Count of plant unique ZCTAds Exhibit 7J State-by-State Child Population Data <strong>for</strong> Coal-Fired Electric Utility Plants General Population Data Child Population Data Child Child Count of plant 2000 plant population population Statewide ZCTAs which ZCTA count ( state children% Item 15 25 IL 23 455,834 129,772 28.47% 25.10% 114,414 14 16 19 IN 17 323,323 83,594 25.85% 25.10% 81,154 14 17 7 KS 6 59,517 16,532 27.78% 25.20% 14,998 6 18 19 KY 17 255,033 63,012 24.71% 23.90% 60,953 15 19 4 LA 4 30,381 8,617 28.36% 25.40% 7,717 4 20 4 MA 3 95,798 23,078 24.09% 22.50% 21,555 1 21 8 MD 7 101,141 23,529 23.26% 24.40% 24,678 5 22 1 ME 1 6,748 1,561 23.13% 21.50% 1,451 1 23 23 MI 20 383,284 94,994 24.78% 24.60% 94,288 13 24 15 MN 15 187,012 46,208 24.71% 24.50% 45,818 5 25 19 MO 19 251,484 60,084 23.89% 24.40% 61,362 12 26 4 MS 4 69,209 19,867 28.71% 26.30% 18,202 4 27 6 MT 5 53,209 14,115 26.53% 23.20% 12,344 5 28 19 NC 16 238,874 57,728 24.17% 24.40% 58,285 6 29 7 ND 5 27,087 7,411 27.36% 22.50% 6,095 4 30 6 NE 6 79,313 20,853 26.29% 25.30% 20,066 4 31 2 NH 2 53,302 10,713 20.10% 23.10% 12,313 0 32 6 NJ 6 119,286 29,806 24.99% 24.00% 28,629 4 33 4 NM 4 17,491 5,656 32.34% 25.60% 4,478 3 34 2 NV 2 8,471 1,827 21.57% 25.80% 2,186 1 35 13 NY 13 226,416 57,612 25.45% 23.20% 52,529 9 36 24 OH 23 391,705 101,253 25.85% 24.20% 94,793 14 37 6 OK 6 30,357 8,513 28.04% 24.90% 7,559 6 38 1 OR 1 3,884 1,378 35.48% 23.20% 901 1 39 31 PA 28 167,254 36,581 21.87% 22.60% 37,799 13 40 NA RI 41 12 SC 12 222,414 60,391 27.15% 24.20% 53,824 10 42 2 SD 2 30,508 7,510 24.62% 24.80% 7,566 1 43 8 TN 8 158,267 40,682 25.70% 24.10% 38,142 4 44 18 TX 17 98,402 27,471 27.92% 27.70% 27,257 7 45 6 UT 6 34,209 11,769 34.40% 30.90% 10,571 4 46 16 VA 15 220,800 55,824 25.28% 23.90% 52,771 10 47 NA VT 48 1 WA 1 21,842 5,514 25.24% 23.90% 5,220 1 49 15 WI 13 178,705 36,428 20.38% 23.80% 42,532 10 232
Count of plant unique ZCTAds Exhibit 7J State-by-State Child Population Data <strong>for</strong> Coal-Fired Electric Utility Plants General Population Data Child Population Data Child Child Count of plant 2000 plant population population Statewide ZCTAs which ZCTA count ( state children% Item 50 16 WV 13 64,771 10,946 16.90% 21.50% 13,926 10 51 9 WY 8 69,736 19,732 28.30% 24.00% 16,737 6 Summary: Total 464 429 6,076,410 1,541,854 25.37% 24.70% 1,480,831 291 4.1% Min= 16.90% 21.50% Max= 35.48% 30.90% Extrapolated to 495 plants = 310 Step 5: <strong>The</strong> percentage of children population surrounding the plant ZCTAs were compared to overall state percentages and the nationwide percentage of this sub-group population, by calculating ratios between the plant ZCTA children populations compared to statewide and nationwide percentages of children population. Exhibit 7K below displays the results. Exhibit 7K Comparison of Child Population Data on a State-by-State Basis Percentage of ZCTA Population Under 18 Years Old Statewide Percentage of Children (Exhibit 7I) Difference Ratio Item State Plants 1 AK 2 28.0% 27.0% 1.0% 1.04 2 AL 9 26.5% 24.4% 2.1% 1.09 3 AR 3 28.5% 24.8% 3.7% 1.15 4 AZ 6 33.0% 26.4% 6.6% 1.25 5 CA 5 32.1% 25.9% 6.2% 1.24 6 CO 15 23.0% 24.7% -1.7% 0.93 7 CT 2 25.1% 23.7% 1.4% 1.06 8 DC NR NA NA NA NA 9 DE 3 23.8% 23.9% -0.1% 1.00 10 FL 14 24.5% 22.3% 2.2% 1.10 11 GA 9 25.1% 26.5% -1.4% 0.95 12 HI 1 32.6% 22.3% 10.3% 1.46 233
- 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 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: Comparison of Child Populations Liv
- 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