Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste: Demographics of People Living Near
Waste Facilities (Chapter Report, 06/13/95, GAO/RCED-95-84).
GAO did not find that minorities or poor persons were overrepresented
near a majority of nonhazardous municipal landfills. According to GAO's
nationwide sample of municipal landfills, less than half of such
landfills had a percentage of minorities or low-income people living
within one mile of the facility that was higher than the percentage in
the rest of the county. The 10 studies that GAO summarized, which
focused on the demographics of people living near waste facilities, had
varied conclusions. Some asserted that minorities and low-income
persons were disproportionately found near waste facilities, while
others did not. The studies' conclusions are difficult to generalize
because the authors examined different kinds of facilities and used
different methodologies and definitions of "racial minority." The
Environmental Protection Agency's limited requirements on where
hazardous waste facilities may be built have not addressed
"environmental justice," a concept that argues for alleviating any
disproportionate burden imposed by waste facilities and environmental
pollution on some groups of individuals. GAO found that few data were
available on the health effects of hazardous and nonhazardous waste
sites on minorities or low-income persons.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-84
TITLE: Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste: Demographics of People
Living Near Waste Facilities
DATE: 06/13/95
SUBJECT: Site selection
Demographic data
Disadvantaged persons
Minorities
Waste management
Hazardous substances
Waste disposal
Social sciences research
Pollution control
Health hazards
IDENTIFIER: EPA National Priorities List
Superfund Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
June 1995
HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS WASTE -
DEMOGRAPHICS OF PEOPLE LIVING NEAR
WASTE FACILITIES
GAO/RCED-95-84
Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
(160205)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
GAO - General Accounting Office
NIEHS - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NPL - National Priorities List
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
USGS - United States Geological Survey
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-260041
June 13, 1995
The Honorable John Glenn
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable John Lewis
House of Representatives
As you requested, this report provides information on the race and
income of people living near nonhazardous municipal solid waste
landfills. It also summarizes 10 other studies on the demographics
near a variety of waste facilities, primarily ones for hazardous
waste.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will
send copies to other appropriate congressional committees; the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; the Director, Office
of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others on request.
Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IX.
Peter F. Guerrero
Director, Environmental
Protection Issues
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0
PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
Thousands of facilities in the nation generate or manage industrial,
commercial, and household waste and other pollutants that have the
potential to pose health threats to people exposed to them. Some
researchers have stated that racial minorities and low-income people
(1) are not adequately brought into the decision-making process for
selecting the sites of waste facilities, (2) are disproportionately
exposed to pollutants in their communities, and (3) may suffer
disproportionate health effects as a result of such exposure. The
overall question of whether the burden of waste facilities and
environmental pollutants--such as lead, selected air pollutants, and
pesticides--is disproportionate among groups of people and should be
alleviated is known as "environmental justice."
At the request of the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs and Representative John Lewis, GAO reviewed
certain aspects of the environmental justice issue. Specifically,
GAO was asked to (1) provide information on the race and income of
people living near a sample of nonhazardous municipal landfills, a
type of facility that had not received much attention in prior
research; (2) summarize 10 studies done by others of the demographics
of people living near waste facilities, primarily ones for hazardous
waste; (3) provide information on the efforts by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address environmental justice in its
regulations on selecting the sites of waste facilities and in
requirements for public participation in decisions about such
facilities; and (4) provide information on the extent of the data
that have been collected to measure the health effects of hazardous
and nonhazardous facilities on minorities and low-income people.
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as
amended in 1984, EPA regulates the operation and to some degree the
location of thousands of nonhazardous municipal landfills and
facilities where hazardous waste is treated, stored, and disposed of.
EPA is authorized to require that such facilities operate safely and
that the public has an opportunity to participate in the process for
granting operating permits to them. State and local governments also
have regulatory responsibilities, particularly in approving the sites
for such facilities.
In response to studies on the broad subject of environmental justice,
EPA and the administration have begun to reexamine policies and
practices with regard to their impact on minorities and low-income
people. In 1994, the President issued an executive order requiring
federal agencies to develop strategies to address environmental
justice in administering their programs.
GAO analyzed nonhazardous municipal landfills by applying data from
the 1990 census to a sample of 190 metropolitan and 105
nonmetropolitan facilities.\1 The results of GAO's analyses only
apply to nonhazardous municipal landfills and should not be extended
to hazardous waste facilities. GAO also summarized the findings and
methodologies of 10 recent national or regional studies that focused
primarily on the demographics of people living near hazardous waste
facilities.
--------------------
\1 The landfills are classified as metropolitan or nonmetropolitan
depending on how the U.S. Bureau of the Census classifies the
counties in which the landfills are located.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
GAO did not find that minorities\2 or low-income people were
overrepresented near a majority of the nonhazardous municipal
landfills. According to GAO's nationwide sample of municipal
landfills, less than half of such landfills had a percentage of
minorities or low-income people living within 1 mile of the facility
that was higher than the percentage in the rest of the county.
The 10 studies that GAO summarized, which focused primarily on the
demographics of people living near hazardous waste facilities, had
varied conclusions. Some concluded that minorities and low-income
people were disproportionately found near waste facilities, while
others did not. It is difficult to generalize about the conclusions
reached by the studies because the authors examined different types
of facilities and used different methodologies and definitions of
"racial minority."
EPA's limited requirements on where hazardous and nonhazardous waste
facilities may be located have not addressed environmental justice.
EPA's current requirements for public participation in decisions also
have not addressed environmental justice, but the agency recently
proposed regulations in which it requested public comment on how to
address this issue.
GAO found that few data were available on the health effects of
hazardous and nonhazardous waste sites on minorities or low-income
people.
--------------------
\2 In GAO's analysis of race, "nonminorities" includes all whites not
of Hispanic origin and "minorities" includes all others. In GAO's
analysis of income and poverty status, "minorities" excludes whites
of Hispanic origin. This approach was used because of the way the
U.S. Bureau of the Census provides data to the public.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
MINORITIES AND LOW-INCOME
PEOPLE WERE NOT
OVERREPRESENTED NEAR THE
MAJORITY OF NONHAZARDOUS
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1
Minorities and low-income people living near nonhazardous municipal
landfills were not generally overrepresented. On the basis of its
representative sample, GAO estimated that for 73 percent of the
metropolitan landfills and 63 percent of the nonmetropolitan
landfills, the percentage of minorities living within 1 mile was
lower than the percentage of minorities living in the remainder of
the county. GAO also estimated that the people living within 1 mile
of 54 percent of the metropolitan and 52 percent of the
nonmetropolitan landfills had median household incomes that were
higher than the incomes of residents in the remainder of the county.
DEMOGRAPHIC STUDIES ON
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
HAVE YIELDED VARIED RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2
The 10 studies on hazardous waste facilities yielded a range of
results. Three of the 10 studies concluded that minorities were more
likely to live near hazardous waste sites than nonminorities. Four
studies showed either that there was no significant association
between the location of a waste site and minority populations or that
minorities were less likely to live nearby. The three remaining
studies each used more than one methodology, and each yielded
multiple conclusions as to whether a disproportionate percentage of
minorities lived near the facilities.
Seven of the 10 studies also reviewed economic factors. Three of the
seven concluded that the incomes of people living near hazardous
waste facilities were lower than the incomes of people living farther
away. Two studies presented data showing that the incomes of people
living near facilities were not significantly different from the
incomes of people in the comparison area. The two remaining studies
each reported multiple conclusions depending on the methodology used.
The varied results of the studies could have been influenced by the
fact that they examined a variety of types of facilities, were
intended to answer different research questions, and used different
sample sizes and methods. An important limitation of these studies,
as well as with GAO's study of nonhazardous municipal landfills, is
the assumption that proximity to a facility correlates to potential
health risks. This assumption may not always hold true at specific
locations.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS HAVE NOT
FOCUSED ON ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3
Current federal regulations require that hazardous and nonhazardous
waste facilities be located in a protective setting (e.g., not in a
floodplain or fault zone) but do not consider the demographics of the
people living near the proposed facilities. Local government zoning
laws are more likely to influence the proximity of pollution sources
to people by regulating local land use.
While the public may comment to EPA on environmental justice issues
during the process for issuing operating permits for hazardous and
nonhazardous facilities, EPA's public participation requirements do
not specify that environmental justice be addressed. EPA's process
for issuing permits generally begins after a site has been approved
by state or local governments. In 1994, EPA proposed new regulations
that would require applicants for operating permits for hazardous
waste facilities to notify the public before submitting the
application to EPA and to conduct an informal public meeting. The
proposal also asks for public comment on how EPA can address
environmental justice in the context of public participation in
decisions about hazardous waste facilities.
FEW DATA HAVE BEEN COLLECTED
ON THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF
FACILITIES ON MINORITIES OR
LOW-INCOME PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4
EPA estimates that many hundreds of nonhazardous municipal landfills
and hazardous waste facilities have contaminated the groundwater,
soil, and air, thereby potentially exposing people to harmful
chemicals. EPA's risk models, however, project low rates of
additional deaths from cancer as a result of exposure to these
facilities.
Few data exist to document harmful health effects of exposure to
hazardous or nonhazardous waste facilities, and virtually no work has
been done to document disproportionate health effects on minorities
or low-income people. The 1994 executive order on environmental
justice calls for EPA and other federal agencies to ensure that all
potentially affected segments of the population--including minorities
and low-income people--are represented in research on health and the
environment. EPA's final strategy in response to the order was not
available as of March 1995.
RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
GAO is making no recommendations in this report.
AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6
EPA provided comments on a draft of this report. EPA commented that
the draft report left the impression that the location of waste
facilities is the primary focus of environmental justice and that the
report should make clear that environmental justice relates to a
broader set of issues. GAO agrees that environmental justice
involves broader issues and has further clarified the report on this
point. EPA suggested that GAO clarify its discussion of the
requirement in the 1994 executive order that federal agencies collect
demographic data for areas around certain facilities and sites. GAO
has made this clarification. EPA also suggested that GAO clarify the
federal, state, and local roles in the process for selecting sites
and granting permits to RCRA facilities. GAO has emphasized the
roles of the various government agencies in the report as
appropriate. The full text of EPA's comments and GAO's responses to
them are provided in appendix VIII.
INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1
The issue of environmental justice--the question of whether
minorities and low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of
exposure to toxic pollutants and any resulting health effects--has
been the subject of growing concern over the past decade. The issue
has become one of the top priorities of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and following the issuance of the administration's
executive order on environmental justice in early 1994, many federal
agencies are now required to consider environmental justice in
administering their programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE--AN
EVOLVING ISSUE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1
The environmental justice movement gained national prominence in 1982
when a demonstration took place against the location, or "siting," of
a hazardous waste landfill in Warren County, North Carolina, a county
with a population that is predominately African American. In
response to complaints, the then-Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce,
Transportation, and Tourism, House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and then-Delegate Walter Fauntroy of the District of Columbia
requested that we investigate the relationship between siting, race,
and income for the four commercial hazardous waste landfills located
in EPA's Region IV in the southeastern United States. In June
1983,\1 we reported that for three of the four landfills surveyed,
African Americans made up the majority of the population living
nearby. In addition, at least 26 percent of the population in all
four communities was below the poverty level.
In 1987, the United Church of Christ published a nationwide study of
the association between hazardous waste facilities and the
racial/socioeconomic composition of the communities hosting such
facilities. The study, Toxic Waste and Race in the United States,
reported that race was the most significant factor among the
variables tested in association with the location of commercial
hazardous waste facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). The study found that the communities with
the greater number of commercial hazardous waste facilities had the
highest percentages of racial and ethnic minorities as residents.
According to the study, while the economic status (measured by
household income and housing values) of residents in the host
communities appeared to play an important role in the location of
commercial hazardous waste facilities, the race of the residents
proved to be more significant.
--------------------
\1 Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation With
Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities
(GAO/RCED-83-168, June 1, 1983).
EPA'S EFFORTS TO ADDRESS
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2
In response to these growing concerns, in July 1990 EPA established
the Environmental Equity Workgroup to review whether racial
minorities and low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental risk and to develop recommendations accordingly. In
June 1992, the workgroup issued its final report: Environmental
Equity: Reducing Risk for All Communities. The group concluded that
racial minorities and low-income people were disproportionately
exposed to lead, selected air pollutants, hazardous waste facilities,
contaminated fish, and agricultural pesticides in the workplace.
EPA's report stated that the information available on the
environmental risk was limited but outlined an agenda for EPA to help
better define the problem.
Among its recommendations, the report said that EPA should establish
mechanisms, along with the necessary staff and resources, to help
ensure that concerns about environmental justice are incorporated
into the agency's long-term planning and operations. To this end, in
November 1992 EPA established an Office of Environmental Equity,
which was renamed the Office of Environmental Justice in 1994. The
office serves as the agency's point of contact for outreach,
technical assistance, and information on environmental pollution
affecting racial minorities and low-income communities.
Complementing the activities of the Office of Environmental Justice
are (1) an Executive Steering Committee, (2) a Policy Working Group,
and (3) a core of environmental justice coordinators in program
offices in EPA's headquarters and in all regional offices. The
Executive Steering Committee, made up of deputy assistant
administrators and deputy regional administrators, is to provide
direction on strategic planning to ensure that environmental justice
is incorporated into the agency's operations. The Policy Working
Group's objective is to ensure policy development and coordination of
environmental justice projects across the agency's program offices.
Environmental justice coordinators are to provide education and
information about environmental justice in their offices and regions.
