime cancer probabilities estimated
below. This estimation follows an 8-step method which begins by characterizing the cancer risks and expected number of future cancer risks
from arsenic releases to groundwater from CCR landfills and surface impoundments in the absence of EPA or state action. It then proceeds to
monetize these cancers using accepted economic practices. Next, a baseline is established for the operation of state regulatory and remedial
105 Recent EPA research demonstrates that CCR can leach significantly more aggressively under different pH conditions potentially present in disposal units. In a 2009
EPA study of 34 electric utility plants, CCR from 19 facilities exceeded at least one of the 40 CFR Toxicity Characteristic regulatory values for at least one type of CCR
(e.g., fly ash or FGD residue) at the self-generated pH of the material (source: EPA Office of Research & Development, “Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues
from Electric Utilities – Leaching and Characterization Data,” EPA-600/R-09/151. Office of Research and Development, Air Pollution Control Division. Research Triangle
Park, NC. December 2009). This behavior likely explains the rapid migration of chemical constituents from CCR disposal sites like Chesapeake, VA and Gambrills, MD.
See also EPA “Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control,” EPA 600/R-
06/008. Office of Research and Development. Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2006; and EPA “Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities
Using Wet Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control,” EPA/600/R-08/077. Office of Research and Development, Air Pollution Control Division. Research Triangle Park, NC.
July 2008.
111