DRAFT

Review of Environmental Justice Impacts 

for the following Proposed Rules: 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; 

Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste 

Economics and Risk Analysis Staff 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

April 13, 2010 
DRAFT

2 

I. Introduction

The purpose of this document is to summarize our assessment of the environmental justice 

impacts of the following proposed rules: (1) the proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration (CISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule); (2) the proposed National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area 

source Boilers Rule); (3) the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the major source Boilers Rule); and (4) 

the proposed rule for the Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (the 

NHSM rule). Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. The EO has informed the development and implementation of EPA’s 

Environmental Justice (EJ) program and EJ policies. Consistent with the EO, the Agency’s EJ policies 

promote environmental protection by focusing attention and Agency efforts on addressing the types of 

environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among minority, low-income, Tribal and other 

vulnerable populations. 

We developed this combined environmental justice assessment because of the interdependencies 

between the air and solid waste rules. The emissions standards developed in the proposed CISWI Rule, 

area source Boilers Rule, and major source Boilers Rule (and the environmental justice impacts of those 

standards) are based on which secondary materials, when used as fuels, are considered solid wastes under 

the proposed NHSM rule. Similarly, changes in secondary materials management practices (and the 

corresponding environmental justice impacts) depend on the emissions control costs that affected units 

would incur if they decide to burn secondary materials considered to be solid wastes.1

II. Environmental Justice Impacts of Proposed CISWI Rule, Proposed Area Source Boilers 

 Rule, and Proposed Major Source Boilers Rule 

 The proposed CISWI Rule, the proposed area source Boilers Rule, and the proposed major source 

Boilers Rule establish national emission standards for affected sources. EPA estimates that 

approximately 176 commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators will be regulated under the 

proposed CISWI Rule; approximately 13,434 industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process 

heaters will be covered by the proposed major source Boilers Rule; and approximately 183,000 sources 

will be regulated under the proposed area source Boilers Rule. 

The three air rules will result in substantial emissions reductions of the regulated criteria and 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Specifically, the proposed CISWI Rule will reduce emissions of nine 

pollutants, which include particulate matter (PM); metals, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and 

mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzofurans (dioxin, furans); 

carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NOx); and acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2). The major source Boilers Rule will reduce emissions of acid gases, such as 

hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, mercury, lead, cadmium, other non-mercury metals, organics, 

and chlorinated dioxin/furans, while the area source Boilers Rule will reduce emissions of mercury, non-

 

1

 Facilities that burn secondary materials considered to be solid wastes under the proposed NHSM rule must decide 

whether to stop burning these materials or to continue burning them and incur additional air pollution control costs. 
DRAFT

3 

mercury metals, and organics. Adverse health effects from these pollutants include cancer and chronic 

health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lungs, skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the central nervous 

system; and damage to the kidneys) and acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and congestion, 

alimentary effects, such as nausea and vomiting, and effects on the kidneys and central nervous system). 

The rules will also result in substantial reductions of criteria pollutant emissions, such as carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Reducing these emissions will 

subsequently reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation in the atmosphere and their associated health effects, 

such as adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma, and other respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases. 

 To assess the environmental justice impacts of the CISWI Rule and major source Boilers Rule, 

EPA reviewed the distributions of different socio-demographic groups that might be impacted by the 

sources affected by each of the two rules. The review focused on those census blocks within three miles 

of affected sources and determined the demographic composition (e.g., race, income, etc.) of these census 

blocks and compared them to the corresponding compositions nationally. On the other hand, because of 

the large number of smaller boilers covered by the area source Boilers rule and the absence of sitespecific coordinates, EPA is currently unable to assess the demographics of populations located near these 

sources. However, EPA believes that the number of area source boilers affected by the rule is so large 

that it is likely that most of the U.S. population lives within three miles of at least one of these sources. 

