Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Not Bold,

Not Italic

Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice Impacts 

for the following Proposed Rules: 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; 

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

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; 

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

Air Quality Analysis Group

Sector Based Assessment Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Economics and Risk Analysis Staff 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

April 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 District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded to 

EPA both the CISWI Definitions Rule1 and the Boilers Rule2. 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 Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule); (2) the proposed National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area 

source Boilers Rule); and (3) the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the major source Boilers Rule). In 

addition, EPA’s response to the Court’s decision requires a clear determination of which non-hazardous, 

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

waste.” This is necessary in order to clarify when the combustion of these materials would be regulated 

pursuant to CAA Section 129 (as opposed to potential regulation under Section 112 for a combustion unit 

that burns secondary materials that are not solid waste). Thus, in a concurrent notice, the 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 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. 

 

The purpose of this document is to summarize our preliminary assessment of the environmental 

justice impacts of the proposed CISWI, major and area source Boiler, and NHSM rules. We developed 

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

solid waste rules. The emissions standards 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.

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 primary product of a manufacturing or commercial process, 

including but not limited to post-consumer material, post-industrial material, and scrap. The secondary materials 

contemplated in this document are summarized later in this document, and described in further detail in the materials 

characterization papers located in the docket for the proposed NHSM rule. 

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: proposed 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 resources 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 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, 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. 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 

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 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 analyses6

 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 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).8

 The population of each census block 

within three miles of a source was successively divided into subgroups (e.g., first by race, then by 

Hispanic status, then by age group). After each division, persons were counted and summed across 

blocks to obtain population numbers for the area around each source. 

 Based on the fact that the three 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 will be larger for the average 

minority and low income American than for all Americans. Exhibit 1 summarizes the results of the 

analysis for the three-mile buffers around the major source boilers and CISWI units. The results suggest 

that populations living near these facilities are located in areas with minority and low-income populations 

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

areas where minorities’ share of the population (33 percent) living within a three-mile buffer is higher 

than the national 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 

 

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-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. An Open Letter to the Members of Congress: Toxic Wastes and Race 

at Twenty, 1987-2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle 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 benefits 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.¶
6 

Exhibit 1 – 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 Under age 18 Age 65 

Over 

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 9,735,998 4,614,6

 67% 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 21,128 247,703 273,943 295,197 569,708 260,92

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

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 77,245,364 35,491,

 75% 25% 12% 1% 12% 14% 13% 27% 12% 

Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Information on the facilities is from U.S. EPA. 

1. The “Minorities” population is the overall population (in the first column) minus white population (in the second column). (Another way to calculate the 

number is to add the fourth column -African American, the fifth column - Native American, and the sixth column – Other and Multiracial.) Ethnicity is noadded 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.
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 disposal or another beneficial use. According to 

EPA’s assessment of affected units using the least cost method9

, 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 exposure10 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 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 

minorities11 (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 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 facilities13: 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 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,15 EPA randomly selected 73 of 

the 530 US tire processors17 for analysis. Scrap tires can be processed for a variety of uses, including tirederived-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 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 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. 

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 Exhibit 2, 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 minority18 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 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 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 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 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 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 3. 

The Diversion Analysis document includes the race and ethnicity analysis at the one-mile buffer, as well 

as comparisons between the two distributions. 

The percentage identified as “American Indian or Alaskan Native” is shown as one percent (the 

same as the national average) due to rounding, but all those populations are slightly lower than the 

national averages for all facility types.

 

 

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 necessarily 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 the fence line using aerial imagery due to time 

and cost constraints. 

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

pollution that will result from more stringent emission limitations on the CISWI and 

major boiler sources for which demographic information is presented in Exhibit 1. 

Proximity within 3 miles should be considered only a qualitative indicator for current 

exposures and future exposure reductions. Also, although minority and low-income 

populations near the facilities 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 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 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: Race 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 Exhibit 2, there is no overlap 

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

demographics for different types of waste sites. 

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

populations may have migrated since that time. 

V. Other Potential 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. 

VI. 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 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 risk

Deleted: IV
Page 7: [1] Formatted Author 

Left, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tab after: 1" + Indent at: 1", Don't adjust space between 

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

Page 7: [2] Deleted Author 

(3) whether a discarded secondary material has 

Page 7: [3] Deleted Author 

(4) whether a non-waste determination 

Page 10: [4] Formatted Author 

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

Wrap Around 

Page 10: [5] Formatted Author 

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

Wrap Around 

Page 10: [6] Formatted Author 

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

Wrap Around 

Page 10: [7] Formatted Author 

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

Wrap Around 

Page 10: [8] Formatted Author 

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

Wrap Around 

Page 10: [9] Formatted Author 

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

Wrap Around 

Page 10: [10] Formatted Author 

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

Wrap Around 

Page 10: [11] Formatted Author 

Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to: Column, Vertical: 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: single, 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