Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7C. Minority & Low-Income Population Statistics (Executive Order 12898) Under the 1994 Executive Order (EO) 12898 183 it is the responsibility of Federal agencies to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice (EJ) part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on (a) minority populations and (b) low-income populations. Although not defined in EO 12898, for purpose of this RIA the following definitions are applied: Minority population: Low-income population: Numerically measured according to Census Bureau “non-white” statistics (does not include Hispanics). Numerically measured according to Census Bureau “individuals below poverty 184 level.” Furthermore, section 3-302(b) of EO 12898 provides a trigger which indicates that Federal agencies shall collect and evaluate EJ data for any facilities or sites expected to have “substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect” when such facilities or sites become subject to “substantial” Federal environmental action: “In connection with the development and implementation of agency strategies in section 1-103 of this order, each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain and analyze information on the race, national origin, income level, and other readily accessible and appropriate information for areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have substantial environmental, human health, or economic effect on the surrounding populations, when such facilities or sites become the subject of a substantial Federal environmental administrative or judicial action. Such information shall be made available to the public unless prohibited by law.” The EO 12898 does not establish quantitative thresholds for “substantial effect” on the surrounding populations, nor does this RIA formulate a quantitative threshold. This RIA uses the (1) CCR disposal baseline environmental and human health hazards (e.g., damage cases), and (2) the environmental and human health protection objectives described in the CCR proposed rule, as indicators of “substantial effect”. For that reason, this section of the RIA presents an EJ data collection and analysis involving a 5-step process to compare minority and low-income population data for each electric utility plant location, to respective statewide population data, to identify whether these two population subgroups disproportionately reside in geographic areas where electric utility plants are located. In addition, this RIA identifies two other possible affects of the CCR proposed rule on (a) environmental justice populations surrounding offsite landfills which may receive CCR, and (b) environmental justice populations within electric utility plant customer service areas. 183 Source: 1994 Executive Order 12898 is available at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo12898.htm 184 The US Census Bureau defines “poverty” following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14. The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. Poverty income thresholds are available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh08.html 216
Collection of Minority & Low-Income Demographic Data Step 1: Plant address 5-digit “Zip Code Tabulation Areas” (ZCTAs) formed the geographic basis for this EJ population data collection. Because ZCTAs represent irregularly shaped geographic areas, this ZCTA based data collection may be considered a “screening level” analysis. The US Bureau of Census uses over 33,000 ZCTA for its Census counts of population and other demographic statistics based on the US Postal Service’s over 42,000 nationwide ZCTAs. 185 Currently, there are no size restrictions limiting how large or small a ZCTA can be in terms of either a minimum/maximum number of housing units or geographic area. Any particular ZCTA may be as small as a few city blocks or may cover many square miles. Many ZCTAs are for villages, census-designated places, portions of cities, or other entities that are not municipalities. The nationwide average ZCTA population is about 7,200 persons (i.e., (306.6 million mid- 2009 US population) / (42,500 ZCTAs)). The nationwide average ZCTA area is about 83 square miles (i.e., (3,536,278 square miles total US land and water area) / (42,500 ZCTAs)), which is a land area equivalent to a five-mile radial distance (i.e., ((83 square miles) / (3.1416))^0.5). In comparison, the radial area monitored for contamination in response to the December 2009 TVA Kingston TN electric plant CCR spill is reportedly four miles, 186 and this average four-mile ZCTA radial distance falls between the 1-mile to 15-mile radial distances used by EPA’s Superfund “Hazard Ranking System” (HRS) to define affected populations of sites having either (a) soil contamination only (1-mile), (b) groundwater and/or airborne contamination (4-miles), or (c) surface water contamination (15-miles downstream). More information about EPA’s HRS is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/npl_hrs/hrsint.htm. Using the Census search engine Factfinder (http:factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en), EPA retrieved population statistics for 464 (94%) of the 495 electric utility plants. For 42 plants (8%) there was no ZCTA Census data because the