1

Preliminary Environmental Justice Analysis for 

 Diversion of Secondary Materials and Other Impacts 

 Relating to the Proposed Rule: Identification of 

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste 

(“Diversion Analysis”) 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

 

April 29, 2010 
2

I. Environmental Justice Overview 

 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. Among other actions, the Order directs agencies to improve 

research and data collection regarding health and environmental effects in minority and 

low-income communities. 

 The Agency places particular emphasis on the health and environmental 

conditions affecting minority, low-income, tribal, and other vulnerable populations.1

 

Attention to these communities reflects our concern that these populations are often 

affected by a combination of physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors 

that may result in increased susceptibility to environmental pollution. As such, the 

Agency seeks to assess potential impacts to these and other vulnerable populations. 

II. Introduction and Purpose 

This environmental justice analysis focuses on a demographic evaluation of 

possible destinations for the secondary materials2 that would be defined as solid waste 

and may be diverted from combustion units (other than CAA section 129) under the 

proposed rule Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid 

Waste (NHSM). The analysis assumes that most of these secondary materials that are 

determined to be solid wastes and diverted, will likely be sent to disposal facilities or 

processing operations (some secondary materials may be later combusted if it is 

processed into a fuel product). The analysis specifically evaluates the presence of lowincome and minority populations) of these types of facilities. Other possible impacts 

that could be associated with the diversion of these secondary materials are also 

discussed. 

 The analysis of diverted secondary materials is based on the regulatory status 

and management costs3

 of these materials. In addition to the NHSM rule, these factors 

are based on standards developed for the commercial and industrial solid waste 

 

1

 For background information on EPA’s environmental justice program, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/ejbackground.html. 2

 All “secondary materials” discussed in this analysis are “non-hazardous secondary materials.” 3

 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 as an incinerator. 
3

incineration (CISWI) proposed rule4

, the area source boilers proposed rule5, and the 

major source boilers proposed rule6

 

 This preliminary analysis assessed the demographics surrounding facility types 

projected to receive the diverted materials. Those facility types were, on average, found 

to be located near communities that have minority and poverty levels above the national 

average7. Thus, the fact that the secondary materials are diverted away from 

combustion units does not indicate that environmental justice concerns are necessarily 

alleviated. A finding on whether there are disproportionate environmental justice 

impacts cannot be made on the diversion analysis alone. Such a finding will be 

collectively assessed (with the interrelated air rules findings) prior to finalization of the 

four rules. 

The purpose of this document is to assess secondary materials diverted from 

combustion, demographics of communities near facilities likely to receive such 

materials, and to briefly review other potential environmental justice impacts associated 

with materials diversion. 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). 

This assessment of environmental justice impacts consists of simple quantitative 

analyses of the demographic makeup of communities. A more in-depth analysis of 

environmental justice impacts was not possible in the time available with the information 

resources available. This document does not determine policy and does not define the 

proposed standards 

III. Secondary Materials Diverted for Disposal or Processing

 As discussed above, the non-hazardous secondary materials that are determined 

to be solid waste for combustion purposes are diverted from use as fuel if they are not 

burned in CAA section 129 regulated incinerators. 

EPA’s proposal would define the following secondary materials as not being a 

solid waste: 

• Material used as a fuel that remains within the control of the generator 

(whether at the site of generation or another site the generator has control 

over) that meets the legitimacy criteria; 

• Material used as an ingredient in a manufacturing process (whether by the 

generator or a third party) that meets the legitimacy criteria; 

 

4

 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units 

5

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

Institutional Boilers 

6

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

Boilers and Process Heaters 

7

 The simple comparison to the national average does not indicate “Environmental Justice Communities.” 
4

• Material that has been sufficiently processed to produce a fuel or 

ingredient product that meets the legitimacy criteria; and 

• Material that has been determined through a case-by-case petition 

process to not have been discarded and to be indistinguishable in all 

relevant aspects from a fuel product. 

All other secondary materials that are burned in a combustion unit would be 

considered solid wastes under RCRA. 

 

 The determination of “solid waste” for a secondary material (per the standards in 

the proposed rule) only applies to secondary materials burned in combustion units. 

Those secondary materials may still be reused, recycled, or processed into a legitimate 

non-waste fuel. Disposal in a subtitle D landfill will be the most likely prospect for most 

of the diverted secondary materials according to the least cost approach,8

 as applied in 

the regulatory impact analysis9 for the major source boilers proposed rule. Some 

specific materials, however, (ex. used oil and scrap tires) are more likely to be 

processed into a legitimate non-waste fuels at used oil processors and scrap tire 

processors. This analysis focuses on the facility types that are projected to receive the 

majority of the diverted secondary materials. 