Therefore, while it is not possible to assess by how much more or less one population group or 

community would benefit from emission reductions from area source boilers than another population 

group or community, most people and communities will benefit 

The analysis for the CISWI Rule and the major source Boilers Rule was performed by first 

identifying all the census blocks within three miles of any affected source. Three miles (or 5 kilometers, 

which is about the same) has been used often in other demographic analyses focused on areas around 

industrial sources. Also, beyond three miles the air emission influence of an individual source is 

generally considered to be small, both in absolute terms and relative to the influence of other sources 

(assuming there are other sources in the area, as is typical in urban areas). Because census blocks are 

typically small (although some of the blocks where population are sparse can get large), this approach 

does not apportion the population based on land area included within the three-mile buffer (circle), as was 

done in the analysis of the demographics around landfills and other alternate disposal locations that was 

based on the larger census block groups (see Section III below).2

 The population of each census block 

within three miles of a source was successively divided into subgroups (e.g., first by race, then by 

Hispanic status, then by age group). After each division, persons were counted and summed across 

blocks to obtain population numbers for the area around each source. 

 Based on the fact that the three rules do not allow for emission increases, EPA has determined 

that they will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

any populations in the US including minority, low-income, or Tribal populations. Moreover, because the 

populations in the vicinity of the affected sources are in the aggregate more minority and low income in 

composition, the beneficial effects from the three rules will be larger for the average minority and low 

income American than for all Americans. Exhibit 1 summarizes the results of the analysis for the threemile buffers around the major source boilers and CISWI units. The results suggest that populations living 

near these facilities are located in areas with minority and low-income populations that are higher than the 

national averages. As shown in Exhibit 1, the major source boilers are located in areas where minorities’ 

share of the population (33 percent) living within a three-mile buffer is higher than the national average 

 

2

 The use of two different approaches has stemmed from time requirements and the rulemaking schedule, not any 

fundamental technical basis. 
DRAFT

4 

(25 percent). For these same areas, the percent of the population below the poverty line (16 percent) is 

also higher than the national average (13 percent). The percentages of the population in these areas which 

are under age 18 or over age 65 are not significantly different from their national averages. The CISWI 

units are also located in areas where the percent minority (29 percent) and percent below the poverty line 

(14 percent) are greater than their respective national averages. Therefore, to the extent that any minority, 

or low income subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by the current emissions as a result of the 

proximity of their homes to these sources, that subpopulation stands to see increased environmental and 

health benefits from the emissions reductions resulting from the two rules. As with the areas around 

major source boilers, we saw no significant differences in the distribution of different age groups relative 

to the national distribution.
DRAFT

5 

Exhibit 1 – Populations Within Three-Mile Proximity to Major Source Boilers and CISWI Units 

Overall 

population White Minority1 African American Native American Other and multiracial Hispanic Below the poverty line U

POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS (13,434 units) 

36,868,952 24,828,553 12,040,399 7,296,123 207,441 4,536,835 4,682,861 5,997,709 9

 67% 33% 20% 1% 12% 13% 16% 

POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF CISWI INCINERATORS (176 units) 

2,095,561 1,480,539 615,022 346,191 21,128 247,703 273,943 295,197 

 71% 29% 17% 1% 12% 13% 14% 

OVERALL NATIONAL POPULATION 

285,339,128 214,539,706 70,799,422 35,043,873 2,489,515 33,265,937 39,083,760 37,161,950 77

 75% 25% 12% 1% 12% 14% 13% 

Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Information on the facilities is from U.S. EPA. 

1. Overall population minus white population (does not include white Hispanic population). 
DRAFT

6 

III Environmental Justice Impacts of the Proposed Rule for the Identification of Non-

 hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste 

The proposed rule for the identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste 

enumerates several criteria for determining whether a secondary material is a solid waste when 

combusted. 

These criteria generally include: 

(1) whether the non-hazardous secondary material is used as a fuel, remains within the 

control of the generator and meets legitimacy criteria; 

(2) whether the non-hazardous secondary material is used as an ingredient, and meets the 

legitimacy criteria 

(3) whether a discarded secondary material has been processed to produce a non-waste 

legitimate fuel or ingredient. 

(4) whether a non-waste determination has been granted. 

