0105_Tri-CornerCDLF_Final_EJReport_FID1888379_20240314

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE REPORT
Meridian Waste
Tri-Corners Landfill
Liberty, NC
TRINITY CONSULTANTS
One Copley Parkway, Suite 205
Morrisville, NC 27560
919 462 9693
March 2024
Project 233401.0176
Trinity
Consultants

1. INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1-1
2. REGIONAL SETTING 2-1
2.1
Race and Ethnicity..........................................................................................2-1
2.2
Age and Sex....................................................................................................
2-3
2.3
Disability........................................................................................................
2-6
2.4
Poverty.........................................................................................................2-11
2.S
Household Income........................................................................................2-16
2.6
Limited English Proficiency (LEP).................................................................
2-19
2.7
Health Outcomes..........................................................................................
2-20
2.8
County Ratings by Health Factors.................................................................
2-21
2.9
Landmarks....................................................................................................2-22
3. SUMMARY
Meridian Waste - Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report
3-1
Trinity Consultants

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. One -Mile Radius Around Meridian Waste Tri-Corners Landfill 1-2
Figure 1-2. One -Mile Radius Around Meridian Waste Facility Showing Census Tracts 1-3
Figure 2-1. County Health Rankings Based on Health Factors. University of Wisconsin Population
Health Institute. County Health Rankings State Report 2021. 2-21
Figure 2-2. Sensitive Receptors Within 1-Mile Radius
2-22
Figure 2-3. Permits and Incidents Sites Within 1-Mile Radius of Meridian Waste Facility 2-23
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report i Trinity Consultants

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Regional Setting - Race and Ethnicity
2-1
Table 2-2. Local Setting - Race and Ethnicity
2-2
Table 2-3. Regional Setting - Age and Sex
2-3
Table 2-4. Local Setting - Age and Sex
2-4
Table 2-5. Project Radius - Age
2-5
Table 2-6. Regional Setting — Disability
2-6
Table 2-7. Regional Setting - Disability (County)
2-7
Table 2-8. Census Tract 218.01 — Disability
2-8
Table 2-9. Census Tract 218.03 — Disability
2-9
Table 2-10. Census Tract 170 - Disability
2-10
Table 2-11. Regional Setting - Poverty
2-11
Table 2-12. Regional Setting - Poverty (County)
2-12
Table 2-13. Census Tract 218.01 - Poverty
2-13
Table 2-14. Census Tract 218.03 — Poverty
2-14
Table 2-15. Census Tract 170 - Poverty
2-15
Table 2-16. Regional Setting - Household Income
2-16
Table 2-17. Local Setting - Household Income
2-17
Table 2-18. Project Radius - Household Income
2-18
Table 2-19. Local Setting - Limited English Proficiency
2-19
Table 2-20. Regional Setting - Health Outcomes
2-20
Table 2-21. Permits and Incidents Within 1-Mile Radius Of Tri-Corners Facility
2-24
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report ii
Trinity Consultants

1. INTRODUCTION
The Meridian Waste Tri-Corners Landfill is located at 5833 Foster Store Road in Liberty, Alamance
County, North Carolina (NC) at an approximate latitude and longitude of 35.948 degrees North and
79.526 degrees West. The Tri-Corners Landfill is a Sanitary Waste Facility, which handles
construction/demolition waste, land -clearing debris, inert debris, and asphalt. Meridian Waste is in
process of preparing a "substantial amendment/new permit application" per North Carolina
Department of Environment Quality (NCDEQ) solid waste rules to increase the permitted service
area of the facility, since there is a greater than 10% increase in either population or geographic
area that is proposed to be served.
The NCDEQ Division of Waste Management - Solid Waste Section, has developed guidance to
ensure that any affected area be analyzed to determine if there are and underserved communities
and any associated need for enhanced public engagement during the permitting process.' This
guidance describes an initial screening process that the applicant must conduct in order to
determine any underserved communities in the affected area surrounding the facility (1 mile radius
out from the property boundary).
Meridian Waste has completed this preliminary review in a manner consistent with how the NC
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) has conducted analyses recently for other permitted
facilities. The one -mile radius falls mostly within Alamance County with just a small portion in far
Eastern Guilford County. That radius intersects three census tracts (218.01 and 218.03 of Alamance
County and 170 of Guilford County). Figure 1-1 shows the 1-mile radius surrounding the Tri-Corners
facility. The red line illustrates the extent of the facility property and a 1-mile radius in all directions
out from the boundary was evaluated. Figure 1-2 shows the census tracts intersected by that radius.
1 Division of Waste Management — Solid Waste Section, "Guidance Specific to Solid Waste Management Permit
Applicants for Identifying Underserved Communities and Determining Enhanced Public Engagement Methods."
August 2023.
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 1-1 Trinity Consultants

