### REVIEW OF COSTS, BENEFITS, EC ONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND OTHER IMPACTS :

For the Following Interrelated Proposed Rules:

Standards of Performance for New Statio nary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industr ial Solid Waste Incineration Units; RIN 2060-AO12

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Ai r Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; RIN 2060-AM44

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Ai r Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; RIN 2060-AG69

Identification of Non-hazardous Seco ndary Materials That Are Solid Waste RIN 2050-AG44

Air Quality Analysis Group - Sector Based Assessment Group - Air Benefit and Cost Group Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Economics and Risk Analysis Staff Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, DC 20460

April 29, 20102 

### BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR REGULATORY ACTION

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the promulgation of regulations to control emissions of specific hazardous air pollutants fro m “major sources” within defined source categories. 1 One such regulation, promulgated in September 2004 , is the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Ins titutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the “Boilers Rule”), which established Maximum Achievable Cont rol Technology (MACT) standards for this source category. Section 129 of the CAA directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to promulgate regulations to control emissions of nine specified pollutants from “solid waste incineration units.” EPA issued such regulations in Decemb er 2000 for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units with the publication of the final Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commerc ial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (the “CISWI Rule”). Units regulated under Section 129 cannot be subject to any rule promulgated under Section 112.

In September 2005, in response to a subsequent petition for reconsideration, EPA amended the CISWI Rule when it promulgated revised definitions for “solid waste,” “commercial or industrial waste,” and “commercial and industrial solid waste incineration un it” (the “CISWI Definitions Rule”). As part of the CISWI Definitions Rule, EPA defined “commercial and industrial solid waste” to exclude solid waste that is combusted at a facility whose design provides for energy recovery or which operates with energy recovery. Therefore, a unit designed to recover energy through the combustion of solid waste was not a solid waste incineration unit.

In July 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Distri ct of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded to EPA both the CISWI Definitions Rule and the Boilers Rule. In vacating the definitions rule, the Court stated that the Clean Air Act unambiguously requires an y unit that combusts “any solid waste material at all” – regardless of whether the material is being bur ned for energy recovery – to be regulated as a solid waste incineration unit. As a result, the Court also concluded that EPA erred in excluding from the CISWI Definitions Rule units that combust solid wast e for the purposes of energy recovery and including these units in the Boilers Rule. Because the universe of sources subject to the boilers rule would be much smaller if it did not include units that combust solid waste for the purpose of energy recovery, the Court vacated the Boilers Rule as well.

In response to the 2007 vacatur and remand, EPA is proposing the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commerc ial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the major source Boilers Rule). In 

### response to our voluntary remand of the 2000 CISWI rule, we are proposing the Standards of Performance for New Sta tionary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid W aste Incineration (CISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule). Finally, as part of this rule-making package, and 

### in order to meet our sections 112(c)(3) and 112(c)(6) obligations , the Agency is also proposing the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area source Boilers Rule).

In addition, EPA’s response to the Court’s deci sion requires a clear determination of which nonhazardous, “secondary materials” 2 constitute Resource Conservation a nd Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle

1 A “major source” is any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit c onsidering controls, in the aggregate, at least 10 tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant or at least 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.
2 A “secondary material” is any material that is not the primary product of a manufacturing or commercial process, including but not limited to post-consumer material, post-i ndustrial material, and scrap. The secondary materials3 D “solid waste” in order to clarify when units com busting these materials would be regulated pursuant to CAA Section 129 (as opposed to potential regulati on under Section 112 for a combustion unit that burns secondary materials that are not solid waste). Thus, in a concurrent notice, EPA is publishing the proposed rule for the Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (the proposed NHSM rule).

PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The purpose of this document is to summarize th e costs, benefits, economic impacts, and other impacts of the four rules that EPA is proposing in response to the Court’s vacatur and remand, i.e. , the proposed rules for the following: area source Boilers, major source Boilers, CISWIs, and Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary Materials. We developed this combined summary document because of the interdependencies between the air and solid waste rul es. In addition to the information on the proposed NHSM rule, this document compiles and summarizes more detailed information that was prepared in support of the OAR proposed rules (area sour ce Boiler, major source Boiler, and CISWI). 3 This more detailed information is contained in the economic support materials that are in the dockets accompanying those notices. 4 As such, the summary information related to the OAR rules that is contained in this document has been prepared for informational purposes only. We request that commenters cite to the documents contained elsewhere in these dockets, as a ppropriate, rather than to this summary, when submitting comments on the proposed OAR rules.

The emissions standards developed in the propo sed CISWI Rule, the area source Boilers Rule, and the major source Boilers Rule (and the impacts of those standards) take into account which secondary materials are considered solid wastes and are calcula ted based on the emissions performance of the best performing sources. Changes in secondary materi als management practices under the proposed NHSM rule depend on the emissions control costs that affect ed units would incur if they decide to burn secondary materials considered to be solid wastes. 5

To support the development of the four rules, this document summarizes their regulatory impacts in the following sections:

1. Description of the Proposed Ru les.......................................................page 4

The first section describes each propo sed rule in detail and discusses the interaction between the various proposed rules. This section also discusses an alternative approach considered by the Agency;

contemplated in this document are summarized later in this document, and described in further detail in the materials characterization papers located in the docket for the proposed NHSM rule.
3 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, RIN 2060-AO12 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant s for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers, RIN 2060-AM44 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant s for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Proc ess Heaters, RIN 2060-AG69
4 Dockets: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119, EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790, EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058
5 Boilers 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 potentially incur additional air pollution control costs.4 2. Summary of Affected Units, Industries, and Secondary Materials...............page 13

Following the overview of the four propo sed rules, we summarize the affected regulatory universe. This discussion cove rs the combustion units, industries, and secondary materials potentially affected by the proposed rules;

3. Methods for Assessing Impac ts.........................................................page 18

In the third section, we describe the me thods employed by EPA to assess the costs, benefits, economic impacts, and other impacts of the proposed rules;

4. Analytic Results

............................................................................ page 24

The fourth section summarizes the estimat ed impacts of the proposed rules. These impacts include engineering costs, social costs, benefits, and employment impacts;

5. Environmental Justice Impacts.........................................................page 35

This section summarizes our assessment of environmental justice considerations for the four proposed rules

6. Other Equity Considerations and Regulatory Impacts............................ page 46

This chapter summarizes impacts of the proposed rules, including impacts to small entities, children's health, impacts to Tribal Governments, energy use and distribution effects, and joint impacts with other rules.

7. References................................. ................................................page 48

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED RULES

The proposed CISWI Rule, the proposed area sour ce Boilers Rule, and the proposed major source Boilers Rule establish national emission standards for affected sources. In setting these standards, EPA identified those combustion units that burn secondary materials and, based on the solid waste criteria enumerated in the proposed NHSM rule, determined which of these secondary materials are likely to be considered solid wastes under RCRA Subtitle D. Th is section summarizes the proposed NHSM rule and the emission standards and other requirements associ ated with the proposed CISWI Rule, the proposed area source Boilers Rule, and the proposed major source Boilers Rule.

1.1 The Proposed NHSM Rule

Under the proposed NHSM rule, non-hazardous secondary materials burned as fuels are considered to be solid wastes ex cept in the following circumstances:

• Within the Control of the Generator: When a non-hazardous secondary material used as a “legitimate” fuel in a combustion unit remains within the control of the generator, it would not be considered a solid waste. In general, “within the control of the generator” m eans that the material is generated and5 burned in combustion units at the gene rating facility or at another facility controlled by the generator.

• Processed into a Legitimate Fuel: When a discarded non-hazardous secondary material has been processed into a legitima te fuel for use in a combustion unit, it would not be considered a solid waste. The definition of processing includes any chemical, manual, and/or physical operations that are necessary to produce a fuel or ingredient from secondary materials.

Both of the criteria outlined above are subject to certain legitimacy criteria. Specifically, to qualify as a legitimate fuel for the purpose of the generator-controlled or processed fuel product nonwaste determinations, a non-hazardous secondary materi al must (1) be managed as a valuable commodity (i.e., stored for a reasonable time frame and adequately contained to prevent releases to the environment); (2) have a meaningful heating value and be used as a fuel in a combustion unit that recovers energy; and (3) contain contaminant concentrations that are comp arable to traditional fuel products. The flow chart presented below helps illustrate the solid wast e determination process under the NHSM proposal:6 

### Is the Material a Traditional Fuel?

Is the Material Managed within the Control of the

Generator? Material is Not a Waste



### Does the Material Satisfy the Legitimacy Criteria? Has the Material Been Discarded in the First Instance (i.e. abandoned, disposed, thrown away)?

Is the material managed as a valuable commodity? Does the material have a meaningful heating value? Does the material contain contaminants at levels comparable to or lower than

traditional fuels which the combustion unit is designed to burn? Secondary Material is

a Waste

Secondary Material is Not a Waste YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES TO ALL NO TO ONE Secondary Material is a Waste unless Administrator has granted a non-waste determination Has the Material Been Sufficiently Processed? NO

YES 

### Flow Chart for Determining Whether Non-Hazardous Materials Used as Fuel In Combustion Units are Solid Waste

Secondary Material is a Waste (Sham Recycled and therefore considered to be “disposed”)7 Non-hazardous secondary materials used as ingr edients in combustion units would not be considered solid waste if they have not been discarde d in the first instance and if they are legitimate ingredients, irrespective of whether they have been tr ansferred to a third party outside the control of the generator. To qualify as a legitimate ingredient, a non-hazardous secondary material must (1) be managed as a valuable commodity (i.e., stored for a reasonabl e time frame and adequately contained to prevent releases to the environment); (2) provide a useful cont ribution (i.e., a valuable ingredient) to a production or manufacturing process; (3) be used to produce a valuab le product or intermediate (i.e., one that is sold to a third party or is used as an effective subs titute for a commercial product or as an ingredient or intermediate in an industrial process); and (4) contai n contaminant concentrations that are comparable to those found in the ingredient(s) it is replacing.

In addition, the proposed NHSM rule includes a non-waste determination (petition) process that provides an administrative process for receiving a formal determination from EPA that non-hazardous secondary material fuel that has not been managed within the control of the generator has not been discarded, and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product, and thus, is not a solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. A fi nding that a material has not been discarded would be based on several criteria, including (1) evidence of the material’s treatment in the marketplace as a fuel, product, or intermediate rather than as a waste, (2) chemical and physical characteristics comparable to commercial fuels, products, or intermediates; (3 ) the market’s capacity to use the material in a reasonable time frame; and (4) constituents in the no n-hazardous secondary material that are comparable to those that would otherwise be released to the ai r, water or land from the point of generation to the combustion of the secondary material, from either a st atistical or from a health and environmental risk perspective.

The proposed NHSM rule also states that traditiona l fuels are not solid wastes when burned in a combustion unit. Traditional fuels are those fuels that have been historically managed as valuable fuel products rather than being managed as waste materials. Traditional fuels include fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, including used oil meeting on-specification leve ls, natural gas) and their derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil, refinery gas, sy nthetic fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace gas, recovered gaseous butane, and coke oven gas). Clean cellulosic biomass materials are also traditional fuels rather than wastes when burned as a fuel. “Clean” material is defined as those non-hazardous secondary materials that have not been altered (either chemically or through some type of production process), such that it contains contaminants at c oncentrations normally associated with virgin biomass materials. Clean cellulosic biomass includes forest-d erived biomass (e.g., green wood, forest thinnings, clean and unadulterated bark, sawdus t, trim, and tree harvesting residuals from logging and sawmill materials), corn stover and other biomass crops used specifically for energy production (e.g., energy cane, other fast growing grasses), bagasse 6 and other crop residues (e.g., peanut shells), wood collected from forest fire clearance activities, trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, and clean biomass from land clearing operations.