Facilities that currently burn secondary materials considered to be solid waste under the proposed 

NHSM rule may continue to do so following the implementation of the rule (and comply with the CAA 

section 129 requirements) or divert the material to disposal or another beneficial use. According to 

EPA’s assessment of affected units using the least cost method3

, disposal is the most likely prospect for 

diverted secondary materials, but some specific secondary materials are more likely to be processed into a 

legitimate non-waste fuel or ingredient, or recycled for non-fuel applications. The diversion of secondary 

materials away from combustion units will show benefits (i.e., improved air quality), but will not 

necessarily alleviate all the potential environmental justice concerns. As secondary materials are diverted 

to disposal and processing facilities, activity at these facilities will increase (e.g., increased transportation 

to these sites), which may create environmental exposure and nuisance concerns (e.g., odors, noise, and 

aesthetics). 

To assess the potential environmental justice impacts of the proposed NHSM rule, EPA created 

the following assessment that is located in the docket for the proposed rule: “Environmental Justice 

Analysis for Diversion and other Impacts from the Proposed Rule: Identification of Non-Hazardous 

Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste” (referred to as the “Diversion Analysis”). This assessment 

includes a demographic analysis of the populations living within one mile and three miles of nonhazardous waste sites (RCRA Subtitle D facilities) which have the potential to receive the diverted 

secondary materials for disposal and processing. Using block group data from the 2000 Census, EPA 

estimated minorities’ share of the population near each facility and the percentage of the population near 

each facility that is below the poverty line.4

 The nationwide estimates for each facility type were then 

compared with the percent of the U.S. population characterized as minority and as population below the 

poverty line (using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). EPA conducted this analysis nationally for 

the following categories of facilities: landfills, demolition landfills, composting facilities, incinerators 

 

3

 Under the least cost approach, the regulated entity is assumed to operate in an economically rational manor by 

managing the secondary material in the least costly method possible based on legal requirements. 

4

 EPA’s analysis of the 2000 Census block group data relied upon aerial apportionment to assess the demographic 

characteristics of populations living near each facility. Under this approach, if x percent of a block group’s land area 

is within the one-mile (three-mile) buffer around a facility, we assumed that x percent of the block group’s 

population is also within the one-mile (three-mile) buffer. 
DRAFT

7 

(municipal waste), material recovery facilities,5 transfer stations, and waste-to-energy plants. The 

demographics associated with the list of facility types, as identified in Exhibits 2 and 3, are from the 

“Waste Business Journal Directory & Atlas of Non-Hazardous Waste Sites 2008.” 

Some of the secondary materials determined to be solid waste that are not sent for disposal could 

be sent to a variety of recyclers or processors to develop a legitimate fuel or a non-fuel recycled product. 

Due to the difficulty of obtaining demographic data on all areas surrounding processing and recycling 

facilities, the demographics for only one type of processor (scrap tire processors) is available at this time. 

Additional demographics on areas surrounding other processors, such as used oil processors, will be 

included in the final rule (if available). For tire processing facilities,6

 EPA randomly selected 14 percent 

of the 530 tire processors listed in the Scrap Tire News’ “2009 Scrap Tire and Rubber Users Directory.”7

 

Scrap tires can be processed for a variety of uses, including tire-derived-fuel (which includes shredding 

the whole tires in small pieces and removing metal wire). Because these facilities are separate from the 

disposal diversion facilities and because our analysis did not capture the populations living near all tire 

processors, we excluded these facilities from the tabulated results presented in Exhibit 2 of this document. 

While we don’t have demographic information on the complete set of tire processors, we note that 

minorities make up 40 percent of the population living within three miles of these randomly-selected 

facilities, and 18 percent of the population living within three miles of these facilities is below the poverty 

line. Both of these percentages exceed the corresponding national averages. 

Exhibit 2 summarizes the results of the analysis for the three-mile buffer. The analysis at three 

miles was selected to be consistent with the demographic analysis for Major Boilers and CISWI units 

presented in the previous section. The Diversion Analysis, (a copy of which is in today’s public docket 

for the proposed NHSM rule), contains demographic information associated with the one-mile buffer. As 

indicated in Exhibit 21, the results of the three-mile analysis suggest that populations living near facilities 

that may receive secondary materials diverted from affected combustion units are located in areas where 

minority8

 and low-income populations are higher than the national average. As indicated in Exhibit 2, 

minorities’ share of the population within a three-mile buffer is greater than the national population 

average (25 percent for all seven facility types, ranging from 27 percent for landfills to 38 percent for 

material recovery facilities. The percent of the population below the poverty line is greater than the 

national population average (13 percent) also for the seven facility types, ranging from 14 percent for 

landfills to 17 percent for waste-to-energy plants. 