% Nr
�o j5v.,,,j

Figure 1-2. One -Mile Radius Around Meridian Waste Facility Showing Census Tracts
218.01
Ca6t�
- ¢ t
r
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 1-3 Trinity Consultants

2. REGIONAL SETTING
The regional setting looks at factors of race and ethnicity, age and sex, disability, poverty, and
household income. This section focuses on the comparisons of the State between the County,
census tracts, and 1-mile radius. Percent differences greater than 10% from State, County, or both
percent values are noted.
2.1 Race and Ethnicity
Guilford County has a Black or African American population 13% greater than the State average
while the white population is 13% less. Guilford County also has differences greater than 10% for
the Asian population as well as those identifying as another race not listed. Alamance County has
minority populations below the State averages for all but Hispanic or Latino, where they are 3.7%
above the State average.
Table 2-1 below presents the race and ethnicity statistics for both Alamance County and Guilford
County, and North Carolina as a whole. The data for the County are compared to State averages in
order to flag anomalies that might warrant further review and consideration.
Table 2-1. Regional Setting - Race and Ethnicity
North Carolina Alamance County Guilford County
Race and Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total Population 10,439,388 100% 171,415 100% 541,299 100%
White 6,312,148 60.5% 102,487 59.8% 255,640 47.2%
Black or African American 2,107,526 20.2% + 33,555 19.6% + 179,423 33.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 100,886 1.0% 584 0.3% 1,918 0.4%
Asian 340,059 . 3.3% 2,811 ■ 1.6% 28,719 5.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 6,980 0.1% 86 0.1% 216 0.0%
Some other Race 46,340 0.4% 762 0.4% * 2,850 0.5%
Two or More Races 406,853 3.9% 6,427 3.7% 20,381 3.8%
Hispanic or Latino 1,118,596 10.7% 24,703 14.4% 52,152 9.6%
*Source: US Census Bureau, 2020 DEC Demographic and Housing Characteristics
cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared to the State
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-1 Trinity Consultants

Table 2-2 below shows the race and ethnicity statistics for the census tracts as well as the radius
around the Meridian Waste facility. The data is compared to both the County and the State statistics
in Table 2-1. All the census tracts and project area contain many differences compared to the State.
The 1-mile radius as well as the census tracts contain a significantly larger white population than
both the counties and State that they reside in. Because of this, all other races and ethnicities are
less represented. According to the guidance, the share of non -whites is neither above 50%, nor
10% greater than the State or Counties in which they reside.
Table 2-2. Local Setting - Race and Ethnicity
Project Area -
1 Mile
Census
Tract 218.01
Census Tract 218.03
Census Tract 170
Race and Ethnicity Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total Population 335
100%
4,706
100%
3,042
100%
4,675
100
White 281
84.0%
4,054
2, 642
8 4,167 _
$9.1%
Black or African American 40
12.0%
249
5.3%
120
3.9%
138
3.0%
America n Indian or Alaska Native N/A
N/A
23
0.5%
4
0.1%
12
0.3%
Asian N/A
N/A
19
0.4%
iM"0.1%
0.2%
Na t ive H awa l is n a nd Other Pa c lfi c l sla nder N/A
N/A
3
0.1%
0
0.0%
4
0.1%
Some other Race N/A
N/A
20
0.4%
11%
0.4%
Population of or More Races N/A
N/A
127
2.7%
112
3.7%
149
3.2%
11111111111111111
Hispanic or Latino 108
211
4.5%
145
4.8%
174
3.7%
*Source: US Census Bureau, 2020: DEC Demographic and Housing Characteristics
'Source for 1 Mile Radius: EPA's EJ Screen 2017-2020 ACS Report
cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compa red to the State
*Blue bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10% comparedto both Courtyard State
cells indicate a difference greaterthan 30%when compared to the County
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-2 Trinity Consultants

