1 M E M ORA N D U M

Date: September 16, 2013

TO: Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2012

- 0510: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production

FROM: Kaye Whitfield, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

SUBJECT: E n v i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e R e v i e w : F l e x i b l e P o l y u r e t h a n e F o a m P r o d u c t i o n

OBJECTIVE :

This report aids rule writers in draft ing required environmental justice preamble lang uage for E.O. 12898, as well as addressing the Agency’s three Final Agency Review E n v i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e ( E J ) questions:

(1) How did your public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for minority, low

- income, and indigenous populations, and tribes?

(2) How did you identify and address existing a nd new disproportionate environmental and public health impacts on minority, low

income, and indigenous populations, and tribes?

(3) How did actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?

SCOPE

• Total # of unique facilit y locations = 13

• Data Source s : CAA section 114 Requests, NEI, EIS, TRI

, and State inventory data2 EJ ASSESSMENT

Meaningful Involvement

A key element of environmental justice is ensuring that all people have an opportunity for meaningful involvement in decision

making. Certain groups may not have participated in decision making historically because of economic (e.g., income), social ( e.g., language barriers, education levels, distrust of government), and structural reasons. A critical concern is whether, and the extent to which, communities have the ability to influence the types and number of regulated activities taking place in their community , as well as the requirements, conditions, and parameters by which they must operate (e.g., permit conditions).

The EPA aims to notify and engage the public in a variety of ways. Each rule is reviewed to identify the appropriate methodol ogy and meaningful involvement may consist of one or more of the following: notices on the EJAir website, community call discussion s, fact sheets, community meetings, and/or webinars.

Demographic Results

Method(s)

• Proximity

- to

- Source : Comparative analysis of 3 mile or 5 km radius demographics to national averages.

Source(s)

• CenRANK (proximity)

Proximity

- to

- Source

The sector analysis of near source populations (Table 1) reveals that the following demographic category exceed s 20 percent of the corresponding national average:

• African American = + 6 percentage points or + 483 Table 1

A facility

- level review of near source populations shows that the densely populated area surrounding the Flexible Foam Products,
Inc

. has an African American population of 8,098 , ( 49% of the population within 3 miles), Premier Foam, Inc

. has an African American population of 7,878 , ( 41% of the population within 3 miles) US Dept of Energy Kansas City Plant has an African American population of 22,746 , ( 36% of the population within 3 miles)

. The three area s combined make up 68 % of the sector’s total
Afric an American population ( 38,722 of the total 57,261 ). Additionally, the Flexible Foam Products, Inc also has a 42 % of its near

source population living below the national poverty line ( 6,809 / 16,390 ) . In the sector summary ( table 2 ) we highlight the top three regions and states by number of facilities, and the top three facilities with the highest near source population totals.4 Table 2

Sector Summary Totals

# of Facilities Near Source (3 mi) Population
13 307,428Top Three Regions

4 5 105,935

5 4 102,119

7 1 63,006

States

OH 2 63,772

MO 1 63,006

NC 2 61,304
Facilities

MO US Dept. Energy Kansas City 63,006

OH Invacare Corp 56,770

NC Foamex International Inc. 42,941
This table shows facility level totals where populations may be counted more than once if in proximity to m ore than one facilit y

.
To evaluate potential areas of environmental justice concern, the EPA highlights the near source areas that are equal to or e xceed a
threshold factor of 1.2 times national averages for race, ethnicity and/or poverty demographic categories. 1 ( The EPA acknowledges
that areas with environmental justice concerns may exist in areas below this threshold .) Analysis of this data shows all 13 facilities are equal to, or exce ed, this increased threshold in at least one category

. The facility with the largest near source population in this subgroup is US Dept of Energy Kansas City Plant with a total of 63,006

.

1 The demographic categories evaluated on whether they meet or exceed the threshold are: Minority Only; Hispanic Only; Poverty Only; Minority & Hispanic; Minority & Poverty; Hispanic & Poverty; Minority, Hispanic & Poverty.5 Although Native American populations are factored into the mino rity demographic, the EPA reviews near source facility data to identify Native American populations that exceed the 1.2 threshold factor. Analysis of this data shows 4 facilities with a combin ed
Native American population of 687 meet or exceed this threshold for the FPUF Production sector. The larges t Native American population (280 ) is near the US Dept of Energy Kansas City Plant

. Statistical Summary

The U.S. EPA provides the following statistical summary of tables 3

, 4 and 5 t o assist in answering the following questions:

Table 3 - Category-wide Total

Population White African
American Native
American Other or
Multiracial Minority / Hispanic Linguisticall y Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 0 - 17 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income

307,428 229,761 57,261 944 19,462 85,823 5,992 21,536 73,577 41,934 26,108 96,080
75% 19% 0% 6% 28% 2% 7% 24% 14% 13% 31% 312,861,256 226,405,205 39,475,216 3,646,995 43,333,840 115,989,918 19,196,507 20,465,065 75,217,176 40,830,262 30,952,789 101,429,436
72% 13% 1% 14% 37% 6% 7% 24% 13% 15% 32%

Table 2 - Hypothesis Test 1 (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Median Near-Source Population)

H 0 : Median % of Population Near Sources in Category X = National % in Category X # of Study Areas >= 100 total population (N) 13

H 1 : Median % of Population Near Sources in Category X ≠ National % in Category X

White African
American Native
American Other or
Multiracial Minority / Hispanic Linguisticall y Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 0 - 17 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income

59 48 0 1 18 0 76 63 66 34 35

0.2301 0.9193 0.0004 0.9193 0.1185 0.9730 0.6117 0.2587 0.0120 0.0627 0.1021

Table 3 - Hypothesis Test 2 (Binomial Test for Occurrence)

H 0 : Prob. (Study area with Nearby Population in Category X is above National Average) = 50%

H 1 : Prob. (Study area with Nearby Population in Category X is above National Average) ≠ 50%

White African
American Native
American Other or
Multiracial Minority / Hispanic Linguisticall y Isolated Age 0 - 4 Age 0 - 17 Age 65+ Without a HS Diploma Low Income

9 5 0 1 4 0 10 10 10 4 5

0.1796 0.4240 0.0001 0.0018 0.1796 0.0001 0.0574 0.0574 0.0574 0.1796 0.4240

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL No Significance (P >= 0.05) Significant (P < 0.05 and W > N*(N+1)/4 or B > N/2) Significantly Less (P < 0.05 and W < N*(N+1)/4 or B < N/2) Demographic Summary

NEAR SOURCE TOTAL
% OF NEAR SOURCE TOTAL
NATIONAL TOTAL
% OF NATIONAL TOTAL

STATISTIC

# STUDY AREAS > NATIONAL AVG (B)

P-VALUE STATISTIC

WILCOXON STATISTIC (W)

P-VALUE6 72%

13%

1% 14% 37%

6% 7% 24%

13% 15% 32% 75%

19%

0% 6% 28%

2% 7% 24%

14% 13% 31% 78%

16%

0% 6% 25%

1% 7% 24%

14% 14% 32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 

## Percentage Comparisons to National Averages

NATIONAL AVERAGE % CATEGORY TOTAL % CATEGORY AVERAGE %