Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts for the Non-Hazardous Secondary Material (NHSM) Rule, the 2010 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Standards, the 2010 Major Source Boiler NESHAP,

and the 2010 Area Source Boiler NESHAP

Prepared for

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

January 20111 SYNOPSIS This document summarizes the environmental justic e (EJ) impacts of the following rules: (1) the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sour ces and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (C ISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule); (2) the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area source Boilers Rule); (3) the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutiona l Boilers and Process Heaters (the major source Boilers Rule); and (4) the Identification of Non-hazar dous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (the NHSM rule). Presenting the EJ impacts of each of these rules individually would be complicated, and could be misleading by the fact that the four rul es are interdependent. For example, the emissions

standards included in the three air rules are conti ngent on which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered solid waste, and changes in the way that combustion units manage non-hazardous secondary materials will depend on the costs of the various em issions standards. Thus, this document provides a

combined EJ assessment for all four rules.

EJ impacts that may result from the four rul es are likely to be related to the following:

• Emissions from regulated combustion units

• Emissions from the diversion of non-hazardous secondary materials from their current fuel or ingredient use applications to di sposal or other beneficial uses.

• Other impacts related to material diversion (e.g., noise, aesthetics, water pollution, etc.)

In addition, whether the rules result in adverse and disproportionate impacts to low-income and minority populations will depend on the demographic char acteristics of areas e xperiencing changes in
environmental effects.

Based on our assessment of the emissions changes and other environmental impacts of the rules and the demographics of populations near affected combustio n units and waste management facilities, our main conclusions with respect to the EJ impacts of the rules are as follows:

• Emissions changes from affected combustio n units are unlikely to lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts for low- income and minority populations: Because emissions from facilities burning non-hazardous secondary materials will decline as a result of the rules, populations near these facilities will likely experience positive impacts (e.g.,
reduced incidence of adverse health effect s). The demographic data for the Census
blocks near these facilities 1 suggest that low-income and minority populations are higher than the national average in th ese areas in proportional terms.

• Increases in emissions associated with the diversion of non-hazardous secondary materials away from their current fuel or in gredient uses are mini mal compared to the emissions reductions resulting from the rul es. Thus, in net terms, the emissions impacts of the rules are unlikely to lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts for low-income and minority populations: The diversion of non-hazardous secondary materials from their current fuel and ingredie nt applications to disposal may lead to

1 Our demographics assessment only looked at major sources boilers and incinerators. We did not assess area source

boilers.2 emissions increases (e.g., from the production of virgin fuels or ingredients), but these
increases are minimal relative to the reduc tions achieved due to the Boiler MACT and CISWI controls. Therefore, low-income and minority populations are expected to
benefit from the overall emissions re ductions expected under the rules.

• Low-income and minority populations locate d near waste management facilities (not including boilers) are disproportionately high relative to the national average: Our analysis of the demographic characteristics of populations within three miles of these facilities suggests that they are located in areas with high minority and low-income populations. To the extent that non-hazardous secondary materials are defined as solid wastes, those materials that are currently burned in combustion units as either a fuel or ingredient may no longer be burned in such units, but may be sent to waste management facilities for disposal or recycling. Therefore, to the extent that such material diversion leads to adverse environmental impacts at these facilities, which is uncertain and will vary by material and facility type, low- income and minority populations could be disproportionately impacted. 2

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to summarize the e nvironmental justice (EJ) impacts of the following rules: (1) the Standards of Performance for New St ationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing
Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Inci neration (CISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule); (2) the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Polluta nts for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area source Boilers Rule); (3) the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutiona l Boilers and Process Heaters (the major source Boilers Rule); and (4) the Identification of Non-hazar dous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (the NHSM rule). Because the emissions standards estab lished for the CISWI Rule, the area source Boilers Rule, and the major source Boilers Rule are based, in part, on which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered solid wastes under the NHSM rule, pr esenting the EJ impacts of each of these rules individually would be complicated and could be misleading. Similarly, changes in the management practices of non-hazardous secondary materials under the NHSM rule (and the corresponding EJ impacts) depend on the emissions control costs that the affect ed units would incur if they decide to burn nonhazardous secondary materials considered to be solid wastes (i.e., facilities may change their management of waste materials to avoid the costs of complying with the Section 129 CISWI standards). Due to this interdependence among the air and NHSM rules, this document provides a combined EJ assessment for

the four rules.

We summarize the potential EJ impacts of the four rules in the following sections:

• Environmental justice impacts of emissions changes from regulated entities : This section summarizes the EJ impacts in the context of the emissions reductions achieved as a result of
the Boiler MACT and CISWI emission controls.

