REVIEW OF COSTS, BENEFITS, ECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE, AND OTHER IMPACTS : 

For the Following Interrelated Proposed Rules: 

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 Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; 

RIN 2060-AM44

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; 

RIN 2060-AG69

Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary 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, 2010 
2

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 from “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 Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the “Boilers 

Rule”), which established Maximum Achievable Control 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 December 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: Commercial 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 unit” (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 District 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 any unit that combusts “any solid waste material at 

all” – regardless of whether the material is being burned 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 waste 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/Commercial/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 Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 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 decision requires a clear determination of which nonhazardous, “secondary materials”2

 constitute Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle 

 

1

 A “major source” is any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit considering 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-industrial material, and scrap. The secondary materials 
3

D “solid waste” in order to clarify when units combusting 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, 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 the 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 rules. The emissions standards developed in the 

proposed 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 

calculated based on the emissions performance of the best performing sources. Changes in secondary 

materials management practices under the proposed NHSM rule depend on the emissions control costs 

that affected units would incur if they decide to burn secondary materials considered to be solid wastes.3

To support the development of the four rules, this document summarizes their regulatory impacts 

in the following sections: 

1. Description of the Proposed Rules.......................................................page 4 

The first section describes each proposed rule in detail and discusses the 

interaction between the various proposed rules. This section also discusses an 

alternative approach considered by the Agency; 

2. Summary of Affected Units, Industries, and Secondary Materials...............page 13 

Following the overview of the four proposed rules, we summarize the affected 

regulatory universe. This discussion covers the combustion units, industries, and 

secondary materials potentially affected by the proposed rules; 

3. Methods for Assessing Impacts.........................................................page 18

In the third section, we describe the methods employed by EPA to assess the 

costs, benefits, economic impacts, and other impacts of the proposed rules; 

 

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

 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

4. Analytic Results............................................................................page 24

The fourth section summarizes the estimated 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 source 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. This section summarizes the proposed NHSM rule and 

the emission standards and other requirements associated 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 except 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” means that the material is generated and 

burned in combustion units at the generating 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 legitimate 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 material must (1) be managed as a valuable commodity 
5

(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 comparable to traditional fuel products. The flow chart 

presented below helps illustrate the solid waste 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 

NO TO ONE YES TO ALL 

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 ingredients in combustion units would not be 

considered solid waste if they have not been discarded in the first instance and if they are legitimate 

ingredients, irrespective of whether they have been transferred 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 reasonable time frame and adequately contained to prevent 

releases to the environment); (2) provide a useful contribution (i.e., a valuable ingredient) to a production 

or manufacturing process; (3) be used to produce a valuable product or intermediate (i.e., one that is sold 

to a third party or is used as an effective substitute for a commercial product or as an ingredient or 

intermediate in an industrial process); and (4) contain 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 finding 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 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 statistical or from a health and environmental risk 

perspective. 

The proposed NHSM rule also states that traditional 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 levels, natural gas) and their derivatives (e.g., petroleum 

coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil, refinery gas, synthetic 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 concentrations normally associated with virgin biomass 

materials. Clean cellulosic biomass includes forest-derived biomass (e.g., green wood, forest thinnings, 

clean and unadulterated bark, sawdust, 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), bagasse4

 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. 

 

4

 Bagasse is the matted cellulose fiber residue from sugar cane that has been processed in a sugar mill. For more 

information on bagasse, see the Materials Characterization 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-mercury 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 only to units with heat input capacities of 10 million 

Btu/hour or greater, while work practice standards (annual 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 emission 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 designed heat input capacity of 10 million British thermal 

units (Btu) per hour or greater. The emission limits for 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 Limits 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 0.009 

 
9

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 Exhibits 1 and 2, the proposed major source Boilers 

Rule includes the following work practice 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 standard requires the implementation of 

a tune-up program. The Agency is also proposing a beyond-the-floor work 

practice standard requiring all existing major source facilities that have affected 

boilers or process heaters to perform an energy assessment of the affected units 

and facility to identify cost-effective energy 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 annual 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 with rule requirements. In addition, to 

demonstrate compliance with emission limits and work practice standards, units 

must maintain records of the dates and results of each boiler tune-up. For units 

that use a control device to control emissions, records must be maintained with 

CEMS data for the device or continuously 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 operating limit; daily hours of operation; 

calculations and supporting information of chlorine and mercury fuel input. 

