2024-15840. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Hazardous Waste Combustors Malfunction and Electronic Reporting Amendments

Table 1—NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action

Source category	NESHAP	NAICS code 1
Petroleum and coal products manufacturing	40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE	3241
Chemical manufacturing	40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE	325
Cement and concrete product manufacturing	40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE	3273
Other nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing	40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE	3279
Hazardous waste treatment and disposal	40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE	562211
Remediation and other waste management services	40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE	5629
1  North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at https://www.epa.gov/​stationary-sources-air-pollution/​hazardous-waste-combustors-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register , the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website.

A memorandum showing the rule edits that would be necessary to incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE proposed in this action is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post a copy of this document to https://www.epa.gov/​stationary-sources-air-pollution/​hazardous-waste-combustors-national-emission-standards-hazardous.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the “residual risk review.” In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the standards as necessary taking into account any “developments in practices, processes, or control technologies.” This review is commonly referred to as the “technology review”. This action proposes to amend the current rule to remove an exemption that is inconsistent with the statute and to update the reporting requirements in preparation for conducting the required residual risk and technology reviews.

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?

Hazardous waste combustors are incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, or hydrochloric acid production furnaces that combust hazardous waste for the purpose of waste reduction, thermal energy recovery, and/or production of a product. The HWC NESHAP covers hazardous air pollutant emissions from hazardous waste combustors at major and area sources. The key pollutants the EPA regulates from these sources include polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (PCDD/PCDF), mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, hydrogen chloride, chlorine, other hydrocarbon HAP, and non-enumerated metal HAP.

The HWC NESHAP was first promulgated in 1999 and regulated hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns.^[1] These standards were amended and standards for hazardous waste solid fuel boilers, liquid fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces were added in 2005.^[2] Subsequent amendments to the HWC NESHAP were made in 2005, 2006, and 2008.^[3] The EPA sought and received a full voluntary remand of the rule in 2009 to reexamine the rule in its totality.^[4]

In a 2008 decision ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the court) vacated portions of two provisions in the NESHAP General Provisions governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated NESHAP General Provisions language that exempted sources from HAP non-opacity and opacity emission standards contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). The court held that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that “the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.”

III. Proposed Actions

A. What actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for those actions?

In this proposal, we are proposing the following revisions to the HWC NESHAP: (1) removal or revision of provisions associated with emission limit exemptions for periods of malfunction, including some recordkeeping and reporting requirements and General Provisions applicability; (2) amendment to emergency safety vent provisions, including recordkeeping requirements; (3) addition of electronic reporting provisions; and (4) a technical correction related to the use of Method 23 to determine compliance with the PCDD/PCDF standards. The proposed decisions, as well as the rationale for those decisions, are presented below.

1. Periods of malfunction

We are proposing revisions to the malfunction provisions of the NESHAP in order to ensure that they are consistent with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in which the court vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. We are proposing the elimination of the malfunction exemption in this rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(1)(i), (c)(2)(v), and (c)(4)(i). The EPA is in the process of gathering and evaluating data about startup and shutdown to evaluate whether sources can meet the normal operations standards during periods of startup and shutdown or if alternative standards for these periods are warranted and, if alternative standards are warranted, to develop them. Due to the amount of time needed for these activities, the removal of the startup and shutdown exemptions along with revisions to associated recordkeeping and reporting provisions will be undertaken in a subsequent planned rulemaking action.

With the issuance of the mandate in Sierra Club v. EPA, on October 16, 2009, the vacatur became effective and the regulatory provisions contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) became null and void. The EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) on March 11, 2021, to reflect the court order and correct the CFR to remove the SSM exemption.^[5] We are removing any cross-references to the vacated provisions in the regulatory language to conform to the court's order in Sierra Club v. EPA.

We are also proposing several revisions to the General Provisions Applicable to Subpart EEE table (table 1 to subpart EEE) in the HWC NESHAP as is explained in more detail below. We also are proposing to revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the malfunction exemption as further described below.

We are not proposing changes to the emissions limits of the HWC NESHAP even though we are removing the exemption from emission limits during periods of malfunction. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA has interpreted CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. This reading has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit since at least 2016. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir.) (2016). Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set different standards for periods of malfunction, we have the discretion to do so where feasible.

2. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements and General Provisions Applicability

Because we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, we are also proposing related revisions to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to table 1 to subpart EEE.

a. Section 63.1206(b)(1) General Duty

We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), which describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer either necessary or appropriate considering the elimination of the malfunction exemption. We are proposing instead to add regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(1) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by a malfunction exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of malfunction. With the elimination of the malfunction exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(1) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).