2 We note that identifying non-hazardous secondary materials as non-wastes does not imply that they will not be managed in non-EJ communities. However, it is likely that identifying them as solid wastes will likely divert many of them to waste management facilities, which are ofte n located in communities where minorities and low-income populations are more prevalent in proportional terms than the national average.3 • Emissions-related environmental justice a ssessment accounting for material diversion: Expanding upon the assessment of EJ impacts related to the Boiler MACT and CISWI emission controls, this section presents an analys is of the net emissions impacts of the rules that accounts for emissions associated with the diversion of non-hazardous secondary materials from their current fuel or ingredient uses.

• Other environmental justice impacts from material diversion: The diversion of nonhazardous secondary materials may lead to other EJ impacts unrelated to emissions. This section presents a demographic analysis of popul ations near disposal and recycling facilities and describes the potential EJ impacts fo r selected non-hazardous secondary materials.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS OF EMISSIONS CHANGES AT REGULATED UNITS
The three air rules and the NHSM rule will lead to changes in the emissions of both criteria pollutants (e.g., NO
x and SO 2 ) and various hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from regulated combustion units. Whether these changes result in disp roportionately high and adverse impacts for minority and/or lowincome populations depends on several factors, incl uding (1) whether emissions increase or decrease as a result of the rules and (2) whether low-income and/or minority populations are disproportionately high in areas experiencing or affected by changes in the em issions. We address both of these issues below.

The CISWI Rule, the area source Boilers Rule, and the major source Boilers Rule establish national

emission standards for affected sources. EPA estimat es that approximately 138 commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators will be regulated under the CISWI Rule; approximately 13,840 industrial, commercial, and institutional boile rs and process heaters will be covered by the major source Boilers Rule; and approximately 189,000 sources will be regulated under the area source Boilers Rule.

The three air rules will result in substantial emissi ons reductions of the regulated criteria and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Specifically, the CISWI Rule will reduce emissions of nine pollutants, which include particulate matter (PM); metals, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dib enzofurans (dioxin, furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NO

x ); and acid gases, including hydrogen ch loride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). The major source Boilers Rule will reduce emissions of ac id gases, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, mercury, lead, cadmium, other non-mercury metals, organics, and chlorinated dioxin/furans,
while the area source Boilers Rule will reduce emissions of mercury, non-mercury metals, and organics. Exposure to these HAP, depending on exposure duration a nd levels of exposure, can be associated with a variety of adverse 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, These rules will also result in substantial reductions of criteria pollutant emissions, such as carbon monoxide , nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Reducing these emissions w ill subsequently reduce ozone and PM 2.5 formation in the atmosphere and their associated health effects, su ch as adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma, and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

To assess the environmental justice impacts of th e CISWI Rule and major source Boilers Rule, EPA reviewed the distributions of different socio-demogr aphic groups that might be impacted by the sources affected by each of the two rules. The review fo cused on those census blocks within three miles of affected sources and determined the demographic composition ( e.g. , race, income, etc.) of these census4 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 drinking water or diet.

On the other hand, because of the extremely large nu mber 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 sourc es. However, EPA believes that because of the extremely large number of area source boilers affected by the rule, it is likely that most of the U.S. population lives within three miles of at least one of these sources. Therefore, while it is not possible to assess by how much more or less one population group or community would benefit from emission
reductions from area source boilers than anothe r population group or community, most people and
communities will benefit from these reductions.

The analysis for the CISWI Rule and the major source Boilers Rule was performed by first identifying all the census blocks within three miles of any affected source. Three miles (or 5 kilometers, which is about the same) has been used often in other demogr aphic analyses focused on areas around industrial sources. 3
Also, as stated in the Preambles to the final CAA rules 4 , beyond three miles the air emission influence of an individual source is generally c onsidered to be small, both in ab solute terms and relative to the influence of other sources (assuming there are other sources in the area, as is typical 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 popul ation based on land area included within the threemile buffer (circle), as was done in the analysis of the demographics around landfills and other alternate disposal and recycling locations that was based on the larger census block groups (see Section III below). 5
The population of each census block within three m iles of a source was successively divided into subgroups (e.g., first by race, then by Hispanic stat us, then by age group). After each division, persons
were counted and summed across blocks to obtain population numbers for the area around each source.

Based on the fact that the three rules do not allow fo r emission increases, EPA has determined that they will not result in disproportionately high and adve rse human health or environmental effects on any populations in the US, including minority, low-income , 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. (See the final rule for the specific

3 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..

