## Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice Impacts

for the following Proposed Rules :

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units;

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers;

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters;

Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste

Air Quality Analysis Group Sector Based Assessment 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 2 8 , 20102 

### I. Background and Introduction

In July 2007, the Court of App eals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded to

EPA both the CISWI Definitions Rule 1 and the Boilers Rule 2

. I n response to th is vacatur and remand

, EPA is proposing the following three actions: (1) the proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule); (2) the proposed National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industr ial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area source Boilers Rule); and (3) the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the major source Boilers Rule). I n addition, EPA’s response to the Court’s decision requires a clear determination of which non

- hazardous, “secondary materials” 3 constitute a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D “solid

waste

. ” This is necessary in order to clarify when the combustion of these materials would be regulated pursuant to CAA Section 129 (as opposed to potential regulation under Section 112 for a combustion unit that burns secondary materials that are not solid waste). Thus, in a concurrent notice, the Agenc y is publishing the proposed rule for the Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (the proposed NHSM rule). The costs and benefits of these actions are examined in the regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) prepared in suppo rt of the proposed CISWI and boiler rules. This analysis has been conducted within the context of Executive Order 12898. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by l aw, 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

- inc ome populations in the United States. The EO has informed the development and implementation of EPA’s Environmental Justice (EJ) program and EJ policies. Consistent with the EO, the Agency’s EJ policies promote environmental protection by focusing

attent ion and Agency efforts on addressing the types of environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among minority, low

- income, Tribal

, and other vulnerable populations.

The purpose of this document is to summarize our preliminary assessment of the en vironmental justice impacts of the proposed CISWI, major and area source Boiler, and NHSM rules

. We developed this combined environmental justice assessment because of the interdependencies between the air and

solid waste rules. The emissions standards de veloped 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

prop osed NHSM rule. Similarly, changes in secondary materials management practices (and the corresponding environmental justice impacts) depend on the emissions control costs that affected units would incur if they decide to burn secondary materials considere d to be solid wastes

. 4

1 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

– Final Rule Amendments, Septemb er 22, 2005.

2 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers

and Process Heaters , September 2004.

3 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

- industrial material, and scrap. The secondary materials 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

.

4 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 possibly incur additional air pollution

control costs as an incinerator.3 This preliminary assessment of environmental justice 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 environmental justice impacts was not possible in the time

available with the information resources available

. The reader should be mindful of this limitation.

II. Preliminary Assessment of Environmental J ustice Impacts of Proposed CISWI Rule, Proposed Area Source Boilers Rule, and Proposed Major Source Boilers Rule

T he proposed CISWI Rule , the proposed area source Boilers Rule , and the proposed major source

Boilers Rule establish national emission standards for affected sources

. E PA estimates that approximately 17 6 commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators will be regulated under the proposed CISWI Rule ; approximately 13, 555 in dustrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters will be covered by the proposed major source Boilers Rule ; and approximately 183,000 sources will be regulated under the proposed area source Boilers Rule

.

The three air rules will resu lt in substantial emissions reductions of the regulated criteria and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Specifically, t he proposed CISWI Rule will reduce emissions of nine pollutants, which include particulate matter (PM); metals, including lead (Pb), cadmiu m (Cd), and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo

- 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 Boi lers 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 Boilers Rule will reduce emissions of mercury, non

mercury metals, and organics

. Exposure to these HAP s , depending on exposure duration and levels of exposure, can be associated with a variety of a dverse health effects . These adverse health effects may

include , for example, cancer, irritation of the l ungs, 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 r eductions of criteria pollutant emissions , such as carbon monoxi de, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Reducing these emissions will subsequently reduce ozone

and PM 2.5 formation in the atmosphere and their associated 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

s ources affected by each of the two rules. The review focused on those census blocks 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 compositions 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 coordinates, 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. Therefore, while it is not possible to assess by h ow much more or less one population group or community would benefit from emission reductions from area source boilers than another population group or community, most people and communities will benefit4 T h e analysis for the CISWI Rule and the major sour ce 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 demographic analyses 5 focused on areas around

industria l sources. 6 Also, beyond three miles the air emission influence of a n 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 typical in urban areas). Bec ause census blocks are typically small (although s ome of the blocks where population are sparse can get large) , this approach does not apportion the population based on land area included within the three

- mile buf fer ( 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)

. 7 The population of each census block within three miles of a source was successively divided 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.