EPA has also established the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council, under the authority of the Federal Advisory Council Act, to
advise the Administrator of EPA on environmental justice issues.
Many of EPA's offices and regions are developing action plans for
environmental justice, conducting conferences and workshops, and
undertaking research on this issue. For example, in April 1994 EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response issued a task force
report on environmental justice addressing how hazardous and solid
waste management programs in EPA could better address the concerns of
minorities and/or low-income people.
EXECUTIVE ORDER DIRECTS FEDERAL
AGENCIES TO DEVELOP
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
STRATEGIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3
On February 11, 1994, the President issued Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations. Among other things, the
order requires federal agencies to develop a comprehensive strategy
for making environmental justice a part of their decision-making and
operations.
The order applies to specified federal agencies and others designated
by the President that conduct any federal program or activity that
substantially affects human health or the environment. These
activities are as diverse as removing lead from public housing,
controlling pollution in urban rivers, licensing hazardous waste
incinerators, and regulating farm workers' exposure to pesticides.
The order established an Interagency Working Group on Environmental
Justice composed of the heads of various federal agencies. The
working group is charged with, among other things, providing guidance
to agencies on identifying environmental justice problems; working
with agencies to develop strategies to ensure environmental justice;
and coordinating health research, data collection, and analysis.
Periodic reports to describe the implementation of the order are also
required. To implement the order, task forces have been established
on (1) research and health, (2) outreach, (3) data collection, (4)
enforcement and compliance, (5) implementation, (6) Native Americans,
(7) definitions and standards, and (8) interagency projects.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4
At the request of the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs and Representative John Lewis, we agreed to
obtain information on the demographics of people living near waste
facilities. In discussions with the requesters' offices, we agreed
to provide the following:
-- information on the racial and income characteristics of people
living near a nationwide sample of nonhazardous municipal solid
waste landfills;
-- a summary of the results of other studies conducted by EPA,
industry, and academia on the demographics of people living near
waste facilities, primarily ones for hazardous waste;
-- information on the extent to which EPA addresses environmental
justice in its requirements for selecting sites and soliciting
public participation in the process of building solid and
hazardous waste facilities; and
-- information on the data that have been collected on the
potential health effects of solid and hazardous waste facilities
on minorities and low-income people living nearby.
To obtain general information about the nation's municipal solid
waste landfills and make national estimates about this information,
we conducted a survey of 500 metropolitan and 500 nonmetropolitan
landfills. We received 791 responses, of which 623 were usable.
Most of the responses we could not use were from landfills that did
not meet our criteria of being nonfederal municipal landfills that
were open during 1992. We received the majority of the responses in
early 1994. More details on how we conducted this survey are
included in appendix I, and details of some of the general
information we collected are in appendix II.
To specifically address the first objective on the racial and income
characteristics of people living near nonhazardous municipal solid
waste landfills, we added several questions to the original survey
for a subsample of 300 metropolitan and 150 nonmetropolitan landfills
to determine their location. The subsample was taken to provide a
manageable workload that, because of our sample design, would allow
us to make national estimates about the characteristics of people
living near metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills as compared
with those residing in the rest of the county. We received responses
from 259 metropolitan and 124 nonmetropolitan landfills, of which 190
and 105 were usable because they fit our criteria of being nonfederal
facilities that had accepted municipal waste and were operating in
1992. Using a geographic information system computer program in
conjunction with 1990 data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, we
collected data on the racial\2 and income characteristics of people
living within 1 and 3 miles of the 295 landfills and compared these
with the characteristics of people living in the rest of the county
as a whole.\3 This comparison enabled us to determine whether
minorities and/or poor people are more or less likely than
nonminorities and/or higher-income people to live near nonhazardous
municipal landfills. A more detailed summary of our approach and
methodology for this objective is contained in appendix I.
To address the second objective of summarizing studies done by
others, primarily on the demographics of people living near hazardous
waste facilities, we undertook a literature search to identify
relevant studies on the extent to which racial minorities or poor
people are more likely than nonminorities or higher-income people to
have waste facilities in their communities. We limited our search to
studies of either a national or regional scope that had been
conducted since 1986 on nonhazardous and hazardous waste disposal,
treatment, or storage facilities. We identified 10 studies of
hazardous waste facilities that met our criteria. These studies had
been conducted by EPA, academia, advocacy organizations, and
industry. Only 2 of the 10 studies also addressed nonhazardous waste
facilities. We summarized the results and conclusions that the
authors presented and the methodologies and assumptions they used to
conduct their analyses. A summary of the studies is contained in
chapter 3. An expanded version of our summaries is contained in our
report entitled 10 Studies on Demographics Near Waste Facilities
(GAO/RCED-95-158R, June 13, 1995).
To address the third objective on the extent to which EPA addresses
environmental justice in its siting and public participation
requirements, we reviewed the relevant policies, regulations, and
guidance for the RCRA program that outline the requirements with
which owner/operators of municipal and hazardous waste facilities
must comply in order to construct and operate their facilities. We
also reviewed the requirements for public participation outlined in
the February 1994 executive order on environmental justice and a rule
proposed by EPA in June 1994 on public participation. In addition,
we examined a 1994 study conducted on behalf of EPA on the states'
regulations for siting hazardous waste facilities.
For the fourth objective concerning efforts to assess the potential
health effects of living near municipal and hazardous waste
facilities, we reviewed relevant literature and interviewed officials
at EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the
executive order on environmental justice, EPA and the Department of
Health and Human Services share a large part of the responsibility
for research on the relationship between the environment and human
health. Among other information, we reviewed the detailed data on
health that EPA uses to support its current regulations for
regulating municipal and hazardous waste facilities.
Our survey of landfills also gathered information on design
characteristics and other factors that could be indicators of
potential risk to people living nearby. We cross-tabulated the
demographic data from the 1-mile areas with several of these
characteristics, including the use of protective liners, leachate
(liquid that percolates through landfills) collection systems, and
groundwater monitoring. The purpose was to determine whether or not
minorities or low-income people were disadvantaged with respect to
the presence of these characteristics. We discuss the results of
this effort in appendix VII.
We conducted our review between February 1993 and March 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\2 In our analysis of race, "nonminorities" includes all whites not
of Hispanic origin and "minorities" includes all others. In our
analysis of income and poverty status, "minorities" excludes whites
of Hispanic origin. This approach was used because of the way the
U.S. Bureau of the Census provides data to the public.
\3 As we explain in chapter 2, the results of our analysis of people
within 3 miles of landfills were comparable to those of our 1-mile
analysis and are not included in this report.
AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:5
EPA provided written comments on a draft of this report. The full
text of these comments, along with our responses, is presented in
appendix VIII. EPA commented that the draft gave the impression that
the issue of environmental justice is limited to the location of
hazardous and nonhazardous waste facilities and that the report
should make clear that environmental justice relates to a broader set
of issues. We agree that the issue is broader and have made changes
to clarify that point.
EPA also commented on how we described the 1994 executive order on
environmental justice. In particular, EPA pointed out that the order
addresses more than hazardous and nonhazardous waste facilities and
suggested that we clarify our description of the order's requirement
that federal agencies collect and analyze demographic data around
facilities and sites. We have made changes to reflect these
comments.
EPA also said that the agency is continuing to develop analytical
tools for addressing environmental justice and that it would be
premature to suggest that the methodology we used to analyze the
demographics of people living near nonhazardous waste facilities was
an established methodology. We recognize that there are limitations
to our methodology and identify them throughout the report.
Finally, EPA suggested that we clarify the different roles that it
and local governments have in regulating the selection of sites for
RCRA facilities. The agency also pointed out that current
regulations allow the public to comment on environmental justice and
other issues related to proposed actions in granting permits for RCRA
facilities. We have made changes to the report to clarify these
points.
MINORITIES AND LOW-INCOME PEOPLE
WERE NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY
REPRESENTED NEAR THE MAJORITY OF
NONHAZARDOUS MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
============================================================ Chapter 2
We found that the percentage of minorities and low-income people
living within 1 mile of nonhazardous municipal landfills was more
often lower than the percentage in the rest of the county. When the
data from our sample were used to make estimates about all
nonhazardous municipal landfills in the nation, neither minorities
nor low-income people were overrepresented near landfills in any
consistent manner.
We compared the percentage of minorities and nonminorities living
within 1 mile of municipal landfills with the percentage in the rest
of the county and the nation. We also examined the difference
between the median household incomes of the people within 1 mile and
the people in the rest of the county and the nation.\1 If minorities
or low-income people were subject to environmental inequity, the
comparisons should show more municipal landfills with a higher
percentage of minorities or low-income people living nearby than were
living in the rest of the county. Again, this was not the case.
We conducted similar analyses of the populations within 3 miles of
the landfills and arrived at results that were comparable to the
results for the 1-mile area. Consequently, the data for people
living within 3 miles are not included in this report.
The data presented in this chapter describe the populations within 1
mile of one type of waste facility--nonhazardous waste municipal
landfills. These data provide information only about populations
near that type of facility. Nonhazardous municipal landfills are
typically owned and operated by local governments, although a
substantial number are owned by private companies. The majority of
the waste sent to these facilities is household and commercial
garbage and nonhazardous industrial waste. Despite the use of the
term "nonhazardous" to describe these landfills, a small amount of
hazardous waste from households and industry can be legally disposed
of in them. (See app. II for more detail on certain characteristics
of municipal landfills.) Over the years, the regulations on how
landfills are designed and constructed have become more protective.
EPA regulations promulgated in 1993 require that newly built
municipal landfills have liners, leachate\2 collection systems, and
groundwater monitoring. When landfills are filled they must be
closed in a manner designed to minimize the release of leachate.
--------------------
\1 In addition, we examined (1) the poverty rates of people living
within 1 mile of landfills, (2) the relative difference between the
incomes and poverty rates of people living within 1 mile of the
landfills and in the rest of the county, and (3) the way the income
and poverty rates of people living near landfills broke out by race.
These data are presented in appendixes III, IV, and V, respectively.
\2 Leachate is liquid originating from precipitation, groundwater, or
from the waste itself that flows through a landfill. It may be
released into groundwater unless it is captured by a collection
system. It may also be contaminated with hazardous substances
leached from the waste.
POPULATIONS NEAR MUNICIPAL
LANDFILLS WERE MORE LIKELY TO
HAVE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF
NONMINORITIES THAN REST OF
COUNTY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1
Nonminorities made up 80 and 84 percent of the population within 1
mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan municipal landfills,
compared with the 1990 national averages of 73 and 85 percent,
respectively.\3 The populations near landfills often had a higher
percentage of nonminorities than the rest of the county in which the
landfill is located (hereafter referred to as the host county).
Furthermore, we found very little difference between metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas in terms of the racial composition of the
people living near landfills relative to the people in the rest of
the county.
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show how often the percentage of minorities and
nonminorities living within 1 mile of the metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan landfills was higher than the percentage of
minorities and nonminorities in the rest of the county and the
nation. As these figures show, the percentage of nonminorities
living near both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills was
generally higher than the percentage living in the rest of the county
and the nation. Similarly, the percentage of minorities was lower
more often than not.
Figure 2.1: Metropolitan
Landfills Where Percentage of
Minorities and Nonminorities
Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher
Than Percentage in Rest of Host
County or Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 190.
\a The national average for metropolitan areas is 73 percent
nonminority.
The data in figure 2.1 and all of the figures that follow represent
the findings from our sample of landfills. National estimates cannot
be accurately made without applying a margin of error. The
approximate sampling errors (which range from 3 to 10 percent) can be
found in tables III.1 and III.2 in appendix III and should be applied
to the data in each figure. For example, in figure 2.1, 27 percent
of the landfills had a percentage of minorities within 1 mile that
was higher than the percentage in the rest of the county. Using 27
percent and a sample size of 190, the sampling error from table III.1
for figure 2.1 is approximately 5 percent. By applying this
approximate sampling error, we can estimate that between 22 and 32
percent of metropolitan landfills nationwide had a percentage of
minorities that was higher than the percentage in the rest of the
county.
As figure 2.2 shows, we estimate that 37 percent of nonmetropolitan
landfills had a percentage of minorities living nearby that was
higher than the percentage in the rest of the county. We estimate
that 32 percent of nonmetropolitan landfills had a percentage of
minorities living nearby that was higher than the percentage of
minorities in nonmetropolitan areas nationwide.
Figure 2.2: Nonmetropolitan
Landfills Where Percentage of
Minorities and Nonminorities
Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher
Than Percentage in Rest of Host
County or Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 105.
\a The national average for nonmetropolitan areas is 85.1 percent
nonminority.
We also found that in the vast majority of cases, the racial
differences between those living near a landfill and those in the
rest of the host county were not significant. That is, the
percentage of minorities or nonminorities living within 1 mile of the
landfills was not significantly higher or significantly lower than it
was in the host county.\4
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show how much the percentage of minorities or
nonminorities living near a landfill differed from the percentage of
these groups in the host county. For example, figure 2.3 shows that
for 62 percent of metropolitan landfills, the difference between both
the minority and nonminority populations in the 1-mile area and the
rest of the county was not significant (less than 10 percent). As
the figure also shows, there were few landfills--about 13
percent--where the percentage of minorities living within 1 mile was
significantly higher than it was in the host county.
Figure 2.3: Degree of
Difference Between People
Living Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills and in
Rest of Host County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 190.
\a The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less than
the percentage in the rest of the host county.
\b The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more than
the percentage in the rest of the host county.
