2015

6/30/2015

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 ..................................................................................................................................................................14

Map and Charts.....................................................................................................................................................................21

Meaningful Involvement Summary.......................................................................................................................................27

2
U.S. Environmental 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

3
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 category 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 demographic 

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 human 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, 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. 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 whether, 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 facility in the source category that poses 

the highest risks to the public, and must consider specific statutory factors, including costs, energy and safety.

4
About the Data

5
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 individualsfor 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).

6
Statistical Summary

7
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 (H0): 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 (H1): 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 H0 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 H0 is true given the value of T calculated from the demographic data. 

 Statistical Conclusions: 

o If the p-value is large (≥ 0.05): The average 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 (H0): The proportion of study areas having population in demographic category X exceeding the U.S. 

average is EQUAL TO 50%. 

 Alternative Hypothesis (H1): 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 H0 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 H0 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. 

8
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)

H0: Average % of Population Near Sources in Category X = National % in Category X # of Study Areas >= 100 total population (N) 103

H1: 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)

H0: % of study areas with Nearby Population in Category X above National Average = 50%

H1: % 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

9
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.

10
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.

11
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.

12
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

13
Near Source Data

14
Raw Data

Region State Name ID Population Minority Low Income Linguistically 

Isolated

Less than HS 

Education

Under Age 5 Over Age 64

1 MA Center Street Auto 110038858297 108,717 47.9% 48.5% 13.7% 26.3% 7.0% 12.7%

Middleboro Recycling 110020049687 15,812 15.4% 14.5% 0.3% 14.7% 6.4% 9.9%

NH Weber Auto And Truck Parts 19,148

Corp.

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

2 NJ State Metal Industries Inc. 110000321438 301,151 53.6% 44.3% 9.3% 23.6% 6.2% 12.1%

NY Metalico Aluminum Recovery 110054612585 88,427 31.8% 45.5% 4.6% 15.9% 6.2% 13.1%

N. H. Kelman Inc. 110019288787 80,696 20.0% 36.1% 3.5% 14.2% 6.1% 13.7%

Luffman Metal Company 110019515988 9,276 5.8% 31.7% 0.7% 12.5% 6.6% 15.1%

Scepter Inc. - Seneca Falls 9,221

Operations

110002094153 5.8% 31.5% 0.7% 12.5% 6.6% 14.8%

3 MD Maryland Recycle Company 110009683681 94,967 33.9% 23.3% 2.0% 16.7% 6.0% 13.6%

Montgomery Scrap 110001260714 79,951 43.8% 13.8% 8.1% 8.3% 6.7% 13.7%

PA Ritchey Metals Co. Inc. - 27,918

Hendersonville Plant

110001068665 6.6% 14.3% 1.1% 7.2% 6.3% 17.2%

Assad Iron & Metals Inc. 110007025735 14,857 9.4% 48.3% 0.2% 14.6% 4.3% 15.1%

Beck Aluminum Alloys 110001089731 14,660 7.4% 17.2% 1.3% 11.9% 4.4% 21.2%

Reading Alloys Inc. - Robesonia 110007754554 11,412 9.9% 21.0% 0.8% 14.4% 5.6% 17.3%

Pennex Aluminum Company 110000817750 3,811 3.3% 19.7% 0.1% 12.9% 4.4% 14.3%

VA Aleris Rolled Products Inc. 110001889644 16,354 25.6% 27.3% 2.6% 22.0% 5.4% 12.6%

WV Aleris Recycling Inc. 110056954345 730 3.1% 35.7% 0.0% 13.3% 8.1% 22.0%

Aleris Recycling Bens Run LLC. 110006149514 624 2.6% 34.9% 0.0% 12.3% 7.0% 19.5%

4 AL Berman Brothers Iron & Metal 110000366915 63,947 62.8% 53.9% 2.0% 20.4% 6.3% 12.5%

15
Region State Name ID Population Minority Low Income Linguistically 

Isolated

Less than HS 

Education

Under Age 5 Over Age 64

4 AL Tennessee Aluminum 19,027

Processors Inc.