6 Bagasse is the matted cellulose fiber residue from suga r cane that has been processed in a sugar mill. For more information on bagasse, see the Materials Characterizati on Paper on Biomass-Agricultural Residues and Food Scraps, which is located in the docket of today’s proposed rule.8 1.2 Proposed Major Source Boilers Rule

The proposed major source Boilers Rule applies to existing and new boilers and process heaters located at major source facilities. The proposed rule would require all major sources to meet hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions standards reflecting the application of the MACT. The proposal establishes limits for nine of the eleven subcategories for PM (as surrogate for non-mercur y metals), mercury, HCl (as surrogate for acid gases), CO (as surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP), and Dioxin/Furan. Emissions limits are proposed to be applicable onl y to units with heat input capacities of 10 million Btu/hour or greater, while work practice standards (annua l tune-up) are being proposed for units with heat input capacities less than 10 million Btu/hour.

Exhibits 1 and 2 present EPA’s proposed emi ssion limits under the proposed major source Boilers Rule for existing sources and new sources, respectively. The limits for existing units apply only to those existing boilers and process heaters that have a desi gned heat input capacity of 10 million British thermal units (Btu) per hour or greater. The emission limits fo r new boilers and process heaters apply to all new units, regardless of size. As indicated in Exhibits 1 and 2, EPA developed emission limits for eleven subcategories of units based on unit design.

Exhibit 1

Proposed Major Source Boilers Rule: Emission Li mits for Existing Boilers and Process Heaters (pounds per million Btu, unless otherwise noted)

Subcategory Particulate Matter (PM) Hydrogen Chloride

(HCl) Mercury (Hg) Carbon Monoxide (CO) (ppm @3% oxygen) Dioxins/ Furans (Total TEQ)

(ng/dscm) Coal Stoker 0.02 0.02 0.000003 50 0.003 Coal Fluidized Bed 0.02 0.02 0.000003 30 0.002 Pulverized Coal 0.02 0.02 0.000003 90 0.004 Biomass Stoker 0.02 0.006 0.0000009 560 0.004 Biomass Fluidized Bed 0.02 0.006 0.0000009 250 0.02 Biomass Suspension Burner/Dutch Oven 0.02 0.006 0.0000009 1010 0.03

Biomass Fuel Cells 0.02 0.006 0.0000009 270 0.02 Liquid 0.004 0.0009 0.000004 1 0.002 Gas (NG/RFG) Gas (Other Process Gases) 0.05 0.000003 0.0000002 7 0.0099 Exhibit 2

Proposed Major Source Boilers Rule: Emission Limits for New Boilers and Process Heaters (pounds per million Btu, unless otherwise noted)

Subcategory Particulate Matter (PM) Hydrogen Chloride

(HCl) Mercury (Hg) Carbon Monoxide (CO) (ppm @3% oxygen) Dioxins/ Furans (Total TEQ) (ng/dscm) Coal Stoker 0.001 0.00006 0.000002 7 0.003 Coal Fluidized Bed 0.001 0.00006 0.000002 30 0.00003 Pulverized Coal 0.001 0.00006 0.000002 90 0.002 Biomass Stoker 0.008 0.004 0.0000002 560 0.00005 Biomass Fluidized Bed 0.008 0.004 0.0000002 40 0.007 Biomass Suspension Burner/Dutch Oven 0.008 0.004 0.0000002 1010 0.03

Biomass Fuel Cells 0.008 0.004 0.0000002 270 0.0005 Liquid 0.002 0.0004 0.0000003 1 0.002 Gas (NG/RFG) Gas (Other Process Gases) 0.003 0.000003 0.0000002 1 0.009

In addition to the emission limits outlined in E xhibits 1 and 2, the proposed major source Boilers Rule includes the following work pr actice standards and requirements:



### • Work practice standard: EPA is proposing a work practice standard for existing boilers and process heaters with heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour. The work practice st andard requires the implementation of a tune-up program. The Agency is also proposing a beyond-the-floor work practice standard requiring all existing ma jor source facilities that have affected boilers or process heaters to perform an energy assessment of the affected units and facility to identify cost-effective en ergy conservation measures. No work practice standards are proposed for new units.



### • Testing requirements: The proposed major source Boilers Rule requires affected sources to conduct initial and a nnual performance tests to demonstrate compliance with applicable emission limits for PM, mercury, HCl, total hydrocarbons (THC), and dioxin/furans. Units in the natural gas/refinery gas subcategory are only required to conduct an annual tune-up.



### • Demonstration of a continuous compliance (monitoring): EPA is proposing a range of requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance with emissions limits, based on the type of the control device and each unit’s heat input capacity.



### • Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements . Regulated units would be required to notify EPA of their compliance status and provide the Agency with certifications of compliance w ith rule requirements. In addition, to demonstrate compliance with emission limits and work practice standards, units must maintain records of the dates and r esults of each boiler tune-up. For units that use a control device to control emi ssions, records must be maintained with CEMS data for the device or continuous ly monitored device parameter data.10 Other records that the rule would require affected units to maintain include, but are not limited to, records of performance tests and other compliance demonstrations; monthly fuel use; each instance that the unit did not meet each emissions limit, work practice, or ope rating limit; daily hours of operation; calculations and supporting information of chlorine and mercury fuel input. Documentation regarding non-waste dete rminations under the proposed NHSM rule must also be maintained.

1.3 Proposed Area Source Boilers Rule

The proposed area source Boilers Rule includ es emissions standards for existing and new industrial and institutional/commercial boilers located at area source facilities. The rule proposes emission standards for particulate matter (PM) ( as a surrogate for the individual non-mercury metal HAP), mercury, and carbon monoxide (CO) (as a surr ogate pollutant for the individual organic HAP). The proposed emission limits for mercury and CO pr ovide for the use of MACT, while the proposed standards for PM are based on generally availably control technologies (GACT), as defined by the Clean Air Act. Exhibit 3 summarizes the standards for bot h new and existing sources. The emission limits for existing area source boilers apply only to units that ha ve a designed heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater. In addition, as suggested by the boiler subcategories included in Exhibit 3, the emission standards included in the proposed area source Boilers Rule would apply to units fired by coal, oil, and wood, but not to those fired by natural gas.

Exhibit 3

Emission Limits for Existing and New Area Source Boilers (pounds per million Btu heat input)
Source Subcategory Particulate Matter (PM) Mercury Carbon Monoxide (CO) (ppm) Coal 0.03 0.000003 310 (@ 7% oxygen) Biomass 0.03 100 (@ 7% oxygen) New Boilers

Oil 0.03 1 (@ 3% oxygen) Coal 0.000003 310 (@ 7% oxygen) Biomass 160 (@ 7% oxygen) Existing Boilers

Oil 2 (@ 3% oxygen)

In addition to the emission limits specified in Exhib it 3, the proposed area source Boilers Rule includes the following work practice standards and requirements:



### • Work practice standards: For existing area source boilers with heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour, the proposed rule requires the implementation of a tune-up program. In addition, the rule requires existing area source facilities having affected boilers with a designated heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater to perform an energy assessment to identify cost-effective energy conservation measures.



### • Initial compliance: New and existing area source boilers with applicable emission limits must conduct initial stack test s or fuel analysis (for mercury) to determine compliance with the PM, mercury, and CO emission limits.11 

### • Continuous compliance: Boilers that demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits must conduct performance t ests on an annual basis. In addition, to demonstrate continuous compliance w ith the PM and mercury emission limits, boilers must monitor and comply with the applicable site-specific operating limits.



### • Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements: Regulated units would be required to notify EPA of th eir compliance status and provide the Agency with certifications of compliance with rule requirements. In addition, units must maintain records of the dates and results of each boiler tune-up. For units that use a control device to contro l emissions, records must be maintained with CEMS data for the device or con tinuously monitored device parameter data. The rule would also require units to ma intain records of performance tests and other compliance demonstrations; monthly fuel use; and each instance that the unit did not meet each emissions limit, work practice, or operating limit.

1.4 Proposed CISWI Rule

Consistent with the Court’s 2007 ruling, the proposed CISWI Rule regulates any device at a commercial or industrial facility that is used to combust solid waste (as defined under the proposed NHSM rule). CISWI units include incinerators d esigned to discard waste materials (including small remote incinerators); boilers designed for heat rec overy that combust solid waste materials; kilns and other industrial units that combust solid waste materials in the manufacture of a product; and burn-off ovens that combust residual materials off racks, parts, drums, or hooks so that those items can be re-used in various production processes. Exhi bits 4 and 5 present the proposed CISWI MACT floors for existing and new CISWI units, respectively, for each of the five CISWI subcategories included in the proposed rule.

Exhibit 4

Proposed Existing Source M ACT Floor Limits for the Proposed CISWI Subcategories Pollutant (units) 1 Proposed CISWI Subcategories

Incinerators Energy
recovery

units Wasteburning

kilns Burn-off

ovens Small, remote incinerators HCl (ppmv) 29 1.5 1.5 130 150 CO (ppmv) 2.2 150 710 80 78 Pb (mg/dscm) 0.0026 0.002 0.0027 0.041 1.4 Cd (mg/dscm) 0.0013 0.00041 0.0003 0.0045 0.26 Hg (mg/dscm) 0.0028 0.00096 0.024 0.014 0.0029 PM, filterable (mg/dscm) 13 9.2 60 33 240 Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) 0.031 0.75 2.1 310 1600 Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) 0.0025 0.059 0.17 25 130 NO X (ppmv) 34 130 1100 120 210 SO 2 (ppmv) 2.5 4.1 410 11 44 Opacity (%) 1 1 4 2 13

1 All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.12 Exhibit 5

Proposed New Source MACT Floor Limits for the Proposed CISWI Subcategories Pollutant (units) 1 Proposed CISWI Subcategories

Incinerators Energy
recovery

units Wasteburning

kilns Burn-off

ovens Small, remote incinerators HCl (ppmv) 0.074 0.17 1.5 18 150 CO (ppmv) 1.4 3.0 36 74 4.0 Pb (mg/dscm) 0.0013 0.0012 0.00078 0.029 1.4 Cd (mg/dscm) 0.00066 0.00012 0.00030 0.0032 0.057 Hg (mg/dscm) 0.00013 0.00013 0.024 0.0033 0.0013 PM, filterable (mg/dscm) 0.0077 4.4 1.8 28 240 Dioxin, furans, total (ng/dscm) 0.0093 0.034 0.00035 0.011 1200 Dioxin, furans, TEQ (ng/dscm) 0.00073 0.0027 0.000028 0.00086 94 NO X (ppmv) 19 75 140 16 210 SO 2 (ppmv) 1.5 4.1 3.6 1.5 43 Opacity (%) 1 1 1 2 13

1 All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.

In addition to establishing the emission standards in Exhibits 4 and 5, the proposed CISWI rule would require all CISWI units to demonstrate initial compliance with the revised emission limits. The proposed rule also includes the following testing, monitoring, and continuous compliance requirements:



### • Annual inspections: The proposed rule requires annua l inspections of scrubbers, fabric filters and other air pollution contro l devices that may be used to meet the emission limits in existing CISWI units.



### • Monitoring requirements for specific air control devices: The proposed rule requires parametric monitoring of all a dd-on air pollution control devices. In addition, for existing CISWI units that ope rate a fabric filter air pollution control device, the Agency proposes that a bag leak detection system be installed to monitor the device. CISWI units that install selective non-catalytic reduction technology would be required to monitor the reagent (e .g., ammonia or urea) injection rate and secondary chamber temperature (if applicable to the CISWI unit). Other monitoringrequirements include (but are not limited to) mercury CEMS at existing wasteburning kilns and CO CEMS at existing energy recovery units.



### • Electronic Data Submittal: Under the proposed CISWI ru le, owners and operators of CISWI units will be required to subm it electronic copies of performance tests required under this rule.

1.5 Alternative Approach

In addition to assessing impacts as sociated with the four rules as specified above, this document also examines impacts under an alternative approach th at the Agency is considering for the identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wast e. Consistent with the proposed NHSM rule, this alternative approach does not classify traditional fuels, including clean biomass, as solid waste and also does not consider non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels or ingredients to be solid waste if they13 remain within the control of the generator and meet th e legitimacy criteria. In contrast to the proposed NHSM approach, all other non-hazardous secondary materi als that are burned as a fuel or used as an ingredient in the combustion process would be consid ered solid wastes subject to the CAA section 129 standards. Also, all materials that result from the processing of discarded non-hazardous secondary materials would be solid wastes. No petition pro cess would be offered under this alternative.