2.2 Age and Sex
The age and sex distribution are reviewed to determine if any further accessibility options may be
considered to accommodate for populations aged 65 years and over and to assess potential
sensitive populations.
Table 2-3 compares the State and County in both populations of sex as well as separate age
categories. Alamance County had no differences greater than 10% compared to the State. Guilford
County is just more than 10% above the State average for total, male and female population in the
5-19 age range.
Table 2-3. Regional Setting - Age and Sex
North Carolina
Total
Male
Female
Age
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total Population
10,698,973
100
5,229,792
100
5,469,181
100
Under 5 Years
584,492
5.5
294,058
5.6
290,434
5.3
5 to 19 Years
2, 003,630
18.7
1, 032, 221
19.8
971,409
17.8
20 to 64 Years
6,244,237
58.4
3,081,799
59
,162,438
57.9
65yearsandover
1,866,614
17.4
821,714
15.7
1,044,900
19.2
Alamance County
Total
Male
Female
Age
Number
Percent
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Population
176,353
100
84,865
Z 100
91,488
Z
100
Under 5 Years
9,730
5.5
4,717
5.6
5,013
5.5
5 to 19 Years
35,256
20
18,177
0 21.5 Er
17,079
18.7
20 to 64 Years
100,857
57.1
49,056
57.9
51,801
56.6
65 years and over
30,510
17.1
12,915
15.3
17,595
19.2
Guilford County
Age
Total
Male
Female
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total Population
546,101
100
259,362
100
286,739
100
Under 5 Years
29,914
5.5
15,292
5.9
14,622
5.1
5 to 19 Years
113,066
20.7
56,624
21.8
56,442
19.7
20 to 64 Years
314,645
57.6
149,366
57.4
165,279
57.7
65years and over
88,476
16.1
38,080
14.7
50,396
17.7
'Source: US Census
Bureau, ACS 2021 ACS 5-year Estimates
cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared to the State
Meridian Waste - Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-3
Trinity Consultants

Table 2-4 shows the population and percentage of each sex as well as for age categories for the
census tracts. Census tracts 170 and 218.01 had greater elderly populations compared to both the
County and State, while census tract 218.03 had a greater population aged 5 and below. Making
information more easily available as well as understandable by the elderly population in census
tracts 218.01 and 170 might be considered in this case.
Table 2-4. Local Setting - Age and Sex
Census Tract
218.01
Total
Male
Female
Age
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total Population
3,686
100
1,803
100
1,883
100
Under 5 Years
157
3.5
98
4.4
59
2.7
5 to 19 Years
849
19.0
454
20.3
395
17.8
20 to 64 Years
2,509
56.3
1,327
59.4
1,182
53.3
65 years and over
944
359
16.1
585
r
26.3
Census Tract
218.03
Total
Male
Female
Age
Number
Percent
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Population
3,686
1,803
100
1,883
100
Under 5 Years
144
4.9
42
2.9
102
`
6.7
5 to 19 Years
555
293
20.3
262
17.4
20 to 64 Years
1,836
62.1
904
62.7
932
61.7
65 years and over
418
14.1
202
14.0
216
14.3
Age
Total
Male
Female
Number Percent Number Percent
Number
Percent
Total Population 4,382
100
2,310
100
2,072
100
Under S Years 141
3.3
108
4.7
37
1.8
5 to 19 Years 779
17.8
466
20.2
313
15.2
20 to 64 Years 2,448
55.9
1,203
52.1
1,245
60.2
65 years and over 1,010
533
477
22.9
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2021 5-year Estimates
cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to the State
cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to both county and State
cells indicate a difference greater than 10%when compared to the County
Meridian Waste - Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-4
Trinity Consultants

Table 2-5 presents the age and sex population for the 1-mile radius area around the Meridian Waste
facility. Age populations were only available for total population not individual sexes. Within a 1-mile
radius there was a greater percentage of people over the age of 64.
Table 2-5. Project Radius - Age
1 Mile Radius
Age
Number
Percent
Total Population
335
100%
Under 5 Years
13
4%
Age 5 to 64 Years
238
71%
Over 64 Years
84
25%
*Source: US Census Bureau Screen
* cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared to the State
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-5 Trinity Consultants

2.3 Disability
Disability comparisons between State, County, and census tract showed very few discrepancies.
Census tracts 218.01 and 170 contained a smaller percentage of disabled individuals compared to
the County and State. Census tract 218.03 had a slightly higher rate of disability comparatively. A
higher degree of accessibility may be considered for citizens of this area.
Table 2-6 shows the State population for people with disabilities of different races. This helps to
determine what extra degree of accessibility may be needed for communication as well as location
for any in -person meetings.
Table 2-6. Regional Setting — Disability
North Carolina
Total
With a Disability
Percent
with a Disability
Subject
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Estimate I Margin of Error+/-
Estimate
Margin
of Error
Total Civilian noninstitutionalized population
9,952,031
1,743
1,350,533 7,387
13.6
0.1
_
RACE AND HISPANICOR
LATINO ORIGIN
_
_
White (not Hispanic or Latino)
6,864,809
7,919 _
955,077 6,610
.
13.9
0.1
Black or African American
2,123,353
5,762
314,216 3,706
14.8
0.2
American Indian or Alaska Native
118,231
1,604
21,874 929
.
18.5
Illlr
0.8
Asian
279,615
2,022
13,450 961
4.8
0.3
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Some other Race
Two or More Races
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
6,447
303,837
255,739
916,366
668
7,743
6,070 .
863
635 178
16,218 1,100
29,063 1,446
57,239 1,970
9.8
5.3
11.4
6.2
2.7
0.4
0.5
0.2
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2021 5-year Estimates
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-6 Trinity Consultants