As figure 2.4 shows, for nonmetropolitan landfills, an even larger
percentage--over 70--showed a difference in racial makeup of less
than 10 percent when compared with the host county. And even fewer
of these nonmetropolitan landfills--about 9 percent--had a
significantly higher percentage of minorities living nearby than the
rest of the county.
Figure 2.4: Degree of
Difference Between People
Living Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills and
in Rest of Host County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 105.
\a The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less than
the percentage in the rest of the host county.
\b The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more than
the percentage in the rest of the host county.
Two examples of specific landfills help to illustrate the figures
above. One landfill that fell in the middle category (where the
percentage of nonminorities was not significantly different than the
nonminority population in the rest of the county; in other words,
within 10 percent more or less than the rest of the county) is in a
metropolitan area in a northeastern county with over 330,000 people.
The population in the 1-mile area near the landfill was 97 percent
nonminority, while the population in the rest of the county was 96
percent nonminority. Another urban landfill in a southwestern county
of almost 600,000 people showed a significant racial difference.
While the population in the 1-mile area around that landfill was 61
percent nonminority and 39 percent minority, the population in the
rest of the county was 75 percent nonminority and 25 percent
minority--a difference of 14 percent.
The people living near our sample of municipal landfills were more
likely to be nonminorities than minorities relative to the rest of
the host county in all regions of the country. We divided the
country into four regions: Northeast, South/Southwest, Midwest, and
West. We did not have a large enough sample of landfills in each
region to make regional estimates. Therefore, our conclusions about
individual regions can only reflect conditions at our sample of
landfills within those regions. In each region, a majority of the
landfills had larger percentages of nonminorities living within 1
mile than lived in the rest of the county. However, the degree to
which this was true differed from region to region. For example, in
the Northeast, 81 percent of metropolitan and 53 percent of
nonmetropolitan landfills had higher percentages of nonminorities
living within 1 mile than lived in the rest of the county. In the
South/Southwest, 60 percent of metropolitan and 61 percent of
nonmetropolitan landfills had higher percentages of nonminorities
living within 1 mile than lived in the rest of the county.\5
--------------------
\3 The people living within 1 mile of metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan landfills were compared with those living in all
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties in the rest of the nation,
respectively.
\4 For purposes of the analysis in this report, we considered
differences of 10 percent or more as significant.
\5 We defined the four regions on the basis of EPA's regions. The
Northeast included the states in EPA's Regions I, II, and III. The
South/Southwest included the states in EPA's Regions IV and VI. The
Midwest included the states in EPA's Regions V, VII, and VIII. The
West included the states in EPA's Regions IX and X. The number of
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills in the four regions were
as follow: Northeast, 67 metropolitan and 17 nonmetropolitan
landfills; South/Southwest, 60 and 36; Midwest, 29 and 23; West, 34
and 29.
INCOMES NEAR MUNICIPAL
LANDFILLS WERE HIGHER THAN
INCOMES IN REST OF COUNTY AS
OFTEN AS THEY WERE LOWER
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2
Low-income people were not overrepresented near municipal landfills
relative to people in the rest of the county. The people living near
metropolitan landfills were more likely to have higher incomes
relative to those in the nation than were the people living near
nonmetropolitan landfills. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 compare the median
household incomes of the people living within 1 mile of metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan landfills with those of the people in the rest of
the county and the nation. These figures show that in both
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, the people near landfills had
median household incomes that were higher than the incomes in the
rest of the county as often as they had incomes that were lower. The
people living near metropolitan landfills were about as likely to
have median household incomes higher than the national median for
metropolitan areas as not. However, the people living near
nonmetropolitan landfills were more likely to have incomes lower than
the national median for nonmetropolitan areas.
Figure 2.5: Median Household
Income Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills Compared
With Income in Rest of Host
County or Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 190.
\a The national median for metropolitan areas is $32,086.
Figure 2.6: Median Household
Income Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Compared With Income in Rest of
Host County or Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 105.
\a The national median for nonmetropolitan areas is $23,075.
Figures 2.7 and 2.8 show the degree of difference between the median
incomes of the people living within 1 mile of landfills and the
incomes of people in the rest of the county. The people near
nonmetropolitan landfills were less likely to have median household
incomes that differed significantly from incomes in the rest of the
county than were those living near metropolitan landfills. As figure
2.7 shows, the incomes of the people living near metropolitan
landfills were significantly lower than those of the people in the
rest of the county about 21 percent of the time and significantly
higher about 31 percent of the time.\6 Meanwhile, as figure 2.8
shows, the incomes of the people living near nonmetropolitan
landfills were significantly lower than those of the people in the
rest of the county 9 percent of the time and significantly higher 22
percent of the time.
Figure 2.7: Degree of
Difference Between Median
Household Income Within 1 Mile
of Metropolitan Landfills and
Income in Rest of Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 190.
\a The median household income of the people in the 1-mile area was
at least $5,000 less than the median household income in the rest of
the host county.
\b The median household income of the people in the 1-mile area was
at least $5,000 more than the median household income in the rest of
the host county.
Figure 2.8: Degree of
Difference Between Median
Household Income Within 1 Mile
of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
and Income in Rest of Host
County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 105.
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
\a The median household income of the people in the 1-mile area was
at least $5,000 less than the median household income in the rest of
the host county.
\b The median household income of the people in the 1-mile area was
at least $5,000 more than the median household income in the rest of
the host county.
While median household income is one indicator of people's economic
status, poverty rates--whether a person's income is below the
national definition of poverty\7 --is another indicator. In our
survey, we found that the people living near municipal landfills were
not likely to have higher poverty rates than the people in the rest
of the county. The data from this analysis are presented in appendix
III.
We also examined the median income and poverty status of the people
living near landfills by race. Our data did not indicate that either
low-income minorities or low-income nonminorities living near
landfills were disadvantaged relative to minorities and nonminorities
living in the rest of the county. These data are presented in
appendix V.
--------------------
\6 For the purposes of this analysis, we define a significant
difference in median household income as one greater than $5,000.
App. III contains figures showing the relative difference between
incomes of people within living within 1 mile of landfills and people
living in the rest of the county.
\7 "Poverty" is defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as an
individual or family income below a certain amount. In 1990, this
amount, known as the poverty line, was $6,310 for an individual and
$12,674 for a nonfarm family of four. In our analysis, we used the
census data for individuals below the poverty line.
PAST ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STUDIES
OF WASTE FACILITIES HAVE YIELDED
VARIED CONCLUSIONS
============================================================ Chapter 3
We summarized 10 demographic studies that focused on the populations
around several types of waste facilities. These studies were
conducted by EPA, academia, advocacy organizations, and industry.\1
The studies varied in their conclusions regarding whether minorities
or low-income people have a disproportionate number of waste
facilities in their communities. For example, while several of the
studies concluded that minorities or low-income people bear a
disproportionate burden, others concluded that they do not. Some
studies, depending on the type of analyses conducted, had mixed
results regarding whether minorities or low-income people were
disproportionately burdened by the presence of waste facilities in
their communities. An expanded version of our summaries is contained
in our report entitled 10 Studies on Demographics Near Waste
Facilities (GAO/RCED-95-158R, June 13, 1995).
The variety of methodologies used in the studies appears to have
influenced their results. The researchers focused on different types
of facilities, including landfills, incinerators, storage, and
treatment sites. In addition, the researchers applied different
definitions of minorities and of the affected area around the
facilities.
None of the 10 studies--nor our work with nonhazardous
landfills--accounted for changes that may have occurred in the
demographics around the facilities between the time the facilities
were sited and the period that the studies addressed. Specifically,
they did not address whether the presence of the facility contributed
to current residential patterns around it. While it is important to
determine the current demographic condition around waste facilities,
it is also important, when addressing environmental justice issues,
to know the conditions at the time the facilities were built and how
they have changed over time.
Generally, these studies, as well as our own analysis of nonhazardous
landfills, each focused on one category of facility and did not
attempt to account for the cumulative effects of all types of
pollution sources within particular communities. Such an analysis
could provide a more complete picture of the burden of pollution
sources imposed on various demographic groups, including minorities
or low-income people.
--------------------
\1 The studies examined a variety of locations where hazardous and
nonhazardous waste is found, including hazardous and nonhazardous
waste facilities regulated under RCRA; hazardous waste sites
regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; and
cement plants. In this report, we refer to these locations
collectively as facilities or sites.
STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SITES HAVE YIELDED VARIED
RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1
All 10 studies that we summarized examined demographic conditions
around facilities that handle hazardous waste, were regional or
national in scope, and were conducted after 1986. Only two of the
studies also examined facilities that handle nonhazardous waste.
It is difficult to generalize about the conclusions drawn by the
studies because the authors examined different universes and used
different methodologies and definitions of "racial minority."\2
Table 3.1 summarizes the main conclusions of these 10 studies. In
the case of the studies done for EPA on 35 commercial hazardous waste
landfills and 41 cement plants, we derived our own conclusions from
the data gathered for the studies because the agency did not draw its
own conclusions.
Table 3.1
Summary of Conclusions of Demographic
Studies
Study's Number and
author type(s) of
and date facilities Sponsor Race/ethnicity Income
-------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
United 415 RCRA\a United Church of ZIP codes where ZIP codes where
Church commercial Christ facilities were facilities were
of hazardous waste Commission for located were located were
Christ facilities and Racial Justice more likely to more likely to
Commissi 18,164 CERCLA\b have higher have populations
on for "uncontrolled" minority with lower
Racial toxic waste populations\c; incomes.
Justice sites race/ethnicity
and was a stronger
Public indicator of
Data proximity to
Access, waste facilities
Inc., than income.
1987
Claritas 132 RCRA Waste Most ZIP codes Not studied.
, Inc. hazardous and Management, Inc. where facilities
for nonhazardous were located had
Waste waste facilities a lower
Manageme operated by percentage of
nt, Waste minorities\c
Inc., Management, Inc. than the host
1992 state.
E.B. 4,855 CERCLA EPA and Clark At the county Not studied.
Attah hazardous waste Atlanta level, the study
for sites University found no
EPA's relationship
Region between the
IV, 1992 number of sites
and the
percentage of
minorities.\d At
the census
tract\e level,
the average
number of CERCLA
sites increased
as the
percentage of
minorities
increased.
ViGYAN, 35 RCRA EPA In the majority Not studied.
Inc., commercial of cases, the
for EPA, hazardous waste percentages of
1992 landfills blacks and
Hispanics\f
living near
landfills were
equal to or less
than the
percentages of
blacks and
Hispanics living
in the
surrounding
county. (GAO's
conclusions
based on EPA's
data.)
John A. 788 Superfund University of Counties with No link was
Hird, sites\f Massachusetts- more found between
1993 Amherst minorities\d had poorer counties
more Superfund and the number
sites when other of Superfund
socioeconomic sites they
factors were contained.
held constant.
Rae 814 Superfund EPA and New York When the author When the author
Zimmerma sites University used unweighted used unweighted
n, 1993 averages, the averages, the
percentages of poverty rate in
blacks and Superfund
Hispanics\h in communities was
Superfund comparable to
communities were that in the
lower than they nation. On a
were in the weighted basis,
nation. When the poverty rate
averages were in Superfund
weighted to take communities was
into account the slightly higher
communities' but still
population, comparable to
blacks and that in the
Hispanics were nation. The
found to be more association of
prevalent in poverty with
Superfund location was
communities than less pronounced
is typical of than that of
the nation. race/ethnicity.
Center 530 RCRA National Minority ZIP codes where
for commercial Association for populations\c in facilities were
Policy hazardous waste the Advancement 1993 were more located were
Alternat facilities of Colored likely to live more likely to
ives, People and in ZIP codes have populations
1994 United Church of where facilities with lower
(update Christ are located than incomes.
of Commission for they were in
United Racial Justice 1980; race/
Church ethnicity was
of still a stronger
Christ indicator of
study) proximity to a
facility than
income.
Social 454 RCRA Waste Using three Using three
and commercial Management, different different
Demograp hazardous waste Inc., and the geographic study geographic study
hic facilities Institute for areas in areas in
Research Chemical Waste metropolitan metropolitan
Institut Management areas, the areas, the
e, authors authors
Universi concluded that concluded that
ty of there was no there was no
Massachu consistent consistent
setts- national-level national-level
Amherst, association association
1994 between the between the
location of location of
facilities and facilities and
the percentage the percentage
of blacks and of low-income
Hispanics\h people living
living nearby.\ nearby.
Rae 210 Superfund EPA Within 1 mile of Rents and
Zimmerma sites the sites, the housing values
n, for weighted and were used as a
EPA's unweighted mean proxy for
Region and median income. Values
II, 1994 percentages for within 1-mile
minority area were lower
populations\f than state
were below or averages.
about the same
as the
proportions in
the state.
ICF 41 cement EPA The percentage The percentage
Inc., plants, of minorities\c of people below
and including 29 within 1 and 5 the poverty line
ViGYAN that burned miles of the within 1 and 5
Inc., hazardous waste plants was miles of the
for EPA, as fuel and 12 greater about as plants was
1994 that did not. often as it was greater about as
less than the often as it was
percentage of less than the
minorities in poverty rate for
the host county. the host county.
(GAO's (GAO's
conclusion based conclusion based
on EPA's data.) on EPA's data.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as
amended, which regulates the generation, storage, treatment,
disposal, and transportation of hazardous and, to some extent,
nonhazardous solid waste.
\b CERCLA is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, also known as Superfund.