Because the universe of emissions sources covered by each of the three air rules and the emissions standards specified in each rule are de pendent on which secondary materials are considered solid wastes, the alternative approach would affect not just the proposed NHSM rule, but also the impacts associated with each of the three air rules. Accordingly, the Agency cal culated the costs and benefits of the area source Boilers Rule, major source Boilers Rule, and the CISWI Rule under this alternative approach for determining which non-hazardous secondary materials constitute “solid waste.” The results of this analysis are presented in Section 4 of this document.

2. SUMMARY OF AFFECTED UNITS, INDUSTRIES, AND SECONDARY MATERIALS

The four rules summarized in the previous section may affect a broad cross-section of the U.S. economy, leading to changes in materials management and emissions control practices at thousands of units across multiple industries. To provide contex t for the regulatory impacts presented in subsequent sections of this document, this section provides an overview of the combustion units, materials, and industries affected by the four rules.

2.1 Affected Units

EPA estimates that at least 196,000 existing units w ill be affected by the proposed rules. Any unit that burns secondary materials may be affected by the proposed NHSM rule, while the universe of combustion units affected by each of the three air rul es is dependent, in part, on the solid waste criteria enumerated in the proposed NHSM rule. We summari ze the units affected by each of these rules below:

Proposed Major Source Boilers Rule: The proposed major source Boilers Rule affects new and existing industrial, commercial, in stitutional boilers and process heaters that combust non-waste materials and that are located at a major source. We estimate that the rule will cover approximately 13,555 units lo cated at approximately 1,600 facilities. Of these units, 11,500 are gas-fired.

Area Source Boilers Rule: The proposed area source Boilers Rule will cover approximately 183,000 boilers at about 92,000 area source facilities. We note that 1.3 million gas-fired boilers located at U.S. area s ources are not included in source category.

Proposed CISWI Rule: The proposed CISWI rule will apply to any device at a commercial or industrial facility that is used to combust solid waste. We estimate that there are approximately 176 such units, including incinerators, burn-off ovens, cement kilns, and energy recovery units.

Proposed NHSM Rule: The proposed NHSM Rule does not affect any units directly, but instead provides a basis for determining whether non-hazardous secondary materials burned in a combustion unit are or are not so lid wastes, and thus would be regulated under Section 129 or Section 112 of the CAA. While units affected by the proposed NHSM rule are reflected in the estimated num ber of units presented above for the three air rules, the NHSM may also affect units not covered by any of the three air rules (e.g.,14 units that would be regulated under different emission standards established under CAA Sections 112 and 129). Given the wide range of materials burned in combustion units (see below), the number of such units is uncertain.

2.2 Affected Industries

The combustion units potentially affected by the proposed rules are located at facilities across a range of industries that rely on these units for ener gy recovery, the generation of process heat, waste destruction, and other purposes. Similarly, secondary materials that are currently burned as a fuel or ingredient are generated and/or used by multiple sect ors of the economy. To highlight the potential reach of the proposed rules, Exhibit 6 lists industries that may be affected by the rules. This exhibit is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather serves as a guide regarding industries likely to be affected by the four proposed actions.

Exhibit 6

Categories and Entities Potentially Affected NAICS Code 1 Examples of potentially regulated entities 11 Agriculture, greenhouses 211, 212, 486 Mining, oil and gas exploration operations; pipeline operators 221 Utility providers

23 Construction 311, 312 Food manufacturing; Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing 313 Textile Mills 316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products 321, 322, 337 Manufacturers of wood products; manufacturers of pulp, paper, and paperboard; manufacturers of furniture and related products 324 Petroleum refineries and manufacturers of coal products; 325, 326 Manufacturers of chemicals and allied products; manufacturers of plastics and rubber products 327 Manufacturers of cement; nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 331 Steel works, blast furnaces 332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring 333, 336 Manufacturers of machinery; manufacturers of transportation equipment 42, 44, 45 Wholesale merchants; retail merchants

486 Pipeline operators 493 Warehousing and Storage 531 Real estate 541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 561 Administrative and Support Services 562 Waste Management and Remediation Services 611 Educational services

62 Health care and social assistance15 Exhibit 6

Categories and Entities Potentially Affected NAICS Code 1 Examples of potentially regulated entities 722 Food services and drinking places 811 Repair and maintenance 813 Religious, civic, professional, and similar organizations

92 Public administration

1. North American Indust ry Classification System

2.3 Affected Materials

To support the development of the proposed rules, EPA identified a number of secondary materials that may be affected by the rules. The Agency believes that the secondary materials that it identified represent the vast majority of all potentia lly affected materials. These materials are grouped into two general categories: (1) materials used as fuels in combustion units; and (2) materials used primarily as ingredients. Exhibit 7 below lists th ese materials and provides information concerning the annual quantity of the materials generated. In ad dition, the exhibit summarizes available information concerning the extent to which the materials are cu rrently landfilled, combusted for energy recovery purposes, or utilized in a combustion unit for non- energy recovery purposes (i.e., as an ingredient). 7 As the exhibit shows, of the 13 secondary material grou ps primarily used as fuels, certain types of biomass and wood, scrap tires, and used oil are all generated at relatively high annual quantities, and are utilized more extensively for energy recovery. The six cate gories of materials potentially used as ingredients in combustion processes (blast furnace slag, cement k iln dust, coal combusti on products, foundry sand, secondary glass material, and silica fume), are also identified.

7 Many of the materials in Exhibit 7 are also used for beneficial use applications that do not involve combustion. Additional information on these applications is available on the docket for the NHSM rule.Exhibit 7Summary of SecondaryMaterial Types and Estimated QuantitiesMaterialsGenerated(million tons/yr)Landfilled(Percent of total)Energy recovery(Percent of total)Combustion Not forEnergy Recovery(Percent of total)Auto shredder residue 5 High* ~ 0 ~0Biomass - Animal manure > 1,000 Uncertain Low UncertainFood scraps Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain UncertainAgricultural residue 500 ~0 Low UncertainBiomass - Food scraps andagricultural residueBagasse 3.8 Uncertain High UncertainLogging Residues 62.4-103.0 ~0 Moderate UncertainPrimary Mill Residues 86.8-91.4 ~0 Moderate UncertainBlack Liquor 52.1 ~0 High ~0Biomass - Forest derived and Pulp& Paper residueSludges 4.2-5.8 Moderate Low LowCoal Refuse (Mining Rejects) Uncertain ~0 Low ~0Building-related materials 164 Moderate Moderate1UncertainLand clearing debris 30 Uncertain Low UncertainConstruction and demolition debrisDisaster debris2Variable Uncertain Low UncertainPurification process byproducts3Uncertain, but < 7,600 UncertainResinated wood dusts 12.5 Low Moderate4~0Scrap plastics 2.4 Low Low UncertainScrap tires 4.6 Low Moderate UncertainSpent solvents 5 ~0 Uncertain UncertainUsed oil 1,370 gallons Low Moderate ~0Wastewater treatment sludge 5-7 Low Low LowBlast furnace slag 13-15 ~0 ~0 UncertainCement kiln dust 13-17 Moderate5~0 ModerateFly ash71.7 Moderate Low ModerateBottom ash 18.1 Moderate ~0 UncertainCoal combustion productsBoiler slag 2.1 Low ~0 UncertainFoundry sand 9.4 Moderate 0 UncertainSecondary glass material 13.9 Uncertain 0 UncertainSilica fume 0.11-0.13 Low 0 LowTOTALUncertain, but potentialrange of 2,084 to 9,7396Uncertain17Notes:* Cells designated as "high" indicate percentage likely ranges from 75% to 100%; "moderate" from 25% to 74%; and "low" from 0%to 24%.1. Quantity includes recycled materials, in addition to materials used as fuel.2. Disaster debris is of varying composition, including vegetative and other non-organic material. Its use is therefore variable and contingent upon the event thatcreated it.3. Uses of purification process byproducts depend on their individual caloric contents.4. Quantity represents end uses of secondary woodresidues, which includes resinated wood dusts.5. Based on Portland Cement Association data and discussions with industry personnel, actual rate of reuse in cement kilns appears to be underreported.Subsequently, the estimated quantity landfilled is likely overstated.6. Estimate based on materials for which generation data available. Used oil converted from gallons to tons assuming a density of 7.88 pounds per gallon, consistentwith the value presented in the Used OilMaterials Characterization Paper included on the docket for the proposed NHSM Rule.Source: Materials Characterization Papers. These papers are located in the docket for the proposed NHSM Rule.18 3. METHODS FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS

In this section, we discuss the analytical methods the Agency used to asses s the costs, benefits, and other impacts of the proposed rules. We fi rst describe the methodology used to estimate the engineering costs of the proposed rules. These engin eering costs include the financial resources expended by affected units to comply with the emission standa rds included in the three air rules and (for units that burn secondary materials considered to be solid w astes) the resources expended to modify materials management practices and avoid the costs of comp liance with the Section 129 CISWI Rule. Following this discussion of engineering costs, we outline the methodology for estimating social costs (i.e., changes in producer and consumer surplus). We then present the methods employed to estimate the human health benefits associated with the proposed rules.

The proposed NHSM rule, on its own, will not resu lt in any of the costs, benefits, or other impacts described in this section. As explained above, the proposed NHSM rule specifies criteria under which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered solid wastes. Although the rule will determine which Section of the CAA under which a given combustion unit is regulated, the rule itself does not include any emission standards and does not require changes in the management or use of secondary materials. Only with the promulgation of the air rul es would society realize the costs, benefits and other impacts estimated with the methods described in th is section. EPA therefore attributes these impacts entirely to the air rules.

Given that the three air rules are central to th e realization of impacts, the methods discussion presented in this section focuses on these rules. Wh ile we do not outline methods specific to the NHSM rule, the methods for the three air rules account for the NHSM rule because the universe of affected units for each rule is determined, in part, by the NHSM rule.

3.1 Engineering Cost Methodology

To estimate the engineering costs of the thr ee air rules, EPA developed and applied cost assessment methods tailored to the data available fo r each rulemaking. We describe the approach for each rule below.

Major Source Boilers Rule: To estimate the engineering costs of the proposed major source Boilers Rule for existing sources, EPA used the following three-step approach:

1. First, EPA developed emission factors (i.e., emissions per unit of activity) for each affected unit. If emissions data for a given unit were included in the Boiler MACT emission database, EPA estimated the unit’s emission factors based on this information. Emissions data for many units, however, were not included in the Boiler MACT emission database. For these units, EPA applied average emission factors derived from the emissions data for those units that reported their emissions. More specifi cally, EPA developed average baseline emission factors by fuel type/control device combination and matched these to units that lacked emissions informati on based on each unit’s fuel, design, and control devices.

2. EPA compared each unit’s baseline emi ssion factors to the proposed MACT floor emission limit to determine if control devices would be necessary to comply with the proposed emission limits.19 3. For units that would require control devices (as determined in Step 2), the Agency determined which control devi ces would be most appropriate. The control analysis considered fabric f ilters, carbon bed adsorbers, and activated carbon injection to be the primary control devices for mercury control, electrostatic precipitators for units meeting mercury limits but requiring additional control to meet the PM limits, wet scrubbers to meet the HCl limits, tune-ups, replacement burners, and com bustion controls for CO and organic HAP control, and carbon injection for dioxin/furan control. EPA’s analysis of these devices identified where one contro l device could achieve reductions in multiple pollutants in order to avoid overestimating the costs.

4. Finally, EPA estimated costs for testing and monitoring requirements contained in the proposed rule.

Area Source Boilers Rule: To estimate the engineering costs of the proposed area source Boilers Rule, EPA developed several model boile rs and determined the cost of control for these model boilers. EPA assigned a model boile r to each existing unit based on the fuel, size, and current controls. The analysis c onsidered all air pollution control equipment currently in operation at existing boilers. Model costs were then assigned to all existing units that could not otherwise meet the proposed standards.

The CISWI Rule: EPA estimated compliance costs for all existing CISWI units. EPA has also analyzed the costs of alternative dispo sal for the subcategories that may most likely investigate alternative options to burning w aste, namely the incinerators, burn-off ovens, and small, remote incinerators. To estimate co sts, EPA selected the lo west cost alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility.

