MEMORANDUM


To:		OSWRO Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360)
From:		Paula Hirtz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Date:		November 19, 2014
Subject:	Updated Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations RTR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1.0	INTRODUCTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision 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.  E.O. 12898 informed the development and implementation of the EPA's Environmental Justice (EJ) program and EJ policies. Consistent with the E.O. and the Presidential Memorandum that accompanies the E.O., 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 and indigenous populations. E.O. 12898 and the agency's EJ policies do not mandate particular outcomes for an action, but they demand that decisions involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ issues. Where feasible, actions should prevent or address and mitigate EJ concerns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key element of environmental justice is ensuring that all people have an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the decision-making process. Certain groups may not have participated in the decision-making process historically because of economic (e.g., income), social (e.g., language barriers, education levels, distrust of government) and structural reasons. A critical concern is whether, and the extent to which, communities have the ability to influence the types and number of regulated activities taking place in their community, as well as the requirements, conditions and parameters by which such regulated activities must operate (e.g., permit conditions).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA aims to notify and engage the public in a variety of ways. Each rule is reviewed to identify appropriate mechanisms to promote meaningful involvement, which may include notices on the EJAir website, community call discussions, fact sheets, community meetings and/or webinars. Additionally, when reliable source location data is available, the EPA strives to provide a screening report of near source populations. It is important to note that while the EPA provides near-source data, whether or not a facility-level analysis is appropriate depends on the Clean Air Act's (CAA) authority for the subject rule. For example, CAA sections 112 (d) and 112(f), which address hazardous air pollutants, require the EPA to establish emission standards that apply to all sources in specified categories or subcategories. In the case of the CAA 112(f), the EPA sets standards to ensure the public is protected with an ample margin of safety based on the maximum exposed individual risk (MIR) or the facility in the source category that poses the highest risks to the public, and must consider specific statutory factors, including costs, energy and safety.

2.0 DEMOGRAPHICS

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

However, the agency has reviewed the areas surrounding existing facilities to determine if there is an overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations near the sources such that they may currently face disproportionate risks from pollutants. 

To gain a better understanding of the source category and near‐source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis at a study area of 3 miles for this rulemaking (Table 1). This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution from the regulated sources and thus are expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. To the extent that any minority, low‐income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by hazardous air emissions due to the proximity of their homes to sources of these emissions, that subpopulation also stands to see increased environmental and health benefit from the emission reductions called for by this rule. 

The analysis of demographic data used proximity-to-a-source as a surrogate for exposure to identify those populations considered to be living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to emissions from these sources. The demographic data for this analysis were extracted from the 2010 census data, which were provided to the EPA by the United States Census Bureau. Distributions by race were based on demographic information at the census block level, and all other demographic groups were based on the extrapolation of census block group level data to the census block level. The socio-demographic parameters used in the analysis included the following categories: Racial (White, African American, Native American, Other or Multiracial, and All Other Races); Ethnicity (Hispanic); and Other (number of people below the poverty line, number of people with ages between 0 and 18, number of people greater than or equal to 65, number of people over age 25 without a high school diploma). 

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities near affected sources, the EPA focused on those census blocks within 3 miles of affected sources, determined the demographic composition (e.g., race, income, etc.) of these census blocks, and compared them to the corresponding compositions nationally. The radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 km) is consistent with other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential sources however, not necessarily associated with the distance health risks are seen.  

Since the proposed rulemaking, the EPA received information from an additional four facilities in the source category and updated the agency's 2010 census data. Results from these changes are reflected in Table 1. 
         Table 1. Summary of Demographic Analysis for OSWRO facilities
                                       