CERCLA "uncontrolled" hazardous waste sites refers to sites that have
been listed by EPA as needing an assessment to determine whether they
are serious enough to be placed on the National Priorities List for
cleanup under CERCLA.
\c In this study, minority populations are defined as including
persons of Hispanic origin and blacks, American Indians, Asians and
Pacific Islanders, Eskimos and Aleuts, and others that are nonwhite
and not of Hispanic origin. No double counting of persons of
Hispanic origin and racial minorities occurs.
\d In this study, only race was analyzed. People of Hispanic origin
were not analyzed.
\e The Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census defines census
tracts as small, locally defined statistical areas in metropolitan
areas and some counties. They generally have stable boundaries and
an average population of 4,000.
\f In this study, people of Hispanic origin were analyzed
independently of racial categories. Thus, Hispanics may be included
in the data on racial minorities to some extent.
\g "Superfund sites" refers to sites on the National Priorities List.
They are sites that EPA has evaluated and determined should be
cleaned up under CERCLA. As of December 1994, there were 1,288 sites
on or proposed for the list.
\h In this study, only people of Hispanic origin and blacks were
analyzed. Also, because people of Hispanic origin were analyzed
independently of blacks, Hispanics may be included in the data shown
for blacks to some extent.
--------------------
\2 In these summaries, we use the terms used by the studies' authors
to identify population groups.
STUDIES REACHED VARIOUS
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHETHER
MINORITIES WERE
OVERREPRESENTED NEAR WASTE
FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.1
Three of the 10 studies concluded that minorities were more likely to
live near hazardous waste sites than nonminorities. These studies
were done by the United Church of Christ/Public Data Access, Inc.,
the Center for Policy Alternatives, and John A. Hird. Two studies
concluded that there was no significant association between the
location of the sites and minority populations or that minorities
were less likely to live near sites. These studies were done for
Waste Management, Inc., and EPA's Region II. ViGYAN, Inc.'s study
for EPA of 35 commercial hazardous landfills did not draw conclusions
about the results. However, our interpretation of the study's data
is that in the majority of the cases, the percentages of blacks and
Hispanics living near the landfills were equal to or less than the
percentage of blacks and Hispanics living in the host county.
Similarly, the study done for EPA on 41 cement plants did not draw
conclusions about the results, but our interpretation of the data is
that the percentage of minorities living nearby was higher than it
was in the host county about as often as it was lower. Three
studies--EPA's Region IV, Rae Zimmerman, and the University of
Massachusetts-Amherst--each were split as to whether minorities were
disproportionately affected by the location of waste facilities.
The 1987 study by the United Church of Christ is credited with being
the first national study of environmental justice. Part of the study
examined RCRA commercial hazardous waste facilities across the
country. It concluded that among the variables tested, race was the
most significant factor related to the location of such sites; the
other variables were related to income and housing values. In
communities (defined as the area within a residential ZIP code) where
two or more facilities were located or where one of the nation's
largest landfills was located, the percentage of the population
composed of minorities was, on average, more than three times that of
communities without such facilities. In 1994, the Center for Policy
Alternatives issued an update of the Church of Christ's analysis of
RCRA sites that basically confirmed the earlier findings.
On the other hand, the 1994 study by the group at the University of
Massachusetts-Amherst concluded that no consistent national-level
association existed in metropolitan areas between the location of
RCRA commercial hazardous waste facilities and the percentage of
blacks and Hispanics living nearby. The study found one variable for
which there was a strong, consistent, and often significant
association with the location of a facility. This variable was the
concentration of people who worked in manufacturing occupations in
the census tract.
The University of Massachusetts-Amherst group examined race and
ethnicity near RCRA hazardous waste facilities in metropolitan areas.
The study contained several analyses using geographic study areas of
varying distances. The authors reported, for example, that the
percentage of blacks in census tracts where facilities are located
was about the same (14.5 percent) as it was in the remaining census
tracts with no facilities (15.2 percent). The percentage of
Hispanics in tracts with facilities was 9.4 percent compared with 7.7
percent for tracts without facilities; however, the difference was
considered only marginally significant. In contrast, when the tracts
containing facilities were defined to include areas within 2.5 miles
of the sites and then compared with all the remaining tracts without
facilities in metropolitan areas, the results changed dramatically.
For the census tracts encompassed within 2.5 miles of the facilities,
the authors found the percentages of blacks (24.7 percent) and
Hispanics (10.7 percent) were significantly higher than the 13.6
percent for blacks and 7.3 percent for Hispanics residing in the
tracts without facilities. The authors concluded that their analyses
showed no consistent national-level association between the location
of commercial hazardous waste facilities and the percentage of blacks
and Hispanics residing nearby.
Waste Management, Inc., and EPA also studied samples of RCRA
commercial hazardous waste facilities. Waste Management analyzed 132
of its facilities, which included about 30 commercial hazardous waste
facilities. EPA commissioned a study on the universe of 35
commercial hazardous waste landfills. Waste Management concluded
that the ZIP codes in which its facilities (for both hazardous and
nonhazardous waste) are located had lower percentages of minorities
than the host state about 75 percent of the time. EPA did not draw
conclusions from the study conducted for the agency by ViGYAN Inc.,
which compared populations within 1/2 mile to 5 miles of the
facilities with populations in the host county. We reviewed EPA's
analyses of the study's data and concluded that in the majority of
the cases, the data showed that the percentages of blacks and
Hispanics living near the landfills were equal to or less than the
percentages in the county.
One of the three studies that examined sites on the Superfund
National Priorities List concluded that minorities were more likely
to live nearby. John Hird's 1993 study concluded that counties with
higher concentrations of minorities had more Superfund sites when
factors such as median housing value, poverty levels, and
unemployment rates were held constant to remove them from the
analysis. Rae Zimmerman's 1993 study was divided on the issue.
Using a simple unweighted analysis,\3 the author concluded that the
percentages of blacks and Hispanics in Superfund communities were
lower than those in the nation. However, Zimmerman reported that
when weighted averages were used to take into account the
communities' population level, blacks and Hispanics were more
prevalent in Superfund communities than they were in the nation. The
study conducted for EPA's Region II in 1994 found the weighted or
unweighted mean and median percentages to be below or about the same
for minority populations living within 1 mile of Superfund sites as
they were in the state(s).
Several of the studies also covered CERCLA sites--those that EPA
identified as needing an evaluation to determine whether they should
be placed on the National Priorities List and cleaned up under the
Superfund program. The United Church of Christ reported that blacks
were heavily overrepresented in the populations of the six
metropolitan areas with the most CERCLA sites. EPA's Region IV
reported that at the census-tract level, the average number of CERCLA
sites increased as the percentage of minorities increased but that at
the county level, there was no relationship between the number of
sites and the percentage of minorities.
--------------------
\3 An unweighted analysis counts each community the same even though
one community might have a population of 1,000 and another a
population of 10,000. A weighted analysis would account for such
population differences.
STUDIES THAT EXAMINED INCOME
LEVELS SHOWED VARIED RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.2
Seven of the 10 studies also examined variables related to income or
poverty. Three of the seven studies concluded that the incomes of
people living near hazardous waste facilities were lower than those
of the chosen comparison group. These studies were by the United
Church of Christ, the Center for Policy Alternatives, and EPA's
Region II. On the other hand, John Hird found no statistical link
between poorer counties and the number of Superfund sites they
contained. And, while EPA's study of populations near cement plants
did not draw conclusions, our interpretation of the study's data is
that the poverty rates near the plants were greater than the rates
for the host county about as often as they were lower.
The Center for Policy Alternatives' update of the 1987 United Church
of Christ study examined RCRA commercial hazardous waste facilities.
The study accounted for changes in the facilities that had occurred
since 1980, using 1990 census data updated to 1993. With respect to
poverty, the center reported that ZIP codes in which either three
commercial facilities, an incinerator, or one of the nation's largest
landfills were located had poverty rates that were 35 percent higher
and income levels that were 19 percent lower than the national
average. However, the study reports that these differences were not
statistically significant. The study done for EPA's Region II
analyzed Superfund sites in New York and New Jersey and found that
the characteristics of house value and rent (used as proxies for
income) were lower within 1 mile of the sites than these
characteristics across the state.
In contrast, other studies concluded that poverty levels were lower
or not significantly different near facilities. For example, Hird
examined Superfund sites, using the host county as the study area.
According to this study, no statistical link existed between poorer
counties and the number of Superfund sites they contained. The
results indicated that more economically advantaged counties (in
terms of both wealth and the absence of poverty) were likely to have
more Superfund sites. A higher median value for housing in the
county was strongly correlated with a larger number of Superfund
sites, while higher poverty levels were significantly associated with
fewer such sites.
Rae Zimmerman and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst study found
mixed results in terms of economic factors. Zimmerman examined the
locations of 814 Superfund sites in 622 communities across the
country and concluded that the unweighted mean percentage of people
below the poverty level was slightly lower than but comparable to
that of the nation. In contrast, when weighted averages were used,
she concluded that 14 percent of the people in all of the study areas
were living below the poverty level. This percentage was somewhat
higher than the national average, which at that time was 12.4
percent. However, Zimmerman did not consider these differences to be
significant.
The University of Massachusetts-Amherst group also examined poverty
rates near RCRA hazardous waste facilities in metropolitan areas.
The study contained several analyses in which the authors used
geographic study areas of varying distances. The authors reported,
for example, that the mean percentage of families below the poverty
level in census tracts with facilities was about the same (14.5
percent) as it was in the remaining census tracts without facilities
(13.9 percent). In contrast, when the tracts containing facilities
were defined to include areas within 2.5 miles of the sites and then
compared with all the remaining tracts without facilities, the
results changed. For the census tracts falling within 2.5 miles of
facilities, the authors found that the percentage of families below
the poverty level (19 percent) was significantly higher than the
percentage of families below the poverty level residing in the census
tracts without facilities (13.1 percent). Therefore, the authors'
overall conclusion was that their analyses showed no consistent
national-level association between the location of commercial
hazardous waste facilities and the percentage of economically
disadvantaged people.
STUDIES CONTAIN FEW DATA ON
RACE BY INCOME
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.3
For the most part, the studies did not attempt to cross-tabulate race
and income as we did in our analysis of nonhazardous municipal
landfills. Zimmerman did determine the number of Superfund sites
that were located in communities that had relatively high levels of
poverty and minorities. For example, her report noted that at 93
sites, more than 15 percent of the population was black and more than
15 percent was below the poverty line. She also reported that at 53
of these sites, more than 15 percent of the population was black and
more than 20 percent was below the poverty line. However, she
concluded that the association of severe poverty with Superfund sites
was less pronounced than the association of race and ethnicity with
such sites.
In its study, the United Church of Christ concluded that race was a
stronger indicator than income of the location of waste facilities.
However, the published report did not present detailed data to
support this statement. Others, including Hird and the authors of
the University of Massachusetts-Amherst study, performed analyses
that accounted for race and income or economic variables but did not
conduct cross-tabulations.
DIFFERENT STUDY QUESTIONS AND
METHODOLOGIES USED MAY HAVE LED
TO VARIED RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2
The 10 studies were intended to answer different research questions,
and thus different results could be expected. All the studies
examined a variety of samples of facilities that handled hazardous
waste, and two also examined facilities that handled nonhazardous
waste. They also analyzed different geographic areas around the
facilities and compared the demographics in those areas with the
demographics in a variety of larger areas to determine whether
inequity existed. Furthermore, the studies chose different subsets
of the minority population to examine.
DIFFERENT RESEARCH QUESTIONS
WERE EXAMINED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1
One reason for the different results of the 10 studies could be that
the authors asked different research questions. The two most common
types of questions can be summarized as follows:
-- In terms of all "areas" (whether defined as counties, ZIP codes,
census tracts, block groups, or some other measure), are
minorities or economically disadvantaged segments of the
population disproportionately located in areas that contain
hazardous waste facilities compared with areas that do not
contain such facilities?
-- Given that a facility is located in an area, are there any
differences between the racial or economic profile of people
near the facility (i.e., within 1 mile) compared with the
profile of people further away?
These two very different research questions can yield different
results. In the first case, the focus is broad--national or
regional, for example. In the second case, the focus is on the local
level--the level at which decisions are made on where facilities will
be located.
SIZE OF SAMPLE AND TYPE OF
FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2
The five studies that examined RCRA commercial hazardous waste
facilities used sample sizes ranging from 35 to over 500. In the
three studies that focused on Superfund sites, one study had a sample
of 210 Superfund sites in one region, while the other two analyzed
about 800 sites nationwide. The United Church of Christ and EPA's
Region IV analyzed the populations around more than 18,000 and 4,800
CERCLA sites,\4 respectively.
The other two types of facilities included in the studies are
nonhazardous waste facilities and cement plants. Waste Management,
Inc., examined the population near all of its disposal facilities--
about 100 nonhazardous waste landfills and about 30 commercial
hazardous waste facilities. EPA studied 29 cement plants that burned
hazardous waste as fuel and 12 plants that did not.
--------------------
\4 As of December 1994, about 37,000 CERCLA sites had been evaluated
and 1,288 had been placed on or proposed for the National Priorities
List. At the time the United Church of Christ did its study, the
national inventory of CERCLA sites was about 18,000.