3.2 Social Cost Methodology

The engineering costs derived from the methods presented above do not reflect the changes in behavior that may occur as a result of the proposed ru les or changes in welfare, as measured by producer and consumer surplus. To capture these effects, EPA conducted a market analysis that uses a singleperiod multimarket partial equilibrium model to comp are pre-policy market baselines with expected postpolicy market outcomes. The model simulates how stakeholders (consumers and industries) might respond to the additional regulatory programs’ costs. The analysis’ time horizon is the intermediate run; industries have limited flexibility to adjust production technologies ( e.g., alter capital stock or switch labor and material inputs). The intermediate time horizon allows us to capture important transitory stakeholder outcomes. Key measures in this analysis include industry-level changes in price levels, production and consumption, jobs, international trad e, and social costs (changes in producer and consumer surplus).

More specifically, the multimarket model contains the following features:



### • Industry sectors and benchmark data set:

 100 industry sectors

 A single benchmark year (2010)

 Estimates of industry employment20 

### • Economic behavior:

 Industries respond to regulatory costs by changing production rates

 Market prices rise to reflect higher energy and other non-energy material costs

 Customers respond to these price increases and consumption falls



### • Model scope:

 100 sectors are linked with each other based on their use of energy and other non-energy materials. For example, the construction industry is linked with the petroleum, cement, and steel industries a nd is influenced by price changes that occur in each sector. The links allow EPA to account for indirect effects the regulations have on related markets.

 Production adjustments influence employment levels

 International trade (imports/e xports) behavior considered



### • Model time horizon (“short run”):

 Fixed production resources ( e.g. , capital) lead to an upward-sloping industry supply function

 Firms cannot alter input mixes; there is no substitution among production inputs (capital, labor, energy intermediates, and other intermediate goods and services)

 Price of labor ( i.e ., wage) is fixed, and

 Investment and government expenditures are fixed

3.3 Job Effects

To supplement the engineering and social cost impacts described above, EPA also examined the job impacts of the proposed rules. Although the Agency could not estimate precise job effects with certainty, Morgenstern et al. (2002) identify thr ee economic mechanisms by which pollution abatement activities can indirectly influence jobs:



### • Higher production costs raise market prices, higher prices reduce consumption, and employment within an industry falls (“demand effect”);



### • Pollution abatement activities require additiona l labor services to produce the same level of output (“cost effect”); and



### • Post-regulation production technologies may be more or less labor intensive ( i.e., more/less labor is required per dollar of output) (“factor-shift effect”). Several empirical studies, including Morgenstern et al. (2002), suggest the net employment decline is zero or economically small ( e.g., Cole and Elliot, 2007; Berm an and Bui, 2001). However, others suggest that the question has not been reso lved in the literature (Henderson, 1996; Greenstone, 2002).

EPA’s analyses of employment impacts have historically focused on employment changes associated with policy-related plant closures or changes in output for regulated industries (EPA, 1999a; EPA, 2000). EPA’s assessment of employment impacts fo r the proposed rules builds upon these previous21 analyses in two ways. First, because the multimarket model described above estim ates changes in output for sectors not directly regulated by the rules, EPA was able to estimate a more comprehensive “demand effect.” Second, parameters estimated in the Morgen stern paper were used to estimate all three effects (“demand,” “cost,” and “factor shift”). This transfer of results from the Morgenstern study is uncertain but avoids ignoring the “cost effect” and the “factor-shift effect.”

Using the market model and the results of the Mo rgenstern et al. (2002) study, EPA estimated the employment impacts of the proposed rules using two different methodologies.

Model-based Approach: Under the first approach, EPA calculated employment changes by assuming that the number of jobs declines proportionally with changes in output, as estimated in the multi-market partial equilibri um model. These results were calculated for all sectors in the EPA model that show a change in output.

Morgenstern Approach: The second approach relies upon the estimated “demand effect,” “cost effect,” and “factor-shift” effect fro m the Morgenstern etl al. (2002) study to estimate employment impacts. For example, for demand effect employment impacts, we multiplied the point estimate for the total demand effect (

− 3.56 jobs per million dollars of environmental compliance expenditure) by the total environmental compliance expenditures used in the partial equilibrium model. We performed similar calculations for the cost and factor-shift employment effect s. Although using the Morgenstern parameters to estimate these “cost” and “factor-shift” empl oyment changes is uncertain, it is helpful to compare the potential job gains from these effects to the job losses associated with the “demand” effect.

3.4 Costs of Petition Process for Non-waste Determination

Under the proposed NHSM rule, the Administrato r may grant a non-waste determination that a non-hazardous secondary material fuel that has not been managed within the control of the generator has not been discarded, and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product, and thus, is not a solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. To receive consideration, a petitioner must request a case-specific non-waste determination. While th e process is voluntary, it requires the petitioner to provide information describing how the secondary ma terials satisfy the legitimacy criteria described above, along with analysis of certain market, human and environmental health, and other factors.

In order for EPA to grant the non-waste determ ination, a petitioner must show the following:

1. Evidence of the material’s treatment in the marketplace as a fuel, product, or intermediate rather than as a waste,

2. The secondary material’s chemical and physical characteristics comparable to commercial fuels, products, or intermediates;

3. The market’s capacity to use the material in a reasonable time frame; and

4. Constituents in the non-hazardous secondary material that are comparable to those that would otherwise be released to the air, water or land from the point of generation to the combustion of the secondary material, from either a statisti cal or from a health and environmental risk perspective.22 The costs associated with this petition option are unc ertain, both nationally and at the level of the facility. Nationally, the costs of the petition process w ill depend largely on the number of facilities that submit petitions. Due to the uncertainty surrounding th e number of petitions likely to be submitted to EPA under this rule, we do not include the total cost s of the petition process in the primary cost estimates presented in this document

The costs of the petition process are also uncertain at the facility level, but EPA already has in place certain petition processes whereby parties may re quest exclusions similar to the non-waste determinations established in the proposed rule . For example, the Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal) includes estimates of the per facility costs of petition submissions for hazardous waste exclusions or variances from solid waste or boiler determinations. Because of the similarities between these petition processes and the process for obtaining a non- waste determination, this analysis uses the cost estimates contained in the Supporting Statement as an indicator of the per-facility costs of petitioning for a non-waste determination under the proposed rule. Specifically, we rely on two sets of cost estimates within the Supporting Statement: the 40 CFR 260.22 de listing petition, whereby petitioners request that EPA amend 40 CFR 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility from classification as a hazardous waste; and a subpart of the petition for va riance from classification as a solid waste, whereby a petitioner must fulfill the relevant criteria in 40 CFR 260. 31(c) and show that a reclaimed material is not a solid waste because it will be further reclaimed.

Exhibit 8 presents the costs associated w ith these petition processes. The delisting petition requires that the petitioner demonstrate that the seconda ry material does not contain concentrations of certain substances that would classify it as a hazar dous waste. This procedure includes estimating the quantity and variability of waste gene ration, describing in detail the equipment used to measure chemical content, and testing the material for hazardous c ontaminants. The delisting petition’s requirements are analogous to the criterion under the proposed NHSM rule th at a material must have chemical and physical characteristics similar to traditional fuels to be cons idered a legitimate alternative fuel. The estimated costs per facility for this process are approximately $64,800 for the facility itself and $34,700 per facility for the government.

Exhibit 8

Estimated Cost per Facility of a Pe tition for Non-waste Determination (year 2008$) Facility Costs Government Costs

Petition Process Total Cost per Facility 1 Annualized Cost per Facility 2 Total Cost per Petition Reviewed Annualized Cost per Petition Reviewed 2 40 CFR 260.22 Delisting $64,800 $4,500 $34,700 $2,400 40 CFR 260.31(c) Variance for Material to be Further Reclaimed $6,700 $470 $5,600 $390

Total $71,400 $5,000 $40,300 $2,800

Notes : 1. U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement fo r EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.20: Identification,

Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renew al), December 2007. The costs obta ined from this source were not stated in 2008 dollars. They were inflated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2008 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates and GDP price deflators. 2. Annualized based on a 7 percent discount rate.23 The petition for variance from classification as a solid waste requires that a material be commodity-like. The petitioner must show that the ma terial (1) has been processed, (2) requires further processing, (3) is analogous to raw material, (4) is ha ndled to minimize loss, (5) is valuable, and (6) has an available market. These requirements are similar to several aspects of the petition process included in the proposed rule, including (1) evid ence of the material’s treatment in the marketplace as a fuel, product, or intermediate; (2) the market’s capacity to u se the material in a reasonable time frame; and (3) constituents in the non-hazardous secondary material th at are comparable to those that would otherwise be released to the air, water or land from the poi nt of generation to the combustion of the secondary material, from either a statistical or from a health a nd environmental risk perspective. The estimated per facility costs of this petition process are approximately $6,700 for the facility itself and $5,600 per facility for the government.

Summing the costs of these petitions, the total cost of the petition process is approximately $71,400 for each facility and $40,300 fo r the government. Annualized in perpetuity with a discount rate of 7 percent, these values translate to annualized costs of approximately $5,000 for each facility and $2,800 per facility for the government. 8 We assume that these costs represent a reasonable approximation of the per facility costs of the petition process include d in the proposed NHSM rule. We note, however, that a significant portion of our per-facility estimate is based on the testing costs for determining whether a material is considered a hazardous waste under RCRA. To the extent that the testing necessary for the petition process in the proposed NHSM rule (and EPA’s re view of such testing) is less onerous than the testing for hazardous waste determinations, we may overestimate the costs of the petition process.

3.5 Benefits Methodology

EPA’s benefits analysis for the proposed ru les focuses on the human health improvements associated with reduced ambient PM 2.5 concentrations. 9 The proposed rules ar e expected to lead to reduced emissions of direct PM 2.5 as well as emissions of PM precursors (e.g., SO x , NO x , and VOC). Due to analytical limitations, it was not possibl e to develop a comprehensive estimate of PM 2.5 -related benefits. Instead, EPA used a “benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate these benefits based on the methodology described in Fann et al. (2009). Under this approach, we estimated the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature morta lity and premature morbidity) per ton of direct PM 2.5 and precursor emissions reduced. EPA has used the benefit per-ton technique in several previous RIAs, including the recent NO 2 NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2010b). Exhi bit 9 presents the quantified and unquantified benefits captured in t hose benefit-per-ton estimates.

Consistent with the Portland Cement NESHAP (U.S. EPA, 2009a), the PM 2.5 benefit-per-ton estimates reflect concentration-response functions re ported in the epidemiology literature, and (for premature mortality) the 12 functions obtained from EPA’s expert elicitation study as a sensitivity analysis. For premature mortality, EPA a series of different concentration-r esponse functions to gauge the potential range of impacts, summarized as follows:

8 We annualize the one-time costs of the petition process because the cost represents an investment in the ability to use the material in question as a non-waste fuel or ingredient.
9 It is important to note that the monetized benefits from reducing PM 2.5 exposure are an incomplete characterization of the total benefits associated with these rules. The be nefits from reducing many air pollutants are not included in this analysis, including carbon monoxide, mercury, HCl, HF, cadmium, lead, and dioxins/furans. In addition, ecosystem benefits and visibility benefits have not been monetized in this analysis.24 

### • One concentration-response (C-R) function w as developed from the extended analysis of American Cancer Society (ACS) cohort, as reported in Pope et al. (2002), a study that EPA has previously used to generate its primary PM benefits estimate.



