## DRAFT

Review of Environmental Justice Impacts

for the following Proposed Rules:

Standards of Performance for New Statio nary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units;

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Ai r Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers;

National Emission Standards fo r Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Industrial/Commercial/Institution al 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 pr oposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing S ources: 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-hazar dous 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, dispr oportionately high and a dverse 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 info rmed 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 jus tice assessment because of the interdependencies

between the air and solid waste rules. The emissi ons 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, wh en used as fuels, are c onsidered 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 Propo sed CISWI Rule, Proposed Area Source Boilers Rule, and Proposed Major Source Boilers Rule

The proposed CISWI Rule, the proposed area sour ce 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 sour ce Boilers Rule; and a pproximately 183,000 sources will be regulated under the proposed area source Boilers Rule.

The three air rules will result in substantial em issions reductions of the regulated criteria and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Specifically, the pr oposed CISWI Rule will reduce emissions of nine pollutants, which include particulate matter (PM); meta ls, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated di benzo-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 bu rning them and incur additional air pollution control costs.

## DRAFT

3 mercury metals, and organics. A dverse 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, particul ate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Reducing these emissions will subsequently reduce ozone and PM 2.5 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 ru les. The review focused on tho se 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 com positions nationally. On the other hand, because of the large number of smaller boilers covered by th e 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 majo r 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 incl uded 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 divide d into subgroups (e.g., first by race, then by Hispanic status, then by age group). After each division, persons were c ounted 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-in come, or Tribal populations. Moreover, because the populations in the vicinity of the affected sources ar e in the aggregate more minority and low income in composition, the beneficial effects from the three rul es 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 resu lts suggest that populations living

near these facilities are located in ar eas with minority and low-income popul ations that are higher than the national averages. As shown in Exhibit 1, the majo r source boilers are located in areas where minorities’ share of the population (33 percent) living within a th ree-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 th e 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 di fferent from their national averages. The CISWI

units are also located in areas wher e the percent minority (29 percent) and percent below the poverty line (14 percent) are greater than their respective national av erages. Therefore, to the extent that any minority, or low income subpopulation is disproportionately im pacted by the current emissions as a result of the proximity of their homes to these sources, that s ubpopulation stands to see increased environmental and

health benefits from the emissions reductions resu lting 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.DRAFT5Exhibit 1 – Populations Within Three-Mile Proximity to Major Source Boilers and CISWI UnitsOverallpopulationWhite Minority1AfricanAmericanNativeAmericanOther andmultiracialHispanicBelow thepoverty lineUnder age18Age 65 andOverPOPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS (13,434 units)36,868,952 24,828,553 12,040,399 7,296,123207,441 4,536,835 4,682,861 5,997,709 9,735,998 4,614,67267% 33% 20% 1% 12% 13% 16% 26% 13%POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OFCISWI INCINERATORS (176 units)2,095,561 1,480,539 615,022 346,191 21,128247,703 273,943 295,197 569,708 260,92971% 29% 17% 1% 12% 13% 14% 27% 12%OVERALL NATIONAL POPULATION285,339,128 214,539,706 70,799,422 35,043,873 2,489,515 33,265,937 39,083,760 37,161,950 77,245,364 35,491,27475% 25% 12% 1% 12% 14% 13% 27% 12%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 Prop osed 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 whet her 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 c onsidered to be solid waste under the proposed NHSM rule may continue to do so following the impl ementation of the rule (and comply with the CAA section 129 requirements) or divert the material to di sposal or another beneficial use. According to EPA’s assessment of affected units using the least cost method 3 , disposal is the most likely prospect for diverted secondary materials, but some specific seconda ry 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 jus tice concerns. As secondary materials are diverted to disposal and processing facilities, act ivity at these facilities will increase ( e.g. , increased transportation to these sites), which may create envir onmental exposure and nuisance concerns ( e.g. , odors, noise, and aesthetics).

To assess the potential environmental justice im pacts 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 th e Proposed Rule: Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste” (referre d 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) whic h have the potential to receive the diverted secondary materials for disposal and processing. Us ing block group data fro m 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, demo lition landfills, composting facilities, incinerators

3 Under the least cost approach, the regulated entity is a ssumed 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) buf fer 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 typ es, 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 deve lop 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 pr ocessors, 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, in cluding 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 per centages exceed the corresponding national averages.

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

miles was selected to be consistent with the dem ographic analysis for Major Boilers and CISWI units presented in the previous section. The Diversion Analys is, (a copy of which is in today’s public docket for the proposed NHSM rule), contains demographic in formation 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 af fected combustion units are located in areas where minority 8 and low-income populations are higher than the national average. As indicated in Exhibit 2, minorities’ share of the population within a three-m ile buffer is greater than the national population average (25 percent for all seven f acility types, ranging from 27 percent for landfills to 38 percent for material recovery facilities. The percent of the po pulation 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 additio nal detail on the demographic analysis. This document, includes additional summary discussion, r ace/ethnicity analysis, minority levels, including ethnicity, additional demographics for potential di version 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 in termediate processing centers. About one-third (430) of these materials recovery facilities have combined opera tions with transfer stations. The fa cility 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 tir es 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 Recovery 3 (1,247) 61,207,342 23,298,204 38% (46%) 9,735,122 16%

Transfer Stations 4 (3,042) 65,314,862 22,412,482 34% (42%) 9,878,917 15%

Waste-to-Energy

Plants 5 (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 comparison 6 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 demograph ics. Ethnicity was not used to determine minority status. This measure do es not capture White Hispanics. The second number in parenthesis includes ethnicity (White Hispanics).

3. Materials Recovery Facility; a facility that sorts and processes colle cted mixed recyclables into individual streams for market. Also known as an intermediate processing center. About one third (430) of these materials recovery facili ties have combined operations with transfer stations. Those combined operations are not included in the transfer station demographics.

4. Transfer Stations sites at which so lid wastes are concentrated for tran sport to a processing facility or disposal site (i.e., landfill). Recycling and some processi ng 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 fa cilities. 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-m ile buffer zone around facilities by racial and ethnic category. 9 Consistent with the data in Exhibit 2, th e values in Exhibit 3 were estimated by aerial apportionment at the block group level. They incl ude the population around each facility considered, but

Exhibit 3 double-counts individuals in areas wher e 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 A frican 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 in cludes the race and ethnicity analys is 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, bu t 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 th rough 3 provide useful environmenta l 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 a bove the national average, this does not necessarily indicate that the proposed rules w ill result in adverse environmental justice impacts. For example, if the diversion of secondary materials to landfills and other facilities does not increase exposure to environm ental contaminants, the proposed rules will not cause adverse exposure impacts, a lthough there may be some nuisance concerns due to the increased activity.

• Non-resident Populations: The analysis summarized in Exhi bits 1 through 3 is based on the assumption that all populations that liv e near each facility type face the same increases in exposure and risk. Other pop ulations, 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 Just ice Impacts of the Proposed Rules

In addition to the potential environmental justi ce impacts associated with the diversion of secondary materials to disposal facilities or othe r 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.