The Diversion Analysis document includes additional detail on the demographic analysis. This 

document, includes additional summary discussion, race/ethnicity analysis, minority levels, including 

ethnicity, additional demographics for potential diversion sites, additional information on the 

methodology, and discussion of other environmental justice impacts. 

 

5

 Materials recovery facilities are facilities that sort and process collected mixed recyclables into individual streams 

for market. These are also known as intermediate processing centers. About one-third (430) of these materials 

recovery facilities have combined operations with transfer stations. The facility counts and demographics at the 

combined operations are not included in the transfer station demographics. 6

 Under the proposal, whole scrap tires would be considered a solid waste and therefore, would likely be diverted to 

other facilities, including tire processing facilities. To the extent that the whole scrap tires are sufficiently processed 

at such facilities, the tire-derived fuel will likely be used as a non-waste fuel. 

7

 Scrap Tire News, 2009 Scrap Tire and Rubber Users Directory, 2009. 8

 Note that the first minority percent in Exhibit 2 does not include ethnicity and the second one includes ethnicity; 

the Diversion Analysis contained in the public docket for the proposed rule includes full minority calculations that 

account for ethnicity. 
DRAFT

8 

 

Exhibit 2: Three-Mile Block Group Analysis Summary 

FACILITY TYPE 

(number assessed)

POPULATION 

(total) 1 MINORITIES 

PERCENT 

MINORITY 2 

(Plus % Minority, 

Including Ethnicity)

POPULATION BELOW 

THE POVERTY 

LEVEL 

PERCENT 

BELOW 

POVERTY LINE 

Population within 3 Miles of Landfills 

Landfills (nonhazardous) (2,442) 31,610,889 8,374,113 27% (33%) 4,297,924 14% 

Construction and 

Demolition landfills 

(1,008) 15,496,949 4,994,262 32% (38%) 2,399,611 16% 

TOTAL: LANDFILLS 

(3,450) 47,107,838 13,368,375 28% (35%) 6,697,535 14% 

Population within 3 Miles of Other Sites 

Composting (271) 9,582,552 2,956,813 31% (39%) 1,288,310 13% 

Incinerators, 

municipal waste (36) 977,329 363,418 37% (39%) 157,839 16% 

Materials Recovery3

(1,247) 61,207,342 23,298,204 38% (46%) 9,735,122 16% 

Transfer Stations4

(3,042) 65,314,862 22,412,482 34% (42%) 9,878,917 15% 

Waste-to-Energy 

Plants5 (93) 5,584,477 2,026,576 36% (44%) 925,880 17% 

TOTAL: OTHER SITES 

(4,689) 142,666,562 51,057,493 36% (44%) 21,986,068 15% 

National Statistics 

for comparison6 25% (31%) 13%

Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. The facility list is from “Waste Business 

Journal Directory & Atlas of Non-Hazardous Waste Sites 2008. 

1. Population total represents the total number of people living within three miles of each facility type. 

2. The first number for “percent minority” presented in this table reflects racial minorities to be 

comparable with the calculation used for the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics. Ethnicity was not 

used to determine minority status. This measure does not capture White Hispanics. The second number 

in parenthesis includes ethnicity (White Hispanics). 

3. Materials Recovery Facility; a facility that sorts and processes collected mixed recyclables into individual 

streams for market. Also known as an intermediate processing center. About one third (430) of these 

materials recovery facilities have combined operations with transfer stations. Those combined 

operations are not included in the transfer station demographics. 

4. Transfer Stations sites at which solid wastes are concentrated for transport to a processing facility or 

disposal site (i.e., landfill). Recycling and some processing may also take place at transfer stations. This 

does not include the 430 transfer stations that have combined operations with materials recovery 

facilities. 

5. Waste-to-Energy Plants are specially designed waste management facilities where waste is burned to 

create energy, which is captured for use in generating electricity. 