### • Another C-R function was developed from the ex tended analysis of the Harvard Six Cities cohort, as reported by Laden et al. (2006). This study, published after the completion of the Staff Paper for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, has been used as an a lternative estimate in the PM 2.5 NAAQS RIA and PM 2.5 benefits estimates in RIAs completed since the PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Exhibit 9

Human Health and Welfare Effects of PM 2.5 Pollutant /

Effect Quantified and Monetized in Primary Estimates Unquantified Effects Changes in:

PM 2.5 Mortality Adult premature mortality

Morbidity Bronchitis: chronic and acute Hospital admissions: respiratory and cardiovascular Emergency room visits for asthma Nonfatal heart attacks (myocardial infarction) Lower and upper respiratory illness Minor restricted-activity days Work loss days Asthma exacerbations (a sthmatic population) Infant mortality Health benefits Subchronic bronchitis cases Low birth weight Pulmonary function Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits

Non-health benefits Visibility Household soiling



### • EPA derived twelve C-R functions from EPA’s expert elicitation study (Roman et al., 2008) on the PM 2.5 -mortality relationship and interpreted for PM benefits analysis in EPA’s final RIA for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. For that study, twelve expe rts (labeled A through L) provided independent estimates of the PM 2.5 -mortality concentration-response function. To characterize the degree of variability in the expert responses, EPA practice has been to develop independent estimates of PM 2.5 -mortality corresponding to the concentrationresponse function provided by each of the twelve experts..

Readers interested in reviewing the methodolog y for creating the benefit-per-ton estimates used in this analysis should consult Fann et al. (2009). As described in the documentation for the benefit perton estimates cited above, national per-ton estimates are developed for selected pollutant/source category combinations. The per-ton values calculated therefore apply only to tons reduced from those specific pollutant/source combinations (e.g., SO 2 emitted from electric generating units; NO 2 emitted from mobile sources).

4.0 ANALYTIC RESULTS

This section presents the estimated impacts of the pr oposed rules based on the methods described in the previous section. We begin by summarizing estimat ed engineering costs of the proposed rules and the25 alternative option. We then outline the estimated social costs of the proposed rules, as estimated by changes in consumer and producer surplus. Follo wing this discussion, we summarize job impacts, followed by the benefits of the proposed rules a nd alternative option. We conclude the section by comparing the estimated cost and benefit impacts. As indicated in the methods discussion above, the impacts presented in this section are assumed to be a ttributable to the three air rules, given that the proposed NHSM rule would lead to no impacts in th e absence of the air rules. Where possible, we present the impacts of the proposed air rules under the w aste criteria enumerated in the proposed approach for the NHSM, and under the criteria included in the alternative NHSM option described above.

4.1 Engineering Costs

Exhibit 10 presents the estimated engineering costs of the three proposed air rules under the waste identification criteria included in the propose NHSM rule and under the waste criteria included in the alternative option. As summarized in the exhibit, EPA estimates $4.1 billion in annualized engineering costs (in 2013) for the three air rules under the propose NHSM option. Approximately 70 percent of these costs are attributable to the major source Boilers Rule.

Exhibit 10

Annualized Engineeri ng Costs in 2013 (billions of year 2008 dollars) Proposed NHSM Option Alternative NHSM Option Major Source Boilers Rule $2.9 $2.4 Area Source Boilers Rule $1.0 N/A CISWI Rule $0.216 $0.480 Total Cost* $4.1 N/A

N/A = Not Available. * Absent other data, we assume that the costs of the three air rules are additive.

4.2 Social Costs

As indicated in the methods section, EPA’s assessmen t of social costs measures the producer and consumer surplus impacts of the proposed rules and the distribution of these impacts. Exhibit 11 presents the results of this social cost analysis. As indicat ed in the exhibit, the Agency estimates $3.6 billion in social costs for the proposed rules. Reduced produc er surplus among U.S. firms represents approximately 86 percent of this impact. The results also suggest that in the near term affected industries will be able to pass on $1.2 billion of the three proposed rules’ costs to U.S. households in the form of higher prices, leading to a consumer surplus loss of $1.2 billion. Th is, combined with the U.S. producer surplus loss, yields a net surplus loss of $4.2 billion for U.S. st akeholders. In addition, as U.S. prices rise, other countries will be affected by the proposed rules through international trade relationships. More specifically, foreign households that buy goods fro m the United States will experience losses (due to higher prices), while industries that sell goods to th e United States benefit, because their goods become more competitive. Overall, EPA estimates a net gain of $0.1 billion in surplus for foreign producers and consumers. Exhibit 11 also shows that EPA estimat es a net producer and consumer surplus loss of $3.1 billion when the proposed air rules are based on the alternative NHSM waste criteria.

The Agency also considered other elements of th e engineering cost analysis that could not be modeled within the multimarket model ( e.g ., fuel savings benefits and total annualized compliance costs). The net effect of the adjustments is a to tal surplus loss estimate of $3.6 billion.26 Exhibit 11

Summary of Annualized Social Costs in 2013 (billions of year 2008 dollars)
Approach Proposed NHSM Option Alternative NHSM Option* Partial Equilibrium Model (Multiple Markets)
Change in U.S. consumer surplus

− $1.2

− $1.1 Change in U.S. producer surplus

− $3.1

− $2.7 Change in U.S. surplus

− $4.3

− $3.8 Net change in rest of world surplus $0.1 $0.1 Net change in total surplus

− $4.2

− $3.7 Direct Compliance Costs Method Total annualized costs (not modeled)

− $0.3

− $0.3 Total annualized savings (not modeled) $0.9 $0.9 Change in Total Surplus

− $3.6

− $3.1

*Note: Absent other data and based on the costs of the proposed rules, we assume that the costs are additive across the three rules under the alternative NHSM.

4.3 Market-Level Results

The market-level impacts of the proposed ru le, as estimated by the multi-market partial equilibrium model, include price and quantity adjustme nts, as well as changes in international trade. The Agency’s economic model suggests that combined, the proposed rules would have the highest impact on prices in the manufacturing and energy sectors. The pr ices in the lumber, paper, and printing sector may rise 0.25 percent, while the prices in the energy sect or may rise 0.04 percent. Other industries with impacts above 0.01 percent include food, beverages, and textiles industry, as well as primary metals, nonmetallic minerals, and chemicals industries. Prices in the non-manufacturing sector as a whole may rise less than 0.01 percent. At the same time, aver age annual production may fall by 0.11 percent in the lumber, paper, and printing sector, by 0.04 percent in the chemicals and primary metals sectors, and by 0.02 percent in the energy, food, beverages, and tex tiles, plastics and rubber, and in other sectors. The effects in other industries are expected to be lowe r. Because of higher prices, imports are expected to increase 0.26 percent in lumber, paper, and printing sect or and 0.08 percent in the energy sector. Exhibit 12 below presents the combined effects of the three rules on the price and quantity changes by industry as of 2013.27 Exhibit 12

Price and Quantity Ch anges (percent): 2013 Proposed Air Rules, based upon Proposed NHSM Option Industry Sector Prices Production Imports Consumption Exports Energy 0.04% -0.02% 0.08% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% Nonmanufacturing less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% Manufacturing Food, beverages, and textiles 0. 02% -0.02% 0.03% -0.01% -0.02% Lumber, paper, and printing 0.25% -0.11% 0.26% -0.06% -0.18%
Chemicals 0.02% -0.04% 0.02% -0.03% -0.02%
Plastics and Rubber less than 0.01% -0.02% 0.01% -0.01% less than 0.01% Nonmetallic Minerals 0.04% -0.01% 0.01% -0.01% -0.03% Primary Metals 0.04% -0.04% 0.04% -0.02% -0.04%
Fabricated Metals less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% Machinery and Equipment 0.01% -0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% -0.02%

Electronic Equipment less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% Transportation Equipment less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% Other less than 0.01% -0.02% 0.02% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% Wholesale and Retail Trade less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% Transportation Services less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% Other Services less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01% less than 0.01%

4.4 Job Effects

Exhibit 13 summarizes the estimated job impact s of the proposed air rules, under both the proposed NHSM waste criteria and the alternative NHSM criteria considered by the Agency. For each set of criteria, EPA estimated employment impacts using the model-based approach and the approach derived from the Morgenstern et al. study described above. As indicated in the exhibit, the model-based approach suggests a negative impact while the approach based on the Morgenstern et al. parameters suggest a positive impact. This difference reflects the broade r focus of the Morgenstern et al. approach, which captures the cost and factor-shift effects described above. The model-based approach does not capture either of these effects.28 Exhibit 13

Annual Job Losses/Gains Associated with the Prop osed Air Rules and the Alternative Approach: 2013/2015

Method Proposed NHSM Option Alternative NHSM Option Partial equilibrium model (multiple markets)

− 7,000

− 6,000 Literature-based estimate (net effect) +4,000 +4,000 Literature-based estimate: Demand Effect

− 9,000

− 8,000 Literature-based estimate: Cost Effect +6,000 +6,000 Literature-based estimate: Factor Shift Effect +7,000 +6,000

Note : The estimates presented in this exhibit represent the to tal impacts estimated separately for the proposed major source Boilers rule, the propos ed area source Boilers Rule, and the proposed CISWI Rule. Most of these estimates are for the year 2013, but the estimates for the CISWI Rule are for 2015.

4.5 Materials Diverted

To the extent that the proposed NHSM rule, combined with the propo sed air rules, affects the cost of using certain secondary materials as fuels or ingr edients, it may bring about changes in materials management practices among affected units. Such cha nges in practice may reflect the different ways in which both generators and users of secondary materials respond to the proposed rule. Possible changes in materials management practices and the corres ponding environmental impacts are as follows:

• Material Substitution Impacts: Because the cost of using certain materials as fuels or ingredients may increase as a result of the pr oposed rule (i.e., units using these materials may be required to comply with more stringent emissions standards), units that use these materials may substitute to conventional fuel s or ingredients to avoid these costs. Depending on the material composition of conv entional fuels and ingredients relative to diverted secondary materials, these changes in fuel and ingredient use may affect the emissions of affected units.

The diversion of secondary materials away from their current beneficial use applications could also lead to a series of lifecycle envir onmental impacts. In the baseline, secondary materials used as alternative fuels or ingredie nts displace traditional fuels or ingredients, which results in an environmental benefit in the form of reduced environmental impacts associated with the production, processing, and tr ansport of the virgin fuel or material. To the extent that the use of virgin fuels or ingredients increases as a result of the proposed rule, upstream environmental rele ases, including increased criteria pollutant and toxics emissions, may increase.

• Accumulation and Land Disposal Impacts: Many of the materials that are diverted away from fuel or ingredient applications as a result of the proposed rule may be managed through land disposal. For materi als accumulated in open piles (e.g., scrap tires), this may lead to increased risks associat ed with over-accumulation (e.g., fires). In addition, the land disposal of these materials may lead to increased risk associated with groundwater contamination from landfill leachate.29 • Generation of Secondary Materials: The proposed rule may increase the cost of managing those materials considered to be solid wastes under the ru le. This will create an incentive for facilities to reduce the generati on of these materials. To the extent that such reductions are achieved through reduced raw material use, upstream environmental impacts associated with the production of raw materials may decline.

A comprehensive assessment of the impacts associ ated with changes in materials management practices is not possible, given the lack of highly resolved data necessary to quantify and monetize these impacts. For example, assessment of the monetary value associated with upstream emissions reductions requires information on the location of these reductions, and such information is not readily available.

Nevertheless, using the available data, EPA was ab le to estimate quantities of materials diverted from units that burn secondary materials less than 25 per cent of total burn time in the baseline. The results of this analysis are presented in Exhibit 14. The Agency estimates that these units will divert approximately 411,000 millions Btu, or approximately 28,700 short tons.

Exhibit 14

Quantities of Materials Diverted from Units That Bu rn Secondary Materials Less Than 25 percent of Total Burn Time in the Baseline

Materials Diverted Materials Category Total Millions Btu Diverted Total Short Tons Diverted Animal Fat/Oils/Tallow Biomass—Food Scraps 92,158 9,505 Cleaning Water Spent Solvents 0 0 Contraband Miscellaneous 1,374 137 Industrial Sludge Miscellaneous 17,664 1,766 Oily Rags and Kerosene Miscellaneous 0 0 Paint Residues Miscellaneous 0 0 Plastics Scrap Plastic 30 1 Process Coproduct Solid Purification Process Byproducts 3,600 360

Refuse Miscellaneous 1,000 100 Resin Solid Miscellaneous 0 0 Used Petroleum-based Oils Used Oil 45,421 1,136*

Used Solvents Spent Solvents 13 1 Wood: Treated Biomass—Wood 250,000 15,674 TOTAL: 411,260 28,680 * This translates to 324,434 gallons of used petroleum-based oils.