AREA OF COMPARISON
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3
The studies analyzed the populations of a variety of geographic areas
around the waste facilities. Each of these areas is considered by
the authors to be the "community" potentially affected by the
facility. Because these communities can vary dramatically in size,
their definition can have an impact on the results. The study areas
included census tracts, ZIP codes, communities, counties, and zones
with boundaries at a specific distance from the facility, such as 1/2
mile or 5 miles. By comparison, our study addressed a 1-mile area
around a facility's boundaries.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the relationship between the different
boundaries that have been used in the studies. The boundaries do not
have standard sizes; these are for illustrative purposes only. This
example shows the potential differences between areas as defined by a
county boundary, a ZIP code, a census tract, or a specified distance
from a facility located in a metropolitan area. While all the people
within a 3-mile area are closer, by definition, to the landfill than
anyone outside of the area, that is not necessarily true for a census
tract or ZIP code. As figure 3.1 shows, a resident in a census tract
hosting a facility may live further from the facility than a resident
in an adjacent census tract.
Figure 3.1: Illustrative
Example of Different Boundary
Areas Used in Demographic
Studies
(See figure in printed
edition.)
The studies also used different areas for comparison, which may also
have influenced their findings. For example, the studies by the
United Church of Christ and the Center for Policy Alternatives, which
used the ZIP codes of commercial hazardous waste facilities as their
study area, compared these areas with all the residential ZIP codes
across the country where no facilities were located. The University
of Massachusetts-Amherst study compared census tracts where
commercial hazardous waste facilities were located with census tracts
where there were no facilities. The authors of the first two studies
concluded that minorities were overrepresented near these facilities,
while the University of Massachusetts-Amherst group reported that
there was no consistent national association in metropolitan areas
between the location of facilities and the percentage of blacks and
Hispanics. A possible reason for this may be the difference in size
between ZIP codes and census tracts.
As another example, while Hird compared counties where Superfund
sites were located with all counties without Superfund sites,
Zimmerman compared communities containing Superfund sites with the
geographic region (north, east, south, west) in which these
communities were located and with the country as a whole. Hird
concluded that there was no link between poverty levels in the
counties and the number of Superfund sites. Zimmerman's study was
divided in its findings, concluding that on an unweighted basis the
poverty rate in Superfund communities was comparable to that in the
nation but that when the analysis was weighted to take into account
the communities' population level, the poverty rate was slightly
higher.
Like the United Church of Christ, Waste Management used ZIP codes in
its study of its own facilities. However, its study compared
populations living in ZIP code areas with the percentage of these
populations in the host state. EPA's Region IV categorized census
tracts and counties by the percentages of minorities they contained
and calculated the average number of CERCLA facilities per census
tract and county. The study done for EPA of 35 commercial hazardous
waste landfills compared the racial demographics within various
distances--for example, 1/2 to 5 miles--with the demographics in the
host county, the host state, and the nation. EPA's study of cement
plants also used 1/2 to 5-mile distances, and compared the people
living near them with the people living in the host county and the
nation. The study for EPA's Region II compared the demographics for
distances ranging from within 1/4 mile to 4 miles of Superfund sites
with the demographics of the host state and the surrounding
municipality. However, the primary focus of the analysis was for
areas 1 mile from sites.
DEFINITION OF MINORITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.4
The studies examined different subsets of minority populations. One
common limitation in the studies is that data on Hispanics are not
always broken out by race. Because "Hispanic" is an ethnic rather
than a racial distinction, it is possible to either overcount or
undercount the number of minorities in an area. For example, white
Hispanics may not be counted as minorities at all, while black
Hispanics may be counted twice, as blacks and as Hispanics.
Several studies, including those of the United Church of Christ and
the 1994 update by the Center for Policy Alternatives, used the
definition that we used in this report, counting everyone other than
non-Hispanic whites as minorities. The University of
Massachusetts-Amherst group studied only black and Hispanic
minorities, excluding Asians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders,
and "others." Also, the authors of that study did not distinguish
black Hispanics from black non-Hispanics. Similarly, Zimmerman did
not break out the data on Hispanics by race.
EPA's Region IV used the terms "white" and "minority." Because this
study defines "minority" as the total population minus the white
population, Hispanics may be undercounted. Although Hispanics
represent only about 1 percent of the region's population, they may
be a significant factor in certain cities or regions. For example,
in Florida, one of the states in Region IV, Hispanics make up almost
9 percent of the population.
DIRECT COMPARISON BETWEEN
RESULTS OF OUR STUDY AND OTHERS
IS DIFFICULT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3
It would be difficult to compare the results of our analysis in
chapter 2 with those of the studies addressed in this chapter because
of the many differences between them. We examined nonhazardous waste
landfills, while the other studies focused primarily on several types
of hazardous waste facilities. Our methodology also differed from
the methodology used by most of the studies.
The only other study to examine a large number of nonhazardous waste
facilities was the study by Waste Management, which examined the
populations near 132 facilities, including about 100 nonhazardous
waste landfills and treatment facilities. The company used a much
different methodology than we did, comparing racial demographics
within ZIP codes with demographics statewide. While the difference
in methodologies makes comparison inexact, the results of the two
studies are somewhat consistent. Waste Management found that about
75 percent of its hazardous and nonhazardous facilities were located
in ZIP codes that had an equal or higher percentage of whites than
the state did. We found that the percentages of nonminorities within
1 and 3 miles of a majority of the landfills nationwide were about
the same as or higher than they were in the surrounding county.\5
Most of the other studies each examined a variety of hazardous waste
facilities, including landfills and treatment and storage facilities.
Several of the criteria used to select sites might affect landfills
differently than they do the other types of facilities. These
criteria include the amount of acreage needed and the cost of
available land. Landfills are typically larger than the other types
of facilities, which may mean that suitable land is available only on
the outskirts of developed areas. Other factors that may differ
between landfills and other facilities, and thus affect their
locations, include geological conditions, remoteness of location,
access to transportation, and proximity to related businesses and
industries. Different locations within a county--outskirts versus
inner city, for example--may be populated by different racial or
economic groups. If so, the type of facility studied may have a
bearing on the results of a demographic analysis.
The other study among the 10 we reviewed that examined only landfills
was the study done for EPA of the nation's 35 hazardous commercial
waste landfills. There may be more similarity between the
nonhazardous waste landfills in our study and the hazardous waste
landfills in EPA's study than there is between nonhazardous waste
landfills and the other types of facilities studied. While EPA did
not draw conclusions, our interpretation of the data in this study
shows that it, too, found that, in the majority of cases the
percentages of blacks and Hispanics living within a 5-mile radius of
the facilities were equal to or less than the percentages of blacks
and Hispanics living in the surrounding county.
--------------------
\5 As noted in ch. 2, the results of our analysis of the 3-mile area
are not provided in this report because they were comparable to the
results of our analysis of the 1-mile area.
ATTEMPTS TO EXAMINE TRENDS OVER
TIME
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4
All of the studies that we reviewed examined a "snapshot" of
population characteristics from around the time the study was done.
The studies' authors generally used the most recent data
available--from either the 1980 or 1990 census. That approach does
not address any changes that have occurred in demographics around a
site since it was first approved and built.
One hypothesis that has been suggested is that communities near a
waste facility (or other locally undesirable land use) become more
populated with minorities or low-income people in the years or
decades after the facility is built.\6 The proposed explanation is
that the presence of the facility may cause those who can afford to
move to become dissatisfied and leave the neighborhood. Also, by
making the neighborhood less desirable, the presence of a facility
may decrease property values, making housing more affordable to
low-income people. This "market dynamic" could lead to low-income
people moving into the area. And, to the extent that minorities have
lower average incomes than nonminorities, it could result in a
disproportionate share of minorities moving near the facility.
We attempted to examine changes in demographics subsequent to the
siting of 27 municipal solid waste landfills but were unsuccessful.\7
The Census Bureau did not have the necessary computerized geographic
data that would have allowed us to compare the 1980 census data for
populations within 1 and 3 miles of the landfills with the data for
these populations from the 1990 census.
--------------------
\6 Vicki Been, "Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority
Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Siting or Market Dynamics?," The
Yale Law Journal, Vol. 103, No. 6, Apr. 1994.
The authors of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst study also
report that they are investigating trends in demographics over time
near hazardous waste sites.
\7 These landfills were taken from our larger sample of 295
facilities, and all began operations between 1977 and 1981.
OBSERVATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5
Our findings of a mix of conclusions and methodologies in the other
studies can be used to make several observations. One is that
standardized methods would be useful in determining whether specific
communities are experiencing environmental inequity. To achieve such
standardization, agencies would need methods that, at a minimum, (1)
consistently define racial minorities; (2) identify a study area that
is, in fact, affected by polluting facilities; and (3) compare the
study area with an appropriate larger area.
An important limitation of our study and the others we reviewed is
the assumption that proximity to a facility leads to risk. However,
closeness to a facility is only a proxy for risk. Living 1 mile from
one facility may be much different than living 1 mile from another
facility, given differences in the types and volumes of hazardous
waste handled and in humans' exposure to that waste. In fact, living
1 mile from the same facility but in different directions, could have
different effects, depending on the flow of air and groundwater, for
example. Future work that quantifies the actual risk to people
living near facilities would enhance understanding of this issue.
In addition, studies done on the cumulative effects of multiple
pollution sources in residential communities could provide a more
comprehensive look at the total potential impact of environmental
factors. The studies that we reviewed--as well as our own--examined
the populations near a particular class of facilities, such as
Superfund sites; hazardous waste landfills; or facilities for the
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The cumulative
effects of other types of pollution sources could also be studied,
including hazardous waste generators, utilities, sewage treatment
plants, and freeways. Conducting such studies using standard
methodologies and factoring in geographic patterns specific to the
localities will challenge researchers.
EPA'S REGULATIONS FOR SITE
SELECTION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE, BUT CHANGES ARE BEING
CONSIDERED
============================================================ Chapter 4
To date, EPA has exerted limited control over where hazardous and
nonhazardous waste facilities are located. State and local
governments typically approve the decisions to place hazardous and
nonhazardous waste facilities in specific locations. Current federal
regulations do not specifically restrict facilities from being
located in residential areas and do not consider environmental
justice. EPA recently chose not to propose new standards that could
have restricted hazardous waste facilities in residential areas
because it believed these standards would not be cost-effective.
EPA's regulations as of March 1995 for providing the public with an
opportunity to participate in decisions about hazardous and
nonhazardous waste facilities have not specifically addressed
environmental justice. The regulations that EPA does have on public
participation typically take effect when EPA or the state\1 is
deciding whether an operating permit will be granted, which normally
occurs after the site has been selected. State and local governments
typically determine the opportunities for public involvement in
decisions about the location of a site. In June 1994, EPA proposed
new regulations that would require an organization to notify the
public that it intends to apply for an operating permit, although
this would probably occur after the site has been selected. In
proposing the regulations, EPA also asked for public comment on how
it can modify its public participation regulations to better
integrate minority and low-income communities into the
decision-making process. In 1993, EPA issued guidance for its
regions and the states on how to encourage public participation,
including amongst minority and low-income communities, when they are
considering permit applications for hazardous waste facilities. Our
survey of landfills included a number of questions about the
techniques used at specific landfills to increase public
participation. The results are discussed in appendix VI.
--------------------
\1 Many states are authorized by EPA to issue permits for waste
facilities.
EPA'S SITING STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS
WASTE FACILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1
The restrictions that EPA places on where facilities can be located
do not specifically limit their proximity to people, nor do they take
into account the demographics of residents. Because planning for
land use traditionally has been a local concern, state and local
governments have played a much larger role in determining the
location of waste facilities and often have regulations regarding how
close these facilities can be to populated areas. EPA's approach has
been that if design and operating standards are met, it is not
necessary for the protection of human health to limit the location of
the facilities in relation to residences.
EPA'S CURRENT RESTRICTIONS
ON THE LOCATION OF
FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.1
For nonhazardous municipal landfills, the type of facility we
surveyed, EPA issued comprehensive regulations in 1991 that began to
take effect in October 1993. These regulations apply to existing and
new landfills, and address location, among other things. These more
extensive regulations have caused many landfills to close and will
have a significant impact on facilities built in the future.
The restrictions on the location of nonhazardous landfills generally
concern specific geological characteristics. The regulations
restrict landfills from being located in floodplains and geologically
unstable areas or near airports.\2 In addition, they restrict new
landfill units or lateral expansions of existing units in wetlands,
seismic impact zones, and fault areas. The restrictions do not
necessarily prohibit landfills from being located in any of these
areas, but require that owners or operators applying for a permit
demonstrate that they have taken adequate precautionary measures.
For hazardous waste facilities, only one RCRA requirement affects the
proximity of waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to
communities: Containers with ignitable or reactive waste must be at
least 50 feet away from the facility's property line. Current
general standards for locating hazardous waste facilities, including
hazardous landfills, are not quite as comprehensive as the 1991
standards for nonhazardous landfills. The restrictions that apply to
hazardous waste facilities concern seismic areas, floodplains, salt
dome formations, and underground mines and caves. Wetlands are not
specifically identified. Furthermore, the seismic considerations for
hazardous facilities are not as comprehensive as those in the
standards for the nonhazardous facilities.
--------------------
\2 Landfills attract birds, which can pose a threat to aircraft.
EPA HAS CHOSEN NOT TO
PROPOSE NEW LOCATION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS
FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.2
RCRA called for EPA to adopt regulations establishing such
performance standards for hazardous waste facilities "as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment," including
requirements covering the location of the facilities. In 1992, EPA
drafted additional location standards for new and expanding hazardous
waste facilities. The draft also asked for public comment on
environmental justice issues. However, the Office of Management and
Budget rejected the draft because it said the costs to implement such
standards would exceed the potential benefits.