6. The nation-wide estimates reflect the population and demographics of the entire U.S. to be used for 

comparison, not just those populations living within three miles of affected facilities. The national 

results are based on the Census data as listed in the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics table (see 

Exhibit 1). 
DRAFT

9 

 Demographics: Race and Ethnicity Analysis 

 

Exhibit 3 shows the populations in the three-mile buffer zone around facilities by racial and 

ethnic category.9

 Consistent with the data in Exhibit 2, the values in Exhibit 3 were estimated by aerial 

apportionment at the block group level. They include the population around each facility considered, but 

Exhibit 3 double-counts individuals in areas where two facility circles overlap, thus over-counting 

individuals living near more than one facility of the same type. 

The percentage of the population identified as African American is higher than the national 

average for all facility categories. For incinerators, the percentage is more than twice the national 

average, at 30 percent. This rises to 45 percent for the closer one-mile area. Other race, multi-racial, or 

Hispanic percentages are higher than national averages for six of the seven facility categories in Exhibit 3. 

The Diversion Analysis document includes the race and ethnicity analysis at the one-mile buffer, as well 

as comparisons between the two distributions. 

The percentage identified as “American Indian or Alaskan Native Only” is shown as one percent 

(the same as the national average) due to rounding, but all populations are slightly lower than the national 

averages for all facility types. 

 

9

 Similar to Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3 excludes tire processors due to the fact that our analysis did not capture the full 

universe of these facilities. Information on the demographics of populations living near tire processors is available 

in the Diversion Analysis on the docket. 

Exhibit 3: Three-Mile Block Group Analysis Race Summary 

FACILITY TYPE (NUMBER 

ASSESSED) 

PERCENT 

WHITE 

ONLY 

PERCENT 

AFRICAN 

AMERICAN ONLY 

PERCENT AMERICAN 

INDIAN OR ALASKAN 

NATIVE ONLY 

PERCENT 

OTHER RACE OR 

MULTI-RACIAL 

PERCENT 

HISPANIC OR 

LATINO 

Population within 3 Miles of Landfills 

Landfills, non-hazardous 

(2,442) 73% 13% 1% 14% 15% 

Demolition landfills 

(1,008) 68% 19% 1% 13% 13% 

TOTAL: LANDFILLS 

(3,450) 71% 15% 1% 13% 14%

Population within 3 Miles of Other Sites 

Composting (271) 69% 13% 1% 17% 18% 

Materials Recovery (1,247) 55% 21% 1% 23% 24% 

Incinerators, Municipal 

Waste (36) 62% 30% 1% 8% 5% 

Transfer Stations (3,042) 59% 20% 1% 20% 21% 

Waste-to-Energy Plants

(93) 64% 20% 1% 16% 18% 

TOTAL: OTHER SITES 

(4,689) 58% 20% 1% 21% 22%

National Statistics for 

Comparison 75% 12% 1% 12% 14% 

See the Exhibit 2 for information on the data. 
DRAFT

10 

 Limitations of Demographic Analysis 

 While the data in Exhibits 1 through 3 provide useful environmental justice information related to 

the proposed rules, we note the following limitations of the demographic analysis: 

• Exposure Uncertainty: Although minority and low-income populations near the facilities 

represented in Exhibits 1 through 3 are above the national average, this does not 

necessarily indicate that the proposed rules will result in adverse environmental justice 

impacts. For example, if the diversion of secondary materials to landfills and other 

facilities does not increase exposure to environmental contaminants, the proposed rules 

will not cause adverse exposure impacts, although there may be some nuisance concerns 

due to the increased activity. 

• Non-resident Populations: The analysis summarized in Exhibits 1 through 3 is based on 

the assumption that all populations that live near each facility type face the same 

increases in exposure and risk. Other populations, however, may also face increased 

exposure risk, such as individuals who work near these facilities. 

• 2000 Census Data: Our analysis is based on Census data for the year 2000, though 

populations may have migrated since that time. 

IV Other Potential Environmental Justice Impacts of the Proposed Rules 

In addition to the potential environmental justice impacts associated with the diversion of 

secondary materials to disposal facilities or other processing operations, the proposed rules could 

possibly lead to several other environmental justice impacts. These include (1) potential 

slowdown in abatement of scrap tire stockpiles, (2) potential for increased accumulation of 

secondary materials in stockpiles, and (3) potential for dumping of used oil.