# 201 **5**

6 / 30 /201 5 

# EJ	Screening	Report	for	Secondary	Aluminum Area	Sources

## Contents Executive Summary
................................................................................................................................................................. 4 About the Data
........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Demographic Data
............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Statistical Summary
................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Category Totals and T Tests
................................................................................................................................................. 8 Near Source Data
.................................................................................................................................................................. 1 4 Map and Charts
..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Meaningful Involvement Summary
....................................................................................................................................... 2 7

### U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency Environmental Justice Screening Report National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Secondary Aluminum (Area Sources) Docket: EPA ‐ HQ ‐ OAR ‐ 2010 ‐ 0544 Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

## Executive Summary In February 2012, the EPA proposed the residual risk and technology review (RTR) for secondary aluminum production. After considering public comments, the agency published a supplemental proposal in December 2014, which included an updated risk assessment and some minor changes to the proposed requirements. There have been no changes to the demographic analysis as a result of this recent supplemental proposal, therefore this document serves as the final report. To gain a better understanding of the secondary aluminum source category and near

- source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis at a study area of within 3 miles from sources in the source categ ory for this rulemaking. This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution from the regulated sources and thus are expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demogr aphic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse hu man health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. 

## Background Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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, disproport ionately 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. E.O. 12898 informed the development and implementation of the EPA’s Environmental Justice ( EJ ) program and EJ policies. Consistent with the E.O. and the Presidential Memorandum that accompanies the E.O., 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 and indigenous populations. E.O. 12898 and the agency’s EJ policies do not mandate particular outcomes for an action, but they demand that decisions involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ issues. Where feasible, actions should prevent or address and mitigate EJ concerns. A key element of environmental justice is ensuring that all people have an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the decision

- making process. 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, distrust of government) and structural reasons. A critical concern is whethe r, and the extent to which, communities have the ability to influence the types and number of regulated activities taking place in their community, as well as the requirements, conditions and parameters by which such regulated activities 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 appropriate mechanisms to promote meaningful involvement, which may include notices on the EJAir website, community call discussions, fact sheets, community meetings and/or webinars. Additionally, when reliable source location data is available, the EPA strives to provide a screening report of near source populations. It is important to note that while the EPA provides near

- source data, whether or not a facility

- level analysis is appropriate depends on the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) authority for the subject rule. For example, CAA sections 112 (d) and 112(f), which address hazardous air pollutants, require the EPA to establish emission standards that apply to all sources in specified categories or subcategories. In the case of the CAA 112(f), the EPA sets standards to ensure the public is protected with an ample margin of safety based on the maximum exposed individual risk ( MIR) or the facilit y in the source category that poses the highest risks to the public , and must consider specific statutory factors, including costs, energy and safety.

# About the Data

### Demographic Indicators Percent Minority % minority as fraction of population, where minority is defined as all but Non
‐ Hispanic White Alone (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010). Percent Low Income % low income (under 2 times the poverty threshold) as fraction of individuals for whom ratio was determined (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010). Percent Less than High School % with less than high school degree (as fraction of those age 25+) (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010). Percent Linguistic Isolation % linguistically isolated (as fraction of households) (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010). Percent Under Age 5 % under age 5 as fraction of population (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010). Percent Over Age 64 % over age 64 as fraction of population (Source: Census ACS 2006
‐ 2010).

# Statistical Summary

### Category Totals and T-Tests The EPA compares aggregated study area demographics to U.S. demographics in three tables within this section:

 Table 1
–

Demographic totals for the entire source category and U.S. demographic totals  Table 2
–

Demographics averaged across study areas vs. U.S. average demographics  Table 3
–

Proportion of study areas with populations exceeding U.S. average demographics Table 1 is simply calculated by summing the demographic data in the study areas; however, urban study areas can often skew the data. Therefore, Tables 2 and 3 use statistical inference to answer two additional and specific questions : 1. On average, how much do the demographics within the study areas differ from the U.S. population? 2. How often do the demographics within the study areas exceed U.S. average demographics? Table 2
– Hypothesis Test for Question 1 (T-test for population average) 1 

###  Null Hypothesis (H 0 

### ): The proportion of the population in demographic category X within a given study area is a normally-distributed random variable with mean EQUAL TO the U.S. average.  Alternative Hypothesis (H 1 