Documentation regarding non-waste determinations under the proposed NHSM 

rule must also be maintained. 

1.3 Proposed Area Source Boilers Rule 

The proposed area source Boilers Rule includes 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 surrogate pollutant for the individual organic HAP). 

The proposed emission limits for mercury and CO provide 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 both new and existing sources. The emission limits for 

existing area source boilers apply only to units that have 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 Exhibit 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 tests 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 tests on an annual basis. In addition, 

to demonstrate continuous compliance with 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 their 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 control emissions, records must be maintained 

with CEMS data for the device or continuously monitored device parameter data. 

The rule would also require units to maintain 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 designed to discard waste materials (including small 

remote incinerators); boilers designed for heat recovery 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. Exhibits 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 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) 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 

NOX (ppmv) 34 130 1100 120 210 

SO2 (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 

NOX (ppmv) 19 75 140 16 210 

SO2 (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 annual inspections of scrubbers, 

fabric filters and other air pollution control 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 add-on air pollution control devices. In 

addition, for existing CISWI units that operate 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 monitoring 

requirements 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 rule, owners and operators 

of CISWI units will be required to submit electronic copies of performance tests 

required under this rule. 

1.5 Alternative Approach 

In addition to assessing impacts associated with the four rules as specified above, this document 

also examines impacts under an alternative approach that the Agency is considering for the identification 

of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste. 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 they 
13

remain within the control of the generator and meet the legitimacy criteria. In contrast to the proposed 

NHSM approach, all other non-hazardous secondary materials that are burned as a fuel or used as an 

ingredient in the combustion process would be considered 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 process 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 dependent 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 calculated 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 context 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 will 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 rules is dependent, in part, on the solid waste criteria 

enumerated in the proposed NHSM rule. We summarize 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, institutional 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 located 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 sources 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 solid 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 number 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 energy 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 sectors 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 Code1 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 assistance 
15

Exhibit 6 

Categories and Entities Potentially Affected

NAICS Code1 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 Industry 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 potentially 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 these materials and provides information concerning the 

annual quantity of the materials generated. In addition, the exhibit summarizes available information 

concerning the extent to which the materials are currently landfilled, combusted for energy recovery 

purposes, or utilized in a combustion unit for non-energy recovery purposes (i.e., as an ingredient).5

 As 

the exhibit shows, of the 13 secondary material groups 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 categories of materials potentially used as ingredients in 

combustion processes (blast furnace slag, cement kiln dust, coal combustion products, foundry sand, 

secondary glass material, and silica fume), are also identified. 

 

5

 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 7 

Summary of Secondary Material Types and Estimated Quantities 

Materials 

Generated 

(million tons/yr) 

Landfilled 

(Percent of total) 

Energy recov

(Percent of tot

Auto shredder residue 5 High* ~ 0 Biomass - Animal manure > 1,000 Uncertain Low 

Food scraps Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Agricultural residue 500 ~0 Low 

Biomass - Food scraps and agricultural residue 

Bagasse 3.8 Uncertain High 

Logging Residues 62.4-103.0 ~0 Moderate Primary Mill Residues 86.8-91.4 ~0 Moderate Black Liquor 52.1 ~0 High 

Biomass - Forest derived and Pulp & Paper residue 

Sludges 4.2-5.8 Moderate Low 

Coal Refuse (Mining Rejects) Uncertain ~0 Low 

Building-related materials 164 Moderate Moderate1 Land clearing debris 30 Uncertain Low 

