### 1

MEMORANDUM

To : OSWRO Docket ( EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2012

- 0 360 )

From : Mary Kissell , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Date: June 5, 2014 Subject: Environmental Justice Review: Off

- Site Waste and Recovery Operations RTR

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 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 po pulations in the United States.

A key element of environmental justice is ensuring that all people have an opportunity for meaningful involvement in decision

- making. Certain groups may not have participated in the decision making process historically because of economic (e.g., income), social (e.g., language barriers, education levels), and structural reasons. A critical concern is whether, and the extent to which, communities have the ability to influence the types and number of regulated activities

t aking place in their community, as well as the requirements, conditions, and parameters by which they must operate (e.g., permit conditions).

The EPA aims to notify and engage the public in a variety of ways . Each rule is reviewed to identify the appropri ate methodology and meaningful involvement may consist of one or more of the following: notices on the EJAir website, community call discussions, f act sheets, community meetings and/or webinars.

2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS

The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproport ionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income or indigenous populations.

However, the a gency has reviewed the areas surrounding existing facilities to determine if there is an overrep resentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations near the sources such that they may currently face disproportionate risks from pollutants.

To gain a better understanding of the source category and near source populations, the U.S. EPA

cond ucted a demographic analysis on the source categor y for this rulemaking. This analysis only gives some indication of the prevalence of subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution

from the sources and

, therefore

, would be those populations that may be exp ected to benefit most

from this regulation; it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly

### 2

affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those

individuals or communities.

The demographic data in Table 1 shows that while most demographic categories are below or

within 2 0 percent of their corresponding national averages, the African American population percentage within 3 miles of any source affected by this rulemaking exceed s the national average by 21 percentage points ( 34 percent versus 1 3 percent), or + 166 percent

. The minority population percentage within 3 miles of any source affected by this rulemaking exceeds the national average by 24 percentage points (61 percent ver sus 37 percent), or +64 percent.

The analysis of demographic data used proximity

- to

- a

- source as a surrogate for exposure to identify those populations considered to be living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to emissions from t hese sources. The demographic data for this analysis were

extracted from the 20 1 0 census data, which were provided to the EPA by the United States Census Bureau. Distributions by race were based on demographic information at the census block level, and all other demographic groups were based on the extrapolation of census block group level data to the census block level. The socio

- demographic parameters used in the analysis included the following categories: Racial (White, African American, Native American, Other or Multiracial, and All Other Races); Ethnicity (Hispanic); and Other (n umber of people below the poverty line, n umber of people with ages between 0 and 18, n umber of people greater than or equal to 65, n umber of people over age 25 without a high sc hool diploma )

.

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities near affected sources, the

EPA focused on those census blocks within 3 miles of affected sources, determined the demographic composition (e.g., race, income, etc.) of these census blocks, a nd compared them to the corresponding compositions nationally. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 km) is consistent with other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential sources 1 2 3 4 

### however, not necessarily associated with the distance h ealth risks are seen.

1 U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995.

2 Mohai

, P

. , Saha

, R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio

- economic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research”. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383

– 399.

3 Mennis

, J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis”. Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281

- 297.

4 Bullard

, RD

, Mohai

, P

. , Wright

, B

. , Saha

, R

. , et al. Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987

- 2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.

### 3 Table 1. Summary of D emo g raphic A nalysis for OSWRO facilities

P O P U L A T I O N 1 , 3 41 , 6 6 1 3 1 2 , 8 6 1 , 2 5 6

W HI TE 6 6 3 ,576 49.5% 2 26,4 0 5, 20 5 7 2

. 4%

- 3 1

. 7%

A FRI CAN A MER I CAN 4 5 0 , 78 6 3 3

. 6 % 3 9 ,4 7 5, 2 16 1 2

. 6 % 1 6 6

. 3 %

N A T I V E A M E R I CAN 1 2 ,1 6 7 0 .9% 3 , 6 4 6 ,995 1

. 2 %

- 22

. 2%

O T H E R / MU L T I R

A C I A L 2 15, 13 2 1 6 .0 % 43 , 3 3 3, 8 40 1 3

. 9 % 1 5 .8 %

M I NO R I TY / HIS P A NI C 81 3 , 749 6 0

. 7 % 11 5 , 9 8 9,9 1 8 3 7

. 1 % 6 3.6%

L IN GU IS T I CA LL Y ISO L AT E D 6 7 , 267 5. 0 % 1 9 ,1 96 ,5 0 7 6

. 1 %

- 18

. 3 %

A G E 0

- 4 9 5 , 6 43 7

. 1 % 20 ,4 65 ,0 6 5 6 .5% 9. 0 %

A G E 0

- 1 7 345, 08 2 2 5

. 7% 7 5 , 2 17 , 1 76 2 4. 0 % 7

. 0 %

A G E 6 5 A N D UP 1 4 9 ,8 5 4 11

. 2 % 4 0 , 830

, 2 6 2 1 3

. 1%

- 1 4.4%

N O DI PL O MA 1 2 0,1 75 1 4.5% 3 0, 9 52 ,78 9 1 5 .0 %

- 3 .3%

L O W IN C O ME 443 , 3 7 2 3 3

. 0 % 101 ,4 2 9 , 436 3 2 .4% 1 .9%