Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nationwide results: Using the nationwide aggregation basis across all 495 plants in all 47 states where the plants are located, 6.08 million people live in ZCTA surrounding the plants, which include a sub-total of 1.32 million (21.7%) minority and a sub-total of 0.8 million (12.9%) low-income population groups. A comparison of these percentages to the national benchmark averages across all states of 24.9% minority and 11.9% low-income, represents a minority ratio of 0.87 (i.e., 21.7%/24.9%) and a low-income ratio of 1.08 (i.e., 12.9%/11.9%). These nationwide aggregate ratios indicate a slightly lower disproportionate minority population surrounding the 495 plants, and a slightly higher disproportionate low-income population surrounding the plants. Comparison of nationwide population sub-totals for all plants for each demographic group compared to the expected value based on statewide averages, reveals that: o +18.9% additional low-income residents near the plants compared to the expected low-income population based on statewide averages (i.e., 783,062 low-income population for all 464 plants compared to 658,336 expected count if based on statewide averages.) o -5.8% less minority residents near the plants compared to the expected minority population based on statewide averages (i.e., 1,317,896 minority population for all 464 plants compared to 1,241,382 expected count if based on statewide averages). These three alternative comparisons indicate that the current (baseline) environmental and human health hazards and risks from electric utility CCR disposal units, and the expected future benefits of the regulatory options, may have a disproportionately lower effect on minority populations and may have a disproportionately higher effect on low-income populations. Other Potentially Affected Minority & Low-Income Populations There are two other potential differential effects of the regulatory options on two other population groups: (a) populations surrounding offsite CCR landfills, and (b) populations within the customer service areas of the 495 electric utility plants. o Offsite CCR Landfills The potential effect on offsite landfills involves the RCRA Subtitle C based regulatory options whereby four different fractions of CCR generation may be required to be disposed in RCRA Subtitle C permitted landfills rather than in non-RCRA permitted waste landfills: CCR fraction #1: CCR fraction #2: Electric utility plants may switch the management of CCR, in whole or in part, from current onsite disposal to offsite commercial RCRA-permitted hazardous waste landfills (56.8 million is disposed in onsite landfills, and 22.4 million is disposed in onsite impoundments, totaling 79.2 million tons disposed onsite). Some or all of the CCR which is currently disposed in offsite landfills that do not have RCRA Subtitle C permits may also switch to RCRA-permitted commercial hazardous waste landfills if the current receiving landfills do not obtain RCRA Subtitle C permits (15.0 million tons is disposed offsite). 226
CCR fraction #3: CCR fraction #4: Annual CCR generation which is currently supplied for industrial beneficial use applications could also switch to offsite commercial RCRA Subtitle C permitted landfills if such use becomes curtailed in part or in whole from either state government regulations or from market stigma (47.0 million tons is beneficially used). Future cleanup of CCR disposal unit failures (e.g., impoundment collapse) would require disposal in RCRA Subtitlepermitted waste landfills (the two CCR impoundment release case studies in Exhibit 4A of this RIA represent a range of 0.25 million to 3.3 million tons per failure event). One or more of these four potential shifts of CCR disposal from current non-hazardous landfills to hazardous waste landfills, could have a disproportionate effect on populations surrounding these locations, and in particular, minority and low-income populations surrounding commercial hazardous waste facilities, if current landfills operated by electric utility plants do not obtain future Subtitle C permits (Option 1). A recent (2007) study determined that minority and low-income populations disproportionately live near commercial hazardous waste facilities, although the study included other types of commercial hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities in addition to commercial hazardous waste landfills. 187 An example of such potential EJ concerns is a 2009 US national news item involving the decision made by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to train transport 3 million tons of the TVA’s (Kingston TN electricity plant) December 2008 CCR impoundment collapse site cleanup waste, 350 miles away to a landfill in a rural Alabama county which reportedly has about 70% minority (African American) and 33% low-income residents. 188 However, this example serves to illustrate that EJ concerns are not necessarily conclusive or shared by all affected EJ populations, as evidenced by the following remarks made to news reporters by the Alabama county government officials and county residents: 189 “To county leaders, the train’s loads, which will total three million cubic yards of coal ash from a massive spill at a power plant in east Tennessee last December [2008], are a tremendous financial windfall. A per-ton “host fee” that the landfill operators pay the county will add more than $3 million to the county’s budget of about $4.5 million. The ash has created more than 30 jobs for local residents in a county where the unemployment rate is 17 percent and a third of all households are below the poverty line. A sign on the door of the landfill’s scale house says job applications are no longer being accepted — 1,000 were more than enough. But some residents worry that their leaders are taking a short-term view, and that their community has been too easily persuaded to take on a wealthier, whiter community’s problem…. County leaders, who are mostly black, bristle at accusations of environmental injustice, saying that the ash is perfectly safe and that criticism has been fostered by outsiders, or even competitors who wanted the ash disposal contract for themselves….. Bob Deacy, vice president of clean strategies and 187 Source: United Church of Christ, “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty 1987-2007”, March 2007. . This study evaluated and made findings on minority and low-income population data within a 1.8-mile radius “host neighborhood” of 413 commercial hazardous waste facilities, compared to “non-host” areas. The study (page x) found that “Host neighborhoods of commercial hazardous waste facilities are 56% people of color whereas non-host areas are 30% of color… Poverty rates in the host neighborhoods are 1.5 times greater than non-host areas (18% vs. 12%).” 188 Source: Shaila Dewan, “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash,” The New York Times, 30 Aug 2009 at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30ash.html 189 Source: At least two news organizations identically reported these remarks on 30 Aug 2009: #1 of 2: New York Times, “Clash in Alabama Over Tennessee Coal Ash” at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30ash.html #2 of 2: Waste Business Journal, “Waste From TVA Spill Begins to Arrive at Alabama Landfill Amid Controversy” at http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/news/wbj20090901D.htm 227
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 and 216: how much they use or indeed how muc
Page 217 and 218: Collection of Minority & Low-Income
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: o The state-by-state range of minor
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?