plants did not have complete address data from DOE, or because the Census search engine did not have data for the ZCTA. Step 2: EPA collected statewide percentage data for minority and low-income subgroups for purpose of benchmark comparison to the plant-by-plant sub-group population statistics. o EPA collected low-income population statewide percentages (3-year averages for 1998 to 2000) from the following Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty00/tabled.pdf o EPA collected statewide percentages for white population sub-group (data year 2000) from the Census Bureau website: . EPA then subtracted the percentage of white population in each state from 100% to produce the respective minority percentage for each state. For data year 2000, the Census Bureau expanded the white population classification by collecting both data for people who claimed to be “white-only” and for people who claimed to be “mixed white”. Since the purpose of the EJ analysis is to evaluate all minorities, this step involved collecting the “white-only” data in order to calculate the minority percentage which includes people who reported to be of mixed race. Exhibit 7F below displays the statewide Census data for low-income and minority sub-populations. 185 Source: US Census Bureau ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) Frequently Asked Questions at: Nationwide total ZCTA count is from the US Postal Service’s FAQ website at: http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp 186 Source: 4 mile radial monitoring area reported by Waste & Recycling News, 13 Feb 2009; http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/email.html?id=1234543579 217
Page 1 and 2:
Regulatory Impact Analysis For EPA
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 5 and 6:
Executive Summary This RIA evaluate
Page 7 and 8:
impoundments, the relative number t
Page 9 and 10:
Summary Exhibit 3 Induced Effect of
Page 11 and 12:
Summary Exhibit 6 Comparison of Reg
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 Problem Statement: The Ne
Page 15 and 16:
Bevill Amendments 10 which exempted
Page 17 and 18:
Just three weeks after the TVA’s
Page 19 and 20:
2. Waste & Environmental Management
Page 21 and 22:
This RIA did not discover similar d
Page 23 and 24:
Exhibit 2A Identity of Other Indust
Page 25 and 26:
Require review of surface impoundme
Page 27 and 28:
Chapter 3 Baseline CCR Management i
Page 29 and 30:
Exhibit 3C below, these 495 coal-fi
Page 31 and 32:
Exhibit 3C State-by-State Electric
Page 33 and 34:
3B. Types of CCR Disposal Units Es
Page 35 and 36:
92 plants Offsite landfill fly ash
Page 37 and 38:
electric utility plants in the data
Page 39 and 40:
Exhibit 3E Annual CCR Disposition f
Page 41 and 42:
3D. Size of CCR Disposal Units The
Page 43 and 44:
costs for each type of disposal (no
Page 45 and 46:
annual sampling for surface impound
Page 47 and 48:
o Of the 25 state regulations revie
Page 49 and 50:
Exhibit 3I Baseline Compliance with
Page 51 and 52:
Baseline CCR Disposal Cost Estimati
Page 53 and 54:
Before-tax costs: 50-year period:
Page 55 and 56:
Baseline “Engineering Control”
Page 57 and 58:
assume that the same water trucks w
Page 59 and 60:
memorandum to George Garland, EPA,
Page 61 and 62:
Exhibit 3K Summary of Industry & St
Page 63 and 64:
($80,000 per year average Subtitle
Page 65 and 66:
Validity Check of Baseline Cost Est
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 4 Estimated Cost for RCRA R
Page 69 and 70:
B. Ancillary costs for CCR disposal
Page 71 and 72:
location restriction mitigation inv
Page 73 and 74:
o Impoundment berms: The average su
Page 75 and 76:
State government average cost per w
Page 77 and 78:
corrective action remedies usually
Page 79 and 80:
Exhibit 4A Two Case Studies: Possib
Page 81 and 82:
Biennial Report”). According to E
Page 83 and 84:
4B.3 Land Disposal Restriction Cost
Page 85 and 86:
The TVA cost study did not estimate
Page 87 and 88:
Using the EPA ORCR 2009$ updated un
Page 89 and 90:
Exhibit 4D Comparison of Annual O&M
Page 91 and 92:
Exhibit 4E Summary of Wet Conversio
Page 93 and 94:
o Recent Trend in CCR Impoundment P
Page 95 and 96:
from coal to other fuels such as na
Page 97 and 98:
o Result of Dry Conversion Cost Upd
Page 99 and 100:
As summarized below in comparison t
Page 101 and 102:
17% phase-out trend suggest the fut
Page 103 and 104:
RIA 50- ye ar period Actual company
Page 105 and 106:
4C. State-by-State Distribution of
Page 107 and 108:
4D. Cost Estimation Uncertainty Thi
Page 109 and 110:
Exhibit 4N Cost Estimation Uncertai
Page 111 and 112:
In contrast to the Exhibit 5A list
Page 113 and 114:
Step 2. Determine Potentially Affec
Page 115 and 116:
Step 3. Apply EPA-ORCR 2009 Arsenic
Page 117 and 118:
RISKn WELLREACH iRISK EDn N Where
Page 119 and 120:
The constant slope allowed estimati
Page 121 and 122:
Step 6. Monetize Future Avoided Can
Page 123 and 124:
controls like surface-impoundment p
Page 125 and 126:
Finally, for Subtitle C, there woul
Page 127 and 128:
Exhibit 5A-12 Percentile of Cleanup
Page 129 and 130:
Exhibit 5A-16 Per-Site Groundwater
Page 131 and 132:
Multiple CCR disposal units at a si
Page 133 and 134:
5B. Benefit of Preventing Future CC
Page 135 and 136:
As displayed below in Exhibit 5B-2,
Page 137 and 138:
Where: = Observed arrival rate (0.
