Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic



## Preliminary Review of Environmen tal Justice Impacts

for the following Proposed Rules:

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

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

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

Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste

Air Quality Analysis Group Sector Based Assessment Group Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

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

April 28 , 2010 Deleted: DRAFT

Formatted: Normal, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers

Deleted: 13

Deleted: ¶

### 2 Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic

Formatted: Left 

## I. Background and Introduction

In July 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Dist rict of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded to EPA both the CISWI Definitions Rule 1 

### and the Boilers Rule 2 

### . In response to this vacatur and remand, EPA is proposing the following three actions : (1) the proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Gu idelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule); (2) the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industria l, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area source Boilers Rule); and (3) the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Pr ocess Heaters (the major source Boilers Rule ). In addition, EPA’s response to the Court’s decision re quires a clear determination of which non-hazardous, “secondary materials” 3 

### constitute a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D “solid waste.” This is necessary in order to clarify when the combustion of these materials would be regulated pursuant to CAA Section 129 (as opposed to potential regulation under Section 112 for a combustion unit that burns secondary materials that are not solid wast e). Thus, in a concurrent notice, the Agency is publishing the proposed rule for the Identification of Non-hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste (the proposed NHSM rule). The costs and benefits of these actions are examined in the regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) prepared in support of the proposed CISWI and boiler rules. This analysis has been conducted within the context of Executive Order 12898. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 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 EP A’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.

The purpose of this document is to summarize our preliminary assessment of the environmental justice impacts of the proposed CISWI, ma jor and area source Boiler, and NHSM rules. We developed this combined environmental justice assessment becau se of the interdependencies between the air and solid waste rules. The emissions standards develo ped in the proposed CISWI Rule, area source Boilers Rule, and major source Boilers Rule (and the envir onmental 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 se condary 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 second ary materials considered to be solid wastes

. 5

1 

### Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units – Final Rule Amendments, September 22, 2005.
2 

### National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, September 2004.
3 

### A “secondary material” is any material that is not the pr imary product of a manufacturing or commercial process, including but not limited to post-consumer material, post-industrial material, and scrap. The secondary materials contemplated in this document are summarized later in this document, and described in further detail in the materials characterization papers located in the docket for the proposed NHSM rule.

5 

### Facilities that burn secondary materials considered to be solid wastes under the proposed NHSM rule must decide whether to stop burning these materials or to continue burning them and possibly incur additional air pollution control costs as an incinerator. Deleted: DRAFT

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto Deleted: The purpose of this document is to summarize our assessment of the environmental justice impacts of the

Deleted: p roposed rules

Deleted: );

Deleted: (4)

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: based on

Deleted:

. 4

### 3 Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic 

### 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 resou rces available. The reader should be mindful of this limitation.

II. 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 standa rds 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 in stitutional boilers and process heaters will be covered by the proposed major so urce 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 em issions 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); meta ls, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg); toxic organics, including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzo furans (dioxin, furans); carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen oxides (NOx); and aci d gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The major source Boilers Ru le 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 Bo ilers Rule will reduce emissions of mercury, nonmercury 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. Reduc ing these emissions will subsequently reduce ozone and PM 2.5 

### formation in the atmosphere and their associ ated health effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma, a nd 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 coor dinates, 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. Theref ore, while it is not possible to assess by how much more or less one population group or communit y would benefit from emission reductions from area source boilers than another population group or comm unity, most people and communities will benefit Deleted: DRAFT

Deleted: 434

Deleted: s

Deleted: Adverse

Deleted: from these pollutants

Deleted: and chronic health disorders ( e.g

. Deleted: and

Deleted: )

Deleted: acute health disorders ( e.g ., lung irritation and congestion,

Deleted: and effects on the kidneys and central nervous system).

Deleted: ¶

### 4 Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic 

### The analysis for the CISWI Rule and the majo r 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 6 

### focused on areas around industrial sources

. 7 

### 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 popul ation 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). 8 

### The population of each census block within three miles of a source was successively di vided into subgroups (e.g., first by race, then by Hispanic status, then by age group). After each division, persons were counted and summed across blocks to obtain population numbers for the area around each source.

Based on the fact that the three rules do not a llow 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, th e beneficial effects will be larger for the average minority and low income American than for all Am ericans. Exhibit 1 summarizes the results of the analysis for the three-mile buffers around the major source boilers and CISWI units. The results suggest that populations living near these facilities are located in areas with minority and low-income populations that are higher than the national averages. As shown in Exhibit 1, the major source boilers are located in areas where minorities’ share of the population (33 percent) living within a three-mile buffer is higher than the national average (25 percent). For these sa me areas, the percent of the population below the poverty line (16 percent) is also hi gher 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

6 

### Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987 – 2007, March 2007. (This document discusses the use of various radii, including three miles, in demographic analyses as the traditional approach.)
7 

### 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-econom ic 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. An Open Letter to the Members of Congress: Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty, 1987-2007: Grassroots Struggles to Disman tle Environmental Racism in the United States. July 20, 2007.
8 

### The use of two different approaches has stemmed from time requirements and the rulemaking schedule, not any fundamental technical basis. Deleted: DRAFT

Deleted:

.