110000368174 45.5% 47.4% 3.1% 20.3% 7.6% 16.4%

SMA-Mayfield Salvage 9,634

Company

110001713931 48.7% 48.4% 1.6% 27.6% 6.5% 13.9%

Imperial Aluminum - 3,931

Scottsboro

110001713165 3.4% 39.8% 0.0% 9.9% 5.1% 16.7%

Ellis Metals 110024518734 1,893 47.7% 53.6% 0.5% 27.0% 5.9% 18.4%

FL Metal Industries Inc. 110000365756 41,863 22.9% 18.1% 1.3% 6.9% 6.1% 13.7%

AlS Pick N Pull Inc. 110006390878 23,698 6.9% 17.9% 1.1% 3.7% 1.5% 40.6%

Hydro Aluminum North 15,199

America Inc

110000845284 7.3% 27.9% 0.5% 7.8% 4.8% 26.4%

KY Kentucky Smelting Technology 11,544

Inc.

110025183147 17.9% 41.8% 1.5% 19.7% 5.3% 16.8%

Electro Cycle Inc. 110001383592 11,373 13.2% 35.4% 0.5% 19.6% 7.0% 17.1%

Audubon Metals LLC 110000380999 9,706 19.0% 54.9% 0.5% 26.6% 7.5% 11.8%

Hydro Aluminum - Louisville 110000766449 2,926 15.6% 55.7% 0.4% 29.8% 6.4% 9.7%

MS Taber Metals Gulfport L.P. 110000377280 27,510 50.5% 48.9% 2.5% 21.0% 8.2% 13.9%

TN Aleris Recycling Inc. 110000372702 8,578 14.7% 39.4% 2.8% 24.3% 5.3% 20.6%

Valley Recycling 110037598365 8,461 14.4% 46.1% 1.9% 29.0% 6.1% 18.3%

Tennessee Aluminum 5,467

Processors Inc.

110000375219 21.1% 44.5% 0.4% 20.9% 6.3% 14.7%

Norandal USA Inc. 110017724248 4,777 21.1% 26.5% 0.0% 17.7% 7.8% 19.8%

Smelter Service Corp. 110000863511 4,672 20.1% 44.4% 0.2% 22.1% 6.1% 15.2%

MD Recycling Inc. 110014363410 3,648 1.0% 47.7% 0.2% 24.8% 5.4% 12.7%

Most Inc. - Jackson 110020903398 992 27.7% 43.2% 3.2% 24.9% 2.8% 17.2%

Scepter Inc. 110000370786 391 3.9% 46.8% 0.3% 19.6% 4.0% 15.5%

16
Region State Name ID Population Minority Low Income Linguistically 

Isolated

Less than HS 

Education

Under Age 5 Over Age 64

5 IL Allied Metal Co. 110000435949 472,499 81.9% 51.1% 13.7% 27.9% 7.7% 8.0%

Trialco Inc. 110000432434 53,063 60.3% 26.4% 1.1% 10.2% 6.1% 13.7%

KB Cores - Kankakee 110005827212 26,810 54.0% 53.5% 5.2% 22.2% 8.1% 11.0%

IN United Tranz Core LLC 110055585549 79,732 79.8% 54.5% 8.7% 28.5% 8.6% 9.8%

Transmetco Inc. 110020049794 19,829 4.2% 38.9% 0.2% 14.3% 6.7% 14.8%

GM Powertrain Bedford Facility 110000403215 16,322 4.6% 40.4% 0.0% 19.6% 7.2% 19.4%