Used Oil and Scrap Tires

EPA’s assessment of the material diversion impact s of the proposed rule considered the likely responses of both the used oil and scrap tire markets. Based on the solid waste criteria included in the proposed rule, off-spec used oil is likely to be considered a solid waste (when combusted), whereas onspec used oil is not likely to be a solid waste. Off-s pec used oil, however, ma y be processed into on-spec used oil, allowing combustion units that use this mate rial to avoid any additional costs associated with30 CAA Section 129 compliance. 10 Because the cost of processing used oil from off-spec to on-spec is less than the cost of the virgin fuel that would be necessary to replace used oil, EPA assumes that much of the off-spec used oil currently burned as a fuel would be processed into on-spec used oil. 11 We estimate that the cost of blending on-spec used oil into off-spec is approximately $0.15 per gallon. 12

Under the solid waste criteria outlined in the proposed NHSM rule, shredded tires (assuming a significant portion of the steel wire is removed) are unlikely to be considered solid waste, while whole tires are likely to be solid waste. If whole tires are diverted from their current combustion applications as a result of the rule, EPA assumes that they would be diverted to land disposal. While whole tires could potentially be redirected to TDF or civil engineering applications, the size and structure of the scrap tire market suggests that this is unlikely. Given that demand for scrap tires in civil engineering applications has declined in recent years, the cap acity of the civil engineering market to absorb additional tires is uncertain. In addition, because tire processors generally send whole tires to cement kilns when there is no demand for them as shredded TDF, it is unlikely that the TDF market would absorb a significant quantity of tires from the whole tire market. 13

Despite the potential for whole tires to be diverted to land disposal as a result of the proposed rule, EPA’s assessment of the cost data for cement k ilns (the main users of whole tires) suggests that cement kilns will continue to burn whole tires fo llowing promulgation of the rule. Based on the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the proposed S ection 112 portland cement MACT, that rule would result in annual compliance costs of approxi mately $399 million across 186 cement kiln units. 14 On a per kiln basis, this translates to $2.1 million per year . Because the per unit cost of the proposed CISWI standards under Section 129 of the C AA (approximately $1.3 million per year) 15 is less than the $2.1 million in annual, per-unit compliance costs associat ed with the Section 112 portland cement MACT, burning whole tires (and complying with Section 129 sta ndards instead of Section 112) would not lead to increased air pollution control costs for cement kilns. Therefore, EPA concludes that these units are unlikely to stop burning whole tires as a result of the proposed NHSM rule.

10 Used oil processing practices may include de-watering an d blending of oil to ensure that it meets EPA and enduser specifications.
11 As suggested by the results in Exhibit 14, we do not project that all off-spec used oil would be processed into onspec used oil. Combustion units whose use of secondary materials as fuel makes up less than 25 percent of their total burn time are likely to stop burning secondary mate rials that may be considered solid wastes under the proposed rule. Thus, off-spec used oil will likely be diverted from such units.
12 This estimate reflects the average of two values: $0.02 per gallon, as provided by B ill Briggs, President, ORRCO, personal communication, August 24, 2009 and $0.29 per gallon, as indicated in Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Used Oil Recycling Markets and Best Manageme nt Practices in the United States," October 27, 1992, Presented to: the National Recycling Congress, September 15, 1992; Boston, MA. Valu es adjusted to year 2008 dollars based on the GDP deflator.
13 This information on the scrap tire market is based on Rubber Manufacturers Association. Scrap Tire Markets in the United States. 9th Biennial Report , May 2009 and personal communication with Terry Gray, TAG Resource Recovery, August 10, 2009.
14 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Final Report , April 2009. Cost estimates converted from year 2005 dollars to year 2008 dollars using the GDP deflator.
15 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units , March 2010.31 4.6 Benefits

Combined, the proposed rules (the area source Bo ilers Rule, the major source Boilers Rule, and the CISWI Rule) result in emissions reductions of approximately 32,000 tons of direct PM 2.5 and approximately 344,000 of SO 2 . The combined monetized benefits range from $7.0 billion to $19 billion for direct PM 2.5 , depending on the discount rate used. The to tal monetized benefits range from $16 billion to $44 billion, with SO 2 reduction benefits contributing between $9.2 and $25 billion.

In percentage terms, 57 percent of the monetized benefits are generated by SO 2 reductions, while 43 percent are generated by direct PM 2.5 reductions. By rule, approximate ly 93 percent of the monetized benefits are generated by the proposed major source Bo ilers Rule, 6 percent is due to the proposed area source Boilers Rule, and the remaining 1 percent is due to the CISWI Rule.

It is important to note that th e monetized benefits from reducing PM 2.5 exposure are an incomplete characterization of the total benefits asso ciated with these rules. The monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure. The benefits from reducing many air pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis, including carbon monoxide, mercury, HCl, HF, cadmium, lead, and dioxins/furans. In addition, ecosyst em benefits and visibility benefits have not been monetized in this analysis.

Exhibit 15 provides a general summary of the results for the year 2015 by pollutant, including the emission reductions and monetized be nefits-per-ton at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. Exhibit 16 provides the estimated number of health incidences reduced as a result of the emission reductions from these rules. Exhibit 17 provides the number of tons of air pollutants reduced that have not been included in the monetized benefits. Exhibit 18 provides the be nefits using the anchor points of Pope et al. and Laden et al. as well as the results from th e expert elicitation on PM mortality. Exhibit 19 presents the monetized benefits of the alternate approach.

Exhibit 15

Summary of Monetized Benefits in 2015 (2008$), Based on proposed NHSM option*

Pollutant Emissions Reductions (tons) Total Monetized Benefits (millions 2008$ at 3%) Total Monetized Benefits (millions 2008$ at 7%)
Direct PM 2.5 32,362 $7,700 to $19,000 $7,000 to $17,000

PM 2.5 Precursors
SO 2 344,194 $10,000 to $25,000 $9,200 to $22,000
NO 2 1,446 $7.0 to $17 $6.4 to $16.0 VOC 2,965 $3.6 to $8.8 $3.3 to $8.0 $18,000 to $44,000 $16,000 to $39,000

* All estimates are for 2015, and are rounded to two signifi cant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health eff ects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM 2.5 . The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. The benefits from reducing many air pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis, including carbon monoxide, mercury, HCl, HF, cadmium, lead, and dioxins/furans. In addition, ecosystem benefits and visibility benefits have not been monetized in this analysis.32 Exhibit 16

Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM 2.5 Precursors from 3 Rules based on Proposed NHSM Boiler Major Sources Bo iler Area Sources CISWI Avoided Premature Mortality Pope et al. 1,900 110 26 Laden et al. 4,800 300 66 Avoided Morbidity Chronic Bronchitis 1,300 81 18 Acute Myocardial Infarction 3,000 190 41 Hospital Admissions, Respiratory 450 27 6 Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular 960 57 13 Emergency Room Visits, Respiratory 1,800 85 25 Acute Bronchitis 3,000 190 42 Work Loss Days 250,000 16,000 3,400 Asthma Exacerbation 33,000 2,100 450 Acute Respiratory Symptoms 1,500,000 95,000 20,000 Lower Respiratory Symptoms 36,000 2,300 490 Upper Respiratory Symptoms 27,000 1,700 370

Exhibit 17

Non-monetized Benefits based on Proposed NHSM (Tons per year) Pollutant Major Area CISWI CO 330,000 39,000 24,000 HCl 37,000 130 560 HF 1,000 5 - Mercury 7.5 0.8 0.14 Non-Mercury Metals 3,200 247 11 Dioxins/Furans* 720 470 230 * Grams per year33 Exhibit 18

Total Monetized Benefits for Boiler MACT, Bo iler Area Source, and CISWI Rule in 2015, Based on proposed NHSM Option*

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

Pope et al. Laden et al.Millions(2008$)

Benefits estimates derived from 2 epidemiology functions and 12 expert functions 3% DR
7% DR

Exhibit 19

Summary of Monetized Benefits in 2015 (2008$), Based on alternative NHSM option*

Pollutant Emissions Reductions (tons) Total Monetized Benefits (millions 2008$ at 3%) Total Monetized Benefits (millions 2008$ at 7%)
Direct PM 2.5 22,684 $5,500 to $14,000 $5,000 to $12,000

PM 2.5 Precursors
SO 2 45,836 $1,300 to $3,300 $1,200 to $3,000
NO 2 522 $2.5 to $6 $2.3 to $5.6 VOC 5,882 $7.2 to $18.0 $6.5 to $16.0 $6,900 to $17,000 $6,200 to $15,000

* All estimates are for 2015, and are rounded to two signifi cant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health eff ects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM 2.5 . The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. The benefits from reducing many air pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis, including carbon monoxide, mercury, HCl, HF, cadmium, lead, and dioxins/furans. In addition, ecosystem benefits and visibility benefits have not been monetized in this analysis.34 4.7 Comparison of Benefits and Costs

Combining the estimated social costs of the rul es with estimated benefits, EPA calculates a range of values for the net benefits of the three rules. As Exhibit 20 below presents, for the proposed NHSM option, the monetized net benefits are $14 billion to $40 billion at a 3% discount rate and $13 billion to $36 billion at a 7% discount rate. For the alternativ e NHSM option, the net benefits are $3.7 billion to positive $14 billion at a 3% discount rate and $3.1 to $12 billion at a 7% discount rate. Exhibit 21 presents these net benefits results (based on the pr oposed NHSM rule) using the concentration-response functions from the core epidemiology studies and fro m the Roman et al. (2008) expert elicitation study discussed above.

Exhibit 20

Summary of Monetized Net Benefits in 2015 (2008$),

Based on Proposed and Al ternative NHSM Option
Option Total Monetized Net Benefits (billions 2008$ at 3%) Total Monetized Net Benefits (billions 2008$ at 7%) Proposed NHSM Option $14 to $40 $13 to $36
Alternative NHSM Option $3.7 to $14 $3.1 to $12

Note: All estimates are for 2015, and are rounded to two significant figures so num bers may not sum across columns. The benefits fr om reducing many air pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis, including ca rbon monoxide, mercury, HCl, HF, cadmium, le ad, and dioxins/furans. In addition, ecosyst em benefits and visibility benefits have not been m onetized in this analysis.

Exhibit 21 Net Benefits for Major Source Boilers Rule, Area Source Boilers Rule, and CISWI Rule (2015, 7 percent discount rate)

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000

Pope et al. Laden et al.Millions(2008$)

Cost estimate combined with total monetized benefits estimates derived from 2 epidemiology functions and 12 expert functions35 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS

The purpose of this section is to summarize our preliminary assessment of the environmental justice impacts of the four proposed rules. 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 health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United St ates. The EO has informed the development and implementation of EPA’s Environmental Justice (EJ) pr ogram and EJ policies. Consistent with the EO, the Agency’s EJ policies promote environmental prot ection by focusing attention and Agency efforts on addressing the types of environmental harms and risk s that are prevalent among minority, low-income, Tribal and other vulnerable populations.

We developed this combined environmental jus tice assessment because of the interdependencies between the air and solid waste rules. The emissi ons standards developed in the proposed CISWI Rule, area source Boilers Rule, and major source Boilers Rule (and the environmental justice impacts of those standards) are impacted by which secondary materials, when used as fuels, are considered solid wastes under the proposed NHSM rule. Similarly, chang es in secondary materials management practices (and the corresponding environmental justice impacts) depe nd on the emissions control costs that affected units would incur if they decide to burn seconda ry materials considered to be solid wastes. 16

This preliminary assessment of environmental jus tice impacts consists of simple quantitative analyses of the demographic makeup of communities near sources that will be affected by the four rules and qualitative analysis relating to the diversion of non-hazardous secondary materials to disposal or beneficial end uses. A more robust analysis of enviro nmental justice impacts was not possible in the time available with the information resources available. The reader should be mindful of this limitation.