Construction and demolition debris 

Disaster debris2 Variable Uncertain Low 

Purification process byproducts3 Uncertain, but < 7,600 Uncertain Resinated wood dusts 12.5 Low Moderate4 Scrap plastics 2.4 Low Low Scrap tires 4.6 Low Moderate Spent solvents 5 ~0 Uncertain Used oil 1,370 gallons Low Moderate Wastewater treatment sludge 5-7 Low Low Blast furnace slag 13-15 ~0 ~0 Cement kiln dust 13-17 Moderate5 ~0 

Fly ash 71.7 Moderate Low Bottom ash 18.1 Moderate ~0 

Coal combustion products 

Boiler slag 2.1 Low ~0 

Foundry sand 9.4 Moderate 0 Secondary glass material 13.9 Uncertain 0 Silica fume 0.11-0.13 Low 0 TOTAL Uncertain, but potential range of 2,084 to 9,7396 Uncertai
17

Notes: 

* Cells designated as "high" indicate percentage likely ranges from 75% to 100%; "moderate" from 25% to 74%; and "low" from 0% to 2

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 cocreated it. 3. Uses of purification process byproducts depend on their individual caloric contents. 4. Quantity represents end uses of secondary wood residues, which includes resinated wood dusts. 5. Based on Portland Cement Association data and discussions with industry personnel, actual rate of reuse in cement kilns apSubsequently, 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 p

with the value presented in the Used Oil Materials 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 assess the costs, benefits, 

and other impacts of the proposed rules. We first describe the methodology used to estimate the 

engineering costs of the proposed rules. These engineering costs include the financial resources expended 

by affected units to comply with the emission standards included in the three air rules and (for units that 

burn secondary materials considered to be solid wastes) the resources expended to modify materials 

management practices and avoid the costs of compliance 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 result 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 rules would society realize the costs, benefits and other 

impacts estimated with the methods described in this section. EPA therefore attributes these impacts 

entirely to the air rules. 

Given that the three air rules are central to the realization of impacts, the methods discussion 

presented in this section focuses on these rules. While 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 three air rules, EPA developed and applied cost 

assessment methods tailored to the data available for 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 specifically, EPA developed average baseline 

emission factors by fuel type/control device combination and matched these to 

units that lacked emissions information based on each unit’s fuel, design, and 

control devices. 

2. EPA compared each unit’s baseline emission 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 devices would be most appropriate. The 

control analysis considered fabric filters, 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 combustion controls for CO and organic 

HAP control, and carbon injection for dioxin/furan control. EPA’s analysis of 

these devices identified where one control 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 boilers and determined the cost of control for 

these model boilers. EPA assigned a model boiler to each existing unit based on the fuel, 

size, and current controls. The analysis considered 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 disposal for the subcategories that may most likely 

investigate alternative options to burning waste, namely the incinerators, burn-off ovens, 

and small, remote incinerators. To estimate costs, EPA selected the lowest 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 rules 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 compare 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 trade, 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 employment 
20 

• 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 and 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/exports) 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 three 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 additional 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; Berman and Bui, 2001). However, 

others suggest that the question has not been resolved 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 for the proposed rules builds upon these previous 
21 

analyses in two ways. First, because the multimarket model described above estimates 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 Morgenstern 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 Morgenstern 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 equilibrium 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 from 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 effects. Although using the Morgenstern parameters 

to estimate these “cost” and “factor-shift” employment 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 Administrator 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 the process is voluntary, it requires the petitioner to 

provide information describing how the secondary materials 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 determination, 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 statistical or from a health and environmental risk 

perspective. 
22 

The costs associated with this petition option are uncertain, both nationally and at the level of the 

facility. Nationally, the costs of the petition process will depend largely on the number of facilities that 

submit petitions. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the number of petitions likely to be submitted to 

