1

**MEMORANDUM To**  : Pulp and Paper Docket (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2007

- 0544) **From** : John Bradfield, US EPA **Date:** December 6, 2011 **Subject:** Review of Environmental Justice Impacts: Pulp and Paper

**1.0 INTRODUCTION**  Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 1 6, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by l aw, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority p opulations and low income populations in the United States. EPA defines “Environmental Justice” to include meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. T o promote meaningful involvement for the risk and technology review (RTR) of the NESHAP for pulp and paper making (subpart S) , EPA held public webinars (www.epa.gov/air/ej/announce.html) and hosted discussions during its 2011 Environmental Justice Conference. Stakeholder meetings
were also held with Sierra Club , Earth Justi ce, and with organizations that participated in EPA Environmental Justice outreach efforts. Further stakeholder and public input is expected through public comment and follow

-up meetings with interested stakeholders.

**2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS**  EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, indigenous populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, l ow income, or indigenous populations.2

These proposed standards may improve public health and welfare, now and in the future, by reducing HAP emissions that may c ontribute to adverse environmental and human health impacts. The reductions in HAP emissions associated with the rule are expected to benefit all populations living near the sources affected b y this rule. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this rule to determine if there is an overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations near the sources such that they may currently f ace disproportionate risks from pollutants that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. This analys is only gives some indication of the prevalence of sub

-populations that may b e exposed to HAP pollution from the sources affected by this rulemaking ; it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify

the level of risk faced b y those individuals or communities. The demographic data in Table 2.1 shows that while most demographic categories are below or within 2 percentage points of their corresponding national averages, the African American population percentage within 3 miles of any source affected by this rulemaking exceeds the national average by 3 p ercentage points (15 percent versus 12 percent), or +25 percent. **Table 2.1 Summary of Demographic Data Analysis Demographic Summary**  **Near Source Total**  **% of Near**

**Source Total National** 

**Total % of National** 

**Total** Population 2,437,688 285,339,128 White 1,929,157 79% 214,539,706 75% African American 365,077 15% 35,043,873 12% Native American 20,449 1% 2,489,515 1% Other or Multiracial 123,005 5% 33,265,937 12% Minority 1 508,531 21% 70,799,422 25% Hispanic or Latino 2 78,804 3% 39,083,760 14% Age 0

- 17 604,248 25% 77,245,364 27% Age 65+ 343,439 14% 35,491,274 12% No High School Diploma 314,843 13% 36,660,464 13% Below Poverty Line 353,183 14% 37,181,029 13% Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Information on the facilities is from U.S. EPA. 1 The “Minorities” population is the overall population (in the first row) minus white population (in the second row). 2 The Census Bureau defines “Hispanic or Latino” as an ethnicity rather than a racial category, Hispanics or Latinos may belong to any race.

The analysis of demographic data used proximity

-to

- a- source as a surrogate for exposure to identify

those populations considered to be living near affected sources, such that they have3

notable exposures to emissions from these sources. The demographic data for this analysis were extracted from the 2000 census data, which were provided to the EPA by the United States Census Bureau. Distributions by race are based on demographic information at the census block level, and all other demographic groups are based on the extrapolation of census block group level data to the census block level. The socio

- demographic parameters used in the analys is included the following categories: Racial (White, African Ameri can, Native American, Other or Multiracial, and All Other Races); Ethnicity (Hispanic); and Other (Number of people below the poverty line, Number of people with ages between 0 and 18, Number of people greater than or equal to 65, Number of people over age 25 without a high school diploma). In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities near affected sources, the EPA focused on those census blocks within 3 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

. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately

5 km) is consistent with other demographic analys es focused on areas around potential sources 1 2 3 4 however, not necessarily associated with the distance which health risks
are seen. In addition, air quality modeling experience has shown that the area in the vicinity of an individual source of emissions can generally b e considered the area with the highest ambient air levels of the primary

p ollutants being emitted for most sources, both in absolute terms and relative to the contribution of other sources (assuming there are other sources in the area, as is ty pical in urban areas). 5 While facility processes and fugitive emissions may have more localized impacts, the EPA acknowledges that because of various stack heights , terrain and meteorological conditions there is the potential for dispersion beyond 3 miles. To the extent that any minority, low income, or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by the emissions as a result of the proximity

o f their homes to these sources, that subpopulation also stands to see increased environmental and health benefit from the emission reductions called for by this rule

.

1 U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995. 2 Mohai P, Saha R. “Reassessing Racial and Socio

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

–399. 3 Mennis J. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis”. Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281

- 297. 4 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste and Race at Twenty 1987

- 2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007. 5 Fox, Tyler. “Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1

-hour NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard”. U.S. EPA. March, 2011.