1 

### Preliminary Environmental Justice Analysis for
Diversion of Secondary Materials and Other Impacts
Relating to the Proposed Rule: Identification of
Non-Hazardous Secondary M aterials 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, 20102 I. Environmental Justice Overview

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practi cable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human heal th or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activi ties 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 emphas is 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, chemic al, 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 fo r the secondary materials 2 that would be defined as solid waste and may be diverted from combustion units (other than CAA sect ion 129) under the proposed rule Identification of Non-Hazard ous Secondary Materi als 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 materi als 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 diversi on of these secondary materials are also discussed.

The analysis of diverted secondary materi als is based on the regulatory status and management costs 3 of these materials. In additi on 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 environ mental 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 rule 4 , the area source boilers proposed rule 5 , and the major source boilers proposed rule 6

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 mi nority and poverty levels above the national average 7 . Thus, the fact that the secondar y materials are diverted away from combustion units does not indicate that envir onmental justice concerns are necessarily alleviated. A finding on whether there ar e disproportionate env ironmental justice impacts cannot be made on the diversion an alysis 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 potentia l environmental justic e impacts associated with materials diversion. As secondary materials are diverted to disposal and processing facilities, activity at thes e facilities will increase (e.g., increased transportation to these sites), which may cr eate 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 Diver ted for Disposal or Processing

As discussed above, the non-hazardous se condary materials that are determined to be solid waste for combustion purposes are di verted from use as fuel if they are not burned in CAA section 129 r egulated incinerators.

EPA’s proposal would defi ne the following secondary materials as not being a solid waste:

• Material used as a fuel that rema ins within the control of the generator (whether at the site of generation or another site the gener ator 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 Source s and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units
5 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollut ants for Area Sources: I ndustrial, 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 ar e 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 landf ill will be the most likely prospect for most of the diverted secondary materials a ccording to the least cost approach, 8 as applied in the regulatory impact analysis 9 for the major source boile rs proposed rule. Some specific materials, however, (ex. used o il and scrap tires) are more likely to be processed into a legitimate non-waste fuel s at used oil processors and scrap tire processors. This analysis focuses on the facili ty types that are proj ected 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 C AA 112 that burn secondary materials that have been determined to be solid wastes would either:

(1) continue to burn the secondary materi al and comply with the commercial and industrial solid waste incinerator (CIS WI) rule (as proposed) pursuant CAA Section 129 require ments, or (2) stop using the secondary material as fuel and use traditional fuels.

If a facility chooses to stop burning se condary material(s), that material is projected to either be dive rted to a disposal facility 10 or to a processing (e.g., a used oil processor/refiner) or recycling operation.

The impacts of the new proposed em issions 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 Standar ds 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 t he 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 Scop e, Data, and Methodology

The scope for the demographic analysi s, as presented in Exhibits 1 through 4, is based on the population ar ound all non-hazardous US facilities 11
that fall under the fo llowing categories:

• landfills,

• demolition landfills,

• composting,

• incinerators,

• materials recovery facilities, 12

• transfer stations, and

• waste-to-energy plants.

Some of the secondary materials det ermined to be solid waste could be sent to a variety of recyclers or processo rs to develop a legitimate fuel or a nonfuel recycled product.

Using block group data from the 2000 Census, EPA estimated the percentage of minority 13 (non-White) population near each facility and the percentage of the population near each fa cility 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 characte rized 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 Busine ss Journal Directory & Atlas of No n-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 kn own as an intermediate processing center (IPC). About a third (430) of these materials recovery facilit ies 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 (n on-whites) to be comparable with the calculation used for the Major Boiler and CISWI demog raphics. 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 se parate 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, S outh 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 ca tegories, including persons of two or more races (i.e. multiracial persons).
14 EPA’s analysis of the 2000 Cens us block group data relied upon ar eal apportionment to assess the demographic characteristics of populations living ne ar each facility. Under this approach, if x percent of a block group’s land area is within the one-mile (thr ee-mile) buffer around a facility, we assumed that x percent of the block group’s population is al so 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 s pecified distance of a facility. This study uses a one and three mile (1.6 and 4.8 kilometers) radius. 15

The areal apportionment method assu mes 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 me thod also assumes that the block group demographic profile is representative of that for the individuals living within that circle assessed. In cases wher e 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 mile s from one or more facilities.

Data analysis for the racial/e thnic 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 stat ions. For these two facility types, it is possible that up to 19% of the populati on live within one mile of two or more facilities, and up to 78% of the population within thr ee 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). Demogr aphics of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office 1995.

Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Ra cial and Socio-economic Disparit ies in Environmental Justice Research”. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399.

Mennis, Jeremy “”Using Geographic In formation Systems to Create and A nalyze Statistical Surfaces of Population and Risk for Environmental Justice Anal ysis” Social Science Quarterly, 2002, 83(1):281-297.

Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R et al. Toxi c Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987-2007 July 20, 2007.7 IV b. Demographics at One Mile

Demographics within the one-m ile 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 Recovery 3 (1,247) 10,040,993 4,347,818 43% / 53% 1,883,148 19%
Transfer Stations 4 (3,042) 11,636,040 4,436,745 38% / 47% 2,083,802 18% Waste-to-Energy Plants 5 (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 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 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 de mographics 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 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). This does not include the 430 transfer stations that have combined operations with material s 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 on e mile of affected faciliti es. 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 fo r the one-mile block group analysis. The communities around those facility types have the potential to experience increased activity, including increased tr ansportation 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 justic e impacts if these sites create some nuisance concerns including odors, noise and aesthetics.