4 CICWI Rule and Major Source Boilers Rule.

5 The use of two different approaches has stemmed from time requirements and the rulemaking schedule, not any

fundamental technical basis.5 reductions for the criteria pollutants and HAP.) Exhib it 1 summarizes the results of the analysis for the three-mile buffer around the major source boilers and CISWI units. The results suggest that populations living near these facilities are located in areas with minority and low-income populations that are higher than the national averages in proportional terms. As shown in Exhibit 1, the major source boilers are located in areas where the minorities’ share of the pop ulation (33 percent) living within a three-mile buffer is higher than the national average (25 pe rcent). 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 where 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 subpopulatio n 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.6EXHIBIT 1 – POPULATIONS WITHIN THREE MILE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS AND CISWI UNITSOVERALLPOPULATION1WHITEMINORITY2AFRICANAMER.NATIVEAMER.OTHER ANDMULTIRACIALHISPANICBELOW THEPOVERTY LINEUNDER AGE18AGE 65 ANDOVERPOPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS36,868,952 24,828,553 12,040,399 7,296,123 207,441 4,536,835 4,682,861 5,997,709 9,735,998 4,614,67267% 33% 20% 1% 12% 13% 16% 26% 13%POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF CISWI UNITS2,095,561 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%1.Total population in Census Tracts.2.Overall population minus white population, does not include white Hispanic population.7 A detailed environmental justice asse ssment for populations located near new boiler and CISWI units was not possible given that the location of such units is uncertain. EPA projects, however, that emissions from new sources will decline under the major sour ce Boiler MACT, area source Boiler MACT, and CISWI standards. Based on these reductions, we do not expect the final rules to result in adverse and disproportionate impacts for low-income and minority populations located near new sources. Given that the new source standards are likely to lead to emis sions reductions, low-income and minority populations are likely to benefit from the standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND EMISSIONS FROM MATERIAL DIVERSION As described above, because the rules are projected to result in substantial emissions reductions of criteria pollutants and HAPs from regulated combustion units, low-income and minority populations will realize
human health and other benefits as a result of the rules. A more expansive analysis of EJ impacts related to air emissions, however, would also account for changes in emissions associated with material diversion likely to result from the rules. EPA estimates that units using non-hazardous secondary materials for less than 25 percent of their total burn time 6 are likely to divert their non-hazardous secondary materials todisposal or recycling as a result of the rules. As indicated in Exhibit 2, approximately 28,700 tons of nonhazardous secondary materials accounting for 411,260 MMB tu are likely to be diverted from their current fuel applications. The potential emissions impacts asso ciated with the diversion of this material include the following:

EXHIBIT 2. QUANTITIES OF MATERIALS DIVERTED FROM UNITS THAT BURN

SECONDARY MATERIALS LESS THAN 25 PERCENT OF TOTAL BURN TIME IN THE

BASELINE

MATERIALS DIVERTED MATERIALS CATEGORY TOTAL MILLIONS BTU

DIVERTED PER YEAR TOTAL SHORT TONS

DIVERTED PER YEAR

Animal Fat/Oils/Tallow Biomass—Food Scraps 92,158 9,505
Contraband Miscellaneous 1,374 137 Industrial Sludge Miscellaneous 17,664 1,766 Plastics Scrap Plastic 30 1

Process Co-product Solid Purification Process Byproducts 3,600 360

Refuse Miscellaneous 1,000 100

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.

6 Estimate derived from EPA Office of Air memo/databas e: “Final CISWI Database.” (see docket for the final CISWI Rule).8 • Upstream emissions from production of virgin fuel: Combustion units that divert nonhazardous secondary materials away from their current fuel applications will require virgin fuel to replace the thermal value lost from the diverted material. The extraction, processing, and transportation of this fuel to end users will result in criteria pollutant and HAP emissions, partially offsetting the reduc tions associated with the Boiler MACT and
CISWI controls.

• Transportation of secondary materials: Diverted non-hazardous secondary materials will need to be transported to disposal or recycling facilities. The shipment of this material via road, rail, or waterway will also result in emissions.

• Production of Containers for Diverted Sludge: As indicated in Exhibit 2, EPA projects that approximately 1,800 tons of industrial sludge will be diverted from its current use as

a fuel under the rules. To accumulate this material for off-site shipment, facilities will need to obtain large containers for temporar ily storing this sludge. The production of these containers will lead to emissions of both criteria pollutants and HAP.