Table 2-7 shows the populations of people with disabilities of different races for Alamance and
Guilford Counties. In both Counties there is a higher population of people with disabilities who
consider themselves of a race not listed or who consider themselves of two or more races. Alamance
County has higher percentages of disabilities than the State.
Table 2-7. Regional Setting - Disability (County)
Alamance County
Total
With a Disability
Perwith a Disability
Subject
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Estimate Margin of Error
Estimate Margin of Error+/-
Total Civilian noninstitutionalized population
159,436
166
22,761
874
Al.14.3 All. 0.5
White (not Hispanic or Latino)
111,957
1,045
6,947
733
. 15.1 0.7
Blackor African American
30,472
466
4,696
427
15.4 1.5
American lndianor Alaska Native
454
139
78
43
17.2 10.2
Asian
2,509
190
198
98
7.4
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
64
19
13
! 10
2013.7
Some other Race
9,926
1,078
276
147
2.1.5
Two or More Races
4,054
586
553
213
1327 5.2
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
19,875
35
667
192
3.4 1
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year
Estimates
Guilford County
Total
With a Disability
Percent with a Disability
Subject
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Estimate Margin of
Total Civilian Civilian noninstitutionalized population
519,628
352
57,584
1,629
11.1 0.3
White (not Hispanic or Latino)
289,948
1,511
33, 179
1,188 . 11.4 0.4
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
175,089
2,494
1,482
391
20,294
446
965
136
11.6 0.5
■ 5.3
Asian
25,664
484
1,438
305
1.2
W
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
287
126
43
32 12.6
Some other Race
13,344
1,596
523
195
3.9 1.4
Two or More Races
12,802
1,581
1,661
378
13 2.5
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
40,711
61
2,013
300
4.9 0.7
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year Estimates
Meridian Waste - Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-7 Trinity Consultants

Table 2-8 presents the population of census tract 218.01 with disabilities and their associated race
and ethnicity. The American Indian or Alaska Native population had a substantially larger percent
with a disability, but with a very small sample size. This tract has marginally lower rates of disability
compared to the State.
Table 2-8. Census Tract 218.01— Disability
Total Civilian noninstitutionalized population E116 4,772 639 508 143
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 4,328 631 — 437 130
Black or African American 307 137 48 55
American Indian or Alaska Native 7 9 6 7
Asian 4 7 0 13
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 13 0 r 13
Some other Race 22 23 0 13
Two or More Races ` 104 96 17 20
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 124 92 14 20
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2021 5-year Estimates
* cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to the State
* cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to both county and State
* cells indicate a difference greater than 10%when compared to the County
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-8
10.6 3.4
10.1 3.4 I
15.6 19.4
30
0 100
0 70.1
8.9 I
9.7
Trinity Consultants

Table 2-9 presents the population in Census Tract 218.03 with disabilities. This tract had higher
percentages of Hispanic or Latino with disabilities. The overall percentage of people with disabilities
is only slightly higher than the State and County rates.
Table 2-9. Census Tract 218.03 — Disability
Total Civilian noninstitutionalued population 3,332
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 3,096
Black or African American 168
American Indian or Alaska Native 0
Asian 0
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0
Some other Race 4
Two or More Races 64
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 40
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year Estimates
* cellsindicate a difference greater than 10% compared to the State
* cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to both county and State
* cells indicate a difference greater than 10%when compared to the County
Census Tract 218.03
With a Disability
Percent with a Disabilitj
of Error+/-
Estimate
I Margin of Error+/-
Estimate Margin of E
457
487
149
14.6 Z 4.3
RACE AND HISPANIC OR
LATI NO ORIGIN
465
46
458
140
14.8 4.5
158
13
20
7.7 14.5
13
0
= 13
-
13
=
0
13
-
13
0
13
- -
7
0
13
0 100
67
=
16
IF 27
44.1
66
16
27
60
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-9
Trinity Consultants