### ): The proportion of the population in demographic category X within a given study area is a normally-distributed random variable with mean NOT EQUAL TO the U.S. average.  Test statistic: T = (Study area average %
– U.S. average %)/Standard Error  If H 0 

### is true, then T has a T-distribution with mean = 0 and degrees of freedom = # study areas
– 1. The p-value is the probability that H 0 

### is true given the value of T calculated from the demographic data.  Statistical Conclusions: o If the p- value is large (≥ 0.05): The a verage proportion of the study area population in demographic category X is not significantly different from the U.S. average. o If the p-value is small (< 0.05) and the T-statistic is POSITIVE: The average proportion of the study area population in demographic category X is significantly greater than the U.S. average. o If the p-value is small (< 0.05) and the T-statistic is NEGATIVE: The average proportion of the study area population in demographic category X is significantly less than the U.S. average.  Study areas with fewer than 100 total residents are ignored. Table 3
– Hypothesis Test for Question 2 (T-test for occurrence) 1 

###  Null Hypothesis (H 0 

### ): The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is EQUAL TO 50%.  Alternative Hypothesis (H 1 

### ): The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is NOT EQUAL TO 50%.  Test statistic: T = (% of study areas > U.S. average
– 50%)/Standard Error  If H 0 

### is true, then T has a T-distribution with mean = 0 and degrees of freedom = # study areas
– 1. The p-value is the probability that H 0 

### is true given the value of T calculated from the demographic data.  Statistical Conclusions: o If the p- value is large (≥ 0 .05): The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is not significantly different from 50%. o If the p-value is small (< 0.05) and T > 0: The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is significantly greater than 50%. o If the p-value is small (< 0.05) and T < 0: The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. average is significantly less than 50%.  Study areas with fewer than 100 total residents are ignored. A qualitative summary on the statistical significance immediately follows the tabular data in this section.

1 T-tests are designed for use when the number of study areas is large. Other tests may be used in place of T-tests for Tables 2 and 3 when there are fewer than 50 study areas.

## Statistical Data

Category Totals and T-Tests Table 1 - Category-wide Total Population Minority Linguistically Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income NEAR SOURCE TOTAL 4,683,887 58% 10% 7% 11% 26% 45% NATIONAL TOTAL 307,727,594 36% 5% 7% 13% 15% 32% Table 2 - Hypothesis Test 1 (Average Population) H 0 : Average % of Population Near Sources in Category X = National % in Category X # of Study Areas >= 100 total population (N) 103 H 1 : Average % of Population Near Sources in Category X ≠ National % in Category X 

### Minority Linguistically

Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income 30% 4% 7% 14% 19% 39% 2.683% 0.554% 0.182% 0.505% 0.916% 1.268% -2.3622 -3.5781 7.2625 2.3564 3.9820 5.8917 0.0201 0.0005 < 0.0001 0.0204 0.0001 < 0.0001 

### Table 3 - Hypothesis Test 2 (Occurrence) H 0 : % of study areas with Nearby Population in Category X above National Average = 50% H 1 : % of study areas with Nearby Population in Category X above National Average ≠ 50% 

### Minority Linguistically

Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income 35% 17% 50% 58% 58% 73% 4.698% 3.742% 4.926% 4.859% 4.859% 4.384% -3.2030 -8.6920 -0.0985 1.6984 1.6984 5.2045 0.0018 < 0.0001 0.9217 0.0925 0.0925 < 0.0001 

### STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL No Significance (P >= 0.05) Significant (P < 0.05) Significantly Less (P < 0.05 and T Stat is negative)

STATISTIC % STUDY AREAS > NATIONAL AVG STANDARD DEVIATION T STATISTIC P-VALUE STANDARD DEVIATION T STATISTIC P-VALUE Demographic Summary

STATISTIC AVERAGE % NEAR FACILITIES

## Statistical Summary (Category Totals and T-Tests)

Demographic Category Minority

Summary of the data:

Demographic Category Linguistically Isolated

Summary of the data: Table 3 indicates that 17% of study areas have a greater Linguistically Isolated population than the national average. This is significantly less from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.
The national proportion (Table 1) of Linguistically Isolated populations living in the study areas is greater than the national average; however, the average proportion (Table 2) is significantly less than the national average. Furthermore, 17% of the study areas have Linguistically Isolated populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the proportion of Linguistically Isolated populations living in the study areas is significantly less than the national average. Table 1 indicates that nationally, 58% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Minority. This is 22 point(s), or 61.1%, greater than the national average of 36% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 30% of the people living in the study areas are Minority. The -6 point difference in the average proportion is significantly less when compared to the national average. Table 3 indicates that 35% of study areas have a greater Minority population than the national average. This is significantly less from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.