 Under the proposed rule, combustion units burning materials that are determined 

to be solid wastes would be subject to standards under CAA 129; units burning 

materials that are determined to be non-waste would be subject to CAA 112. Units 

currently regulated under CAA 112 that burn secondary materials that have been 

determined to be solid wastes would either: 

 

(1) continue to burn the secondary material and comply with the commercial and 

industrial solid waste incinerator (CISWI) rule (as proposed) pursuant CAA 

Section 129 requirements, or 

(2) stop using the secondary material as fuel and use traditional fuels. 

 If a facility chooses to stop burning secondary material(s), that material is 

projected to either be diverted to a disposal facility10 or to a processing (e.g., a used oil 

processor/refiner) or recycling operation. 

 The impacts of the new proposed emissions standards for boilers and CISWI 

units are included in those concurrent proposed rules. The analysis in those proposals 

includes the following efforts: identification of sources, identification of demographic 

characteristics near sources, evaluation of area wide air quality, and estimation of boiler 

MACT/CISWI emission reductions of HAPs from the proposed standards and work 

practices. These proposed rules are published concurrently with the NHSM proposal. 

 

 

8

 Where the regulated entity is assumed to operate in an economically rational manner by managing the 

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

9 Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters

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

manner by managing the secondary material in the least costly method possible based on legal 

requirements. 
5

IV. Demographics of Communities near Types of Facilities Expected to 

Receive the Diverted Materials 

IV a. Analytical Scope, Data, and Methodology

 The scope for the demographic analysis, as presented in Exhibits 1 

through 4, is based on the population around all non-hazardous US facilities11

that fall under the following categories: 

• landfills, 

• demolition landfills, 

• composting, 

• incinerators, 

• materials recovery facilities,12 

• transfer stations, and 

• waste-to-energy plants. 

 Some of the secondary materials determined to be solid waste could be 

sent to a variety of recyclers or processors to develop a legitimate fuel or a nonfuel recycled product. 

 Using block group data from the 2000 Census, EPA estimated the 

percentage of minority13 (non-White) population near each facility and the 

percentage of the population near each facility that is below the poverty line.14 

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). "Minority" 

populations are calculated by adding the “Non-White” races and “Hispanic White 

Only” census categories. 

 

11 EPA analyzed the facilities listed in the Waste Business Journal Directory & Atlas of Non-Hazardous 

Waste Sites 2008. 

12 A Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) is a facility that sorts and processes collected mixed recyclables 

into individual streams for market. These are also known as an intermediate processing center (IPC). 

About a third (430) of these materials recovery facilities have combined operations with transfer stations. 

Those combined operations are not included in the transfer station demographics. 13 “Minority” is described in this assessment as racial minorities (non-whites) to be comparable with the 

calculation used for the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics. This calculation of the minority 

population is the overall population minus white population. The minority designation used for the 

diversion assessment in Exhibits 1 and 2 shows a separate figure that includes ethnicity (Hispanic or 

Latino). According to the Census Bureau, “Hispanic or Latino” is an ethnicity rather than a racial 

category, Hispanics or Latinos may belong to any race. The Census Bureau defines “Hispanic or Latino" 

as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or 

origin, regardless of race.” For the 2000 Census, minorities included White Hispanic or Latino, and 

persons belonging to all six “non-White alone” race categories, including persons of two or more races 

(i.e. multiracial persons). 

14 EPA’s analysis of the 2000 Census block group data relied upon areal 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. 
6

 The method for estimating minority and poverty percentages around 

facilities uses areal apportionment and characterizes the total population of 

individuals living within the specified distance of a facility. This study uses a one 

and three mile (1.6 and 4.8 kilometers) radius. 15 

 The areal apportionment method assumes that the percentage of the 

block group area that falls within a circle reflects the percentage of the population 

from that block group living within that circle. The method also assumes that the 

block group demographic profile is representative of that for the individuals living 

within that circle assessed. In cases where two or more circles overlap, the area 

of overlap is only counted once, so that the demographic analysis reflects the 

population living within one or three miles from one or more facilities. 