• Emissions from Alternative Management: If non-hazardous secondary materials are diverted to disposal or recycling facilities as a result of the NHSM rule, emissions from disposal and/or recycling processes will par tially off-set the reductions achieved by the
Boiler MACT and CISWI controls.

• Combustion emissions : Replacing non-hazardous secondary materials with virgin fuels may affect emissions from boiler and CISWI units, depending on the emissions profiles of individual non-hazardous secondary materials and virgin fuels. It is not clear whether this effect is captured in the regulatory im pact analyses (RIAs) for the Boiler MACT and
CISWI rules.

To broaden the scope of the above EJ assessment that focuses on the emissions reductions from Boiler MACT and CISWI units, we conducted an analysis of the net emissions impact of the final rules that accounts for the effects outlined above, as well as th e emissions reductions associated with the BoilerMACT and CISWI controls. Exhibit 3 summarizes our approach for estimating each of the diversionrelated emission impacts outlined above.9EXHIBIT 3. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS FROM DIVERSION OF SECONDARY MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINALRULESDIVERSION-RELATEDEMISSIONS IMPACTMETHODOLOGYUpstream emissions fromproduction of virgin fuels•To assess upstream emissions impacts associated with diverted materials, we first identify the virgin fuels mostlikely to replace each non-hazardous secondary material. The combustion unit databases developed by EPA for theBoiler MACT and CISWI rules indicate the virgin fuel usedby units expected to diverttheir non-hazardous secondarymaterial. For units where the virgin fuel was not indicatedin the combustion unit databases, we assumed that coalwould be used as the substitute fuel. Based on this approach, we estimate that 319,089 MMBtu will be replaced bycoal and that the remaining 92,171 MMBtu will be replaced by natural gas.•We obtained estimates of upstream emissions for coal and natural gas from the SimaPro lifecycle assessmentsoftware. For both coal and natural gas, we used the Franklin U.S. (1998) upstream emissions estimates inSimaPro. The coal emissions values were expressed asemissions per 1,000 pounds of coal produced, whereas thenatural gas values represented emissions per thousand cubic feet of gas.•To estimate total upstreamemissions, we scaled the coal and naturalgas emissions values from SimaPro by theestimated quantities of each fuel used as a replacement for the diverted non-hazardous secondary materials.Transportation ofsecondary materials•The available data for the non-hazardous secondary materials expected to bediverted suggest that transportationemissions are likely to be minimal. Therefore, we do not quantify these emissions as part of this analysis. Of the411,260 MMBtu of non-hazardous secondary material expected to be diverted, approximately 392,500 is generatedoff-site (i.e., at a locationother than where it is currently combusted). Thus, the emissions associated withtransporting the non-hazardous secondary material to a disposal or recycling facility would be off-set by thereduction in emissions from avoiding transportation to combustion facilities. We assume this is a one-to-one offset.The remaining 18,800 MMBtu of diverted non-hazardous secondary material generated and burned on-siterepresents less than 5 percent of the non-hazardous secondary material diverted; the transportation emissions forthis small amount are likely to be minimal relative to the other emissions impacts examined in this document.Production of containersfor industrial sludge•We assume that diverted industrial sludge (that is generated and burned on-site in the baseline) will be stored insteel vacuum roll-off boxes prior to off-site shipment. Based on specifications published by the Baker Corporation,we assume these containers have a 25 cubic yardcapacity and weigh approximately 11,300 pounds.•Lifecycle emissions data for vacuum boxes were not available from SimaPro. We, therefore, developed estimatesbased on the Ecoinvent 2.0 emissions data for steel contained in SimaPro and the assumed mass of each container(11,300 pounds). To estimate the number of containers necessary, we assume that industrial sludge has the samedensity as water (1 kg/liter) and thateach container would be emptied once a month. Based on this approach, weestimate that seven containers would benecessary to store industrial sludge prior to disposal. For purposes of thisanalysis, we assume that these seven containers are produced on an annual basis (i.e., each container has a oneyear lifespan). In practice, however, vacuum boxes may havea lifespan of several years, in which case this analysis10EXHIBIT 3. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS FROM DIVERSION OF SECONDARY MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINALRULESDIVERSION-RELATEDEMISSIONS IMPACTMETHODOLOGYwould overestimate the emissions associated with these containers.Emissions from alternativemanagement•Emissions associated with alternative management depend on whether the diverted non-hazardous secondarymaterials are disposed or recycled. For purposes of this analysis, we assumedisposal for all diverted material.•Of the diverted non-hazardous secondary material types listed in Exhibit 2, weassume that diverted used oil will bemanaged through incineration. To estimate emissions associated with incinerating used oil, we rely upon used oilemissions data from EPA (1995) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (1996) contained inSimaPro. We then scaled these emissions per MMBtu valuesto the quantity of used oil expected to be divertedunder the final rules.•Criteria pollutant and HAP emissions associated with all other disposal methods (e.g., landfilling) are likely to beminimal relative to the other emissions impacts examined in this analysis.Combustion emissions –changes in emissions atregulated units associatedwith transitioning tovirgin fuels•The diversion of non-hazardous secondary materials from combustion units maylead to emissions changes at theseunits, as the emissions profile of the non-hazardous secondary materials may differ from that of the virgin fuelsused as substitutes.•We estimate this effect only for those non-hazardous secondary materialsfor which we were able to obtainemissions information. These include treated wood, used oil, refuse, plastics, and contraband. The data we usedto estimate emissions associated with the combustion of these materials are as follows:oTreated Wood:Franklin US (1998) data in SimaPro; emissions expressed per 1,000 pounds of wood.oUsed Oil: Emissions data from EPA (1995) and the Colorado Department of Public Health andEnvironment (1996) contained in SimaPro.oRefuse: Ecoinvent 2.0 record from SimaPro for “disposal, municipal solid waste, mixture, 22.9%water, to municipal incineration.”Emissions were given for 1 kg of refuse, which we scaled for thisanalysis.oPlastics: Ecoinvent 2.0 record from SimaPro for “disposal, plastics, mixture, 15.3% water, tomunicipal incineration.” Emissions were given for 1 kg of plastics, which we scaled for this analysis.oContraband: The OAQPS combustion unit database describes the contraband expected to be divertedas “prohibited goods, retired flags.” Based on this description, we use emissions associated with thecombustion of textiles to estimate emissions for contraband. Textile emissions information obtainedfrom the Ecoinvent 2.0 record in SimaPro for “disposal, textiles, soiled, 25% water, to municipalincineration.” Emissions were given for 1 kg of textiles, which we scaled for the purposes of thisanalysis.•We estimate emissions from the combustion of coal and natural gas used as substitutes for non-hazardoussecondary materials based on the Franklin (1998) emissions data in SimaPro.11 After estimating each of the diversion-related emissions impacts separately, we estimate the net emissions
reductions as follows:

(1) N = G- V U

–S –A ± C

Where N = Net emissions reduction

G

= Gross emissions reduction estimated by EPA for the final Boiler MACT and CISWI rules, without consideration of emissions associated with material diversion.

V

U = Upstream emissions increase associated with the extraction, processing, and transportation of virgin fuels used as substitutes for diverted non-hazardous secondary

materials.

S = Emissions increase associated with producin g containers necessary to store industrial sludge diverted to disposal as a result of the final rule.

A= Emissions increase associated with alternative management (e.g., disposal or recycling) of the diverted non-hazardous secondary materials.

C = Change in combustion emissions (at bo iler units and CISWIs) associated with combusting virgin fuels instead of non-hazardous secondary materials. This may be an increase or a reduction, depending on the emis sions profiles of individual non-hazardous secondary materials and virgin fuels.

Exhibit 4 presents the estimated net emissions impa ct of the final rules based on the methods outlined above. As indicated in the exhibit, the estimat ed emissions impacts associated with non-hazardous secondary material diversion are minimal relative to the emissions reductions achieved due to the Boiler MACT and CISWI air pollution controls. In percentage terms, diversion-related emissions are highest for

SO 2 , at 5 percent of the SO 2 emissions reductions estimated in the ai r rule RIAs. For all other pollutants analyzed, the emissions from diversion represent less than 1.5 percent of the estimated emissions
reductions for the final Boiler MACT and CISWI rules. Given that the emissions reductions from Boiler MACT and CISWI controls far outweigh the increased emissions associated with non-hazardous secondary material diversion, the net result is a significant reduction in emissions across all pollutants analyzed.