We are also proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii). Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are no longer necessary with the elimination of the malfunction exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(1).

b. SSM Plan

We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), which requires owners or operators to satisfy the general duty to minimize emissions at all times. The cross-reference to the general duty requirement is redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(1).

c. Compliance With Standards

We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), which requires that non-opacity emission standards apply at all times except as otherwise specified in an applicable subpart. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) on March 11, 2021, to reflect the mandate and correct the CFR to remove the SSM exemption. However, the second sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) contains language that is premised on the existence of an exemption and is inappropriate in the absence of the malfunction exemption.

We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), which requires that opacity and visible emission standards apply at all times except as otherwise specified in an applicable subpart. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) on March 11, 2021, to reflect the mandate and correct the CFR to remove the SSM exemption. However, the second sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) contains language that is premised on the existence of an exemption and is inappropriate in the absence of the malfunction exemption.

d. Section 63.1207(g) Performance Testing

We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), which describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.1207(g). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the malfunction exemption and language that precluded operations during periods of SSM periods from being considered “representative” for purposes of performance testing. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during periods of SSM because conditions may not be representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation; conducting performance testing under operating conditions representative of the extreme range of normal conditions is consistent with this requirement. The language in 40 CFR 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records “as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test” but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the information.

e. Monitoring

We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i), which requires that owners or operators maintain and operate each continuous monitoring system in compliance with the general duty requirement. The cross-reference to the general duty requirement in that subparagraph is not necessary considering other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).

f. Section 63.1211(a) Reporting

We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.1211(a), which summarizes reporting requirements, by adding language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning such events in both the excessive emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the start date, start time, end date, end time, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.

g. Section 63.1211(e) Recordkeeping

We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.10 by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), which describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. It will continue to be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard for normal operations. We are proposing to add recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.1211(e) that require recordkeeping of startup and shutdown events and require reporting related to all exceedances.

We are also proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.10 by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii), which describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.1211(e). The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that sources record the start date, start time, end date, end time, and cause (including an unknown cause, if applicable) of any event in which an affected source fails to meet an applicable standard. The EPA is also proposing to add a requirement that sources keep records that includes the affected source or equipment, whether the failure occurred during a period of SSM, actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.

We are also proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 CFR 63.10 by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B), which requires sources to record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions. This requirement is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.1211(e).

3. Emergency Safety Vent Operating Plan

We are proposing revisions to the emergency safety vent openings provisions to remove the requirement for an emergency safety vent operating plan in 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(4)(ii) and bolster the associated reporting requirements. With the elimination of the exemption for periods of malfunction, affected units are subject to an emission standard during openings of emergency safety events that occur outside of periods of startup and shutdown. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and thus emergency safety vent operating plans are no longer necessary.

4. Electronic Reporting

The EPA is proposing that owners or operators of hazardous waste combustor facilities submit electronic copies of required notices of intent to comply (NIC), notifications of compliance (NOC), notifications of changes that may adversely affect compliance, compliance progress reports, excessive emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports and summary reports, performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and periodic SSM reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for this action. The proposed rulemaking requires that the owner or operator submit performance test results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website ^[6] at the time of the test in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, and it requires that the owner or operator submit other performance test results in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, the proposed rulemaking requires the owner or operator to submit performance evaluation results of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the time of the test in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, and it requires that the owner or operator submit other performance evaluation results in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. The proposed rulemaking requires the owner or operator to submit NOC, NIC, compliance progress reports, excessive emissions and continuous monitoring system performance reports and summary reports, periodic SSM reports, and notifications of changes that may adversely affect compliance as a PDF upload in CEDRI.

Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These circumstances are: (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required reports, and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners or operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.

The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated State, local, Tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan ^[7] to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide policy ^[8] developed in response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.^[9] For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, referenced earlier in this section.

5. Technical Correction

On March 20, 2023, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE was updated to remove the requirement for Administrator approval to use EPA Method 23 in compliance demonstrations for PCDD/PCDF, reflecting revisions to EPA Method 23 made in March 2023.^[10] The reference to requiring Administrator approval for such measurements in 40 CFR 63.1207(f)(1)(xv) was inadvertently retained in the rule, and so we propose to remove the requirement and reserve 40 CFR 63.1207(f)(1)(xv).

B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale for the proposed compliance dates?

The EPA is proposing to allow 180 days from the date of the final rule for compliance with the malfunction exemption removal, emergency safety vent operating plan removal, recordkeeping and reporting and General Provisions revisions, and electronic reporting requirements other than performance test and performance evaluation reports. The EPA is proposing to allow 90 days from the date of the final rule for compliance with electronic submission of performance test and performance evaluation results. Because the proposed technical correction is non-substantive, the EPA is proposing to make it effective immediately upon promulgation of the final rule.

The EPA is proposing changes that affect ongoing compliance for this subpart, namely removing the provisions that provide an exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during periods of malfunction, removing the requirement for an emergency safety vent operating plan, adding electronic reporting provisions, and updating recordkeeping and reporting requirements and General Provisions applicability in keeping with the proposed revisions. Our experience with other similar industries shows that such facilities generally require a period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements, to evaluate their operations for any changes needed to meet the revised requirements, and to update their operations to reflect their revised requirements.