 Data analysis for the racial/ethnic breakdowns, however, does not 

distinguish any circle overlap. As a result, a higher weight is applied to any 

population within an area where circles from more than one facility overlap. This 

is not expected to be a problem for most facility types, with the exception of 

materials recovery facilities and transfer stations. For these two facility types, it 

is possible that up to 19% of the population live within one mile of two or more 

facilities, and up to 78% of the population within three miles of two or more 

facilities. 

 

15 See, for example, the following publications which have provided demographic information using a 1 or 

3-mile circle around a facility. 

U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities. 

Washington DC: Government Printing Office 1995. 

Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic Disparities in Environmental Justice 

Research”. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. 

Mennis, Jeremy “”Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of 

Population and Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis” Social Science Quarterly, 2002, 83(1):281-297. 

Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R et al. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987-2007 July 20, 

2007.
7

IV b. Demographics at One Mile 

Demographics within the one-mile radius for the disposal and processing facility 

types projected to receive diverted materials are shown in Exhibit 1. 

Exhibit 1: One-Mile Block Group Analysis Summary 

FACILITY TYPE 

(number assessed)

POPULATION 

(total) 1 MINORITIES 

% MINORITY 2 

/ % MINORITY, 

INCLUDING 

ETHNICITY 

POPULATION BELOW 

THE POVERTY LEVEL 

PERCENT BELOW 

POVERTY LINE 

Population within 1 Mile of Landfills 

Landfills (nonhazardous) (2,442) 4,743,061 1,145,044 24% / 30% 709,638 15% 

Construction and 

Demolition landfills 

(1,008) 2,086,966 665,812 32% / 38% 362,837 17% 

TOTAL: LANDFILLS 

(3,450) 6,830,027 1,810,856 27% / 33% 1,072,475 16% 

Population within 1 Mile of Other Sites 

Composting (271) 1,422,449 476,784 34% / 43% 217,798 15% 

Incinerators, for

municipal waste (36) 125,411 63,638 51% / 52% 29,225 23% 

Materials Recovery3

(1,247) 10,040,993 4,347,818 43% / 53% 1,883,148 19% 

Transfer Stations4

(3,042) 11,636,040 4,436,745 38% / 47% 2,083,802 18% 

Waste-to-Energy 

Plants5

 (93) 546,793 196,700 36% / 42% 95,378 17% 

TOTAL: OTHER SITES 

(4,689) 23,771,686 9,521,685 40% / 49% 4,309,351 18% 

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 one mile of each facility type. 

2. The first number for “percent minority” presented in this table reflects racial minorities (non-Whites) to 

be comparable with the calculation used for the demographics in the Major Boiler and CISWI proposed 

rules. The second number includes ethnicity; it is calculated by adding non-white races and the White 

Hispanic/Latinos. 

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). 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 one mile of affected facilities. The national results 

are based on the 2000 Census data as listed in the major boiler and CISWI demographics. 
8

 Exhibit 1 summarizes the results for the one-mile block group analysis. 

The communities around those facility types have the potential to experience 

increased activity, including increased transportation to these sites due to the 

diverted secondary material. Therefore, to the extent that these facility types are 

located in disproportionately low-income or minority areas, the proposed rule 

may lead to adverse environmental justice impacts if these sites create some 

nuisance concerns including odors, noise and aesthetics. 

 Overall, most of the different facility types listed in the exhibit are, on 

average, located in areas with minority and low-income populations that are 

higher than the national average. Specifically, of the seven facility types listed in 

the exhibit, all are located in areas where the percent minority (including 

ethnicity) is higher or close to the national average (31%), with minorities making 

up more than 50% of the population living within one mile of incinerators and 

materials recovery facilities. 

 The results for the one mile buffer analysis also indicate that the 

population below the poverty line is higher than the national average for all seven 

facility types. That is, while 13% of individuals are below the poverty line 

nationally (based on 2000 Census data), the poverty levels range from 15% 

(landfills and composting) to 23% (incinerators burning municipal waste) for 

populations living within one mile of the facility types listed in Exhibit 1. 
9

IV c. Demographics at Three Miles 

The populations located within three miles from the sites are displayed in Exhibit 

2. The three-mile data allows for comparison between populations in larger 

versus smaller buffer zones. 

Exhibit 2: Three-Mile Block Group Demographics Analysis Summary 

FACILITY TYPE 

(number assessed)

POPULATION 

(total) 1 MINORITIES 

% MINORITY 2 

/ % 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 26% / 33% 4,297,924 14% 

Construction and 

Demolition landfills 

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

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, for

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 (non-Whites) to 

be comparable with the calculation used for the demographics in the Major Boiler and CISWI proposed 

rules. The second number includes ethnicity; it is calculated by adding non-white races and the White 

Hispanic/Latinos. 

