Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Hawaii (33% vs. 22%) 3. New Mexico (32% vs. 26%) 4. Arizona (33% vs. 26%) 5. California (32% vs. 26%) o A sub-total of 291 plants (63%) have surrounding children populations which exceed their respective statewide percentage. Plant level results: Using the plant-by-plant (i.e. itemized ZCTA) basis, 310 plants (63%) have surrounding child populations which exceed their statewide children benchmark percentages, whereas 185 plants (37%) have children populations below their statewide benchmarks, which represents a plant ZCTA ratio of 1.68 (i.e., 310/185). Since this ratio is much greater than 1.00, this finding indicates that a highly disproportionate count of plants have surrounding child population percentages which exceed their statewide benchmark. State level results: Using the state-by-state aggregation basis, the percentage of child populations surrounding the plants were compared to their respective statewide population benchmarks. The state-by-state ratios revealed that approximately 27 of the 47 states (57%) have disproportionate percentages of children within the plant address ZCTA compared to the rest of the state suggesting a disproportionate surrounding child population. However, in comparison to the other two numerical comparisons above, this state-by-state count approach does not include numerically-weighting of state plant counts or state surrounding populations, which explains why this comparison method yields a different numerical result. This method illustrates how population comparison results may be sensitive to the comparison method. 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 ZCTAs surrounding the plants, which include a sub-total of 1.54 million children (25.4%). Comparison of this percentage to the national aggregate benchmark across all states of 24.7% children yields a ratio of 1.03 (i.e., 25.4%/24.7%). This ratio indicates a slightly higher disproportionate child population surrounding the 495 plants. Comparison of the nationwide child population sub-total for all plants reveals that +4.1% additional children reside near the plants, compared to the expected child population if based on state averages (i.e., 1,541,854 children living near the 464 plants compared to 1,480,831 expected children count). 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 higher effect on child populations. 236
7E. Unfunded Mandates (UMRA) & Federalism Implications Analysis (Executive Order 13132) UMRA Among its other purposes and Federal agency rulemaking requirements, Title II of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking: “…is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.” Section 202 of UMRA requires Federal agencies which propose rules that are likely to exceed this $100 million expenditure threshold on either the private sector or on state/local/tribal governments, to prepare a “Written Statement” containing the following five components, and supply the Written Statement to OMB as well as summarize it in the Federal Register notice (aka “preamble”) for the proposed rule: 1. Identification of the applicable authorizing Federal law 2. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the rule including the costs and benefits to State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector, and an analysis of whether Federal resources may be available to pay these costs 3. Estimates of future compliance costs and any disproportionate budgetary effects 4. Estimates of effects on the national economy such as productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation, international competitiveness 5. Description and summary of agency’s prior consultation with elected representatives of the affected State, local and tribal governments. Section 202 of UMRA allows Federal agencies to prepare the “Written Statement “in conjunction with or as a part of any other statement or analysis. Accordingly, the purpose of this section of the RIA is to determine whether the regulatory options evaluated in this RIA exceed this UMRA direct cost threshold. Findings: The private sector and the state/local government shares of direct compliance costs under each option are displayed below in Exhibit 7L, which indicates that: • Private sector cost test: All of the regulatory options are expected to result in expenditures of $100 million or more in the aggregate for the private sector, in any one year (i.e., 139 companies and cooperatives of the total 200 owner entities). • State/local/tribal government cost test: None of the regulatory options are expected to result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate in any one year (there are 60 state/local government owner entities identified in Exhibit 7M below, no known tribal owner entities, plus one Federal owner). According to the private sector test finding, EPA has prepared an “UMRA Written Statement” which is attached to this RIA as Appendix P. 237
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 and 232: Comparison of Child Populations Liv
Page 233 and 234: Count of plant unique ZCTAds Exhibi
Page 235: Exhibit 7K Comparison of Child Popu
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?