Based on the fact that the three r ules 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

- inc ome, or Tribal populations. Moreove r, 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 beneficial effects will be larger for the average minority and low income American tha n for all Americans. Exhibit 1 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 low

- income populations that are higher than the national averages. As shown in Exhibit 1 , the major source boilers are located in

areas where minorities’ share of the population (33 percent) living within a three

- mile buffer is higher

than the national avera ge (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 gen erally 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 respectiv ely (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

5 Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987

– 2007, March 2007. (This document discusses the use of various radii, including three miles, in demographic analyses as the traditional approach.)

6 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). Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington

DC: G overnment Printing Office 1995.

M ohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio

- economic Disparities in Environmental Justice Research”. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383

– 399. Mennis, Jeremy “”Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and A nalyze 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. An Open Letter to the Members of Congress: Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1 987

- 2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States. July 20,

2007.

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

fundamental technical basis.5 stands to see increased environmental and health benefits from the emissions reductions resulting from

the two rules.6 E x hibit 1

– Populations W ithin T hree

- M ile P roximity to M ajor S ource B oilers and CISWI U nit s

Overall population White Minorit ies 1 African

American Native

American Other and

multiracial Hispanic or Latino 2 Below the poverty line Under age

18 Age 65 and

O ver

POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF MAJOR SOURC E BOILERS ( 13,434 units)

36,868,952 24,828,553 12,040,399 7,296,123 207,441 4,536,835 4,682,861 5,997,709 9,735,998 4,614,672

67% 33% 20% 1% 12% 13% 16% 26% 13%

POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF CISWI INCINERATORS ( 17 6 units)

2,095,561 1,480,539 615,022 346,191 21,128 247,703 273,943 295,197 569,708 260 ,929

71% 29% 17% 1% 12% 13% 14% 27% 12%

OVERALL NATIONAL POP ULATION

285,339,128 214,539,706 70,799,422 35,043,873 2,489,515 33,265,937 39,083,760 37,161,950 77,245,364 35,491,274

75% 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 “M inorit ies” population is the overall population (in the first column) minus white population (in the second column). (A nother way to calculate the same
number is to add the fourth column

- African American, the fifth column

- Native American, and the sixth column

– Other and Multiracial .) Ethnicity is not added separately to this minority assessment.
2. The Census Bureau defines “ Hispanic or Latino ” as an ethnic ity r ather than as a racial category, Hispanics or Latinos may belong to any race

.7 III 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 fo llowing non

- hazardous secondary materials as not being a solid waste:

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

cri teria;

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

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

**•** Material that has been determined through a case

- by

- case petition process to not have been discarded and to be indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product.

All other non

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

Facilities that currently burn secondary materials considered to be solid waste under the proposed NHSM rule may continue to do so following the implementation 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 8 , 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 applications. The diversion of secondary materials away from combustion units will show benefits (i.e., improved air quality), but will not necessarily alleviate all the potential environmental justice concerns. As secondary materials 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 9 and nuisance concerns ( e.g. , odors, noise, and aesthetics).

To assess the potential environmental justice impacts of th e proposed NHSM rule, EPA created the following assessment that is located in the docket for the proposed rule: “ Environmental Justice Analysis for Diversion and other Impacts from the Proposed Rule: Identification 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 within one mile and three miles of non

hazardous waste sites ( RCRA Subtitle D facilities) which have the potential to rec eive the diverted secondary materials for disposal and processing

. The three

- mile demographic analysis is shown on

Exhibits 2 and 3. Using block group data from the 2000 Census, EPA estimated the population of

minorit ies 10

8 Und er the lea st cost approach, the regulated entity is assumed to operate in an economically rational manner by managing the secondary material in the least costly method possible based on legal requirements. (non

- White) near each facility a nd the percentage of the population near each facility that is

9 The diversion of secondary materials to landfills and othe r facilities may not necessarily increase exposure to environmental contaminants.

10 “ M inorit ies ” is defined in this assessment as racial minorities (non

- whites) to be comparable with the calculation used for the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics (see Exhibit 1). This calculation of the minority population is the overall population minus white population. The minority designation used for the diversion assessment in8 below the poverty line. 11 The nationwide estimates for each facility type were then compared with the percent of the U.S. popula tion characterized as minority and as population below the povert y line (using

data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) . EPA conducted this analysis nationally for the following categories of facilities 12 : landfills, demolition landfills

, composting facilities, incinerators ( municipal

waste ) , material s recovery facilitie s
, 13 transfer stations, and waste

- to

- energy plants.