In 1994, the agency formed a work group to examine additional
standards and to consider environmental justice issues as they relate
to the siting of facilities. According to the Chief of the Permits
Branch in the Office of Solid Waste, the work group considered (1)
more stringent technical location standards, (2) setback requirements
to establish the distances required between facilities and nearby
residents, (3) the impact of current state requirements, and (4) ways
to address environmental justice issues. In March 1995, the official
told us that the agency had decided that the small number of new
hazardous waste facilities being built did not justify the effort to
develop and propose new standards. He also said that EPA decided
that it could better address concerns about environmental justice
through guidance on the operation of existing facilities. Details on
such guidance have yet to be developed.
STATE STANDARDS ON LOCATING
FACILITIES NEAR LAND USED
FOR RESIDENCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.3
At a minimum, facilities must comply with the RCRA location standards
for both hazardous and nonhazardous facilities described above.
According to an EPA document, almost 40 states have additional
standards for locating hazardous facilities that are more stringent
than EPA's current standards.\3 The EPA document indicated that
states can generally promulgate regulations about sites more easily
than the agency itself can because the states may be able to adopt a
siting standard without first showing that it is necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
A 1994 draft study conducted by an EPA contractor identified the
types of requirements that many states impose on hazardous
facilities.\4 According to the study, 23 states consider or require
setbacks that prohibit hazardous waste facilities from being within a
certain distance of land used for churches, schools, or residences,
for example. The distances range from 75 feet to 8 miles. According
to the study, 16 states also consider or require "buffer zones,"
which prohibit or restrict the waste units from being close to a
facility's property line. The distance between the units and the
property line most commonly required is 200 feet but ranges from 50
feet to 1/2 mile.
The 1994 draft study also pointed out that most local governments
have zoning and planning requirements that address suitable locations
and control such items as proximity to populations. However, the
draft study did not list those requirements because of the vast
number of specific local laws.
--------------------
\3 OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Draft Final Report, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, Apr. 25, 1994.
\4 State-by-State Summaries of Social Siting Criteria, working draft
prepared for the RCRA Siting Workgroup by ICF Incorporated, July 28,
1994.
EPA'S CURRENT REGULATIONS ON
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2
EPA's public participation regulations do not specifically address
environmental justice. They are intended, however, to allow
citizens, including members of minority and low-income communities,
the opportunity to influence the permits issued to waste facilities.
EPA noted in its response to our draft report that its current
regulations allow members of the public to comment on environmental
justice and other issues and that the agency considers all public
comments before issuing a permit, particularly those concerning the
protection of human health.
EPA'S CURRENT PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION REGULATIONS
FOR NONHAZARDOUS FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.1
EPA's current regulations for soliciting public participation in the
process for issuing permits to nonhazardous waste facilities do not
specifically address environmental justice. However, they do require
the agency issuing the permit, generally the state, to hold a public
hearing before approving a permit if the agency determines there is a
significant degree of public interest in the proposed permit. To
meet this requirement, the agency must
-- make pertinent documents, such as permit applications and draft
permits, available to the public in convenient locations;
-- maintain lists of interested people and notify them when
important information is available;
-- publicize notices of public hearings and mail notices to the
interested parties on the list at least 30 days before the
hearing; and
-- hold hearings at times and places that facilitate public
attendance and make available a public record.
Our survey of municipal landfills included questions on public
participation directed to the landfills in our sample that began
operation after January 1, 1988. (Forty-five of the 622 respondents
fit that criterion.) The questions were designed to learn the steps
that landfill owners and operators had taken to provide opportunities
for the public to participate in the process of selecting a site and
issuing an operating permit. Over two-thirds of the respondents said
that they held public hearings to discuss both the location and the
operation of the facility. About one-quarter did not hold hearings.
In a number of instances in which hearings were held, the respondents
indicated that the public had influenced either the location or
operation of the facility. More detail on the responses is found in
appendix VI.
EPA'S CURRENT PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION REGULATIONS
FOR HAZARDOUS FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.2
EPA's current regulations for granting operating permits to hazardous
waste facilities likewise call for public participation but do not
specifically address environmental justice. When EPA or an
authorized state receives a permit application for a facility, it
must begin compiling a mailing list of interested community members
in order to communicate important information about the permit
process to them. After the agency has reviewed the application and
made a preliminary decision, it must notify the public of its
decision and make either the draft permit or the notice of intent to
deny the permit available for public comment. The agency must mail
notices to the citizens on the list and issue notices in a major
local newspaper and over local radio stations.
Members of the public may request a hearing on the draft permit or
the notice of intent to deny a permit. Hearings must be held at
times and places that facilitate public attendance. Final decisions
on the permit must include a written response to both the written
comments and those made at the public hearing.
EPA'S PROPOSAL FOR EARLIER
PUBLIC NOTICE AND ATTENTION
TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.3
EPA proposed regulations in the Federal Register on June 2, 1994,
that would require earlier public notification and input in the
process of issuing permits for hazardous waste facilities. The
agency has received public comments on the proposal and expects to
issue the final rule at the end of the summer in 1995. Specifically,
the proposal calls on applicants for permits to operate hazardous
waste facilities to hold at least one public meeting to discuss the
proposed facility before submitting the application. The public
would be notified of the meeting at least 30 days in advance and in a
manner (newspaper, radio, signs, etc.) that is likely to reach all
affected members of the community, including minorities and
low-income people.
Under the proposed approach, EPA or the state would be required to
notify the public when it received an application for a permit. The
notice must include specific information about the application and
the responsible contact person in the EPA or state office that grants
permits. Furthermore, EPA or the state would be authorized to
require that the applicant establish and maintain a repository of
information about the application.
In addition to the specific proposals, EPA solicited comments from
the public on a number of environmental justice issues. EPA asked
for comments on ways to incorporate concerns about environmental
justice into the public participation process under RCRA. The agency
also asked for comments on the need for additional rulemaking or
policy guidance for incorporating environmental justice into certain
aspects of the RCRA program for issuing permits, such as corrective
action.\5 EPA was interested in receiving comments on suggested
methodologies and procedures for analyzing the "cumulative risk" and
"cumulative effects" associated with human exposure to multiple
sources of pollution. EPA also asked for comments on recommendations
developed by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Environmental Justice task force, such as compiling a national
summary of existing state, tribal, and local government requirements
with regard to environmental justice for selecting sites for
facilities.
--------------------
\5 Corrective action is a term used in the RCRA program to refer to
the investigation and cleanup of contamination at hazardous waste
facilities.
EPA'S GUIDANCE TO REGIONS
AND STATES TO IMPROVE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.4
In September 1993, EPA's Office of Solid Waste issued the RCRA Public
Involvement Manual. The purpose of the manual is to help EPA's
regional offices and RCRA-authorized state regulatory agencies
achieve effective public participation concerning permits and
corrective actions at hazardous waste facilities. A section of the
manual is devoted to promoting environmental justice through public
participation. While this guidance may improve public participation
in EPA's permit process, according to EPA the guidance was not
necessarily intended to affect public participation in state and
local governments' decisions about where facilities are located.
The manual describes over 25 activities that EPA and state staff
should consider implementing in order to involve all segments of the
community in the process for granting permits to hazardous waste
facilities under RCRA. Some of the activities are designed to gauge
the community's reaction to and concerns about a facility. EPA
recommends that staff conduct interviews with local residents,
elected officials, or community groups to obtain this information.
EPA also recommends that staff prepare a public involvement plan;
that is, a specific plan for interacting with the community when a
permit is being considered. The plan is supposed to assess the level
of community interest and recommend activities for involving the
community in the process.
EPA makes specific recommendations for addressing environmental
justice in public involvement programs. Staff are advised to adapt
to the special needs of the community and to identify internal
channels of communication that the community relies on for its
information. These channels could include foreign language
newspapers or radio stations, or influential religious leaders.
Interpreters are to be provided if needed for public meetings.
Similarly, multilingual fact sheets and other information are to be
prepared if necessary. EPA also encourages the formation of a
community advisory panel to serve as the voice of the community.
EXECUTIVE ORDER'S
REQUIREMENTS ON PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.5
The President's February 1994 executive order on environmental
justice calls for federal agencies to, among other things, translate
crucial public documents, notices, and hearings related to human
health or the environment for populations whose English is limited.
It also calls for each federal agency affected by the order to ensure
that public documents, notices, and hearings on human health or the
environment are concise, understandable, and readily accessible to
the public.
The order also requires federal agencies, whenever practicable and
appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the race,
ethnicity, and income for areas surrounding facilities or sites
expected to have a substantial local environmental, human health, or
economic effect on the surrounding populations when such facilities
or sites become the subject of a substantial federal environmental,
administrative, or judicial action. The information is to be
publicized unless prohibited by law. Agencies could use this
information to help design appropriate public participation efforts.
DATA ON HEALTH EFFECTS OF WASTE
FACILITIES ON MINORITIES AND
LOW-INCOME PEOPLE
============================================================ Chapter 5
EPA and others have reported that few data are available on the
health effects of hazardous and nonhazardous waste sites on
minorities and people with low incomes. Executive Order 12898
requires EPA to account for different socioeconomic and minority
populations when collecting environmental human health data.\1
In our survey of municipal landfills, we found little association
between the race, income, or poverty status of residents near
landfills and certain landfill characteristics that could be used as
indicators of risk, such as groundwater contamination, types of
waste, or the use of protective liners.
Over the years, evidence has been gathered of contamination being
released into the environment by municipal waste landfills and
hazardous waste facilities. However, the health effects risk models
that EPA has developed and used in support of its rulemakings predict
that the number of additional cancer-related deaths resulting from
exposure to materials released from landfills and hazardous waste
facilities would be relatively low. We did not evaluate the validity
of these risk models.
--------------------
\1 Other agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human
Services, are also required to do so by the executive order. Their
efforts were not within the scope of our review.
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO DETERMINE
HEALTH EFFECTS OF WASTE
FACILITIES ON MINORITIES AND
LOW-INCOME PEOPLE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1
In recent years, EPA has formed a workgroup and cosponsored a
conference to examine the health effects of pollution sources,
including nonhazardous and hazardous waste facilities, but the
results have been inconclusive because of a lack of sufficient data.
An interagency task force established in 1994 responding to the
executive order on environmental justice intends to assist in
coordinating the collection of such data and to provide guidance to
federal agencies in their strategies for considering environmental
justice in their actions.
EPA'S WORKGROUP AND
CONFERENCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1.1
In 1991, EPA's Administrator formed an Environmental Equity Workgroup
and asked it, among other things, to "review and evaluate the
evidence that racial minority and low-income people bear a
disproportionate risk burden." The EPA workgroup collected data on a
wide range of sources of environmental pollution.
In 1992, the workgroup issued a report entitled Environmental Equity:
Reducing Risk For All Communities. While the report concluded that
minorities may have a greater potential for exposure to hazardous and
nonhazardous waste facilities, it did not provide any evidence of
harmful health effects. In general, EPA concluded that "there is .
. . a surprising lack of data on human exposures to environmental
pollutants for Whites as well as for ethnic and racial minorities."
EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
sponsored a conference in 1992 on environmental health issues called
"Equity in Environmental Health: Research Issues and Needs." The
goal of the workshop was to examine the available scientific evidence
on disparities in overall environmental health by ethnicity and
socioeconomic status, to identify research needs and opportunities,
and to recommend future directions. Papers on the available evidence
were prepared for the conference and were published in a special
issue of the journal Toxicology and Industrial Health in the fall of
1993. Several of the papers addressed the health effects of
hazardous waste facilities on people in general and minorities in
particular.
One of those papers, written by the Director of NIEHS, the Director
of EPA's Office of Health Research, and an Assistant Administrator of
ATSDR, contained a message similar to EPA's. While the authors said
that evidence suggests that poor communities have higher exposures to
pollutants, the scientific data are not sufficient to establish
unequivocally the link between environmental health risks and income
or minority status.
In a second paper, entitled "Hazardous Wastes, Hazardous Materials
and Environmental Health Inequity,"\2 the authors reported
substantial disparities between the health of African Americans and
that of other Americans. They also reported that establishing the
causes of these disparities was difficult because of a lack of data.
They called for "extensive epidemiological studies to evaluate the
full extent of the impact of hazardous materials on various minority
communities."
--------------------
\2 M.R.I. Soliman, C.T. DeRosa, H.W. Mielke, and K. Bota.
INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON
RESEARCH AND HEALTH
ESTABLISHED UNDER EXECUTIVE
ORDER
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1.2
In the executive order on environmental justice, the administration
directed federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into
their overall mission by identifying and addressing
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations. It required each federal agency to develop,
by March 1995, a strategy for addressing environmental justice issues
within their operations. The order also tasks the agencies with,
among other things, improving research and data collection and
ensuring that all potentially affected segments of the
population--such as minorities and low-income people--are represented
in research on health and the environment whenever possible.
An interagency working group was formed to advise the agencies on
preparing their strategies. A number of task forces have been
created to assist the working group in carrying out its functions.
One is the task force on health and research, which is cochaired by
representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services and
the Department of Labor. The responsibilities of this task force are
to (1) identify research on health issues conducted by other
agencies, (2) interact with other agencies that are conducting
studies on multiple exposures or that may have collected data, and
(3) compile information on human exposure to chemicals and toxic
substances and get a better understanding of how agencies are using
this information to estimate health effects.