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). 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. 
10

 Similar to the one mile analysis, the three mile analysis suggests that the 

facilities analyzed are, on average, in areas with minority and low-income 

populations higher than the national average. 

Exhibit 2 also shows that minorities’ share of the population within a 

three-mile buffer is greater than the national average (25%) for all seven facility 

types, ranging from 26% for landfills to 38% for material recovery facilities. All 

facility types, except landfills, have a higher percent minority at one-mile versus 

three-mile buffers. The incinerators have the largest increase in minority 

populations at one-mile buffer zones, as compared to three-mile buffer zones. 

(National minority average: 31% with ethnicity included, 25% without ethnicity 

included) 

The percent of the population below the poverty line is equal to or greater 

than the national average for all seven facility types, ranging from 13% for 

composting to 17% for waste to energy plants. The demographics around facility 

types show a slightly higher poverty status closer in towards the facilities (onemile buffer zone), compared to the larger area (three-mile buffer zone). (National 

poverty average: 13%) 

 IV d. Demographics: Race and Ethnicity Analysis 

 

 Exhibits 3 and 4 show the populations in one and three mile buffer zones 

around facilities by racial and ethnic category. These numbers are estimated by 

areal apportionment at the block group level. They include the population around 

each facility considered, and may double-count individuals in areas where two 

facility circles overlap, thus potentially over-representing individuals living near 

more than one facility of the same type. Note that Hispanic or Latino populations 

(ethnic groups) may identify with any of the race groups. Races are 

distinguished only for those identifying with only one race. Those identifying as 

being of more than one race are included in the multi-race category. 

 The percentages identified as African American are higher than the 

national average in both the one and three mile buffer zones for six of the seven 

facility categories. “Other Race or Multi-Racial,” or “Hispanic or Latino” 

percentages are higher than national averages in both one and three mile buffer 

zones for most of the facility categories. For materials recovery facilities, 

percentages are close to twice the national averages. Racial and ethnic group 

percentages closer in towards the facilities (one mile buffer zone) are within 5 

percentage points or fewer, compared to the larger surrounding area (three-mile 

buffer zone) except for incinerator comparisons. For incinerators, percentage of 

African Americans at one mile (44%) is considerably over the national average 

(12%). This drops to 30% for the larger three-mile area. Refer to Exhibit 3 and 4 

for the actual figures.
11

Exhibit 3: One-Mile Block Group Race Analysis Summary

Exhibit 4: Three-Mile Block Group Race Analysis Summary

FACILITY TYPE 

(NUMBER ASSESSED) 

PERCENT 

WHITE 

ONLY 

PERCENT 

AFRICAN 

AMERICAN ONLY

PERCENT AMERICAN 

INDIAN OR ALAKSAN 

NATIVE ONLY 

PERCENT OTHER 

RACE OR MULTIRACIAL 

PERCENT 

HISPANIC OR 

LATINO 

Population 1 within 1 Mile of Landfills 

Landfills, non-hazardous 

(2,442) 76% 11% 1% 12% 13% 

Demolition landfills

(1,008) 68% 17% 1% 14% 15% 

TOTAL: LANDFILLS 

(3,450) 74% 13% 1% 13% 14% 

Population within 1 Mile of Other Sites 

Composting (271) 67% 15% 1% 18% 21% 

Materials Recovery (1,247) 55% 20% 1% 24% 25% 

Incinerators, for municipal 

waste (36) 49% 44% 1% 6% 4% 

Transfer Stations (3,042) 60% 20% 1% 20% 23% 

Waste-to-Energy Plants

(93) 64% 21% 1% 14% 13% 

TOTAL: OTHER SITES 

(4,689) 58% 20% 1% 21% 23% 

National Statistics for 

Comparison 75% 12% 1% 12% 14% 

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.” See the “Analytical Scope, Data, and Methodology” section.

FACILITY TYPE 

 (NUMBER ASSESSED) 

PERCENT 

WHITE 

ONLY 

PERCENT 

AFRICAN 

AMERICAN ONLY

PERCENT AMERICAN 

INDIAN OR ALASKAN 

NATIVE ONLY 

PERCENT OTHER 

RACE OR MULTIRACIAL 

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, for 

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% 

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.” See the “Analytical Scope, Data, and Methodology” section. 
12

 IV e. Demographics for Other Operations 

 Processors: 

 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 lack of existing data and 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) are provided at this time. 