The national proportion (Table 1) of Minority populations living in the study areas is greater than the national average; however, the average proportion (Table 2) is significantly less than the national average. Furthermore, 35% of the study areas have Minority populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the proportion of Minority populations living in the study areas is significantly less than the national average.

Table 1 indicates that nationally, 10% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Linguistically Isolated. This is 5 point(s), or 100%, greater than the national average of 5% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 4% of the people living in the study areas are Linguistically Isolated. The -1 point difference in the average proportion is significantly less when compared to the national average.

## Statistical Summary (Category Totals and T-Tests)

Demographic Category Age 0 - 4

Summary of the data:

Demographic Category Age 65+

Summary of the data: Table 2 indicates that on average, 14% of the people living in the study areas are Age 65+. The 1 point difference in the average proportion is significant when compared to the national average. Table 3 indicates that 58% of study areas have a greater Age 65+ population than the national average. This is not significant from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.
The national proportion (Table 1) of Age 65+ populations living in the study areas is less than the national average; however, the average proportion (Table 2) is significantly greater than the national average. Furthermore, 58% of the study areas have Age 65+ populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the average proportion of Age 65+ populations living in the study areas is significantly greater than the national average, but there is a large amount of variability among the study areas. Table 1 indicates that nationally, 7% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Age 0 - 4. This is approximately equal to the national average of 7% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 7% of the people living in the study areas are Age 0 - 4. The 0 point difference in the average proportion is significant when compared to the national average. Table 3 indicates that 50% of study areas have a greater Age 0 - 4 population than the national average. This is not significant from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S.
The national proportion (Table 1) of Age 0 - 4 populations living in the study areas is approximately equal to the national average; however, the average proportion (Table 2) is significantly greater than the national average. Furthermore, 50% of the study areas have Age 0 - 4 populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the average proportion of Age 0 - 4 populations living in the study areas is significantly greater than the national average, but there is a large amount of variability among the study areas.

Table 1 indicates that nationally, 11% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Age 65+. This is - 2 point(s), or -15.4%, compared to the national average of 13% in 2010.

## Statistical Summary (Category Totals and T-Tests)

Demographic Category Without a HS Diploma

Summary of the data:

Demographic Category Low Income

Summary of the data: The national proportion (Table 1) and average proportion (Table 2) of Low Income populations living in the study areas are both greater than the national average. Furthermore, 73% of the study areas have Low Income populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the proportion of Low Income populations living in the study areas is significantly greater than the national average. Table 3 indicates that 58% of study areas have a greater Without a HS Diploma population than the national average. This is not significant from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S. The national proportion (Table 1) and average proportion (Table 2) of Without a HS Diploma populations living in the study areas are both greater than the national average. Furthermore, 58% of the study areas have Without a HS Diploma populations greater than the national average (Table 3). This suggests that the average proportion of Without a HS Diploma populations living in the study areas is significantly greater than the national average, but there is a large amount of variability among the study areas.

Table 1 indicates that nationally, 45% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Low Income. This is 13 point(s), or 40.6%, greater than the national average of 32% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 39% of the people living in the study areas are Low Income. The 7 point difference in the average proportion is significant when compared to the national average. Table 3 indicates that 73% of study areas have a greater Low Income population than the national average. This is significant from the 50% we would expect if the study areas were randomly distributed across the U.S. Table 1 indicates that nationally, 26% of the people living within 3.0 miles of the study areas are Without a HS Diploma. This is 11 point(s), or 73.3%, greater than the national average of 15% in 2010. Table 2 indicates that on average, 19% of the people living in the study areas are Without a HS Diploma. The 4 point difference in the average proportion is significant when compared to the national average.