We note that estimates of combustion emissions were not readily available for animal fat, industrial sludge, process co-product solids, and used solven ts. However, these non-hazardous secondary materials account for just one-quarter of the MMBtu diverted. Because we lack estimates of combustion emissions for these materials, we did not include the emissions from the combustion of their virgin fuel substitutes in our analysis. However, because the analysis shows that the emissions reductions from the Boiler MACT and CISWI controls far outweigh the incr ease in emissions associated with non-hazardous secondary material diversion, we believe not includin g these materials in the analysis does not change the
overall result.12EXHIBIT 4. NET EMISSIONS IMPACT – SCENARIO 1 (BOILER MACT AND CISWI RIAs DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR FUEL SUBSTITUTION)(TONS PER YEAR)NOXSO2COVOCPMHCLHGNONMERCURYMETALS1DIOXINS/FURANSEmissions reductions associatedwith the Boiler MACT Rules andthe CISWI Rule5,5445,17024,8197,17751,725 30,1381.62,9871.00x10-4CISWI5,544 5,170 24,819 0 1,672 468 0.1 5 1.00x10-4Boiler MACT: Area Source0 0 0 0 2,533 0 0.1 322 0Boiler MACT: Major Source0 0 0 7,177 47,520 29,670 1.4 2,660 0Upstream emissions fromsubstitution to virgin fuels(8.65)(91.42)(12.86)(24.92)(36.64) (0.02)(1.54x10-5)(1.26x10-3)(2.06x10-11)Emissions from production ofcontainers for diverted industrialsludge(0.17)(0.00)(0.92)(0.03)(0.31) (0.004)(3.68x10-5)(1.75x10-3)(2.66x10-10)Emissions from disposal ofdiverted material (used oilincineration)(2.98)(23.03)(0.77)0.00(9.72) 0.000.00(4.91x10-2)0.00Changes in Emissions fromCombustion of Virgin Fuels andSecondary Materials(66.06)(191.69)97.77(0.88)2.940.00(3.1 x 10-4)7.5x10-20Emissions from burning ofvirgin fuel(71.80) (215.39) (10.10) (0.88) (8.11) 0.00(3.1 x 10-4) (9.4x10-2) 0Avoided emissions from notcombusting non-hazardoussecondary material5.74 23.70 107.88 0.00 11.05 0.00 (4.71x10-11) 1.69 x 10-10NET EMISSIONS REDUCTION5,4664,86424,9027,15151,68130,1381.62,9871.00E-041.Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium.2.Values in parentheses are negative.13 The results presented in Exhibit 4 strongly suggest that the rules will not result in adverse and disproportionate impacts for low-income and minority populations. Due to the net reduction in emissions resulting from the final rules, the population as a whole is likely to realize substantial human health and
other benefits. While non-hazardous secondary material diversion may result in increased emissions from virgin fuel production and other activities, the emi ssions reductions overall at Boiler MACT and CISWI units represent the most significant changes in emissi ons resulting from the final rules. As indicated in Exhibit 1, low-income and minority populations near these facilities are higher than the national average, in proportional terms. Therefore, even if low-in come and minority populations are disproportionately high near facilities where emissions increase due to non-hazardous secondary material diversion, the overall emissions impact in low-income and minority areas will be a reduction in emissions.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS NEAR FACILITIES RECEIVING DIVERTED MATERIAL EPA’s final NHSM rule 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 7 ;

• Material used as an ingredient in a manufacturing process (whether by the generator or outside the control of the generator) that meets the legitimacy criteria;

• Discarded material is sufficiently processed to pro duce legitimate 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 non-hazardous secondary ma terials considered to be solid wastes under the NHSM rule may continue to do so following the impl ementation of the rule (and incur costs to comply with the CAA section 129 requirements) or divert th e non-hazardous secondary material to disposal or
another beneficial use. The diversion of non-hazar dous secondary materials away from combustion units will increase activity at disposal and processing/recyc ling facilities (e.g., increased transportation to these sites), which may create environmental exposure a nd nuisance concerns. These impacts may include the following:

• Air emissions (quantified in Exhibit 4 above),

• Odors,

7 As noted in the final rule, EPA has de termined that some non-hazardous seco ndary materials burned as a fuel are not solid wastes when combusted even if burned in units not within the control of the generator. Specifically, scrap tires removed from vehicles and collected and managed under the oversight of established tire collection programs

and resinated wood residuals are not cons idered to be discarded and are therefor e not considered to be solid wastes

under the final rule even if burned in units not within the control of the generator.14 • Potential surface water and groundwater cont amination from land disposal or processing operations,

• Noise pollution,

• Increased maintenance costs for local infrastructure (e.g., roads), and

• Aesthetics

To assess the potential EJ impacts for populations locate d near facilities receiving diverted non-hazardous secondary materials, we examined the demographic characteristics of populations living within three miles of these sites (RCRA Subtitle D facilities). Using block group data from the 2000 Census, we estimated the population of minorities (non-White) near each facility and the percentage of the population near each facility that is below the poverty line. The nationwide estimates for each facility type were then compared with the percent of the U.S. population characterized as minority and as below the poverty line (using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). We conducted this analysis nationally for landfills, demolition landfills, composting facilities, incinerators (municipal waste), material recovery facilities, transfer stations, and waste-to-energy plants.