Page 139 and 140:
Step 3. Calculate Future Impoundmen
Page 141 and 142:
some surface impoundment regulation
Page 143 and 144:
Exhibit 5B-8 Poisson Distribution (
Page 145 and 146:
With these new distributions, EPA p
Page 147 and 148:
Exhibit 5B-12 Scenario #2: Cleanup
Page 149 and 150:
5C. Induced Effect of RCRA Regulati
Page 151 and 152:
Exhibit 5C-1 Estimate of Annual Mat
Page 153 and 154:
Exhibit 5C-3 below presents a 2004
Page 155 and 156:
To avoid double-counting of economi
Page 157 and 158:
5C2. Potential Effect of RCRA Regul
Page 159 and 160:
Others take a different view on how
Page 161 and 162:
Exhibit 5C-7 EPA Extrapolation of E
Page 163 and 164:
Based on the most recent CCR benefi
Page 165 and 166: Beneficial uses of CCR have been co
Page 167 and 168: Exhibit 5C-12 Beneficial Use Trend
Page 169 and 170: Increases due to increased disposal
Page 171 and 172: “Using [coal] fly ash in building
Page 173 and 174: Exhibit 5C-14 Historical Annual Per
Page 175 and 176: Hypothetical expansion of CCR custo
Page 177 and 178: Step 6: Apply Estimated Induced Eff
Page 179 and 180: Exhibit 5C-16 Scenario #1: Increase
Page 181 and 182: Exhibit 5C-17 Scenario #2: Decrease
Page 183 and 184: Exhibit 5C-18 Beneficial Use Trends
Page 185 and 186: Exhibit 5C-19 Scenario #1: Benefit
Page 187 and 188: Exhibit 5C-21 Scenario #2: Cost of
Page 189 and 190: Step 10: Quantify Potential Capacit
Page 191 and 192: Chapter 6 Comparison of Regulatory
Page 193 and 194: Exhibit 6B Comparison of Regulatory
Page 195 and 196: Exhibit 6D Comparison of Regulatory
Page 197 and 198: Exhibit 6F Comparison of Regulatory
Page 199 and 200: Exhibit 6F Scaling Factors (Extrapo
Page 201 and 202: Exhibit 6G Estimate of Subtitle D (
Page 203 and 204: detect contamination early and thus
Page 205 and 206: Step 1: Downloaded the annual milli
Page 207 and 208: Exhibit 7A State by State Breakout
Page 209 and 210: Small government: Based on the RFA/
Page 211 and 212: Step 3 & Step 4: Determine and docu
Page 213 and 214: Factor #2 of 2: The small business
Page 215: how much they use or indeed how muc
Page 219 and 220: Comparison of Minority & Low-Income
Page 221 and 222: Exhibit 7G Minority and Low-Income
Page 223 and 224: Exhibit 7H Comparison of Minority a
Page 225 and 226: o The state-by-state range of minor
Page 227 and 228: CCR fraction #3: CCR fraction #4:
Page 229 and 230: 7D. Child Population Statistics (Ex
Page 231 and 232: Comparison of Child Populations Liv
Page 233 and 234: Count of plant unique ZCTAds Exhibi
Page 235 and 236: Exhibit 7K Comparison of Child Popu
Page 237 and 238: 7E. Unfunded Mandates (UMRA) & Fede
Page 239 and 240: Findings for UMRA Impact and Federa
Page 241 and 242: Exhibit 7M List of 74 Coal-Fired El
show all

Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?