## Aggregated Data Statisical Summary Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Median Near-Source Population Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test

(Table 2) Occurrence Binomial Test (Table 3) 

### Population 307,727,594 4,683,887 Minority 36% 58% 61% Significantly Less Significantly Less Linguistically Isolated 5% 10% 100% Significantly Less Significantly Less Age 0 - 4 7% 7% 0% Not Significant Not Significant Age 65+ 13% 11% -15% Not Significant Not Significant Without a HS Diploma 15% 26% 73% Not Significant Not Significant Low Income 32% 45% 41% Not Significant Significant Demographic National Near Source (Table 1) 

### % Difference

Near vs. National

# Near Source Data

# Raw Data Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64

1 MA 108,717 Center Street Auto 110038858297 47.9% 48.5% 13.7% 26.3% 7.0% 12.7% 15,812 Middleboro Recycling 110020049687 15.4% 14.5% 0.3% 14.7% 6.4% 9.9% NH 19,148 Weber Auto And Truck Parts

Corp. 110004103764 6.1% 15.5% 0.4% 7.3% 6.5% 7.2%

2 NJ 301,151

State Metal Industries Inc. 110000321438 53.6% 44.3% 9.3% 23.6% 6.2% 12.1% NY 88,427 Metalico Aluminum Recovery 110054612585 31.8% 45.5% 4.6% 15.9% 6.2% 13.1% 80,696 N. H. Kelman Inc. 110019288787 20.0% 36.1% 3.5% 14.2% 6.1% 13.7% 9,276 Luffman Metal Company 110019515988 5.8% 31.7% 0.7% 12.5% 6.6% 15.1%
9,221 Scepter Inc. - Seneca Falls Operations 110002094153 5.8% 31.5% 0.7% 12.5% 6.6% 14.8%
3 MD 94,967

Maryland Recycle Company 110009683681 33.9% 23.3% 2.0% 16.7% 6.0% 13.6%
79,951 Montgomery Scrap 110001260714 43.8% 13.8% 8.1% 8.3% 6.7% 13.7% PA 27,918

Ritchey Metals Co. Inc. - Hendersonville Plant 110001068665 6.6% 14.3% 1.1% 7.2% 6.3% 17.2% 14,857 Assad Iron & Metals Inc. 110007025735 9.4% 48.3% 0.2% 14.6% 4.3% 15.1% 14,660 Beck Aluminum Alloys 110001089731 7.4% 17.2% 1.3% 11.9% 4.4% 21.2%
11,412 Reading Alloys Inc. - Robesonia 110007754554 9.9% 21.0% 0.8% 14.4% 5.6% 17.3% 3,811 Pennex Aluminum Company 110000817750 3.3% 19.7% 0.1% 12.9% 4.4% 14.3% VA 16,354

Aleris Rolled Products Inc. 110001889644 25.6% 27.3% 2.6% 22.0% 5.4% 12.6% WV 730

Aleris Recycling Inc. 110056954345 3.1% 35.7% 0.0% 13.3% 8.1% 22.0% 624 Aleris Recycling Bens Run LLC. 110006149514 2.6% 34.9% 0.0% 12.3% 7.0% 19.5%
4 AL 63,947

Berman Brothers Iron & Metal 110000366915 62.8% 53.9% 2.0% 20.4% 6.3% 12.5%Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64
4 AL 19,027

Tennessee Aluminum Processors Inc. 110000368174 45.5% 47.4% 3.1% 20.3% 7.6% 16.4% 9,634 SMA-Mayfield Salvage Company 110001713931 48.7% 48.4% 1.6% 27.6% 6.5% 13.9%
3,931 Imperial Aluminum - Scottsboro 110001713165 3.4% 39.8% 0.0% 9.9% 5.1% 16.7% 1,893 Ellis Metals 110024518734 47.7% 53.6% 0.5% 27.0% 5.9% 18.4% FL 41,863

Metal Industries Inc. 110000365756 22.9% 18.1% 1.3% 6.9% 6.1% 13.7% 23,698 AlS Pick N Pull Inc. 110006390878 6.9% 17.9% 1.1% 3.7% 1.5% 40.6%
15,199 Hydro Aluminum North America Inc 110000845284 7.3% 27.9% 0.5% 7.8% 4.8% 26.4%
KY 11,544 Kentucky Smelting Technology

Inc. 110025183147 17.9% 41.8% 1.5% 19.7% 5.3% 16.8%
11,373 Electro Cycle Inc. 110001383592 13.2% 35.4% 0.5% 19.6% 7.0% 17.1% 9,706 Audubon Metals LLC 110000380999 19.0% 54.9% 0.5% 26.6% 7.5% 11.8% 2,926 Hydro Aluminum - Louisville 110000766449 15.6% 55.7% 0.4% 29.8% 6.4% 9.7% MS 27,510