Aleris Recycling - Wabash 12,104

Operations

110007362932 4.1% 38.7% 0.1% 18.6% 5.0% 17.2%

Metal Source LLC 110043976631 11,939 4.1% 38.7% 0.1% 18.5% 4.9% 17.1%

Nikkei MC Aluminum America 5,013

Inc

110000402127 14.5% 23.1% 5.2% 11.5% 9.3% 8.5%

Scepter Inc. 110000403331 3,950 5.8% 45.3% 1.4% 18.5% 6.8% 18.2%

Heartland Aluminum 110012154417 1,866 3.9% 22.9% 0.0% 10.7% 3.0% 18.3%

MI AMP Recycling Inc. 110003618504 92,606 57.6% 58.7% 12.5% 35.8% 9.5% 9.6%

Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated 24,819

Products LLC

110039564183 27.6% 50.1% 1.5% 14.7% 9.3% 9.4%

Aleris Specification Alloys Inc. 110008058305 16,337 76.3% 66.4% 1.5% 27.2% 7.1% 14.2%

Continental Aluminum 110000405981 14,886 7.6% 15.4% 0.6% 6.9% 7.8% 12.1%

MN Mankato Iron & Metal 51,656

Company

110008812749 10.0% 39.3% 1.2% 6.6% 5.5% 11.1%

New Ulm Steel & Recycling Inc. 110001444722 12,998 5.4% 25.1% 1.8% 9.1% 6.3% 16.8%

Ron Rehnelt Salvage 110007628362 2,020 3.1% 29.6% 0.1% 11.4% 6.1% 19.6%

OH G-Cor Automotive 11001194593 94,297 54.2% 47.4% 2.2% 19.5% 6.8% 11.3%

Staker Alloys 110033140964 62,330 21.6% 47.4% 0.7% 18.7% 7.1% 14.6%

17
Region State Name ID Population Minority Low Income Linguistically 

Isolated

Less than HS 

Education

Under Age 5 Over Age 64

5 OH Diver-Steel City Auto Crushers 110004675316 59,554 60.7% 63.6% 2.9% 23.0% 5.4% 16.0%

City Wide Towing And Auto 43,547

Wrecking

110039017239 28.1% 53.0% 0.8% 18.8% 7.8% 12.3%

GNW Aluminum Inc. 110006272522 28,411 13.3% 42.0% 0.2% 17.0% 5.9% 16.6%

Aluminum Wheel 22,816

Technologies Inc.

110033141197 9.9% 37.2% 0.3% 13.9% 6.2% 14.1%

Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated 20,093

Products LLC

110043794212 8.6% 32.9% 0.3% 11.6% 7.7% 16.4%

Quantum Metals Inc. 110020497871 16,745 11.8% 16.4% 0.4% 10.1% 7.4% 7.5%

Aluminum One 110006232512 7,357 1.7% 36.6% 0.4% 15.6% 6.5% 18.1%

WI Miller Compressing Co 110000855931 218,395 65.7% 59.2% 12.4% 29.7% 8.6% 7.0%

Beck Aluminum Racine 110000419342 68,885 46.2% 39.8% 4.0% 19.7% 7.6% 11.2%

Karl Schmidt Unisia Inc. 110000421062 19,097 3.9% 39.8% 0.3% 9.8% 5.4% 17.4%

B & B Metals Processing Co. 110002034487 911 3.3% 21.9% 0.7% 13.5% 4.3% 14.0%

6 AR Davis Iron & Metal 110025061215 22,354 28.9% 53.4% 6.4% 31.7% 7.7% 12.7%

Metro Scrap Metals Inc. 110017691381 13,384 59.6% 47.6% 0.7% 23.4% 6.3% 16.6%

Livingston Pecan & Metal Inc. 110015787521 3,054 61.7% 58.6% 2.8% 27.5% 8.2% 19.0%

LA Sapa Extrusions L.L.C. 110000450422 3,714 60.8% 38.4% 0.0% 27.1% 5.4% 14.7%

OK Yaffe Iron & Metal Co. Inc. 110000598577 32,496 44.6% 49.5% 2.1% 18.4% 7.8% 14.4%

Aleris Recycling Inc. 110000454767 18,249 21.1% 37.0% 0.4% 17.2% 5.5% 15.2%

TX Bishop Engine And Automotive 110033424300 102,460 85.4% 60.4% 16.5% 40.9% 7.5% 8.3%