Deleted: from the three rules

Deleted: not significantly different from

Deleted: ir respective

### 5 Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic 

### stands to see increased environmental and health be nefits from the emissions reductions resulting from the two rules. Deleted: DRAFT

Deleted: As with the areas around major source boilers, we saw no significant differences in the distribution of different age groups relative to the national distribution. ¶6Formatted:Font: 10 pt, Not Bold,Not ItalicFormatted:LeftExhibit 1 – Populations Within Three-Mile Proximity to Major Source Boilers and CISWI UnitsOverallpopulationWhiteMinorities1AfricanAmericanNativeAmericanOther andmultiracialHispanicorLatino2Below thepoverty lineUnder age18Age 65 andOverPOPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF MAJOR SOURCE BOILERS (13,434 units)36,868,952 24,828,553 12,040,399 7,296,123 207,4414,536,835 4,682,861 5,997,709 9,735,998 4,614,67267% 33% 20% 1% 12% 13% 16% 26% 13%POPULATION WITHIN 3 MILES OF CISWI INCINERATORS (176 units)2,095,561 1,480,539 615,022 346,191 21,128247,703 273,943 295,197 569,708 260,92971% 29% 17% 1% 12% 13% 14% 27% 12%OVERALL NATIONAL POPULATION285,339,128 214,539,706 70,799,422 35,043,873 2,489,51533,265,937 39,083,760 37,161,950 77,245,364 35,491,27475% 25% 12% 1% 12% 14% 13% 27% 12%Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Information on the facilities is from U.S. EPA.1.The “Minorities”populationis the overall population (in the first column)minus white population (in the second column). (Another way to calculate the samenumber is to add the fourth column -African American, the fifth column - Native American, and the sixth column – Other and Multiracial.) Ethnicity is notadded 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 any race.Deleted:DRAFTFormatted:Font color: Black,HighlightFormatted:Normal, Indent: Left:0.05", Hanging: 0.2", Don't adjustspace between Latin and Asian text,Don't adjust space between Asiantext and numbers, Tabs: 0.05", LeftDeleted:Minority1Deleted:OverallDeleted:does not include whiteHispanic population)

### 7 Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic 

### III Environmental Justice Impacts of the Proposed Rule for the Identification of Non- hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste

EPA’s proposal would define the 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 di sposal or another beneficial use. According to EPA’s assessment of affected units using the least cost method 9 

### , disposal is the most likely prospect for diverted secondary materials, but some specific second ary materials are more likely to be processed into a legitimate non-waste fuel or ingredient, or recycled fo r 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 just ice concerns. As secondary materials are diverted to disposal and processing facilities, activity at these facilities will increase ( e.g. , increased transportation to these sites), which may create environmental exposure 10 

### and nuisance concerns ( e.g. , odors, noise, and aesthetics).

To assess the potential environmental justice impa cts of the proposed NHSM rule, EPA created the following assessment that is located in the do cket for the proposed rule: “Environmental Justice Analysis for Diversion and other Impacts from th e 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 nonhazardous 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 2 and 3. Using block group data from the 2000 Census, EPA estimated the population of minorities 11 

### (non-White) near each facility and the percentage of the population near each facility that is

9 

### 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.
10 

### The diversion of secondary materials to landfills and other facilities may not necessarily increase exposure to environmental contaminants.
11 

### “ Minorities” is defined in this assessment as racial minorities (non-whites) to be comparable with the calculation used for the Major Boiler and CISWI demographics (see Exhibit 1). This calculation of the minority population is the overall population minus white population. The minority designation used for the diversion assessment in Deleted: DRAFT

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", Hanging: 0.25"

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black Deleted: The proposed rule for

Deleted: identification of

Deleted: that are

Deleted: enumerates several criteria for determining whether a secondary material is a solid waste when combusted.

Deleted: ¶ These criteria generally include: ¶ (1) whether the non-hazardous secondary material is

Deleted:

,

Deleted: and meets legitimacy criteria; ¶ (2) whether

Deleted: non-hazardous secondary material is

Deleted: , and

Deleted: (3) whether a discarded

Deleted: non-waste legitimate

Deleted:

.

Deleted: (4) whether a non-waste

Deleted: granted.