Some of the secondary materia ls determined to be solid waste that are not sent for disposal could be sent to a variety of recyclers or processors to develop a legitimate fuel or a non

- fuel recycled prod uct. Due to the difficulty of obtaining demographic data on all areas surrounding processing and recycling facilities, the demographics for only one type of processor (scrap tire processors) are available at this time. Additional demographics on areas su rrounding other processors , such as used oil processors, will be included in the final rule (if available). For tire processing facilities, 14 EPA randomly selected 7 3 of

the 530 US tire processors 15 for analysis

. Scrap tires can be processed for a variety of uses

, 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 capture the populations living near all tire processors, we excluded these facilities from the tabulated results presented in Exhibit 2 of this document. While we do n o t have demographic information on the complete set of tire processors, we note that minorities make up 40 perce nt 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 facilities is below the poverty line. Both of these percentages exceed the corresponding na tional averages.

Exhibit 2 summarize s the results of the national population analysis for the three

- mile buffer.

The three

- mile radius was selected to be consistent with the demographic analysis for Major Boilers and CISWI units presented in the prev ious section. The Diversion Analysis, (a copy of which is in today’s public docket for the proposed NHSM rule), contains demographic information associated with the one

mile buffer. As indicated in Exhibit 2 , the results of the three

- mile analysis sugges t that populations

Exhibit 2 shows a separate figure that includes ethnicity ( His panic or Latino)

. Accor ding to the Census Bureau, “Hispanic or Latino” is an ethnicity rather than a racial category, Hispanics or Latinos may belong to any race. The

Census Bureau defines “ Hispanic or Latino " as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central

Amer ican, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. ” For the 2000 Census

, minorities included W hite Hispanic or Latino, and pe rsons belonging to all six “non

- W hite alone ” race categories, including persons of two or more races (i.e. multiracial persons).

11 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.

12 The locations used for the demographics (for facilities identified in Exhibits 2 and 3 ) are from t he “Waste Business Journal Directory & Atlas of Non

- Hazardous Waste Sites 2008.”

13 Materials recovery facilities are facilities that sort and process collected mixed recyclables into individual streams for market. These are also known as intermediate pro cessing centers. About one

- third (430) of these materials recovery facilities have combined operations with transfer stations. The facility counts and demographics at the combined operations are not included in the transfer station demographics.

14 Unde r 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 tires are sufficiently processed at such facilities, the tire

- derived fuel will likely be used as a non

- waste fuel.

15 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 limi ted sample. While this sample was randomly selected, EPA has not assessed whether the resulting sample is representative of all 530 tire processors with regard to size and other features.9 living near facilities that may receive secondary materials diverted from affected combustion units are located in areas where minority 16 and low

- income populations are higher than the national average. The

Exhibit also shows that minor ities’ share of the population within a three

- mile buffer is greater than the

national average (25 percent) for all seven facility types , ranging from 2 6 percent for landfills to 38 percent for material recovery facilities . The percent of the population b elow the poverty line is greater

than

, or the same as the national population average (13 percent)

, for all seven facility types, ranging from

1 3 percent for composting to 1 7 percent for waste

- to

- energy plants

.

The Diversion Analysis document includes additional detail on the demographic analysis. This document includes additional summary discussion, race/ethnicity analysis, minority levels, including

ethnici ty, additional demographics for potential diversion sites, additional information on the

method ology, and discussion of other environmental justice impacts.

16 Note that the first minority percent in Exhibit 2 does not inclu de 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.10 E xhibit 2: T hree

- M ile B lock G roup A nalysis Demographic S ummary

FACILITY TYPE

( n umber a ssessed) POPULATION 1 MINORITIES PERCENT

MINORITY 2

( % Minority

, Including

Ethnicity) POPULATION BE LOW

THE POVERTY

LEVEL PERCENT

BELOW

POVERTY LINE

Population within 3 Miles of Landfills

Landfills (non

hazardous) (2,442) 31,610,889 8,374,113 2 6 % (33%) 4,297,924 14 %

Construction and

Demolition landfills ( 1,008) 15,496,949 4,994,262 32% (38% ) 2,399,611 1 5 %

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 3 1 % (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 1 7 %

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

- W hites) to be comparable with the calculation used for the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics (s ee Exhibit 1). The second number in parentheses inclu des ethnicity; it is calculated by subtracting the White race
census results that are also not Hispanic / Latino from the overall population.

3. Materials Recovery Facility; a facility 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 facilities have combined operations with transfer stations. Those combined operations are not included in the transfer station demographics.

4. Transfer Stations sites at which solid wastes are concentrated for transport to a processing facility o r disposal site (i.e., landfill). Recycling and some processing 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 speciall y 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 th ose populations living within three miles of affected facilities. The national results are based on the Census data as listed in the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics table (see Exhibit 1).11 Demographics: Race and Ethnicity Analysis

Exhibit 3 sh ow s the populations in the three

- mile buffer zone around facilities by racial and ethnic category. 17 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 cat egory. Consistent with the data in Exhibit 2, the values in Exhibit 3 were estimated by areal apportionment at the block group level.