Like the other federal agencies, EPA is required to prepare a
strategy for addressing environmental justice. A draft of EPA's
strategy was available for review as of January 1995. With respect
to health issues, one of EPA's objectives is to ensure that the
agency's environmental policies are based on sound science and
significantly address and incorporate environmental justice and
socioeconomic concerns into research. Another objective is to expand
EPA's capability to conduct research in areas where the agency can
make the greatest contribution to environmental justice, including
human exposure, cumulative risk, risk reduction, and pollution
prevention. The draft strategy calls for EPA to assess and compare
the environmental and human health risks borne by populations
identified by race, national origin, or income. The broad objectives
spelled out in the draft strategy do not specifically address
hazardous and nonhazardous waste facilities.
DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND
RISK-RELATED CHARACTERISTICS AT
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS IN OUR
SURVEY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2
In our analysis of survey results and demographic data, we found
little association between the race, income, or poverty status of
people living near the landfills and landfill characteristics related
to potential risk. The characteristics that we analyzed include the
types of waste received and the presence of features designed to
protect against potential releases of contamination. For example, we
did not find that a disproportionate percentage of minorities or
low-income people within l mile of landfills that lack protective
liners. The results of our analyses are presented in appendix VII.\3
Our reason for examining these relationships was to determine whether
minority or low-income populations were more prevalent near landfills
that might be perceived as risky. While it is difficult to
generalize about the risks posed by a landfill, our analysis assumes
that risk could increase with the acceptance of hazardous waste and
the absence of protective design features. None of these conditions
necessarily means that a specific landfill poses a risk to people
living nearby, but the public may perceive such characteristics to be
related to risk.
--------------------
\3 Our information on the relationship between landfill
characteristics and population demographics cannot always be used to
make national estimates because there were not always enough cases in
the categories that we reviewed.
EPA'S ATTEMPTS TO ASSESS HEALTH
RISK OF NONHAZARDOUS AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES ON
GENERAL POPULATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3
While there is little evidence concerning the health effects of waste
facilities on minorities or low-income people, EPA has attempted to
assess the risks of these facilities to the general population. In
the course of developing regulatory requirements for municipal
landfills and hazardous waste facilities, EPA has developed models
that predict potential human exposures to hazardous releases and the
potential health effects. According to EPA's analysis, the potential
deaths resulting from exposure are low for both types of facilities.
We did not evaluate the validity of either of these risk models
because doing so was beyond the scope of our work.
EPA'S RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR
NONHAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3.1
In its 1988 proposed regulation for municipal landfills, EPA noted
that "existing data are not sufficient to conclusively demonstrate
that [municipal landfills] currently are harming human health . . .
. However, the Agency's recently completed risk assessments indicate
that [municipal landfills] present future potential risks to human
health."
In 1988, using these risk assessment models, EPA estimated that 17
percent of municipal landfills posed risks greater than 1 in 10\6
(i.e., an exposed individual would have a greater than 1 in 1 million
chance of contracting cancer in that individual's lifetime as a
result of the exposure. The exposure is assumed to have lasted over
the 70-year lifespan of the individual). The assessment considered
only groundwater contamination and used data on the distance of
landfills to drinking-water wells. EPA did not estimate the risks
from contamination of surface water, soil, or air.
In October 1991, EPA issued its final rule for the location and
operating standards for these landfills. In that rulemaking, EPA
cited a risk assessment of the landfills in operation before the new
regulations went into effect that projected 5.7 additional cancer
deaths across the country over a 300-year period. EPA estimated that
the new regulations will reduce the number of additional cancer
deaths to 3.3 as old landfills are replaced with new ones.
EPA'S RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3.2
EPA has also projected the potential adverse health effects of
contaminated hazardous waste facilities. EPA estimated that 1,200
cancer cases would result over the 128-year modeling period if the
contaminated facilities are not cleaned up. If these facilities are
cleaned up, EPA estimated that there would still be about 800 cancer
cases. The projections accompanied EPA's 1993 regulations for
cleaning up contaminated hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities.
EPA estimated that unless corrective action (the cleanup of the
facilities) is conducted, 920 to 1,700 hazardous waste facilities
could cause either cancer or noncancer health risks to people. EPA
also estimated that if facilities are converted to residential use in
the future, approximately 1,800 sites could cause cancer and
noncancer health effects.
METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS OF
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
=========================================================== Appendix I
This appendix describes our methodology for surveying and analyzing
municipal solid waste landfills. Our mail survey allowed us to (1)
examine selected characteristics of such landfills and develop
information on their location and (2) describe the demographic
characteristics of people living nearby. Our approach in conducting
the survey allowed us to make national estimates about the
characteristics of such landfills and the demographics of those
living nearby for both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
Our universe of potential landfills was derived from a list
maintained by the Solid Waste Association of North America. The
association provided us with a computerized list of 4,321 federal and
nonfederal landfills that were thought to meet two criteria: (1)
they were municipal solid waste landfills and (2) they were operating
at some time in 1992. The association's list did not include
landfills in Montana. We received a list of 87 municipal solid waste
landfills in operation in that state in 1992 from Montana's State
Office of Solid Waste and added them to our list of landfills. We
identified 78 landfills that were federal facilities and removed them
from the list. Therefore, the total number of landfills in our
universe was 4,330.
We then determined if each landfill was in a metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan county, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
based on whether the ZIP code of the landfill was within a
metropolitan or nonmetropolitan county. This classification resulted
in a universe of 1,498 metropolitan landfills and 2,832
nonmetropolitan landfills. We then sampled 500 metropolitan and 500
nonmetropolitan landfills with equal probability.
We designed a questionnaire that requested several pieces of
information about each landfill. This information included, but was
not limited to, the location; ownership and size of the landfill;
types of waste accepted; presence of protective liners, groundwater
monitoring, or contamination at the landfill; and opportunities for
the community surrounding the landfill to voice its opinions about
the location and construction of the landfill.
We also subsampled 300 of the 500 metropolitan and 150 of the 500
nonmetropolitan landfills. We did this to determine the exact
geographic location of each landfill so that we could compare the
demographics of the people living near the landfill with those
residing in the rest of the county. For this subsample, we asked
additional questions about location on the questionnaire and included
one or more United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale
maps of the surrounding areas that we determined would contain the
landfill. The landfill owner/operators were asked to return the USGS
maps with their landfill's boundaries outlined on the basis of roads
and other natural features displayed on the USGS map. We chose to
work with a subsample of the 1,000 randomly selected landfills that
was manageable in size but would allow us to make national estimates.
We solicited expert review of a preliminary version of the
questionnaire from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
of Solid Waste. We then determined the validity of the instrument by
pretesting a preliminary version on selected individuals who
represented the owner/operators of landfills of varying size and in
different parts of the United States. We pretested first in six
locations: Warrenton, Va.; York, Penn.; Dover, Del.; Baltimore, Md;
Hedgesville, W. Va.; and Richmond, Va. Based on the comments and
reactions from these pretests, we revised the questionnaire so that
the questions would be uniformly interpreted and understood. Next,
we pretested the revised version of the questionnaire at four
additional locations (Jonesboro, Ga.; Dallas, Tex.; San Diego, Calif.
and Brooklyn, Ohio) and incorporated the comments and suggestions
from these pretests. We also received written comments on a version
of the questionnaire from a firm that owns and operates many
landfills across the country.
We mailed 1,000 questionnaires to the owner/operators identified on
our mailing list. The owner/operators were asked to complete and
return the questionnaires within 10 days. We kept a log to track
which questionnaires had and had not been returned.
We sent another questionnaire to nonrespondents, and after 3 to 4
weeks, we mailed postcards to nonrespondents. These postcards
alerted the owner/operators to the second mailing of the
questionnaire and asked for their quick response.
If we still did not receive a response, we telephoned the
owner/operators to determine whether they had received the
questionnaire and intended to return it. In some cases, the
owner/operator agreed to return the survey but did not do so
expeditiously. In those instances, we mailed another postcard to
encourage a response. In a few cases, we encouraged owner/operators
who were reluctant to complete the questionnaire to at least return
the USGS map with their landfill's boundaries drawn in.
About 79 percent (791) of the 1,000 initial questionnaires were
returned, and about 85 percent (383) of the 450 in the subsample were
returned. As illustrated in table I.1, for the subsample, 59 of the
responses from 259 metropolitan landfills and 18 of the responses
from 124 nonmetropolitan landfills were not usable in our analysis
because they did not meet our criteria of being nonfederal facilities
that had accepted municipal solid waste and were operating during
1992. We had to exclude responses from 10 metropolitan and 1
nonmetropolitan landfills for other reasons that are explained in the
table. To determine our response rate, we took the number of usable
responses (190 metropolitan and 105 nonmetropolitan landfills) and
divided that figure by the original sample size minus the returns
that did not meet the criteria for inclusion in our universe (300
minus 59 for metropolitan landfills, and 150 minus 18 for
nonmetropolitan landfills). Our response rates for the subsample
were about 79 percent for the metropolitan landfills and about 80
percent for the nonmetropolitan landfills.
Table I.1
Response Rate for Survey of Municipal
Landfills
Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan
---- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------
Univ 1,498 2,832 1,498 2,832
erse
Samp 500 500 300 150
le
siz
e
Retu 302 321 190\ 105
rned
(us
abl
e)
Returned (not usable)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clos 48 39 29 14
ed
bef
ore
199
2
Not 39 23 28 4
a
mun
ici
pal
lan
dfi
ll
Fede 3 0 1 0
ral
fac
ili
ty
Retu 3 1 1 0
rned
aft
er
cut
-
off
dat
e
Faci 1 1 1 0
lity
nev
er
ope
ned
Othe 9 1 9 1
r\a
Not 95 114 41 26
ret
urn
ed
Retu 81.0% 77.2% 86.3% 82.6%
rn
rat
e
Resp 73.8% 73.4% 78.8% 79.5%
onse
rat
e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Ten landfills were misclassified in terms of their metropolitan
and nonmetropolitan status. Because they were misclassified, we did
not include them in the analysis.
The impact of the nonrespondents may be investigated by conducting a
follow-up study that compares nonrespondents to respondents to
determine whether the nonrespondents are different from the
respondents. Given time and resource restraints, we did not conduct
this follow-up survey.
We edited the completed questionnaires to ensure that they had been
completed correctly. If responses to the questions appeared to be
contradictory, we made additional telephone calls to verify or
correct the data.
We performed several different types of analysis using various data
from our different samples. To describe the general characteristics
of landfills presented in appendix II, we used the samples under the
columns headed "Surveys from overall sample for analysis of landfill
characteristics" in table I.1. When comparing the demographics of
people living near the landfill area with those in the rest of the
county, presented in chapter 2, we used the samples under the columns
headed "USGS maps from subsample for demographic analysis of
landfills."
We also cross-tabulated several of the landfill characteristics and
the demographic data for the information in chapter 5 and appendix
VII. We used data for this analysis only from those landfills that
returned both a usable survey and a usable USGS map. Our
cross-tabulation analysis included 187 metropolitan and 103
nonmetropolitan municipal landfills. These landfills are a subset of
the 190 metropolitan and 105 nonmetropolitan landfills identified in
table I.1.
For our demographic analysis of the landfills that returned maps, we
digitized (traced) the boundary of each landfill using special
software from the USGS that allowed us to determine the latitude and
longitude defining a landfill's boundary. Using a geographic
information system computer program, we developed two areas that
separated the landfill from the rest of the county. These areas were
1 and 3 miles from the boundary of the landfill. (See fig. I.1.) We
were able to digitize a total of 190 metropolitan landfills and 105
nonmetropolitan landfills.
Figure I.1: Illustration of a
County Boundary With a
Municipal Landfill and 1- and
3-Mile Areas
(See figure in printed
edition.)
To determine the demographics of the people living near the
landfills, we used the finest level of aggregation possible, the
census block group. We did not use the census block because the U.S.
Bureau of the Census did not report data on income at this level.
For each landfill, we determined which block groups were either
partially or completely within the landfill's 1- and 3-mile areas.
If the block group was completely within the area, we used its
complete demographic information (e.g., number of minorities and
nonminorities). If the block group was partially within the area,
its demographic information was proportioned on the basis of the
amount of the block group area falling within the 1- or 3-mile area.
The number of minorities and nonminorities residing in complete and
partial block groups was then summed to determine the total number
living in the 1- or 3-mile area. In effect, we counted all the
people in some block groups and a portion of the people in other
block groups when we totaled the number of people within the area.
To determine the demographic characteristics of those living outside
the area, we subtracted the number of people living in the area from
the number living in the county. We made all our comparisons between
the people living in the area and the people living in the rest of
the county. Within the 1- and 3-mile areas, we counted only those
people in the county, not those in an adjacent county.
We chose to compare the population within the 1- and 3-mile areas
with the population in the rest of the county rather than to some
other geographic area such as the city or state. This decision was a
compromise that we made for the following reasons.
According to our survey, most municipal solid waste landfills are
owned and operated by local or county governments. Our survey
results also indicated that local or county governments had approved
the locations for most landfills. Furthermore, the average landfill
(public or private) typically received most of its waste from within
the county.
Ideally, we would have classified the landfills according to which
government jurisdiction (city or county) had approved the location.