Deleted: minorities’ share of

Deleted: manor ... [3] ... [1]

... [2]

### 8 Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic 

### below the poverty line. 12 

### The nationwide estimates for each facili ty type were then compared with the percent of the U.S. population characterized as minorit y and as population below the poverty line (using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). EPA conduc ted this analysis nationally for the following categories of facilities 13 

### : landfills, demolition landfills, composting facilities, incinerators (municipal waste), materials recovery facilities, 14 

### 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 de velop a legitimate fuel or a non-fuel recycled product. Due to the difficulty of obtaining demographic data on all areas surroundi ng 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 ot her processors, such as used oil processors, will be included in the final rule (if available). For tire processing facilities, 15 

### EPA randomly selected 73 of the 530 US tire processors 17 

### for analysis. Scrap tires can be processed for a variety of uses, including tirederived-fuel (which includes shredding the whol e tires in small pieces and removing metal wire). Because these facilities are separate from the disposal diversion facilities and becau se 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 pov erty line. Both of these percentages exceed the corresponding national averages.

Exhibit 2 shows a separate figure that includes ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino). According to the Census Bureau, “Hispanic or Latino” is an ethnicity rather than a racial category, Hispanics or Latinos may belong to any race. The Census Bureau defines “Hispanic or Latino" as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central 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).
12 

### 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.
13 

### The locations used for the demographics (for facilities identified in Exhibits 2 and 3) are from the “Waste Business Journal Directory & Atlas of Non-Hazardous Waste Sites 2008.”
14 

### Materials recovery facilities are facilities that sort an d process collected mixed recyclables into individual streams for market. These are also known as intermediate processi ng 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.
15 

### 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.
17 

### 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. Deleted: DRAFT

Deleted: material

Deleted: The demographics associated with the list of facility types, as identified in Exhibits 2 and 3, are from the “Waste Business Journal Directory & Atlas of Non-Hazardous Waste Sites 2008.”

Deleted: is

Deleted: 14 percent

Deleted: listed in the Scrap Tire News’ “2009 Scrap Tire and Rubber Users Directory.” 16

Deleted: don’t

Deleted: aerial

### 9 Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic

Formatted: Left 

### Exhibit 2 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 onemile buffer. As indicated in Exhib it 2, the results of the three-mile analysis suggest that populations living near facilities that may receive secondary ma terials diverted from affected combustion units are located in areas where minority 18 

### and low-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.

18 

### Note that the first minority percent in Exhibit 2 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. Deleted: DRAFT

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Bold Deleted: analysis at

Deleted: miles

Deleted: 1

Deleted: As indicated in

Deleted: 2,

Deleted: population

Deleted: 27

Deleted: ) also

Deleted: the seven facility types, ranging from 14 percent for landfills

Deleted:

, Deleted:

Deleted: ¶ ¶ ¶

### 10 Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic

Formatted: Left 

### Exhibit 2: 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 Recovery 3 (1,247) 61,207,342 23,298,204 38% (46%) 9,735,122 16% Transfer Stations 4 (3,042) 65,314,862 22,412,482 34% (42%) 9,878,917 15% Waste-to-Energy Plants 5 (93) 5,584,477 2,026,576 36% (44%) 925,880 17% TOTAL: OTHER SITES (4,689) 142,666,562 51,057,493 36% (44%) 21,986,068 15%

National Statistics for comparison 6 25% (31%) 13%

Sources : The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau , 2000. The facility list is from “Waste Business Journal Directory & Atlas of 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 1). 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 conc entrated for transport to a processing facility or disposal site (i.e., landfill). Recycling and some proce ssing 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 1). Deleted: DRAFT

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Formatted Table

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not All caps

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted Deleted: (total)

Deleted: Plus

Deleted: 27

Deleted: 16%

Deleted: . Ethnicity was not used to

Deleted: parenthesis

Deleted: (White Hispanics). ... [4]

... [6]

... [10] ... [7]

... [11] ... [8]

... [12] ... [9] ... [5]

### 11 Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic 

### Demographics: Race and Ethnicity Analysis

Exhibit 3 shows the populations in the three-mile buffer zone around facilities by racial and ethnic category. 19 

### 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 2, the values in Exhibit 3 were estimated by areal apportionment at the block group level. They include the population around each facility considered, but Exhibit 3 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 incinerator s, 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 3. The Diversion Analysis document includes the race a nd 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.