EPA under this rule, we do not include the total costs 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 request 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 delisting 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 variance 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 with these petition processes. The delisting petition 

requires that the petitioner demonstrate that the secondary material does not contain concentrations of 

certain substances that would classify it as a hazardous waste. This procedure includes estimating the 

quantity and variability of waste generation, describing in detail the equipment used to measure chemical 

content, and testing the material for hazardous contaminants. The delisting petition’s requirements are 

analogous to the criterion under the proposed NHSM rule that a material must have chemical and physical 

characteristics similar to traditional fuels to be considered 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 Petition for Non-waste Determination 

(year 2008$) 

Facility Costs Government Costs 

Petition Process 

Total Cost per 

Facility1

Annualized 

Cost per 

Facility2

Total Cost per 

Petition 

Reviewed 

Annualized Cost per 

Petition Reviewed2

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 for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.20: Identification, 

Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal), December 2007. The costs obtained 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 material (1) has been processed, (2) requires further 

processing, (3) is analogous to raw material, (4) is handled 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) evidence of the material’s treatment in the marketplace as a fuel, product, 

or intermediate; (2) the market’s capacity to use the material in a reasonable time frame; and (3) 

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 statistical or from a health and 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 for 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.6

 We assume that these costs represent a reasonable approximation 

of the per facility costs of the petition process included 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 review 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 rules focuses on the human health improvements 

associated with reduced ambient PM2.5 concentrations.7

 The proposed rules are expected to lead to 

reduced emissions of direct PM2.5 as well as emissions of PM precursors (e.g., SOx, NOx, and VOC). Due 

to analytical limitations, it was not possible to develop a comprehensive estimate of PM2.5-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 mortality and premature morbidity) per ton of direct PM2.5

and precursor emissions reduced. EPA has used the benefit per-ton technique in several previous RIAs, 

including the recent NO2 NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2010b). Exhibit 9 presents the quantified and 

unquantified benefits captured in those benefit-per-ton estimates. 

Consistent with the Portland Cement NESHAP (U.S. EPA, 2009a), the PM2.5 benefit-per-ton 

estimates reflect concentration-response functions reported 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-response functions to gauge 

the potential range of impacts, summarized as follows: 

 

6

 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. 

7

 It is important to note that the monetized benefits from reducing PM2.5 exposure are an incomplete characterization 

of the total benefits associated with these rules. The benefits 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 was 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 extended 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 PM2.5 NAAQS, has been used as an alternative estimate in the PM2.5 

NAAQS RIA and PM2.5 benefits estimates in RIAs completed since the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Exhibit 9 

 Human Health and Welfare Effects of PM2.5

Pollutant / 

Effect 

Quantified and Monetized in Primary 

Estimates Unquantified Effects Changes in: 

PM2.5 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 (asthmatic 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 PM2.5 -mortality relationship and interpreted for PM benefits analysis in EPA’s final 

RIA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. For that study, twelve experts (labeled A through L) provided 

independent estimates of the PM2.5-mortality concentration-response function. To 

characterize the degree of variability in the expert responses, EPA practice has been to 

develop independent estimates of PM2.5-mortality corresponding to the concentrationresponse function provided by each of the twelve experts.. 

Readers interested in reviewing the methodology 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., SO2 emitted from electric generating units; NO2 emitted from mobile 

sources). 

4.0 ANALYTIC RESULTS 

This section presents the estimated impacts of the proposed rules based on the methods described in the 

previous section. We begin by summarizing estimated engineering costs of the proposed rules and the 
25 

alternative option. We then outline the estimated social costs of the proposed rules, as estimated by 

changes in consumer and producer surplus. Following this discussion, we summarize job impacts, 

followed by the benefits of the proposed rules and 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 attributable to the three air rules, given that the 

proposed NHSM rule would lead to no impacts in the absence of the air rules. Where possible, we 

present the impacts of the proposed air rules under the waste 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 $12.2 billion in annualized engineering 

costs (in 2013) for the three air rules under the propose NHSM option. More than half of these costs are 

attributable to the area source Boilers Rule. In addition, more than 80 percent of the engineering costs 

under the proposed NHSM option are borne by existing combustion units. 