Disability within census tract 170 is displayed in Table 2-10. A higher population of Black or African
Americans with disabilities live in this area. Increasing accessibility might be considered for this area.
Table 2-10. Census Tract 170 - Disability
Census Tract 170
Total
I With a Disability
Percent
with a Disability
Subject
I Estimate Margin
of Error+/-
IEstimate I Margin of Error+/-
Estimate
I Margin of Error+/ -
Total Civilian noninstitutionalized population _ 4,377
381
464
120
10.6
2.9
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATI NO ORIGIN
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 4103
392
117
10.2
2.9
1Black or African American 32
87
30
22.8
American Indian or Alaska Native -
12
L417
12
-
-
Asian 30
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander -
41
12
12
12
0
-
56.2
-
Some other Race 17
25
-
12
0
74.6
Two or More Races 95
76
27
28.7
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 123
100
-
12
0
24.4
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year Estimates
cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared to the State
*Blue bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to both county and State
*Green bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10%when compared to the Countv
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-10
Trinity Consultants

2.4 Poverty
Poverty showed the greatest differences compared to both the State and the County. Both counties
showed higher poverty rates specifically for minority groups compared to the State. However,
census tracts 218.01, 218.03 and 170 show lower poverty rates compared to both the State and
County.
Table 2-11 shows races and their respective poverty rates within the State of North Carolina. The
data from the County can be compared to this to spot potential differences that could be reviewed
further. Comparing State poverty rates to local (county and census tract), there is no significantly
increased rate of poverty in the area. Per guidance, poverty rates are neither over 20% of the
population, nor are the census tracts 5% or more above County and State levels. This area would
not be considered an underserved population.
Table 2-11. Regional Setting - Poverty
Population for whom poverty status is determined 9,881,292 1,522 1,523,949 15,319 15.4 0.2
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATI NO ORIGIN
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 6,829,742 ' 8,193 — 823,258 11,150 12.1 0.2
Black or African American 2,096,490 5,812 493,496 8,392 23.5 0.4
585
American Indian or Alaska Native 275,301 ' 1,983 32,712 2,356 F 11.9 0.9
Asian 275,301 1,983 32,712 2,356 11.9 0.9
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 6,414 671 1,246 264 19.4 4.2
Some other Race 302,934 7,911 89,305 5,371 29.5 1.5
Two or More Races 252,709 jr 6,223 54,355 2,369 W 21.5 0.8
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 915,426 901 260, 607 5,682 28.5 0.6
I.
Below 200 percent of poverty level 3,513,670 25,035 (X) (X) (X) (X)
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2021 5-vear Estimates
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-11 Trinity Consultants

Table 2-12 shows the poverty rates of different races living within Alamance and Guilford Counties.
Within Alamance County there is generally a lower rate of poverty among marginalized groups.
Within Guilford County, the Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and those identifying
as two or more races demographics have a higher percentage of being impoverished.
Table 2-12. Regional Setting - Poverty (County)
Alamance
Subject
Total Below Poverty Level Percent Below Poverty Level
Estimate Margin of Error+/- Estimate Margin of Error+/- Estimate Margin of Error+/ -
Population for whom poverty status is determined - 156,158 376 26,264 1,910 - 16.8 1.2
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 109,401 1,047 14,356 1,477 . 13.1 Illy 1.3
Black or African American 30,126 502 7, 528 920130.3
25 3
American Indian or Alaska Native 450 141 100 892.2 15.8
Asian 2,325 212 232 18410 7.9
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 64 19 5 77.8 11.5
Some other Race 9,851 1,080 2,987 859 8.5
Two or More Races 3,941 579 1,056 336 7.3
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 19,553 96 5,935 1,0850.4 5.5
Illllr
Below 200 percent of poverty level 62,135 2,118 (X) (X) (X) (X)
Guilford County
Subject
Estimate
Total
Margin of Error+/-
Below Poverty Level
Percent Below Poverty Level
Estimate Margin of Error+/-
Estimate Margin of Error+/ -
Population for whom poverty status is determined
506,440
778
80,771 3,636
15.9
0.7
White (not Hispanic or Latino)
284,221
1,672
28,363 1,787
0
0.6
BlackorAfrican American
168,276
1,529
40,450 2329
4
1.4
American Indian orAlaska Native
2,467
387
555 207
8.2
Asian
25,447
496
4,562 1,028
3.9
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
272
127
163 110
29.7
Some other Race
13,234
1,595
3,274 902
.7
t
6
Two or More Races
12,523
1,587
3,404 939
5.6
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Below 200 percent of poverty level
40,178
185,761
149
3,972
11,098 1,363
(X) (X)
.6
)
3.4
(X)
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year Estimates
*Orar cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared
to the State
Meridian Waste - Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-12
Trinity Consultants