19 

### Similar to Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3 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. Deleted: DRAFT

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman Bold

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Deleted: aerial

Deleted: s
Deleted: counting

Deleted:

Deleted: 45

### 12 Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic



### IV. 

## Limitations of Demographic Analysis

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

• Locational Uncertainty: The three-mile distance used in Exhibit 1 was measured from a

point which was visually verified using aerial imagery to be within the fence line of each affected CISWI facility but which is not nece ssarily at the point of emissions release of the affected unit(s) at the facility. The accuracy of the Boiler facility location in Exhibit 1 (over 1500 facilities) and the waste facility locations (over 8,000) in Exhibit 2 and 3 were not individually verified to be within th e fence line using aerial imagery due to time and cost constraints.

• Exposure Change Uncertainty: We have not estimated the reduction in exposure to air

pollution that will result from more stringent emission limitations on the CISWI and major boiler sources for which demographic information is presented in Exhibit 1. Proximity within 3 miles should be consid ered only a qualitative indicator for current exposures and future exposure reductions. Also, although minority and low-income populations near the facilitie s represented in Exhibits 2 and 3 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 3: 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 2 for information on the data. Deleted: DRAFT

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Formatted Table

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted Formatted

Formatted

Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.35" Formatted Deleted: (NUMBER

Deleted: ONLY

Deleted: ONLY

Deleted: ONLY

Deleted: The percentage identified as

Deleted: Exposure

Deleted: Although

Deleted: 1 through ... [28] ... [14]

... [29] ... [15]

... [30] ... [16]

... [31] ... [17]

... [32] ... [13]

... [33] ... [27]

... [34] ... [20]

... [35] ... [21]

... [36] ... [22]

... [37] ... [23]

... [38] ... [24] ... [18]

... [25] ... [19]

... [26]

### 13 Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold, Not Italic



### • Causality or Temporal Effects: This analysis does not attempt to ascertain the direction

of causality or temporal effects that may im pact potential exposures. We do not attempt to assess whether the facility preceded certai n 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 1 through 3 are based

on the populations that live within three miles of each facility type . However, other populations, such as non-resident individuals who work near these facilities , may also benefit from reduced air pollution due to the more stringent emission limits on CISWI and boilers or, in the case of possible secondary material diversion, face increased exposure risk,

.

• Geographic Overlap: For Exhibit 3, 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: R ace and Ethnicity Analysis” for the full description.) In Exhibit 1, 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 Exhibi t 2, there is no overlap within each type of waste facilities, although one person may be counted in the demographics for different types of waste sites.

• 2000 Census Data: Our analysis is based on Census data for the year 2000, though

populations may have migrated since that time.



## V. Other Potential 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 ot her processing operations, the proposed rules could possibly lead to several other environmental justice impa cts. 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.



## VI. Conclusions

Based on the fact that the CISWI, area source bo iler, 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, beca use the populations in the vicinity of the affected sources are in the aggregate more minority and low inco me 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 lowincome populations are greater than the national average. Deleted: DRAFT

Formatted: Tabs: 0.5", List tab

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.35"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.35" Deleted: analysis

Deleted: is

Deleted: assumption that all

Deleted: near
Deleted: face the same increases in exposure and risk. Other

Deleted: , however, may also face increased exposure ris k

Deleted: IVPage 7: [1] Formatted Author 

## Left, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tab afte r: 1" + Indent at: 1", Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust sp ace between Asian text and numbers

Page 7: [2] Deleted Author 

## (3) whether a discarded s econdary material has
Page 7: [3] Deleted Author 

## (4) whether a non-waste determination
Page 10: [4] Formatted Author 

## Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Verti cal: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Page 10: [5] Formatted Author 

## Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Verti cal: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Page 10: [6] Formatted Author 

## Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Verti cal: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Page 10: [7] Formatted Author 

## Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Verti cal: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Page 10: [8] Formatted Author 

## Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Verti cal: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Page 10: [9] Formatted Author 

## Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Verti cal: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Page 10: [10] Formatted Author 

## Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Verti cal: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Page 10: [11] Formatted Author 

## Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Verti cal: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal: 0", Wrap Around

Page 10: [12] Deleted Author 

### . Ethnicity was not used to determine minority status. This measure does not capture White Hispanics.

Page 12: [13] Formatted Author 

## Font: Not Bold, Not All caps

Page 12: [14] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line spacing: singl e, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [15] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [16] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [17] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [18] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [19] Formatted Author

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph
Page 12: [20] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [21] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [22] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [23] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [24] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [25] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [26] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [27] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [28] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [29] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [30] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [31] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [32] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [33] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [34] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [35] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [36] Formatted Author 

## Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [37] Formatted Author 

## Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Position: Vertical: -0.05", Relative to: Paragraph

Page 12: [38] Deleted Author 

## The percentage identified as “American Indian or Alaskan Native Only” is shown as one percent (the same as the national average) due to rounding, but all populations are slightly lower than the national averages for all facility types. Page Break