 For tire processing facilities, EPA randomly selected 73 the 530 US 

tire processors16 for analysis. Scrap tires can be processed for a variety 

of uses, including tire-derived-fuel (which can include shredding the whole 

tires in small pieces and removing metal wire). 

 These demographics are shown in Exhibits 5 and 6. Minorities 

make up above 40% of the population living within three miles of these 

randomly-selected facilities, and 18% of the population living within three 

miles of these facilities is below the poverty line. Both of these 

percentages exceed the corresponding national averages. The percent 

below poverty is above the national average (13%) at both one-mile and 

three-mile. (National averages: minority with ethnicity included - 31%, 

minority without ethnicity included - 25%, and population below poverty 

level - 13%) 

Exhibit 5: Demographic Information for Populations near Tire Processors

 

16 The scrap tire processors were obtained from the Scrap Tire News’ “2009 Scrap Tire and Rubber 

Users Directory.” Note, the percentage selected for analysis (14%) may not be representative of the 

entire list of processors due to the limited sample. While this sample was randomly selected, EPA has 

not assessed whether the resulting sample is representative of all 530 tire processors with regard to size 

and other features. 

TIRE 

PROCESSORS 

(73 OF 530) POPULATION MINORITIES 

PERCENT MINORITY 

(% Including 

Ethnicity)

POPULATION 

BELOW THE 

POVERTY LEVEL 

PERCENT 

BELOW 

POVERTY LINE

Population within 1 Mile 

 453,610 191,704 42% (47%) 92,111 20% 

Population within 3 Miles 

 4,188,227 1,688,920 40% (46%) 747,060 18% 

Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and the demographics are from a random 

sample of the tire processors14. See the “Analytical Scope, Data, and Methodology” section.
13

Exhibit 6: Race and Ethnicity for Tire Processors 

Hazardous Waste Incinerators: 

If the diverted secondary material cannot be landfilled due to 

limitations on waste that can be accepted (i.e., used oil) or is not 

processed/recycled, hazardous waste facilities, particularly hazardous 

waste incinerators, may receive a portion of the diverted waste. According 

to results in “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty”17 “Host neighborhoods 

with commercial hazardous waste facilities are 56% people of color 

whereas nonhost areas are 30% people of color. In other words, 

percentages of people of color as a whole are 1.9 times greater in host 

neighborhoods than in nonhost areas. Poverty rates in the host 

neighborhoods are 1.5 times greater than those in nonhost areas (18% vs. 

12%), and mean annual household incomes in host neighborhoods are 

15% lower ($48,234 vs. $56,912).” 

IV f. Demographics for Other Processing or Recycling Operations That 

Were Not Assessed 

 Secondary materials that would be determined to be solid waste could 

also be diverted to other types of processing or recycling facilities, such as 

recycling operations that generate new products and used oil processors. Due to 

the lack of available data we did not include these types of facilities in this 

analysis. 

 

17 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R et al. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987-2007 July 20, 

2007. 

TIRE 

PROCESSORS 

(73 OF 530)

PERCENT 

WHITE 

ONLY 

PERCENT AFRICAN 

AMERICAN ONLY 

PERCENT AMERICAN 

INDIAN OR ALASKAN 

NATIVE ONLY 

PERCENT OTHER 

RACE OR MULTIRACIAL 

PERCENT 

HISPANIC OR 

LATINO 

Population within 1 Mile 

58% 31% 0.73% 10% 10% 

Population within 3 Miles 

61% 26% 0.59% 13% 14% 

Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and the demographics are from a random 

sample of the tire processors. See the “Analytical Scope, Data, and Methodology” section.
14

V. Limitations of Demographic Analysis 

 While the data in the exhibits provide useful environmental justice 

information related to the proposed rules, we note the following limitations of the 

demographic analysis: 

• Locational Data Uncertainty: The accuracy of the waste facility 

locations (over 8,000) and scrap tire processors (73) were not 

individually verified to be within the fence line using aerial imagery 

due to time and cost constraints. 

• Exposure Change Uncertainty: Although minority and lowincome populations near the facilities represented are typically 

above the national average, this does not necessarily indicate that 

the proposed rules will result in adverse environmental justice 

impacts. 

• Causality or Temporal Effects: This analysis does not attempt to 

ascertain the direction of causality or temporal effects that may 

impact potential exposures. We do not attempt to assess whether 

the facility preceded certain populations or to assess factors that 

may affect facility or community siting (e.g., property values, jobs, 

transportation infrastructure). 