Table 2-13 shows the races and associated poverty rates of those living within census tract 218.01.
There are overall lower rates of poverty within this census tract compared to both County and State.
Table 2-13. Census Tract 218.01 - Poverty
Census Tract 218.01
Total
Below Poverty Level
Percent Below
Poverty Level
Subject
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Estimate I Margin of Error+/-
Estimate
Margin of Error
Population for whom poverty status is determined 4,459
379
582
349
13.1
7.5
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATI NO OR I GIN
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 4,167
111�11 461
550
343
13.2
7.8
Black or African American 137
80
11to)
17
8.0
11.9
American Indian or Alaska Native ! 31
32
012
0
55.3
Asian 0
12
012
-
-
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0
12
012
-
-
Some other Race 10
16
012
0
97.3
Two or More Races 114
. 84
2132
18.4
26.1
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 52
62
012
0
42.7
Below 200 percent of poverty level 1,399
368
(X)
(X)
(X)
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year Estimates
mmm
cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to the State
*Blue bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to both county and
State
*Green bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10% when compared to the County
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-13
Trinity Consultants

Table 2-14 shows poverty in census tract 218.03. Overall poverty rates are much lower in this area;
however, poverty rates for those identifying as some other race and those of Hispanic or Latino
ethnicity have much higher rates of poverty compared to the State and County.
Table 2-14. Census Tract 218.03 — Poverty
Total
Below Poverty Level
Percent Below Poverty Level
Subject
Estimate I Margin
of Error+/-
Estimate
I Margin of Error+/-
Estimate
Margin of Error
Population for whom poverty status is determined 2,953
269
220
146 7.5
5
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATI
NO ORIGIN
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 2,679
284
145
JiL
aft73 5.4
2.8
Black or African American 119
92
20
21 16.8
23.7
American Indian or Alaska Native 24
30
0
q111k&M& 12 0
62.8
Asian 0
12
0
12 -
-
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0
12
0
�12
Some other Race 95
136
55
119-
57.9
Two or More Races 36
50
0
12 0
51.3
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 95
136
55
119-
57.9
Below 200 percent of poverty level 1,098
253
(X)
(X) (X)
f:
(X)
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year Estimates
cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to the State
*Blue bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared to both county and State
*Green bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10%when compared to the Countv
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-14 Trinity Consultants

Table 2-15 shows the poverty status of different races within census tract 170. Similar to tract
218.03, there are lower rates of poverty within this census tract.
Table 2-15. Census Tract 170 - Poverty
Census Tract 170
Total
Below Poverty Level
Percent
Below Poverty Level
Subject
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Estimate Margin of Error+/-
Estimate
Margin of Error+/ -
Population for whom poverty status is determined
i 4,377
381
263
111
6
2.5
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 4,10 392
223
109
5.4
= 2.6
Black or African American
132
87
22
27
16.7
20
American Indian or Alaska Native
-
12
12
-
-
Asian
30
41
12
0
56.2
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
-
12
12
-
Some other Race
17
25
12
0
74.6
Two or More Races
95
76
27
18.9
29
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Below 200 percent of poverty level
123
823
100
230
-
12
0
(X)
24.4
N
(X) (X)
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year Estimates
*Orangebol� cells indicate a difference greater than
*Blue bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared
*Green bolded cells indicate a difference greater than
10% compared to the State
to both county
10%when compared to the
and State
Countv
qqm
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-15
Trinity Consultants

2.5 Household Income
As shown in Table 2-16 both Alamance and Guilford Counties fall below the median and average
income compared to the State, particularly in Alamance County. Considerations should be made to
account for the lower household income.
Table 2-16. Regional Setting - Household Income
Total dM6 4,034,684 9,031 66,311 633 209,602 1,462
Less than$10,000 5.8 0.1 6 0.8 6.3 0.6
$10, COO to$14,999910! 4.5 0.1 4.5 0.6 � 4.2 :-- 0.4
$15'000 to$24,999 9 0.1 0.9 8.9 0.6
$35'000 to$49,999 9.5 0.1 1 10.1 0.6
$35,000 to $49,999 13.1 0.2 13.6 1.2 14.2 0.6
$50,000to$74,999 12.7 0.2 13.2 1.1 17 0.7
$75,000 to $99,999 12.7 0.2 13.2 1 12.3 0.7
$150,000 to$199:999 1.1 0.1 . 0.7 1.8 0.4
$150,000 to $199,999 6.1 0.1 5.1 0.7 5.8 0.4
$200,000 or more 6.9 0.1 3.5 0.6 6.7 0.5
Median income (dollars) 60,516 353 S5, 078 1,796 58,646 1,429
Mean income (dollars) 84,888 385 73,206 2,049 83,479 1,722
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 2021 5-year Estimates
cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared to the State
Meridian Waste - Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-16 Trinity Consultants