As indicated in Exhibit 5, the results of the analysis suggest that populations living near facilities that may receive non-hazardous secondary materials diverted fro m affected combustion units are located in areas where minority 8 and low-income populations are disproportionate ly high relative to the national average.
The Exhibit also shows that the minorities’ share of the population within a three-mile buffer is greater than the national average (25 percen t) for all seven facility types, ranging from 26 percent for landfills to 38 percent for material recovery facilities. The percen t of the population below the poverty line is greater than, or the same as, the national population average (13 percent) for all seven facility types, ranging from 13 percent for composting to 17 percent for waste-to-ene rgy plants. Therefore, to the extent that the nonhazardous secondary materials are diverted from combusti on units as either a fuel or ingredient, it could lead to adverse environmental impacts at these facilities, which is uncertain and will vary by material and facility type, and low-income and minority popula tions could be dispropor tionately impacted.

8 Note that the first minority percent in Exhibit 5 does not include ethnicity and the second one includes ethnicity. EXHIBIT 5. THREE-MILE BLOCK GROUP ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY15 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 No n-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 mi norities (non-Whites). 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 facility that sorts and processes colle cted mixed recyclables into individual streams for market. Also known as an intermediate processing center. About one third (430) of these materials recovery facili ties have combined operations with transfer stations. Those combined operations are not included in the transfer station demographics.

4. Transfer Stations sites at which so lid wastes are concentrated for tran sport to a processing facility or disposal site (i.e., landfill). Recycling and some processi ng may also take place at transfer stations. This does not include the 430 transfer stations that have combined operations with materials recovery facilities.

5. Waste-to-Energy Plants are specially designed waste management facilities where waste is burned to create energy, which is captured for use in generating electricity.
6. The nation-wide estimates reflect the population and demographics of the entire U.S. to be used for comparison, not just those populations living within three miles of affected fa cilities. The national results are based on the Census data as listed in the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics table (see Exhibit 1).16POTENTIAL DIVERSION-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS FOR SELECT NONHAZARDOUS SECONDARY MATERIALS

The EJ impacts associated with a given material under the final NHSM rule will depend significantly on whether a given material (or sub-categories of material – e.g., whole scrap tires) is considered a solid waste under the NHSM rule. In this section, we discuss th e potential EJ implications of the final rule for certain non-hazardous secondary materials.

Scrap Tires Under the final rule, scrap tires are considered a non-wast e fuel when used under the following scenarios:

1) Scrap tires removed from vehicles and collected and managed under the ove rsight of established tire collection programs and legitimately used as a fuel. 9

2) Scrap tires that undergo a sufficient level of pro cessing, when used as a legitimate fuel in a combustion unit, independent of whether th ey have been previously discarded.

All other scrap tires are considered a waste when co mbusted, unless a non-waste determination petition is granted to the person burning the tires.

Under this framework, EPA expects that most ne wly generated scrap tires would qualify as a non-waste legitimate fuel. Whole tires from scrap tire piles that are currently burned without processing, however,
would be considered a solid waste under the rule. This could result in a slowdown in the abatement of tire stockpiles, poten tially exposing local populations to increased risk from scrap tire fires (e.g., emissions-related risk and risk of property damage) and increased exposure to disease vectors (i.e., rodents and mosquitos). To the ex tent that scrap tire piles are located in areas with disproportionately high minority and/or low-income populations, a slowdown in the abatement of these stockpiles could lead to adverse EJ impacts. A quantitative assessment of these potential impacts would require comprehensive data on the location of scrap tire stockpiles, but such data are not readily available.

We also note that the final rule will likely result in significantly less diversion of whole scrap tires away from cement kilns (to disposal facilities) than the pr oposed rule. Under the proposed rule, whole scrap
tires were considered to be a solid waste when bur ned as a fuel, whereas whole scrap tires collected and managed under the oversight of an established coll ection program are not solid wastes under the final rule. Because cement kilns are the largest consumer s of whole scrap tires as fuel, more cement kilns are likely to continue burning whole scrap tires under the fi nal rule than they would have under the proposed rule, thus reducing the land disposal of scrap tires rela tive to the proposed rule. Th is implies that the final rule results in EJ benefits relative to the proposed rule, given that low-income and minority populations

9 These tires do not need processing (as described in §241.3(b)(4)), in order to be considered non-waste since they were not "discarded in the first place.” Since these tires were “not discarded in the first place,” boilers and cement
kilns can use them as non-waste fuel as whole tires, shre dded, or fully processed TDF at their discretion (provided they meet the legitimacy criteria).17 near waste disposal sites tend to be disproportionately high (see Exhibit 6) and, based on data provided in comments on the proposed rule, cement kilns are typi cally located in areas with fewer minorities and less
poverty. 10

Used Oil Under the NHSM rule, used oil that meets the contam inant specifications in the 40 CFR Part 279 used oil regulations (i.e., on-spec used oil) is considered an alternative “traditional” fuel and thus, not a solid waste. Off-spec used oil, on the other hand, is consid ered a solid waste, even if burned within the control of the generator unless it is pro cessed into on-spec used oil.