Overall, most of the different fac ility types listed in the exhibit are, on average, located in areas with minorit y and low-income popul ations that are higher than the national average. Specifical ly, 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 nati onal 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 buffe r 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% (inc inerators burning municipal waste) for populations living within one mile of t he facility types listed in Exhibit 1.9 IV c. Demographics at Three Miles

The populations located within three miles fr om the sites are displayed in Exhibit 2. The three-mile data allows for co mparison between populations in larger versus smaller buffer zones.

Exhibit 2: Three-Mile Block Gro up 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 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 (non-Whites) to be comparable with the calculation used for the de mographics 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 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). This does not include the 430 transfer stations that have combined operations with material s 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.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 minorit ies’ share of the population within a three-mile buffer is greater than the nati onal 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 co mpared to three-mile buffer zones. (National minority average: 31% with et hnicity included, 25% without ethnicity included)

The percent of the populati on 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: R ace and Ethnicity Analysis

Exhibits 3 and 4 show the populations in one and three mile buffer zones around facilities by racial and ethnic cat egory. These numbers are estimated by areal apportionment at the block group leve l. 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 thos e identifying with only one race. Those identifying as being of more than one race are include d in the multi-race category.

The percentages identified as Afri can American are higher than the national average in both t he 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 nati onal averages. Racial and ethnic group percentages closer in towards the facilit ies (one mile buffer zone) are within 5 percentage points or fewer, compared to the larger surrounding area (three-mile buffer zone) except for incinerator compar isons. 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 ar ea. 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 OTHERRACE 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 “W aste 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 OTHERRACE 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 “W aste Business Journal Directory & Atlas of Non-Hazardous Waste Sites 2008.” See the “A nalytical 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 f uel 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 su rrounding 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 processors 16 for analysis. Scrap tires can be processed for a variety of uses, including tire-derived-fuel (w hich 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 li ving 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 nat ional averages. The percent below poverty is above the national average (13%) at both one-mile and three-mile. (National averages: mi nority with ethnicity included - 31%, minority without ethnicity included - 25%, and population below poverty level - 13%)

Exhibit 5: Demographic Information for Populati ons near Tire Processors

16 The scrap tire processors were obtained from the Scrap Tire News’ “2009 Scrap Tire and Rubber Users Directory.” Note, the perc entage 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 sa mple 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 demographi cs are from a random
sample of the tire processors 14 . See the “Analytical Scope, Data, and Methodology” section.13 Exhibit 6: Race and Ethni city for Tire Processors

Hazardous Waste Incinerators:

If the diverted secondary materi al 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 fa cilities are 56% people of color whereas nonhost areas are 30% people of color. In other words, percentages of people of color as a w hole are 1.9 times greater in host neighborhoods than in nonhost areas. Poverty rates in the host neighborhoods are 1.5 times greater t han 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 Pro cessing 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 proc essing 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 in clude these types of facilities in this analysis.

17 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R et al. Toxi c 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 OTHERRACE 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 demograp hics are from a random
sample of the tire processors. See the “Ana lytical Scope, Data, an d Methodology” section.14 V. Limitations of Demographic Analysis

While the data in the exhibits pr ovide 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 th e fence line using aerial imagery due to time and cost c onstraints.

• Exposure Change Uncertainty:Although minority and lowincome populations near the faci lities 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 causalit y or temporal effects that may impact potential exposures. We do not attempt to assess whether the facility preceded certain populati ons 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 populati ons that live within one and three miles of each facility type. However, this does not include other populations, such as non-resi dent individuals who work near these facilities.

• Geographic Overlap: For Exhibits 3 and 4, in areas where two facility circles of a same type over lap there is a potential for overcounting individuals living near mo re 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 environm ental justice impacts associated with the diversion of materials to disposal fa cilities or other processing operations, the proposed rule could possibly lead to severa l other environmental justice impacts.

This includes (1) the potentia l 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 abatemen t of scrap tire stockpiles: Under the proposed rule, whole scr ap tires are considered a solid waste since the material has bee n 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 c an be ignited and burn for extended periods causing severe damage to drinking water resources and the environment, as well as to hum an health and safety. Therefore, to the extent that tire stockpile s are located in disproportionately low-income or minority areas, the proposed rule may lead to adverse environmental justice impacts.

Previous studies suggest t hat many tire stockpiles are located in areas with high minority and low-income populations. For example, a New York D epartment of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC) study indicat ed that of the 95 tire stockpile sites in the state, nine, or approx imately 9.5%, are located in areas considered to be “Potential Environmental Justice Areas.” 18 In 2007, New York State had the sec ond 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. Lowe r-income towns hosted 69.5% of all tire stockpiles, whereas, lower-i ncome towns constitute 50.8% of the total towns in the state. 20 However, communities in Massachusetts with higher than av erage minority populations were not found to host a disproportionate num ber 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 Un ited States Environmental Protection Agency for poverty and minority composition, using 2000 cens us 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/mate rials_minerals_pdf/tireplan.pdf

. 19 Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA). Sc rap Tire Markets in the United States, 9 th Biennial Report, May 2009.
20 Daniel R. Faber and Eric J. Krieg. “Unequal Expos ure 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 accumulati on 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 ma terials considered solid waste under the proposed rule. To the ext ent 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 wa ste. 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 disproportionate ly 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.