In contrast, the EPA is proposing no changes to the content of performance test and performance evaluation reports, only the method of reporting. Our experience with requiring electronic reporting of performance tests and performance evaluations in other industries shows that as the ERT has been in use by source testing companies since 2004, less time is necessary for its implementation, and that facilities generally require a period of 90 days to understand and become familiar with the process of submitting performance test and performance evaluation results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI. Accordingly, we propose that 90 days would be sufficient time for facilities with hazardous waste combustors to complete these tasks.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

The hazardous waste combustor source category comprises incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, solid fuel boilers, liquid fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces that combust hazardous waste. Currently, the EPA has identified 177 hazardous waste combustors at 96 facilities owned by 82 corporate entities. Of these, 70 are incinerators, 67 are liquid fuel boilers, 17 are hydrochloric acid production furnaces, 14 are cement kilns, 7 are solid fuel boilers, and 2 are lightweight aggregate kilns. We estimate that four new hazardous waste combustors may begin operations in the next five years.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

We do not anticipate that the proposed amendments to this subpart will impact air quality. The addition of electronic reporting provisions, amendments to the emergency safety vent provisions, and correction of inadvertent errors do not affect the stringency of the standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Because malfunctions are, by definition, not reasonably preventable, we do not expect the removal of the emissions limit exemption for periods of malfunction to impact hazardous air pollutant emissions or, subsequently, air quality.

C. What are the cost impacts?

The EPA estimated costs for this proposed action based on the results of the analysis for information collection activities, as presented in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section, Economic Impact Analysis memorandum, and accompanying Information Collection Request (ICR) documents in the docket. The EPA estimated the incremental industry costs of the rule to be $2,600 per unit in the first year and $840 in each of the subsequent years. Total incremental industry costs of the rule are estimated to be $470,000 in the first year and $150,000 in each of the subsequent years. These costs are small relative to the estimated revenue of the hazardous waste treatment and disposal industry (approximately $9 billion in 2021).

D. What are the economic impacts?

Because of the low costs, relatively small number of affected existing units (fewer than 200) and because the EPA anticipates 4 affected new sources in the next 5 years, the EPA expects minimal economic impacts under the final rule.

E. What are the benefits?

The proposed amendments require electronic submittal of performance tests, deviation reports, and annual compliance reports, which will streamline reporting for affected sources and increase the usefulness of the data and improve data accessibility for the public. The electronic reporting requirements will, therefore, further assist in the protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. No air quality benefits are expected, quantified, or monetized.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 2016 “Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,” which provides recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns through this action under development.

The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that “[t]he analysis of potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared to the baseline?” ^[11]

The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the potential impacts of this proposed action. The EPA notes that analysis of such impacts is distinct from the determinations proposed in this action under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory factors the EPA is required to consider under that section.

To examine the potential for any EJ concerns that might be associated with HWC NESHAP facilities, we performed a proximity demographic analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km (~3.1 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups. It should be noted that proximity to affected facilities does not indicate that any exposures or impacts will occur and should not be interpreted as a direct measure of exposure or impact. This limits the usefulness of proximity analyses when attempting to answer questions from EPA's EJ Technical Guidance.

The results show that for populations within 5 km of the 96 hazardous waste combustor facilities, the following demographic groups were above the national average: Black (19 percent versus 12 percent nationally), Hispanic/Latino (21 percent versus 19 percent nationally), people age 0 to 17 years (24 percent versus 22 percent nationally), people living below the poverty level (19 percent versus 13 percent nationally), people below two times the poverty level (38 percent versus 29 percent nationally), and people over the age of 25 without a high school diploma (15 percent versus 12 percent nationally).

The results show that for populations within 50 km of the 96 hazardous waste combustor facilities, the percent of the population that is Black is above the national average (14 percent versus 12 percent nationally).

A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed is included as Table 2 of this preamble. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action.

Table 2—Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Hazardous Waste Combustors

Demographic group	Nationwide average for reference	Population within 50 km of 96 facilities	Population within 5 km of 96 facilities
Total Population	329,824,950	55,520,566	1,772,399
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
White	60	62	53
Black	12	14	19
American Indian	0.6	0.3	0.3
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)	19	14	21
Other and Multiracial	9	8	7
Age by Percent
Age 0 to 17 years	22	22	24
Age 18 to 64 years	62	62	62
Age ≥65 years	16	16	14
Income by Percent
Below Poverty Level	13	12	19
Below 2× Poverty Level	29	28	38
Education by Percent
Over Age 25 and without a High School Diploma	12	10	15
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
Linguistically Isolated	5	4	5
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. The total population counts are based on the 2020 Decennial Census block populations. To avoid double counting, the “Hispanic or Latino” category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.