Taber Metals Gulfport L.P. 110000377280 50.5% 48.9% 2.5% 21.0% 8.2% 13.9% TN 8,578

Aleris Recycling Inc. 110000372702 14.7% 39.4% 2.8% 24.3% 5.3% 20.6% 8,461 Valley Recycling 110037598365 14.4% 46.1% 1.9% 29.0% 6.1% 18.3% 5,467 Tennessee Aluminum Processors Inc. 110000375219 21.1% 44.5% 0.4% 20.9% 6.3% 14.7%
4,777 Norandal USA Inc. 110017724248 21.1% 26.5% 0.0% 17.7% 7.8% 19.8% 4,672 Smelter Service Corp. 110000863511 20.1% 44.4% 0.2% 22.1% 6.1% 15.2% 3,648 MD Recycling Inc. 110014363410 1.0% 47.7% 0.2% 24.8% 5.4% 12.7%
992 Most Inc. - Jackson 110020903398 27.7% 43.2% 3.2% 24.9% 2.8% 17.2%
391 Scepter Inc. 110000370786 3.9% 46.8% 0.3% 19.6% 4.0% 15.5%Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64
5 IL 472,499 Allied Metal Co. 110000435949 81.9% 51.1% 13.7% 27.9% 7.7% 8.0% 53,063 Trialco Inc. 110000432434 60.3% 26.4% 1.1% 10.2% 6.1% 13.7% 26,810 KB Cores - Kankakee 110005827212 54.0% 53.5% 5.2% 22.2% 8.1% 11.0% IN 79,732

United Tranz Core LLC 110055585549 79.8% 54.5% 8.7% 28.5% 8.6% 9.8% 19,829 Transmetco Inc. 110020049794 4.2% 38.9% 0.2% 14.3% 6.7% 14.8% 16,322 GM Powertrain Bedford Facility 110000403215 4.6% 40.4% 0.0% 19.6% 7.2% 19.4%
12,104 Aleris Recycling - Wabash Operations 110007362932 4.1% 38.7% 0.1% 18.6% 5.0% 17.2%
11,939 Metal Source LLC 110043976631 4.1% 38.7% 0.1% 18.5% 4.9% 17.1%
5,013 Nikkei MC Aluminum America

Inc 110000402127 14.5% 23.1% 5.2% 11.5% 9.3% 8.5%
3,950 Scepter Inc. 110000403331 5.8% 45.3% 1.4% 18.5% 6.8% 18.2% 1,866 Heartland Aluminum 110012154417 3.9% 22.9% 0.0% 10.7% 3.0% 18.3% MI 92,606

AMP Recycling Inc. 110003618504 57.6% 58.7% 12.5% 35.8% 9.5% 9.6% 24,819 Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products LLC 110039564183 27.6% 50.1% 1.5% 14.7% 9.3% 9.4% 16,337 Aleris Specification Alloys Inc. 110008058305 76.3% 66.4% 1.5% 27.2% 7.1% 14.2% 14,886 Continental Aluminum 110000405981 7.6% 15.4% 0.6% 6.9% 7.8% 12.1% MN 51,656

Mankato Iron & Metal Company 110008812749 10.0% 39.3% 1.2% 6.6% 5.5% 11.1% 12,998 New Ulm Steel & Recycling Inc. 110001444722 5.4% 25.1% 1.8% 9.1% 6.3% 16.8%
2,020 Ron Rehnelt Salvage 110007628362 3.1% 29.6% 0.1% 11.4% 6.1% 19.6% OH 94,297

G-Cor Automotive 11001194593 54.2% 47.4% 2.2% 19.5% 6.8% 11.3% 62,330 Staker Alloys 110033140964 21.6% 47.4% 0.7% 18.7% 7.1% 14.6%Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64
5 OH 59,554

Diver-Steel City Auto Crushers 110004675316 60.7% 63.6% 2.9% 23.0% 5.4% 16.0%
43,547 City Wide Towing And Auto

Wrecking 110039017239 28.1% 53.0% 0.8% 18.8% 7.8% 12.3% 28,411 GNW Aluminum Inc. 110006272522 13.3% 42.0% 0.2% 17.0% 5.9% 16.6% 22,816 Aluminum Wheel Technologies Inc. 110033141197 9.9% 37.2% 0.3% 13.9% 6.2% 14.1%
20,093 Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products LLC 110043794212 8.6% 32.9% 0.3% 11.6% 7.7% 16.4% 16,745 Quantum Metals Inc. 110020497871 11.8% 16.4% 0.4% 10.1% 7.4% 7.5%
7,357 Aluminum One 110006232512 1.7% 36.6% 0.4% 15.6% 6.5% 18.1% WI 218,395