T hey include the population around each facility considered, but Exhibit 3 may double

- count individuals

in areas where t wo facility circles overlap , thus potentially over

- representing individuals 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 categorie s. For incinerators, the percentage is more than twice the national
average, at 30 percent . Th is rises to 4 4 percent for the closer one

- mile area. Other race, multi

- racial, or Hispanic percentages are higher than national averages for six of the seven f acility categories in Exhibit 3

. 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 Alaskan Native ” is shown as one percent (the same as the national average) due to rounding, but all those populations are slightly lower than the national averages for all facility types

.

17 Similar to Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3 excludes tire processors due t o the fact that our analysis did not capture the full universe of these facilities. Information on the demographics of populations living near tire processors is available in the Diversion Analysis on the docket.12 IV. 

### Limitations of Demographic Analysis

While the data in Exhibits 1 through 3 provide useful environmental justice information related to the proposed rules, we note the following limitati ons of the demographic analysis:

**•** Locational Uncertainty: The three

- mile distance used in Exhibit 1 was measured from a point which was visually verified using aerial imagery to be within the fence line of each

affected CISWI facility but which is not necessarily at the point of emissions release of

the affected uni t(s) at the facility. The accuracy of the Boiler facility location in Exhibit 1 (over 1500 facilities) and the waste facility locations (over 8,000) in Exhibit 2 and 3 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 1. Proximity within 3 miles should be considered only a qualitative indicator for current exposures and future exposure reductions. Also, a lthough minority and low

- income populations near the facilities represented in Exhibits 2 an d 3 are above the national average, this does not necessarily indicate that the proposed rules will result in adverse environmental justice impacts

. For example, i f the diversion of secondary materials to

landfills and other facilities does not increase e xposure to environmental contaminants

, the proposed rules will not cause adverse exposure impacts, although there may be some nuisance concerns due to the increased activity. E xhibit 3 : T hree

- M ile B lock Group A nalysis R ace S ummary

FACILITY TYPE ( n umber as sessed) 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% 1 3 % 1 % 1 4 % 15%

Demolitio n landfills (1 ,008) 6 8

% 19% 1 % 1 3 % 13%

TOTAL: LANDFILLS (3,450) 71% 15% 1% 13% 14%

Population within 3 Miles of Other Sites

Composting (2 71) 69% 13% 1 % 1 7 % 18%

Materials Recovery (1 ,247) 5 5 % 2 1 % 1 % 23% 2 4 %

Incinerators

, Municipal

Waste (36) 6 2

% 30 % 1 % 8 % 5 %

Transfer Stations (3,042) 59% 20% 1 % 20 % 21%

Waste

- to

- Energy Plants (93) 6 4

% 20 % 1 % 1 6 % 1 8 %

TOTAL: OTHER SITES (4,689) 5 8 % 20% 1% 21% 22%

National Statistics for Comparison 75% 12% 1% 12% 14%

See the Exhibit 2 for information on the data.13 **•** Causality or Temporal Effects: This analysis does not attempt to ascertain the d irection 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, tra nsportation infrastructure).

**•** Non

- resident Populations: The ana lys e s summarized in Exhibits 1 through 3 are based

on the populations that live within three miles of each facility type. However, 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 3

, i n 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 Ethnicity Analysis” for the full description.) In Exhibit 1, th ere is no overlap for CISWI or for 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 2, there is no overlap

within each type of waste facilities, although one person may be counted in the demographics 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.



### V

. Other Potential E nvironmental Justice Impacts of the Proposed Rules

In addition to the potential environmental justice impacts associated with the diversion of secondary materials to disposal facilities or other processing operation s , the proposed rule s could possibly lea d to several other environmental justice impacts. These include (1) p otential slowdown in abatement of scrap tire stockpiles , (2) p otential for increased accumulation of secondary materials in stockpiles , and (3) p otential for dumping of used oil

.



### V I. C onclusion s

Based on the fact that the CISWI, area source boiler, 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 populations in the US

, including minority,

low

- inc ome, 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 and low income American

than for all Americans. S econdary materia ls determined to be solid waste that are not burned or sent for disposal could be sent to a variety of r ecyclers or processors. T he results of our three

- mile analysis

suggest s that populations living near facilities that may receive secondary materials diverted from

affected combustion units appear to be located in areas where the percentages of minority an d low

income populations are greater than the national average.