Hydro Aluminum 110015679452 8,687 37.4% 48.3% 0.9% 13.5% 5.3% 11.3%

Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated 8,075

Products LLC

110000746435 37.1% 40.7% 7.0% 20.4% 10.5% 10.1%

18
Region State Name ID Population Minority Low Income Linguistically 

Isolated

Less than HS 

Education

Under Age 5 Over Age 64

7 IA B. G. Salvage 110017648768 7,024 3.9% 41.8% 0.0% 14.1% 5.8% 21.0%

Dittmers Recycling 110028258392 3,949 1.3% 17.6% 1.6% 10.4% 8.8% 12.2%

Bucks Auto Recycling 110033183267 1,545 1.9% 37.9% 0.0% 9.4% 9.1% 18.9%

Tourniers Recycling Inc. 110033646133 160 0.9% 31.2% 0.0% 10.8% 8.4% 11.9%

KS Donham Company 110039281023 52,947 25.7% 39.5% 3.9% 15.9% 8.0% 11.7%

Arnett Automotive 110030821582 7,372 10.1% 36.8% 1.1% 11.9% 6.2% 19.4%

Rays Metal Depot 110017445996 1,333 7.4% 35.7% 0.0% 16.9% 1.6% 20.7%

MO Commercial Metals Company 110007634532 48,115 13.2% 47.1% 0.5% 16.8% 8.0% 15.0%

Most Inc. - Troy 110000566192 14,069 9.0% 28.8% 0.3% 13.7% 8.4% 11.9%

8 CO Dionisio Metal and Iron Inc. 110028716502 49,104 57.7% 53.1% 4.3% 21.3% 6.8% 15.3%

Golden Aluminum Inc. 110000467539 9,267 56.5% 40.5% 4.1% 28.2% 8.2% 8.1%

UT Sapa Extrusions Inc. 110000470099 37,303 13.7% 27.2% 2.2% 7.3% 12.8% 6.5%

9 AZ Halna Inc. 110000470874 110,337 88.4% 61.2% 26.9% 48.2% 11.5% 4.7%

Amcep Metals Company 110040826087 58,672 71.8% 54.3% 11.8% 25.4% 10.7% 6.3%

Alcoa Forgings 110000471212 43,753 32.1% 16.5% 2.4% 3.8% 6.4% 5.2%

Imsamet of Arizona 110000471702 25,704 56.0% 29.0% 4.9% 18.6% 10.8% 4.0%

CA Thorock Metals Company Inc. 110000474371 382,944 98.3% 56.5% 20.9% 48.1% 9.1% 6.0%

Kaiser Aluminum & Chem 267,750

Corp.

110000477939 95.0% 51.6% 27.4% 49.1% 8.7% 7.8%

Custom Alloy Light Metals 110017209590 237,649 93.4% 43.9% 21.4% 42.3% 7.4% 9.6%

Custom Alloy Scrap Sales Inc. 110001162571 187,088 62.8% 35.5% 10.4% 13.5% 5.6% 12.2%

Vista Metals Corporation 110000479312 82,189 78.0% 32.4% 12.9% 23.6% 8.0% 4.4%

19
Region State Name ID Population Minority Low Income Linguistically 

Isolated

Less than HS 

Education

Under Age 5 Over Age 64

9 CA TST Inc. 110000479296 32,477 81.2% 41.3% 11.4% 32.4% 6.8% 7.1%

10 ID Aleris Recycling Inc. 110000773271 14,911 7.3% 38.6% 0.6% 10.1% 9.3% 9.0%

WA Kaiser Aluminum Washington 110043786285 37,896 13.2% 37.4% 1.4% 9.8% 8.0% 13.3%

20
   

Map	and	Charts

21
22
Category 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 %

23
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

40

Frequency

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

70

Frequency

Linguistically Isolated Demographic Histogram

24
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

60

Frequency

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

40

Frequency

Age 65+ Demographic Histogram

25
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

30

Frequency

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

30

Frequency

Low Income Demographic Histogram

26
Meaningful	Involvement	Summary

27
Meaningful Involvement

Outreach and Materials

 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

28