13.07.2015 Views

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment - Earthjustice

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment - Earthjustice

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment - Earthjustice

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Section 2.0Problem Formulationsmall sample is not sufficient to represent the universe of FBC disposal units <strong>and</strong>, if included inthe overall analysis, could bias the Monte Carlo results towards the environmental conditionsaround these few l<strong>and</strong>fill units, FBC wastes were addressed separately from the moreconventional CCW types in the full-scale analysis <strong>and</strong> are not included with the conventional<strong>and</strong> codisposal CCW management scenarios in the overall results. Section 4.1.3 compares therisk results for each of these waste types, including FBC.Table 2-3 shows how the plants were distributed across the waste type/WMU scenariosmodeled in the full-scale analysis. The distribution across the waste type/WMU scenarios, thegeographic distribution of these facilities, <strong>and</strong> the size <strong>and</strong> liner status of the WMUs wereassumed to be representative of all onsite CCW l<strong>and</strong>fills <strong>and</strong> surface impoundments in thecontinental United States as of 1995. As mentioned previously, DOE <strong>and</strong> EPA have conducted anewer survey on CCW disposal facilities (U.S. DOE, 2006), but the scope of this survey was notas comprehensive as the EPRI survey (e.g., WMU areas <strong>and</strong> capacity data were not collected).Newer information (U.S. DOE, 2007a,b) suggest that there now may be up to approximately 500coal-fired electric utility power plants in the United States, the majority of which would beexpected to conduct some waste management activities in onsite l<strong>and</strong>fills or surfaceimpoundments (U.S. EPA, 2010).Table 2-3. Coal Combustion Plants with Onsite CCW WMUsModeled in the Full-Scale <strong>Assessment</strong>Waste Type <strong>and</strong> Liner StatusConventional CCW cunlinedclay-linedcomposite-linedCodisposed CCW <strong>and</strong> coal refuseunlinedclay-linedcomposite-linedFBC waste dunlinedclay-linedcomposite-linedNumber of Plants in 1995 EPRI Survey a with Onsite:L<strong>and</strong>fills7138281038201097331SurfaceImpoundments38241056552112Either WMUType b103603815100692111- 7331All waste types 108 96 181a EPRI (1997); note that some coal combustion plants have one or more onsite WMUs.bNumber of coal combustion plants with onsite l<strong>and</strong>fill(s), surface impoundment(s), or both.c Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, <strong>and</strong> FGD sludge.d Includes 3 EPRI Survey FBC l<strong>and</strong>fills plus 4 additional FBC l<strong>and</strong>fills added by EPA. FBC wastreated separately in the full-scale assessment because of the small number of FBC sites.2.2 Conceptual ModelThe waste stream/WMU combinations discussed above provided the waste managementscenarios evaluated in the risk assessment. The full-scale assessment used the EPRI survey datato place these scenarios at actual onsite CCW disposal sites across the country. These sites wereApril 2010–Draft EPA document. 2-6

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!