• Non-resident Populations: The analyses summarized in the 

exhibits are based on the populations that live within one and 

three miles of each facility type. However, this does not include 

other populations, such as non-resident individuals who work near 

these facilities. 

• Geographic Overlap: For Exhibits 3 and 4, in areas where two 

facility circles of a same type overlap there is a potential for overcounting individuals living near more than one facility of the same 

type. In the rest of the exhibits, there is no overlap for the same 

facility type, although one person may be counted in the 

demographics for different types of waste sites if the person lives 

within 3 miles of different types of waste sites. 

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

year 2000, though populations may have migrated since that time. 
15

VI. Other Environmental Justice Impacts

 In addition to the potential environmental justice impacts associated with 

the diversion of materials to disposal facilities or other processing operations, the 

proposed rule could possibly lead to several other environmental justice impacts. 

This includes (1) the potential slowdown in abatement of scrap tire stockpiles, (2) 

the potential for increased accumulation of secondary materials in stockpiles, and 

(3) the potential for dumping of used oil. 

Potential slowdown in abatement of scrap tire stockpiles: 

Under the proposed rule, whole scrap tires are considered a solid 

waste since the material has been discarded. Therefore, the 

proposed rule may reduce the rate at which existing tire stockpiles 

are depleted/remediated as well as possibly increase the size of 

such piles. Scrap tire piles can be ignited and burn for extended 

periods causing severe damage to drinking water resources and 

the environment, as well as to human health and safety. Therefore, 

to the extent that tire stockpiles are located in disproportionately 

low-income or minority areas, the proposed rule may lead to 

adverse environmental justice impacts. 

 Previous studies suggest that many tire stockpiles are 

located in areas with high minority and low-income populations. 

For example, a New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NY DEC) study indicated that of the 95 tire stockpile 

sites in the state, nine, or approximately 9.5%, are located in areas 

considered to be “Potential Environmental Justice Areas.”18 In 

2007, New York State had the second largest number of tires 

stockpiled in the country with 14.1 million tires.19 In addition, a 

2001 study of environmental justice issues in Massachusetts found 

that a disproportionate percentage of tire stockpiles were located in 

lower-income communities. Lower-income towns hosted 69.5% of 

all tire stockpiles, whereas, lower-income towns constitute 50.8% of 

the total towns in the state.20 However, communities in 

Massachusetts with higher than average minority populations were 

not found to host a disproportionate number of tire stockpiles. With 

 

18 “Potential Environmental Justice Areas” are defined by the NY DEC as “a census block group that 

exceeds specific thresholds established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for 

poverty and minority composition, using 2000 census data”. New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NY DEC), Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials. 2004. “New York 

State Waste Tire Stockpile Abatement Plan.” Accessed on August 20, 2009 at 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/tireplan.pdf. 19 Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA). Scrap Tire Markets in the United States, 9th Biennial Report, 

May 2009. 

20 Daniel R. Faber and Eric J. Krieg. “Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards: Environmental Injustices 

in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” Environmental Health Perspectives: 110, Suppl. 2, April 2002, 

p.277 – 288. 
16

ten million tires stockpiled, Massachusetts had the fourth largest 

number of tires stockpiled in the U.S. in 2007.21 

Potential for increased accumulation of secondary materials in 

stockpiles: Related to the slowdown in the abatement of existing 

scrap tire stockpiles, the proposed rule may also lead to an 

increased accumulation of other materials considered solid waste 

under the proposed rule. To the extent that accumulated stockpiles 

of secondary materials represent a risk to local populations and are 

located in disproportionately low-income or minority areas, the 

proposed rule may cause unfavorable environmental justice 

impacts. 

Potential for dumping of used oil: Under the proposed rule, offspec used oil would not be considered a legitimate fuel and would 

therefore be considered a solid waste. Possibly, there could be an 

increase in dumping of used oil, which could increase groundwater 

contamination (and human health risk) near disposal sites. If these 

sites are located in disproportionately low-income or minority areas, 

the proposed rule may lead to negative environmental justice 

impacts. Though it is difficult to determine where oil is illegally 

dumped, surveys have indicated that it is likely concentrated in 

populated areas near the location at which it is generated.22 

 

21 Rubber Manufacturers Association, op cit. 22 Hilary Sigman. “Midnight Dumping: Public Policies and Illegal Disposal of Used Oil.” RAND Journal of 

Economics, Vol. 29:1, Spring 1998.