Although off-spec used oil is considered a solid w aste under the final rule, EPA does not expect that significant quantities of used oil will be diverted away from its current fuel use applications. As indicated in the used oil materials characterization paper develo ped in support of the final rule, only a small fraction (4 to 20 percent) of used oil is generated as off-spec. 11 With the exception of used oil burned on-site by small generator-burners (burners w ith capacity below 10 MMBtu per hour), most of this off-spec used oil is likely collected and resold by used oil processing facilities. U nder the final rule, these processing facilities can continue to collect off-spec used oil an d blend it with readily available on-spec used oil or virgin fuel oil to create an on-spec blend not considered to be a solid waste when burned as a fuel. Thus, used oil sent to processors and resold in the baseline will likely be sent to processors and resold under the final rule as well, but may be blended to avoid off-spec status.

With respect to used oil burned on-site by small ge nerator burners, we would not e that data submitted by commenters (and as indicated in the Materials Character ization Paper) a small fraction of the used oil is generated as off-spec used oil. The final rule stat es that this information maybe considered “other information” in determining whether used oil m eets the on-spec. requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 279.72. Thus, it is likely that small, private autom obiles serviced by do-it-yourselfers (DIYers) and auto repair shops would burn on-spec used oil. Further we note that space heaters are not regulated under the
Section 129 CISWI standards devel oped in conjunction with the final NHSM rule. Thus, we do not expect used oil (on-spec or off-spec) to be divert ed from space heaters as a result of the rule.

Given the limited potential for diversion of used oil under the final rule (both for used oil sent to processors in the baseline and burned by generators in space heaters), we anticipate minimal diversionrelated EJ impacts for used oil.

Coal Refuse The final NHSM rule distinguishes between newly gene rated coal refuse and co al refuse reclaimed from legacy piles. While newly generated coal refuse is considered an alternative “traditional” fuel (and not discarded) under the final rule, coal refuse in legacy piles is considered discarded and must therefore be processed and meet the legitimacy criteria to be c onsidered a non-waste fuel. As described in the preamble to the final rule, coal refuse that is recovered from legacy piles and undergoes processing similar to that for virgin coal would not be consid ered a solid waste, provided it satisfies the legitimacy

10 Michel R. Benoit, Executive Director, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC), comment submitted to EPA on the Proposed Rule for the Identification of Non-h azardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste, EPA document number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008- 0329-1572. August 25, 2010.

11 U.S. EPA, “Materials Characterization Paper In Suppor t of the Final Rulemaking: Id entification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Wa ste – Used Oil,” December 15, 2010.18 criteria, which EPA believes it does since currently mi ned coal is a legitimate fuel with characteristics similar to the material in legacy piles.

Based on the provisions of the final rule as they rela te to coal refuse, we do not expect any diversionrelated EJ impacts for newly generated coal refuse. Given that this material is considered an alternative “traditional” fuel under the final rule, we expect no changes in the use of this material as a fuel. Similarly, coal refuse from legacy piles that is pro cessed similarly to coal is not a solid waste under the final rule. We therefore expect no diversion from ba seline fuel applications for this material and no associated EJ impacts.

Relative to the proposed rule, the final rule as applied to coal refuse is likely to lead to less significant EJ impacts in communities where legacy piles are locat ed. Under the proposed rule, EPA considered the processing of coal refuse from legacy piles to be in sufficient to render the coal refuse a non-waste fuel, even if the processing was similar to coal. Based on public comments received on the proposed rule, however, EPA has determined that processing procedures fo r coal refuse that are similar to those for coal,
that such coal refuse should not be considered a so lid waste. This processing serves to both increase its energy value, as well as reduce the level of contam inants in coal refuse. Given this difference in interpretation between the two rules, less coal refuse from legacy piles would likely be considered solid waste under the final rule than under the proposed rule. Therefore, the diversion-related EJ impacts for coal refuse are likely to be less significant unde r the final rule than under the proposed rule.