Miller Compressing Co 110000855931 65.7% 59.2% 12.4% 29.7% 8.6% 7.0% 68,885 Beck Aluminum Racine 110000419342 46.2% 39.8% 4.0% 19.7% 7.6% 11.2%
19,097 Karl Schmidt Unisia Inc. 110000421062 3.9% 39.8% 0.3% 9.8% 5.4% 17.4%
911 B & B Metals Processing Co. 110002034487 3.3% 21.9% 0.7% 13.5% 4.3% 14.0% 6 AR 22,354 Davis Iron & Metal 110025061215 28.9% 53.4% 6.4% 31.7% 7.7% 12.7% 13,384 Metro Scrap Metals Inc. 110017691381 59.6% 47.6% 0.7% 23.4% 6.3% 16.6%
3,054 Livingston Pecan & Metal Inc. 110015787521 61.7% 58.6% 2.8% 27.5% 8.2% 19.0% LA 3,714

Sapa Extrusions L.L.C. 110000450422 60.8% 38.4% 0.0% 27.1% 5.4% 14.7% OK 32,496

Yaffe Iron & Metal Co. Inc. 110000598577 44.6% 49.5% 2.1% 18.4% 7.8% 14.4% 18,249 Aleris Recycling Inc. 110000454767 21.1% 37.0% 0.4% 17.2% 5.5% 15.2% TX 102,460 Bishop Engine And Automotive 110033424300 85.4% 60.4% 16.5% 40.9% 7.5% 8.3% 8,687 Hydro Aluminum 110015679452 37.4% 48.3% 0.9% 13.5% 5.3% 11.3% 8,075 Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products LLC 110000746435 37.1% 40.7% 7.0% 20.4% 10.5% 10.1%Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64

7 IA 7,024 B. G. Salvage 110017648768 3.9% 41.8% 0.0% 14.1% 5.8% 21.0%
3,949 Dittmers Recycling 110028258392 1.3% 17.6% 1.6% 10.4% 8.8% 12.2%
1,545 Bucks Auto Recycling 110033183267 1.9% 37.9% 0.0% 9.4% 9.1% 18.9% 160 Tourniers Recycling Inc. 110033646133 0.9% 31.2% 0.0% 10.8% 8.4% 11.9% KS 52,947

Donham Company 110039281023 25.7% 39.5% 3.9% 15.9% 8.0% 11.7%
7,372 Arnett Automotive 110030821582 10.1% 36.8% 1.1% 11.9% 6.2% 19.4%
1,333 Rays Metal Depot 110017445996 7.4% 35.7% 0.0% 16.9% 1.6% 20.7% MO 48,115 Commercial Metals Company 110007634532 13.2% 47.1% 0.5% 16.8% 8.0% 15.0% 14,069 Most Inc. - Troy 110000566192 9.0% 28.8% 0.3% 13.7% 8.4% 11.9% 8 CO 49,104

Dionisio Metal and Iron Inc. 110028716502 57.7% 53.1% 4.3% 21.3% 6.8% 15.3% 9,267 Golden Aluminum Inc. 110000467539 56.5% 40.5% 4.1% 28.2% 8.2% 8.1% UT 37,303

Sapa Extrusions Inc. 110000470099 13.7% 27.2% 2.2% 7.3% 12.8% 6.5%
9 AZ 110,337 Halna Inc. 110000470874 88.4% 61.2% 26.9% 48.2% 11.5% 4.7% 58,672 Amcep Metals Company 110040826087 71.8% 54.3% 11.8% 25.4% 10.7% 6.3%
43,753 Alcoa Forgings 110000471212 32.1% 16.5% 2.4% 3.8% 6.4% 5.2%
25,704 Imsamet of Arizona 110000471702 56.0% 29.0% 4.9% 18.6% 10.8% 4.0% CA 382,944 Thorock Metals Company Inc. 110000474371 98.3% 56.5% 20.9% 48.1% 9.1% 6.0% 267,750 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem

Corp. 110000477939 95.0% 51.6% 27.4% 49.1% 8.7% 7.8% 237,649 Custom Alloy Light Metals 110017209590 93.4% 43.9% 21.4% 42.3% 7.4% 9.6% 187,088 Custom Alloy Scrap Sales Inc. 110001162571 62.8% 35.5% 10.4% 13.5% 5.6% 12.2% 82,189 Vista Metals Corporation 110000479312 78.0% 32.4% 12.9% 23.6% 8.0% 4.4%Region State Population Name ID Minority Low Income Linguistically Isolated Less than HS

Education Under Age 5 Over Age 64
9 CA 32,477 TST Inc. 110000479296 81.2% 41.3% 11.4% 32.4% 6.8% 7.1%

10 ID 14,911

Aleris Recycling Inc. 110000773271 7.3% 38.6% 0.6% 10.1% 9.3% 9.0% WA 37,896 Kaiser Aluminum Washington 110043786285 13.2% 37.4% 1.4% 9.8% 8.0% 13.3%

# Map	and	ChartsCategory Total % is calculated by summing all of the study area demographic data. Category Average % is calculated by averaging the demographic data by the number of study areas where the total population >= 100.

36%

5% 7% 13% 15% 32% 58%

10% 7% 11% 26% 45%

30%

4% 7% 14% 19% 39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

MINORITY LINGUISTICALLY ISOLATED AGE 0 - 4 AGE 65+ NO HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA LOW INCOME 

# Percentage Comparisons to National Averages

NATIONAL AVERAGE % CATEGORY TOTAL % CATEGORY AVERAGE %

### The national average = 36%

Frequency

The national average = 5% 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% More Frequency 36 15 13 5 7 9 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Frequency 

# Minority Demographic Histogram

0-2% 2-4% 4-6% 6-8% 8-10% 10-12% More Frequency 64 14 7 2 3 3 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Frequency 

# Linguistically Isolated Demographic Histogram

### Frequency

The national average = 7%

The national average = 13%

0-2% 2-4% 4-6% 6-8% 8-10% 10-12% More Frequency 2 3 24 51 18 4 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Frequency 

# Age 0 - 4 Demographic Histogram

0-4% 4-8% 8-12% 12-16% 16-20% 20-24% More Frequency 0 12 21 36 27 5 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Frequency 

# Age 65+ Demographic Histogram

### The national average = 15%

The national average = 32%

0-4% 4-8% 8-12% 12-16% 16-20% 20-24% More Frequency 2 7 17 20 19 13 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Frequency 

# No High School Diploma Demographic Histogram

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% More Frequency 0 12 14 28 28 17 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Frequency 

# Low Income Demographic Histogram

# Meaningful	Involvement	Summary

## Meaningful Involvement

Outreach and Mater ials

 Broadcast rulemaking notice on the publically available websites Regulations.gov , Reginfo.gov and the Action Initiation List (AIL)
.  Fact sheet: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/alum2nd/alum2pg.html
 Held a 60 day public comment period Additional Information

 The Basics of the Regulatory Process: o http://www2.epa.gov/laws

‐ regulations/basics

‐ regulatory
‐ process  Search for Regulations o http://www.regulations.gov
 Get Involved with EPA Regulations o http://www2.epa.gov/laws

‐ regulations/get

‐ involved
‐ epa ‐ regulations  Frequent Questions about Dockets o http://www.epa.gov/docket11/faqs.htm
 Follow the Action Initiation List (AIL) o http://www2.epa.gov/laws

‐ regulations/actions

‐ initiated
‐ month#notification  Where You Live o http://www.epa.gov/epahome/whereyoulive.htm
 Air Pollution Training o http://www.apti

‐ learn. net  National Ambient Air Quality Standards o http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html o http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
 Community Air Screening How
‐ To Manual o http://www.epa.gov/oppt /cahp/pubs/howto.htm
 Risk Assessment and Modeling
– Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library o http://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk

‐ assessment ‐ and
‐ modeling
‐ air
‐ toxics
‐ risk
‐ assessment ‐ reference
‐ library  Technology Transfer Network o Rules and Implementation: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/eparules.html o Evaluating Exposures to Toxic Air Pollutants
– A Citizen's Guide: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/3_90_023.html o Risk Assessment for Toxics
– A Citizen’s Guide: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/3_90_024.html o Taking Toxics out of the Air: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/takingtoxics/ o Air Pollution and Health Risk: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/3_90_022.html o Health Effects Notebook for HAPs: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html