5.1 Preliminary Assessment of Environmental Justice Impacts of Proposed CISWI Rule, Proposed Area Source Boilers Rule, and Proposed Major Source Boilers Rule

The proposed CISWI Rule, the proposed area sour ce Boilers Rule, and the proposed major source Boilers Rule establish national emission standards for affected sources. EPA estimates that approximately 176 commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators will be regulated under the proposed CISWI Rule; approximately 13,555 industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters will be covered by the proposed major sour ce Boilers Rule; and approximately 183,000 sources will be regulated under the proposed area source Boilers Rule.

The three air rules will result in substantial em issions reductions of the regulated criteria and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Specifically, the pr oposed CISWI Rule will reduce emissions of nine pollutants, which include particulate matter (PM); meta ls, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated di benzo-p-dioxins/dibenzofurans (dioxin, furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NOx); and acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The major source Boilers Rule will reduce emissions of acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, mercury, lead, cadmium, other non-mercury metals, organics, and chlorinated dioxin/furans, while the area source Bo ilers Rule will reduce emissions of mercury, non-

16 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.36 mercury metals, and organics. Exposure to these HA Ps, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposure, can be associated with a variety of adver se health effects. These adverse health effects may include, for example, cancer, irritation of the lungs , skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the central nervous system; damage to the kidneys, and alimentary effects, such as nausea and vomiting, The rules will also result in substantial reductions of criteri a pollutant emissions, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Reducing these emissions will subsequently reduce ozone and PM 2.5 formation in the atmosphere and their associat ed health effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma, and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

To assess the environmental justice impacts of the CISWI Rule and major source Boilers Rule, EPA reviewed the distributions of different socio- demographic groups that might be impacted by the sources affected by each of the two rules. The revi ew focused on those census bl ocks within three miles of affected sources and determined the demographic composition ( e.g. , race, income, etc.) of these census blocks and compared them to the corresponding co mpositions nationally. EPA believes this proximity analysis approach and the specific distance of three miles is relevant to the air inhalation exposure pathway; it is not intended to provide information on exposure pathways involving on drinking water or diet.

On the other hand, because of the large number of smaller boilers covered by the area source Boilers rule and the absence of site-specific c oordinates, EPA is currently unable to assess the demographics of populations located near these sources. However, EPA believes that the number of area source boilers affected by the rule is so large that it is likely that most of the U.S. population lives within three miles of at least one of these sources. Theref ore, while it is not possible to assess by how much more or less one population grou p or community would benefit fr om emission reductions from area source boilers than another population group or co mmunity, most people and communities will benefit

The analysis for the CISWI Rule and the major source Boilers Rule was performed by first identifying all the census blocks with in three miles of any affected sour ce. Three miles (or 5 kilometers, which is about the same) has been used often in other demographic analyses focused on areas around industrial sources. 17 Also, beyond three miles the air emissi on influence of an individual source is generally considered to be small, both in absolute terms and relative to the influence of other sources (assuming there are other sources in the area, as is ty pical in urban areas). Because census blocks are typically small (although some of the blocks where population are sparse can get large), this approach does not apportion the population based on land area incl uded within the three-mile buffer (circle), as was done in the analysis of the demographics around landfills and other alternate disposal locations that was based on the larger census block groups (see Section III below). 18 The population of each census block within three miles of a source was successively divi ded into subgroups (e.g., first by race, then by Hispanic status, then by age group). After each division, persons were counted and summed across blocks to obtain population numbers for the area around each source.

17 See, for example, the following publications which have provided demographic information using a 3-mile or 5- kilometer circle around a facility: * U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Dem ographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office 1995. * Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio-eco nomic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research”. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399. * Mennis, Jeremy “”Using Geographic Information Syst ems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Population and Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis” Social Science Quarterly, 2002, 83(1):281-297. * Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R et al. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987-2007,. March 2007..
18 The use of two different approaches has stemmed from time requirements and the rulemaking schedule, not any fundamental technical basis.37 Based on the fact that the three rules do not allow for emission increases, EPA has determined that they will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any populations in the US including minority, low-in come, or Tribal populations. Moreover, because the populations in the vicinity of the affected sources(major source boilers and CISWI) are in the aggregate more minority and low income in composition, the benefi cial effects from the three rules will be larger for the average minority and low income American than for all Americans. Exhibit 22 summarizes the results of the analysis for the three-mile buffers around the major source boilers and CISWI units. The results suggest that populations living near these facilities are located in areas with minority and lowincome populations that are higher than the national av erages. As shown in Exhibit 22, the major source boilers are located in areas where minorities’ share ofthe population (33 percent) living within a threemile buffer is higher than the national average (25 percent). For these same areas, the percent of the population below the poverty line (16 percent) is also higher than the national average (13 percent). The percentages of the population in these areas which are under age 18 or over age 65 are generally the same as their national averages.

The CISWI units are also located in areas wher e the percent minority (29 percent) and percent below the poverty line (14 percent) are greater than the national averages, at 25 percent and 13 percent respectively (although we note that the latter value is only slightly above the national average). Therefore, to the extent that any minority, or low income subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by the current emissions as a result of the proximity of their homes to these sources, that subpopulation stands to see increased environmental and health benefits from the emissions reductions resulting from the two rules.38Exhibit 22 – Populations Within Three-Mile Proximity to Major Source Boilers and CISWI UnitsOverallpopulationWhite Minorities1AfricanAmericanNativeAmericanOther andmultiracialHispanic orLatino2Below thepoverty lineUnder age18Age 65 andOverPOPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS (13,434 units)36,868,952 24,828,553 12,040,399 7,296,123 207,441 4,536,835 4,682,8615,997,709 9,735,998 4,614,67267% 33% 20% 1% 12% 13% 16% 26% 13%POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OFCISWI INCINERATORS (176 units)2,095,561 1,480,539 615,022 346,191 21,128 247,703 273,943 295,197 569,708 260,92971% 29% 17% 1% 12% 13% 14% 27% 12%OVERALL NATIONAL POPULATION285,339,128 214,539,706 70,799,422 35,043,873 2,489,515 33,265,937 39,083,760 37,161,950 77,245,364 35,491,27475% 25% 12% 1% 12% 14% 13% 27% 12%Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.Information on the facilities is from U.S. EPA.1. The minority population is the overall population (in the first column) minus white population (in the second column). (Another way to calculate the samenumber is to add the fourth column -African American, the fifth column - Native American, and the sixth column – Other and Multiracial.) Ethnicity is notadded separately to this minority assessment.2. The Census Bureau defines “Hispanic or Latino” as an ethnicity rather than as a racial category, Hispanics or Latinos may belong to any race.39 5.2 Environmental Justice Impacts of the Proposed Rule for the Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste

EPA’s proposal would define the following non- hazardous secondary materials as not being a solid
waste:

• Material used as a fuel that remains within the c ontrol of the generator (whether at the site of generation or another site the generator has c ontrol over) that meets the legitimacy criteria;

• Material used as an ingredient in a manufactur ing process (whether by the generator or a third party) that meets the legitimacy criteria;

• Material that has been sufficien tly processed to produce a fuel or ingredient product that meets the legitimacy criteria; and

• Material that has been determined throu gh a case-by-case petition process to not have been discarded and to be indistinguishable in a ll relevant aspects from a fuel product.

All other non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned in a combustion unit would be considered solid wastes under RCRA and therefore would be requ ired to be managed in a unit regulated under section 129 of the CAA.

Facilities that currently burn secondary materials c onsidered to be solid waste under the proposed NHSM rule may continue to do so following the implem entation of the rule (and comply with the CAA section 129 requirements) or divert the material to disposal or another beneficial use. According to EPA’s assessment of affected units using the least cost method 19 , disposal is the most likely prospect for diverted secondary materials, but some specific secondary materials are more likely to be processed into a legitimate non-waste fuel or ingredient, or recycled for non-fuel applicati ons. The diversion of secondary materials away from combustion units will show benefits (i.e., improved air qua lity), but will not necessarily alleviate all the potential environmental justice concerns. As secondary materi als are diverted to disposal and processing facilities, activity at these facilities will increase ( e.g. , increased transportation to these sites), which may create environmental exposure 20 and nuisance concerns ( e.g. , odors, noise, and aesthetics).

To assess the potential environmental justice impact s of the proposed NHSM rule, EPA created the following assessment that is located in the docket for th e proposed rule: “Environmental Justice Analysis for Diversion and other Impacts from the Proposed Rule: Id entification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste” (referred to as the “Diversion Analysis”). This assessment includes a demographic analysis of the populations living with in one mile and three miles of non-hazardous waste sites (RCRA Subtitle D facilities) which have the potential to receive the dive rted secondary materials for disposal and processing. The three-mile demographic analysis is shown on Ex hibits 23 and 24. Using block group data from the 2000 Census, EPA estimated the population of minorities 21 (non-White) near each facility and the percentage of the

19 Under the least cost approach, the regulated entity is assume d to operate in an economically rational manner by managing the secondary material in the least costly method possible based on legal requirements.
20 The diversion of secondary materials to landfills and other facilities may not necessarily increase exposure to environmental contaminants.
21 Minority is defined in this assessment as racial minoritie s (non-whites) to be comparable with the calculation used for the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics (see Exhibit 22). This calculation of the minority population is the overall population minus white population. The minority designation used for the diversion assessment in Exhibit 23 shows a separate figure that includes ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino). According to the Census Bureau, “Hispanic or Latino” is an ethnicity rather than as a racial categor y, Hispanics or Latinos ma y belong to any race. The Census Bureau defines40 population near each facility that is below the poverty line. 22 The nationwide estimates for each facility type were then compared with the percent of the U.S. po pulation characterized as minority and as population below the poverty line (using data from the U.S. Census Bureau , 2000). EPA conducted this analysis nationally for the following categories of facilities 23 : landfills, demolition landfills, composting facilities, incinerators (municipal waste), materials recovery facilities, 24 transfer stations, and waste-to-energy plants.

Some of the secondary materials determined to be soli d waste that are not sent for disposal could be sent to a variety of recyclers or processors to develop a leg itimate fuel or a non-fuel recycled product. Due to the difficulty of obtaining demographi c data on all areas surrounding pro cessing and recycling facilities, the demographics for only one type of processor (scrap tire processors) are available at this time. Additional demographics on areas surrounding other processors, such as u sed oil processors, will be included in the final rule (if available). For tire processing facilities, 25 EPA randomly selected 73 of the 530 tire US processors 26 for analysis. Scrap tires can be processed for a variety of u ses, including tire-derived-fuel (which includes shredding the whole tires in small pieces and removing metal wire). Because these facilities are separate from the disposal diversion facilities and because our analysis did not captu re the populations living n ear all tire processors, we excluded these facilities from the tabulated results presented in Exhibit 2 of this document. While we do not have demographic information on the complete set of tire processors, we note that minorities make up 40 percent of the population living within three miles of these randomly-selected facilities, and note that 18 percent of the population living within three miles of these faciliti es is below the poverty line. Both of these percentages exceed the corresponding national averages.

Exhibit 23 summarizes the results of the national popu lation analysis for the three-mile buffer. The three-mile radius was selected to be consistent with th e demographic analysis for Major Boilers and CISWI units presented in the previous section. The Diversion Analysis , (a copy of which is in today’s public docket for the proposed NHSM rule), contains demographic information asso ciated with the one-mile buffer. As indicated in Exhibit 23, the results of the three-mile analysis suggest that populations living near facilities that may receive secondary materials diverted from affected com bustion units are located in areas where minority 27 and low-

“Hispanic or Latino" as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Fo r the 2000 Census, minorities included White Hispan ic or Latino, and pers ons belonging to all six “non-White alone” race categories, including person s of two or more races (i.e. multiracial persons).
22 EPA’s analysis of the 2000 Census block group data relied upon areal apportionment to assess the demographic characteristics of populations living near each facility. Under this approach, if x percent of a block group’s land area is within the one-mile (three-mile) buffer around a facility, we assumed that x percent of the block group’s population is also within the one-mile (three-mile) buffer.
23 The locations used for the demographics (for facilities iden tified in Exhibits 23 and 24) are from the “Waste Business Journal Directory & Atlas of Non-Hazardous Waste Sites 2008.”
24 Materials recovery facilities are facilities that sort and pr ocess collected mixed recyclables into individual streams for market. These are also known as intermed iate processing centers. About one-th ird (430) of these materials recovery facilities have combined operations with transfer stations. The facility counts and demographics at th e combined operations are not included in the transfer station demographics.
25 Under the proposal, whole scrap tires would be considered a solid waste and therefore, would likely be diverted to other facilities, including tire processing facilities. To the extent that the whole scrap tir es are sufficiently processed at such facilities, the tire-derived fuel will lik ely be used as a non-waste fuel.
26 Scrap Tire News, 2009 Scrap Tire and Rubber Users Directory , 2009. Note, the percentage selected for analysis (14%) may not be representative of the entire list of processors due to the limited sample. While this sample was randomly selected, EPA has not assessed whether the resulting sample is repr esentative of all 530 tire processors with regard to size and other features..
27 Note that the first minority percent in Exhibit 23 does not include ethnicity and the second one includes ethnicity; the Diversion Analysis contained in the public docket for the proposed rule includes full minority calculations that account for ethnicity.41 income populations are higher than the national average. The Exhibit also shows that minorities’ share of the population within a three-mile buffer is greater than the na tional average (25 percent) for all seven facility types, ranging from 26 percent for landfills to 38 percent for material recovery faciliti es. The percent of the population below the poverty line is greater than, or the same as th e national population average (13 percent), for all seven facility types, ranging from 13 percent for composti ng to 17 percent for waste-to-energy plants.