Exhibit 10 

Annualized Engineering 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* $12.2 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 assessment 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 indicated in the exhibit, the Agency estimates $3.6 billion in 

social costs for the proposed rules. Reduced producer 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. This, combined with the U.S. producer surplus loss, 

yields a net surplus loss of $4.2 billion for U.S. stakeholders. 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 from the United States will experience losses (due to 

higher prices), while industries that sell goods to the 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 estimates a net producer and consumer surplus loss of $3.1 

billion when the proposed air rules are based on the alternative NHSM waste criteria. 
26 

The Agency also considered other elements of the 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 total surplus loss estimate of $3.6 billion. 

 

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 rule, as estimated by the multi-market partial 

equilibrium model, include price and quantity adjustments, 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 prices in the lumber, paper, and printing sector may 

rise 0.25 percent, while the prices in the energy sector 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, average 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 textiles, plastics and rubber, and in other sectors. The 

effects in other industries are expected to be lower. Because of higher prices, imports are expected to 

increase 0.26 percent in lumber, paper, and printing sector 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 Changes (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 impacts 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 broader 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 Proposed 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 total impacts estimated separately for the proposed major 

source Boilers rule, the proposed 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 proposed air rules, affects the cost 

of using certain secondary materials as fuels or ingredients, it may bring about changes in materials 

management practices among affected units. Such changes 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 corresponding 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 proposed 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 fuels or ingredients to avoid these costs. 

Depending on the material composition of conventional 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 environmental impacts. In the baseline, secondary 

materials used as alternative fuels or ingredients displace traditional fuels or ingredients, 

which results in an environmental benefit in the form of reduced environmental impacts 

associated with the production, processing, and transport 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 releases, 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 materials accumulated in open piles (e.g., scrap 

tires), this may lead to increased risks associated 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 rule. This will create 

an incentive for facilities to reduce the generation 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 associated 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 able to estimate quantities of materials diverted 

from units that burn secondary materials less than 25 percent 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 Burn 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 impacts 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-spec used oil, however, may be processed into on-spec 

used oil, allowing combustion units that use this material to avoid any additional costs associated with 
30 

CAA Section 129 compliance.8 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.9

 We estimate that 

the cost of blending on-spec used oil into off-spec is approximately $0.15 per gallon.10 

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 capacity 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.11 

 

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 kilns (the main users of whole tires) suggests that 

cement kilns will continue to burn whole tires following promulgation of the rule. Based on the 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the proposed Section 112 portland cement MACT, that rule would 

result in annual compliance costs of approximately $399 million across 186 cement kiln units.12 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 CAA (approximately $1.3 million per year)13 is less than the $2.1 

million in annual, per-unit compliance costs associated with the Section 112 portland cement MACT, 

burning whole tires (and complying with Section 129 standards 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. 

 

8

 Used oil processing practices may include de-watering and blending of oil to ensure that it meets EPA and enduser specifications. 

9

 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 materials that may be considered solid wastes under the 

proposed rule. Thus, off-spec used oil will likely be diverted from such units. 

10 This estimate reflects the average of two values: $0.02 per gallon, as provided by Bill 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 Management Practices in the United States," October 27, 1992, 

Presented to: the National Recycling Congress, September 15, 1992; Boston, MA. Values adjusted to year 2008 

dollars based on the GDP deflator. 

11 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. 

12 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.

13 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 Boilers Rule, the major source Boilers Rule, and 

the CISWI Rule) result in emissions reductions of approximately 32,000 tons of direct PM2.5 and 

approximately 344,000 of SO2. The combined monetized benefits range from $7.0 billion to $19 billion 

for direct PM2.5, depending on the discount rate used. The total monetized benefits range from $16 billion 

to $44 billion, with SO2 reduction benefits contributing between $9.2 and $25 billion. 