Table 2-17 shows percentages of households falling within different income levels. Census tract 170
shows a higher median income than the State by $10,000, but a lower average income by $5,000.
This causes polarization and differences between both the State and the County for nearly every
income range. Census Tract 218.01 has a lower median and mean income than the State. Census
tract 218.03 has a much lower median and average income than the State and County.
Table 2-17. Local Setting - Household Income
Households
Estimate Ma
Total
1,864
Less tha n $10, 000
4.8
$10000 to $14999
1.3
$15:000 to $24:999
18.5
$25,000 to $34,999
9.8
$35,000 to $49,999
9.2
$50,000 to $74,999
20.1
$75,000 to $99,999
9.7
$100,000 to $149,999
13.3
$150,000 to $199,999
7.9
$200,000 or more
5.5
Median income (dollars)
57,782
Mean income (dollars)
79,033.00
*Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 20215-year Estimates
cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared
to the State
cells indicate a difference greater than 10%compared
to both County and State
cells indicate a difference greater than 10%when compared to the County
Households
Households
of Error+/-
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
106
1,150
89
1,887
210
3.6
6.3
3.5
3.9
3.4
1
3
3.4
2.4
5
5.8
W4
5.9
3.8
6.1
8.9
4.4
3.9
6.7
5.7
3.2
4.6
13.7
5.7
23.2
6.4
3.2
11.7
6
22.8
7.9
4.3
11.4
4.5
12.2
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.1
2.8
2.5
■ 0.5
0.8
5.5
3.1
6,052
40,250
9,728
70,817
4,848
Meridian Waste - Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-17 Trinity Consultants

Table 2-18 shows the household income within a 1-mile radius around the Meridian Waste facility.
This area has a much higher percentage of people living within $15,000 to $20,000. Further
accommodation might be considered for a lower -income area.
Table 2-18. Project Radius - Household Income
Subject
Number
Percentage
<$15,000
32
9.7
$15,000-$25,000
77
MM' 22.9�
$25,000-$50,000
84
25.1
$50,000-$75,000
60
18
$75,000+
81
24.3
*Source: US Census Bureau EJScreen
* cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared to the State
*Blue bolded cells indicate a difference greater than 10% compared to both County and State
*Green bolder cells indicate a difference greater than 10% when compared to the County
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-18 Trinity Consultants

2.6 Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Table 2-19 shows the population of each census tract and their respective English proficiency.
According to the Safe Harbor Guidelines, for each LEP language group written translations of
documents should be made. An LEP language group consists of either 5% of the population or
includes 1,000 members (whichever is less). Census tract 170 according to the data contains all
English speakers. Data on English proficiency was lacking for census tracts 218.01 and 218.03.
However, based on Alamance County and Guilford County data, the percentage of Spanish-speaking
people who speak English less than "very well" is below 3%. According to guidance, census tract
170 is well below the 5% threshold for being considered underserved. While census tracts 218.01
and 218.03 are missing, both Alamance County and Guilford County also fall below both determining
factors of 5% of population speaking less than "very well" and below the total 1,000 population with
lower English-speaking proficiency.
Table 2-19. Local Setting - Limited English Proficiency
North Carolina
Alamance County
Subject
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Percent
Estimate
Margin of Error+/- Percent
Total
416,996
4,610
100.00
7,297
492 100.00
Speak only English
402,151
4,630
96.44
7,015
458 96.14
Speak Spanish
7,878
633
1.89
164
112 2.25
Speak English"very well'
7,733
638
1.85
164
112 2.25
Speak E nglish lessthan"very well'
145
74
0.03
0
28 0.00
Guilford County
Census Tract 170
Subject
Estimate
Margin of Error+/-
Percent
Estimate
Margin of Error+/- Percent
Total
20,456
877
100.00
220
77 100.00
Speak only English
Speak Spanish
19,694
287
874
97 Moir-1.40
96.27
220
JIFF"0
77 100.00
ML 12 0.00
Speak English"very well'
282
96
1.38
0
12 0.00
Sue a k E nelish lessthan"very well'
S
7 ii�
0.02
0
12 0.00
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-19 Trinity Consultants

2.7 Health Outcomes
Table 2-20 shows certain health outcomes in both Alamance County and North Carolina. Alamance
County has lower health outcome values than the State Average for every health metric.
Table 2-20. Regional Setting - Health Outcomes
Cause of Death Alamance County North Carolina
Cancer 167.9 169.1
Hearth Disease 153.65 163.7
Stroke 41.7 43.1
Cardiovascular Disease 210.9 221.9
Diabetes 21.15 22.8
Source: N C D E Q EJ Tool
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-20 Trinity Consultants