The Diversion Analysis document includes additional detail on the demographic analysis. This document includes additional summary discussion, race/ethni city analysis, minority levels, including ethnicity, additional demographics for potential diversion sites, a dditional information on the methodology, and discussion of other environmental justice impacts.42 Exhibit 23: Three-Mile Block Group Analysis Demographic Summary

FACILITY TYPE

(number assessed) POPULATION 1 MINORITIES PERCENT

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, 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 Ma jor Boiler and CISWI demographics (see Exhibit 22). The second number in parentheses includes ethnicity, it is calculated by subtracting the White race census results that are also not Hispan ic/Latino from the overall population.
3. Materials Recovery Facility; a facili ty that sorts and processes collected mixed recyclables into individual streams for market. Also known as an intermediate processing center. About one third (430) of these materials recovery 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). Recyclin g and some processing may also take place at transfer stations. This does not include the 430 transfer stations that have combined oper ations with materials recovery facilities.
5. Waste-to-Energy Plants are specially designed waste management facilities where waste is burned to create energy, which is captured for use in generating electricity.
6. The nation-wide estimates reflect the population and demographics of the entire U.S. to be used for comparison, not just those populations living within three miles of affected fa cilities. The national results are based on the Census data as listed in the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics table (see Exhibit 22).43 5.2.1 Demographics: Race and Ethnicity Analysis

Exhibit 24 shows the populations in the three-mile buffer zone around facilities by racial and ethnic category. 28 Races are distinguished only for those identifying with only one race. Those identifying as being of more than one race are included in the multi-race category. Consistent with the data in Exhibit 23, the values in Exhibit 24 were estimated by areal apportionment at the block group level. They include the population around each facility considered, but Exhibit 24 may double-count individuals in areas where two facility circles overlap, thus potentially over-representing indi viduals living near more than one facility of the same type.

The percentage of the population identified as African American is higher than the national average for all facility categories. For incinerators, the percentage is more than twice the national average, at 30 percent. This rises to 44 percent for the closer one-mile area. Ot her race, multi-racial, or Hispanic percentages are higher than national averages for six of the seven facility cate gories in Exhibit 24. The Diversion Analysis document includes the race and ethnicity analysis at the one -mile buffer, as well as comparisons between the two distributions.

The percentage identified as “American Indian or Al askan Native” is shown as one percent (the same as the national average) due to rounding, but all those popul ations are slightly lower than the national averages for all facility types.

28 Similar to Exhibit 23, Exhibit 24 excludes tire processors due to the fact that our analysis di d not capture the full universe of these facilities. Information on the demographics of popula tions living near tire processors is available in the Diversion Analysis on the docket.44 

### 5.3 Limitations of Demographic Analysis

While the data in Exhibits 22 through 24 provide u seful environmental justice information related to the proposed rules, we note the following limitations of the demographic analysis:

• Locational Uncertainty: The three-mile distance used in Exhibit 22 was measured from a point which was visually verified using aerial imagery to be within the fen ce line of each affected CISWI facility but which is not necessarily at the point of emissions release of the affected unit(s) at the facility. The accuracy of the Bo iler facility location in Exhibit 22 (over 1500 facilities) and the waste facility locations (over 8, 000) in Exhibit 23and 24 were not individually verified to be within the fence line using aerial imagery due to time and cost constraints.

• Exposure Change Uncertainty: We have not estimated the reduction in exposure to air pollution that will result from more stringent emission limitations on the CISWI and major boiler sources for which demographic information is presented in Exhibit 22. Proximity within three miles should be considered only a qualitativ e indicator for current exposures and future exposure reductions. Also, although minority a nd low-income populations near the facilities represented in Exhibits 23 and 24 are above th e national average, this does not necessarily indicate that the proposed rules will result in adverse environmental justice impacts. For example, if the diversion of secondary materials to landfills and other facilities does not increase exposure to environmental contaminants, the proposed rules will not cause adverse exposure impacts, although there may be some nuisance concerns due to the increased activity. Exhibit 24: Three-Mile Block Group Analysis Race Summary

FACILITY TYPE (number assessed) PERCENT WHITE PERCENT AFRICAN AMERICAN PERCENT AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE PERCENT OTHER RACE OR MULTI-RACIAL 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, 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%

See the Exhibit 23 for information on the data.45 • Causality or Temporal Effects: This analysis does not attempt to ascertain the direction of causality or temporal effects that may impact potential exposures. We do not attempt to assess whether the facility preceded certain populations or to assess factors that may affect facility or community siting (e.g., property values, jobs, transportation infrastructure).

• Non-resident Populations: The analyses summarized in Exhi bits 22 through 24 are based on the populations that live within three miles of each facility type. Howe ver, other populations, such as non-resident individuals who work near these facilities, may also benefit from reduced air pollution due to the more stringent emission limits on CISWI and boilers or, in the case of possible secondary material diversion, face increased exposure risk,.

• Geographic Overlap: For Exhibit 24, in areas where two facility circles overlap there is a potential for over-counting individuals living near more than one facility of the same type . (See the section on “Demographics: Race and Ethnici ty Analysis” for the full description.) In Exhibit 22, there is no overlap for CISWI or fo r boilers, although one person may be counted in the demographics for both CISWI and boilers if she lives within 3 miles of each type of source. The same applies for Exhibit 23, there is no overlap within each type of waste facilities, although one person may be counted in the demogr aphics for 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.

5.4 

### Other Potential Environmental Justi ce Impacts of the Proposed Rules

In addition to the potential environmental justi ce impacts associated with the diversion of secondary materials to disposal facilities or other processing operations, the proposed rules could possibly lead to several other environmental justi ce impacts. These include (1) potential slowdown in abatement of scrap tire stockpiles, (2) potential for increased accumulation of secondary materials in stockpiles, and (3) potential for dumping of used oil.

5.5 

### Conclusions

Based on the fact that the CISWI, area source bo iler, and major source boiler proposed rules do not allow for emission increases, EPA has determined that they will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any popul ations in the US, including minority, low-income, or Tribal populations. Moreover, because the populations in the vicinity of the affected sources are in the aggregate more minority and low income in composition, the beneficial effects from the major source boiler and CISWI rules will be larger for the average minority a nd low income American than for all Americans. Secondary materials determined to be solid waste that are not burned or sent for disposal could be sent to a variety of recyclers or processors. The results of our th ree-mile analysis suggests that populations living near facilities that may receive secondary materials diverted fro m affected combustion units appear to be located in areas where the percentages of minority and low-income populations are greater than the national average.46 6.0 OTHER EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS AND REGULATORY IMPACTS

In addition to the environmental justice impacts desc ribed in the previous section, EPA also examined several other equity considerations and regulatory con cerns for the proposed rules, as required by applicable statutes and executive orders. We summarize the Ag ency’s assessment of these impacts as follows:

• Regulatory planning and review (Executive Order 12866): Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the proposed air rules (the major source Boilers Rule, the area source Boilers Rule, and th e CISWI Rule) are economically significant regulatory actions because each is projected to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. In addition, the proposed NHSM rule is also a “significant regulatory action” because it contains novel policy issues, as defined under part 3(f)(4) of the Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted all four actions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the dockets for these actions.

• Paperwork reduction act: The information collection require ments in these proposed rules have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Requ est (ICR) documents have been prepared.

• Regulatory flexibility (Regulatory Flexibilit y Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act): Using a screening analysis, EPA has determined that the proposed CISWI Rule and the propo sed NHSM Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA cannot certify that the proposed area source Boilers Rule and the propo sed major source Boilers Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, for these two proposed rules, EPA has prepared Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses.

• Unfunded mandates (Unfunded Mandates Reform Act): The proposed major source Boilers Rule, the area source Boilers Rule and the proposed CISWI Rule each contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared written statem ents which are summarized in the relevant rule preambles. The proposed NHSM rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 204 and 205 of UMRA because it contains no fede ral mandates and is not expected to result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.

• Federalism (Executive Order 13132): The proposed area source Boilers Rule may have federalism implications because it may impose substantial direct compliance costs (approximately $416 million in annually) on an estimated 57,000 State or local governments, and the Federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a fe deralism summary impact statement which can be found in the preamble.

• Tribal governments (Executive Order 13175): EPA has concluded that the proposed air rules (the proposed major source Boilers Rule , the proposed area source Boilers Rule, and the CISWI Rule) will not have tribal implications. EPA has also concluded that the47 proposed NHSM Rule may have tribal impli cations. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. The proposed NHSM rule may have minor tribal implications to the extent that entities generating or burning solid wastes on tribal lands could be affected.

• Children's health protection (Executive Order 13045): The proposed rules are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the Ag ency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by th ese actions present a disproportionate risk to children.

• Energy impacts (Executive Order 13211): The proposed rules are not “significant energy actions” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because each of them is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We note, however, that the propo sed air rules will likely lead to increased electricity consumption for the operation of ai r pollution control devices. This increase in consumption would be minimal relative to electricity use nationwide.

• National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The three air rules (the proposed major source Boilers Rule, the proposed area source Boilers Rule, and the CISWI Rule) involve technical standards. EPA conducte d searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to the EPA methods propo sed in the rulemakings. For some of the EPA methods, EPA did not identify any applicable voluntary consensus standards. The search and review results have been docum ented and are placed in the docket for each proposed rule. Additional voluntary consensu s standards were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the purpo ses of the proposed air rules and are described in the relevant preambles. The proposed NHSM Rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards for this proposed rule.48 

## REFERENCES

Berman, E. and L. T. M. Bui. 2001. Environmenta l regulation and labor demand: Evidence from the south coast air basin. Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295.

Cole, M. A. and R. J. Elliott. 2007. Do environmental regulations cost jobs? An industry-level analysis of the UK. B E Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 7(1) (Topics), Article 28.

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The infl uence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual Atmos Health (2009) 2: 169-176.

Greenstone, M. 2002. “The Impacts of Environmenta l Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendmen ts and the Census of Manufactures.” Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175-1219.

Henderson, J. V. 1996. “Effects of Air Quality Regulation.” American Economic Review 86(4): 789- 813.

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. “Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 173:667-672.

Morgenstern, R. D., W. A. Pizer, and J. S. Sh ih. 2002. “Jobs versus the Environment: An IndustryLevel Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43(3): 412-436.

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and L ong-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the Americ an Medical Association 287: 1132-1141.

Roman, H.A., K.D. Walker , T.L. Walsh, L. Conner, H.M. Richmond, .J. Hubbell, and P.L. Kinney. 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the Morta lity Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.” Environ. Sci. Technol . 42(7): 2268-2274.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses . EPA 240-R-00-003. Washington, DC: EPA. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/ epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidel ines.html. Accessed August 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant s from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. April. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regda ta/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf >.49 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the NO 2 

### National Ambient Air Q uality Standards (NAAQS) . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 1999. OAQPS Economic Analysis Resource Document

.