In percentage terms, 57 percent of the monetized benefits are generated by SO2 reductions, while 

43 percent are generated by direct PM2.5 reductions. By rule, approximately 93 percent of the monetized 

benefits are generated by the proposed major source Boilers 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 the monetized benefits from reducing PM2.5 exposure are an 

incomplete characterization of the total benefits associated with these rules. The monetized benefits 

include many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 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, ecosystem 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 benefits-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 benefits using the anchor points of Pope et al. and 

Laden et al. as well as the results from the 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 PM2.5 32,362 $7,700 to $19,000 $7,000 to $17,000 

PM2.5 Precursors 

SO2 344,194 $10,000 to $25,000 $9,200 to $22,000 

NO2 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 significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. All 

fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton 

of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM2.5. 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 PM2.5 Precursors from 3 Rules based on Proposed NHSM 

 Boiler Major Sources Boiler 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 year 
33 

Exhibit 18 

Total Monetized Benefits for Boiler MACT, Boiler 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 from2 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 PM2.5 22,684 $5,500 to $14,000 $5,000 to $12,000 

PM2.5 Precursors 

SO2 45,836 $1,300 to $3,300 $1,200 to $3,000 

NO2 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 significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. All 

fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton 

of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM2.5. 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 rules 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 alternative 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 proposed NHSM rule) using the concentration-response 

functions from the core epidemiology studies and from the Roman et al. (2008) expert elicitation study 

discussed above. 

Exhibit 20 

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

Based on Proposed and Alternative 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 numbers may not sum across columns. 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.

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 from2

epidemiology functions and 12 expert functions
35 

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 practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States. 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 attention and Agency efforts on 

addressing the types of environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among minority, low-income, 

Tribal and other vulnerable populations. 

We developed this combined environmental justice assessment because of the interdependencies 

between the air and solid waste rules. The emissions 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, 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 considered to be solid wastes.14

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. 

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 source 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 source 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 emissions reductions of the regulated criteria and 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Specifically, the proposed 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/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 Boilers Rule will reduce emissions of mercury, non-

 

14 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 HAPs, depending on exposure duration and 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, The 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 will subsequently reduce ozone 

and PM2.5 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 

sources 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 how 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 benefit 

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 demographic analyses focused on areas around 

industrial sources.15 Also, beyond three miles the air emission 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 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 population based on land area included 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).16 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. 

 

15 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: Government Printing Office 1995. 

* Mohai 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 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.. 16 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-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 beneficial 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 averages. As shown in Exhibit 22, the major source 

boilers are located in areas where minorities’ share of the 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 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 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. 
38 

Exhibit 22 – Populations Within Three-Mile Proximity to Major Source Boilers and CISWI Units 

Overall 

population White Minorities1 African American Native American Other and multiracial Hispanic or Latino2 Below the poverty line U

POPULATION 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 4,682,861 5,997,709 9

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

POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF CISWI INCINERATORS (176 units) 

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

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

OVERALL NATIONAL POPULATION 

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

 75% 25% 12% 1% 12% 14% 13% 

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 wa

number is to add the fourth column -African American, the fifth column - Native American, and the sixth column – Other and Mult

added 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 
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 control of the generator (whether at the site of 

generation or another site the generator has control over) that meets the legitimacy criteria; 

• 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 method17, 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 exposure18 and nuisance concerns (e.g., odors, noise, and aesthetics). 

To assess the potential environmental justice impacts of the 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 receive the diverted secondary materials for disposal and processing. 

The three-mile demographic analysis is shown on Exhibits 23 and 24. Using block group data from the 2000 

Census, EPA estimated the population of minorities19 (non-White) near each facility and the percentage of the 

 

17 Under the least 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. 

18 The diversion of secondary materials to landfills and other facilities may not necessarily increase exposure to 

environmental contaminants. 