County Ratings by Health Factors
Figure 2-1 shows the ranking of all counties in North Carolina based on a variety of health factors
such access to clinical care, environment, as well as social and economic factors. Alamance County
ranks 53rd in the State based off these criteria and Guilford County at 215t, where 100 is considered
the "least healthy" and a rank of 1 is considered "healthiest".
Figure 2-1. County Health Rankings Based on Health Factors. University of Wisconsin
Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings State Report 2021.
1,
HVV L
at.
HD I Pi
MA FR
n Pf7
GN
BEL FO I Gl
OA ! DR
DI
R Dv WA
CH
u T
cn `
RIK MO
uN
-E
v
RANK 1 -25 ® I NOT RAN KEC (NR)
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-21
Trinity Consultants

2.9 Landmarks
Figure 2-2 shows sensitive receptors within a 1-mile radius of the facility. There is one sensitive
receptor, a church, shown within a 1-mile radius of the facility. There is also another church close to
the 1-mile border from the facility. There are two public schools approximately 6 miles away. These
sites should be noted as they contain members of the community that may be more
disproportionately impacted by the facility than others.
Figure 2-2. Sensitive Receptors Within 1-Mile Radius
Roar r
3333 Faster Store d, L X
I d7
•� .. _ FFCrJPrlwr�s o0
iPubIx H°9ai99 00%
�� - ,i ;subsidized H-1.9 Di 0x
a. o
ice Chu Klmesville
rn Re
I
I
lake
I
ell
,� ha
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-22
Trinity Consultants

Figure 2-3 shows facility permits or other incident reports within a 1-mile radius surrounding the
Meridian Waste facility.
Figure 2-3. Permits and Incidents Sites Within 1-Mile Radius of Meridian Waste Facility
Figure 2-3 Legend:
Permitted Solid Waste Landfill
1
Underground Storage Tank Incident
Land Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Notifications
#
Above Ground Storage Tank Incidents
Meridian Waste - Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-23 Trinity Consultants

Table 2-21 displays the number of permits and/or incidents within the 1-mile radius shown in
Figures 2-3 and 2-4. The permits and incidents associated with Meridian Waste are noted in Table 2-
21.
Table 2-21. Permits and Incidents Within 1-Mile Radius of Tri-Corners Facility
Site Type Quantity
Air Quality Permit Sites 0
NPDES Land Clearing and Inert Debris* 1
Underground Storage Tank Incidents 1
Above Ground Storage Tank Incidents 1
NPDES Stormwater Permits* 1
Permitted Solid Waste Landfills* 1
Total Sites 5
Data and Figures from NCDEQ Community Mapping System
*Indicates permitted site belongs to Meridian Waste
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 2-24 Trinity Consultants

3. SUMMARY
Environmental Justice (EJ) reports aim to acknowledge disparities within local communities
surrounding industrial facilities to allow for fair and equal treatment for all. These analyses are
completed in order to inform on ways to conduct fair and meaningful involvement given the
potential EJ concerns. This report examined North Carolina, Alamance and Guilford Counties, census
tracts 218.01, 218.03, and 170, as well as the area within a 1-mile radius surrounding the Meridian
Waste Facility in Liberty, NC.
Per DEQ guidance, there are numerous factors that should be considered to determine if a
population is underserved:
• Racial composition
• Poverty
• Limited English Proficiency
The most recently -available census data was compiled for each of these characteristics as well as
other factors (e.g., data by age, sex, disability level). Racial composition, poverty, for both
individuals and households, and limited English proficiency in the area surrounding the facility fell
below the State and County rates. While Limited English Proficiency data was lacking for census
tract 218.01 and 218.03, the larger County dataset provides ample evidence that language
accommodations may not be necessary.
Comparisons were made for all criteria comparing Alamance and Guilford Counties to the State data
and comparing census tracts as well as data within a 1-mile radius to the County and State data.
Any data falling outside a 10% difference was marked and highlighted as potential environmental
justice concerns.
The use of the EJ screening tools helped to assess sensitive receptors as well as the area
demographics. The tools also help to provide local health data. In addition, County -specific health
data was pulled to help analyze local health concerns as well.
This report was created in conjunction with the guidance provided by the Division of Waste
Management -Solid Waste Section guidance. Based on the analysis of the data, the area surrounding
the Meridian Waste Tri-Corners facility would not be considered an underserved population by
metrics set forth throughout the guidance.
Meridian Waste — Tri-Corners Landfill
Environmental Justice Report 3-1 Trinity Consultants