19 Minority 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 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 category, Hispanics or Latinos may belong to any race. The Census Bureau defines 
40 

population near each facility that is below the poverty line.20 The nationwide estimates for each facility type 

were then compared with the percent of the U.S. population 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 facilities21: landfills, demolition landfills, composting facilities, incinerators (municipal 

waste), materials recovery facilities,22 transfer stations, and waste-to-energy plants. 

Some of the secondary materials 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 product. 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 surrounding other processors, such as used oil processors, will be included in the final 

rule (if available). For tire processing facilities,23 EPA randomly selected 73 of the 530 tire US processors24 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 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 facilities is below the poverty line. Both of these percentages 

exceed the corresponding national averages. 

Exhibit 23 summarizes 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 previous 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 23, the results of the three-mile analysis suggest that populations living near facilities that may receive 

secondary materials diverted from affected combustion units are located in areas where minority25 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. For the 2000 Census, minorities included White Hispanic or Latino, and persons belonging to all 

six “non-White alone” race categories, including persons of two or more races (i.e. multiracial persons). 20 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. 

21 The locations used for the demographics (for facilities identified in Exhibits 23 and 24) are from the “Waste Business 

Journal Directory & Atlas of Non-Hazardous Waste Sites 2008.” 

22 Materials recovery facilities are facilities that sort and process collected mixed recyclables into individual streams for 

market. These are also known as intermediate processing 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. 

23 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 tires are sufficiently processed at such 

facilities, the tire-derived fuel will likely be used as a non-waste fuel. 24 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 representative of all 530 tire processors with regard to size 

and other features.. 

25 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 national average (25 percent) for all seven facility types, 

ranging from 26 percent for landfills to 38 percent for material recovery facilities. The percent 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-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 ethnicity, 

additional demographics for potential diversion sites, additional 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 Recovery3

(1,247) 61,207,342 23,298,204 38% (46%) 9,735,122 16% 

Transfer Stations4

(3,042) 65,314,862 22,412,482 34% (42%) 9,878,917 15% 

Waste-to-Energy 

Plants5

 (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 comparison6 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 Major 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 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 or 

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 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 facilities. 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.26 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 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 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. Other race, multi-racial, or Hispanic percentages are higher 

than national averages for six of the seven facility categories 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 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. 

 

 

26 Similar to Exhibit 23, Exhibit 24 excludes tire processors due to 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. 
44 

5.3 Limitations of Demographic Analysis 

 While the data in Exhibits 22 through 24 provide useful 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 fence 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 Boiler 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 qualitative indicator for current exposures and future 

exposure reductions. Also, although minority and low-income populations near the facilities 

represented in Exhibits 23 and 24 are above the 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 Exhibits 22 through 24 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 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 Ethnicity Analysis” for the full description.) In 

Exhibit 22, there 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 23, 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. 

5.4 Other Potential Environmental 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 operations, the proposed rules could 

possibly lead to several other environmental justice 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 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-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 and 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 three-mile analysis suggests 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 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 described in the previous section, EPA also examined 

several other equity considerations and regulatory concerns for the proposed rules, as required by applicable 

statutes and executive orders. We summarize the Agency’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 the 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 requirements 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 Request (ICR) documents have been prepared. 

• Regulatory flexibility (Regulatory Flexibility 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 statements 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 federal 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 federalism 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 the 
47 

proposed NHSM Rule may have tribal implications. 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 Agency does not believe the environmental 

health risks or safety risks addressed by these 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 proposed air rules will likely lead to increased 

electricity consumption for the operation of air 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 conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus 

standards in addition to the EPA methods proposed 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 documented and are placed in the docket for each 

proposed rule. Additional voluntary consensus standards were identified as acceptable 

alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes 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. Environmental 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 influence 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 Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence 

from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments 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. Shih. 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 Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution.” Journal of the American 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 Mortality 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/Guidelines.html. Accessed August 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 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/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementria_4-20-09.pdf >. 
49 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for 

the NO2 National Ambient Air Quality 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.