If the city made the decision, we would have compared the population
within the 1- and 3-mile areas with the population in the rest of the
city. If the county made the decision, we would have compared the
populations within the 1- and 3-mile areas with the population in the
rest of the county. To do so, however, would have required a larger
sample to allow for sufficient samples in both categories. We did
not have adequate resources to increase the sample size. Comparing
the populations in the 1- and 3-mile areas with the population in the
rest of the city would also have presented a problem in cases in
which the 1- or 3-mile area occupied nearly all of the area of the
city, leaving little to compare. This situation would have occurred
more often in rural areas. Furthermore, in some instances, city
governments had decided to locate a city-operated facility on
unincorporated land outside the city limits. This circumstance would
have confused our analysis. We therefore decided to compare the
populations within the 1- and 3-mile areas with those in the rest of
the county.
In this process, we excluded block groups within the 1- and 3-mile
areas that fell outside the county in which the facility was located
(host county). In 35 of the 295 landfills we analyzed, the 1-mile
area extended into at least one other county. In 101 instances, the
3-mile area extended into at least one other county. We chose not to
include the people in the other counties in our analysis because we
did not believe it was appropriate to compare the demographics of
people in the host county with the demographics of people from both
that county and the adjacent counties. Our reasoning was that people
in the adjacent counties were unlikely to have had an opportunity to
influence the decision about where the facility was located. Not
including the people in the adjacent counties does present a
limitation in our analysis, however, because these people could be
affected by the facility in the same manner as people in the host
county.
For each 1- and 3-mile area and the corresponding rest of the county,
we developed demographic information on five areas: race/ethnicity
(we included whites of Hispanic origin with the minority population),
poverty status, median household income, poverty status by
race/ethnicity, and median household income by race/ethnicity. All
of the demographic data came from either the U.S. Bureau of Census
Summary Tape File 1A or the Summary Tape File 3A. For the data on
income (poverty and median income), the census data included whites
of Hispanic origin with the white, or nonminority, population.
We used the data that described the rest of the county to establish
what would be expected in the 1- or 3-mile area if the groups were
not disproportionate. For example, if non-Hispanic whites (termed in
this study "nonminorities") composed 50 percent of the county's
population outside a 1-mile area, we would expect that approximately
50 percent of the population within the 1-mile area would be
nonminorities. If nonminorities made up only 30 percent of the
population in the 1-mile area, nonminorities would appear to be
overrepresented. Thus, every metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
landfill in our sample was treated equally and categorized as having
more or fewer minorities than expected. In the above case, the
landfill would be classified as having fewer nonminorities than
expected. We also classified metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
landfills as having significantly more nonminorities than expected,
about what was expected, or significantly fewer than expected. Thus,
in the example above, we would have classified the landfill as having
significantly fewer nonminorities than expected. We performed this
type of analysis for all of the demographic data.
We also compared the data from the 1-mile areas with data on the
nation as a whole. We used national data for the same variables:
race, median household income, and poverty status. We analyzed each
variable in terms of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. While
most of these data were readily available from the 1990 census, some
extrapolation was necessary to arrive at national data on median
household income and poverty status by race.
Finally, we cross-tabulated the demographic data from the 1-mile
areas with several landfill characteristics selected as possible
indicators of risk. These characteristics included the use of
protective liners, leachate collection systems, and groundwater
monitoring. The purpose was to determine whether minorities or
low-income people were underrepresented with respect to the presence
of these characteristics.
Because we used a sample (called a probability sample) to develop our
estimates, each estimate has a measurable precision, or sampling
error, that may be expressed as a plus/minus figure. A sampling
error indicates how closely we can reproduce from a sample the
results that we would obtain if we were to take a complete count of
the universe using the same measurement methods. By adding the
sampling error to and subtracting it from the estimate, upper and
lower bounds for each estimate were developed. This range is called
a confidence interval. Sampling errors and confidence intervals are
stated at a certain confidence level--in this case 95 percent. For
example, a confidence interval, at the 95-percent confidence level,
means that in 95 out of 100 instances, the sampling procedure we used
would produce a confidence interval containing the universe value we
are estimating. The sampling errors for our analysis are found in
tables III.1 and III.2 of appendix III.
OVERVIEW OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
LANDFILLS SURVEYED
========================================================== Appendix II
We surveyed 500 metropolitan and 500 nonmetropolitan municipal
landfills about a variety of solid waste issues. The responses to a
select number of those questions are summarized below for
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills. All of the percentages
reflect only those landfills that responded to the questions.
-- On the basis of usable\1 survey responses we received from 301
metropolitan and 322 nonmetropolitan landfills in operation at
some time in 1992, we estimate that 69 percent (+/- 5 percent\2
) of metropolitan landfills and 79 percent (+/- 5 percent) of
nonmetropolitan landfills were owned by counties and municipal
governments. About 24 percent (+/- 5 percent) of metropolitan
and 13 percent (+/- 4 percent) of nonmetropolitan landfills were
privately owned.
-- The average metropolitan landfill was about 191 acres in size,
but the range was from 1 acre to 2,000 acres. The average
nonmetropolitan landfill was about 98 acres, while the range was
from 1 acre to 1,200 acres.
-- The average metropolitan landfill received about 50 percent (+/-
5 percent) of its waste from the community where it was located
and 36 percent (+/- 4 percent) from the remainder of the county.
Only about 7 percent (+/- 3 percent) of the metropolitan
landfills accepted out-of-state waste. Nonmetropolitan
landfills received about 61 percent (+/- 7 percent) of their
waste from the local community and about 34 percent (+/- 4
percent) from the remainder of the county. About 3 percent (+/-
2 percent) received waste from out of state. Out-of-state waste
averaged less than 1 percent (+/- 1 percent) of the waste
received by each metropolitan and nonmetropolitan municipal
landfill.
-- Typically, the waste sent to the landfills was household waste,
industrial nonhazardous waste, and construction-related debris.
We estimate that only about 7 percent (+/- 3 percent) of the
metropolitan landfills had received hazardous waste from sources
that generate small quantities of waste and less than 3 percent
(+/- 2 percent) had received hazardous waste from sources that
generate large quantities of waste.\3 Among nonmetropolitan
landfills, 8 and 1 percent (+/- 3 and 1 percent) had received
hazardous waste from small- and large-quantity generators,
respectively.
-- About 51 percent (+/- 6 percent) of the metropolitan landfills
had received asbestos, about 49 percent (+/- 6 percent) had
received sewage sludge, and about 13 percent (+/- 4 percent) had
received ash from municipal incinerators. For nonmetropolitan
landfills the percentages were 43, 36, and 5 percent (+/- 6, 5,
and 2 percent), respectively.
-- About 73 percent (+/- 5 percent) of the metropolitan landfills
began receiving waste before 1980, and less than 3 percent (+/-
2 percent) began after 1990. Twenty-three percent (+/- 5
percent) of the metropolitan landfills had closed by the time
they received the questionnaire. Of those that planned to close
and could estimate their closing date, 25 percent (+/- 6
percent) said they would close by the end of 1995. Of the
landfills planning to continue their operations beyond 1995, 64
percent (+/- 8 percent) planned to operate beyond the year 2000.
-- Among nonmetropolitan landfills, 69 percent (+/- 5 percent)
began receiving waste before 1980, and 1 percent (+/- 1 percent)
began after 1990. Twenty-seven percent (+/- 5 percent) of the
nonmetropolitan landfills had closed by the time they received
the questionnaire. Of those that planned to close and could
estimate their closing date, 49 percent (+/- 7 percent) said
they would close by the end of 1995. Of the landfills planning
to continue their operations beyond 1995, 64 percent (+/- 6
percent) planned to operate beyond the year 2000.
-- Forty-seven percent (+/- 6 percent) of metropolitan landfills
did not have protective liners beneath any of their waste units.
Fifty-five percent (+/- 6 percent) of the metropolitan landfills
did not have leachate collection systems in place at any of
their waste units. Over 90 percent (+/- 3 percent) said that
they had groundwater monitoring. About 16 percent (+/- 4
percent) said that the landfill had caused groundwater
contamination at some time.
-- Sixty-six percent (+/- 5 percent) of nonmetropolitan landfills
did not have protective liners beneath any of their waste units.
Eighty percent (+/- 5 percent) of the nonmetropolitan landfills
did not have leachate collection systems in place at any of
their waste units. About 67 percent (+/- 5 percent) said that
they had groundwater monitoring. About 7 percent (+/- 3
percent) said that the landfill had caused groundwater
contamination at some time.
--------------------
\1 See table I.1 in app. I, which gives the data on the number of
usable and unusable responses.
\2 Sampling errors have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
\3 EPA prohibited municipal landfills from accepting hazardous waste
from large-quantity generators starting in 1980. Municipal landfills
are allowed to accept hazardous waste from small-quantity generators.
PEOPLE LIVING NEAR MUNICIPAL
LANDFILLS WERE LIKELY TO HAVE
POVERTY RATE SIMILAR TO OR LOWER
THAN RATE IN REST OF COUNTY
========================================================= Appendix III
While median household income is one indicator of people's economic
status, the poverty rate--whether a person's income is below the
national definition of poverty\1 --is another indicator. On the
basis of our survey, we found that the people living near municipal
landfills were not likely to have a higher poverty rate than the
people in the rest of the county. Data from this analysis are
presented below.
The data in figures III.1 through III.4 represent the findings from
our sample of landfills. National estimates cannot be accurately
made without applying a margin of error. The approximate sampling
errors for the data on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills can
be found in tables III.1 and III.2 and should be applied to the data
in each appropriate figure.
Table III.1
Sampling Errors for Selected Percentages
and Sample Sizes of Metropolitan
Landfills
Percentage of
landfills 160 165 170 175 180 185 190
--------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
15 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
20 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
25 6 6 6 6 6 5 5
30 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
35 7 7 6 6 6 6 6
40 7 7 7 6 6 6 6
45 7 7 7 7 6 6 6
50 7 7 7 7 6 6 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Sampling errors have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
For example, in figure III.1, the people living within 1 mile of 31
percent of the metropolitan landfills had a higher poverty rate than
the rate in the rest of the county. Using 31 percent and a sample
size of 190, the sampling error at the 95-percent confidence level
for the information in figure III.1 is approximately 6 percent. By
applying this approximate sampling error, we can estimate that the
people living within 1 mile of between 25 and 37 percent of
metropolitan landfills had a poverty rate higher than the rate in the
rest of the county.
Table III.2
Sampling Errors for Selected Percentages
and Sample Sizes of Nonmetropolitan
Landfills
Percentage of
landfills 90 95 100 105
---------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
5 4 4 4 4
10 6 6 6 6
15 7 7 7 7
20 8 8 8 7
25 9 8 8 8
30 9 9 9 8
35 10 9 9 9
40 10 10 9 9
45 10 10 9 9
50 10 10 9 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Sampling errors have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Figures III.1 and III.2 compare the poverty rate of individuals
living within 1 mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills
with the rate for individuals in the rest of the county and the
nation. The poverty rate for the people living near metropolitan
landfills was higher than the rate for people in the surrounding
county 31 percent of the time. The poverty rate for these people was
also higher than the national average for metropolitan areas about 23
percent of the time. The people living near nonmetropolitan
landfills had a poverty rate higher than the rate in the host county
and the national average for nonmetropolitan areas about 45 and 59
percent of the time, respectively.
Figure III.1: Poverty Rate
Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan
Landfills Compared With Rate in
Rest of Host County or Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 190.
\a The national average for metropolitan areas is 12.1 percent.
Figure III.2: Poverty Rate
Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Compared With Rate in Rest of
Host County or Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 105.
\a The national average for nonmetropolitan areas is 16.8 percent.
Figures III.3 and III.4 show how much the poverty rate of the people
living within 1 mile of the landfills differed from the rate of the
people in the rest of the county. The poverty rate for individuals
living near metropolitan landfills was not often significantly higher
than the rate in the rest of the county.\2 The rate was about the
same or significantly lower most of the time. The same held true for
people living near nonmetropolitan landfills.
Figure III.3: Degree of
Difference Between Poverty Rate
Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan
Landfills and Rate in Rest of
Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190.
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
\a The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area was at least 2.5
percent less than the rate in the rest of the host county.
\b The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area was at least 2.5
percent more than the rate in the rest of the host county.
Figure III.4: Degree of
Difference Between Poverty Rate
Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills and
Rate in Rest of Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 105.
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
\a The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area was at least 2.5
percent less than the rate in the rest of the host county.
\b The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area was at least 2.5
percent more than the rate in the rest of the host county.
--------------------
\1 "Poverty" is defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as an
individual or family income below a certain amount. In 1990, this
amount, known as the poverty line, was $6,310 for an individual and
$12,674 for a nonfarm family of four. In our analysis, we used the
census data for individuals below the poverty line.
\2 For the purposes of this analysis, a significant difference in the
poverty rate is defined as more than 2.5 percent. In app. IV, we
show the relative difference between the poverty rates of people
living within 1 mile of the landfills and in the rest of the county.
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
PEOPLE WITHIN 1 MILE OF LANDFILLS
AND IN REST OF COUNTY
========================================================== Appendix IV
This appendix and appendix V expand on the data presented in chapter
2 and appendix III, in which we showed the absolute differences
between the people living within 1 mile of landfills and the people
in the rest of the host county with respect to race, income, and
poverty. The analyses in this appendix address the relative
differences in race, income, and poverty status between people living
within 1 mile of the landfills and the rest of the host county.
Calculations of both absolute and relative differences are equally
valid but can produce widely different results for particular
situations, as demonstrated below. In the interest of thoroughness,
we conducted both analyses. However, the overall results were the
same. We found that neither minorities nor low-income people were
disproportionately represented near landfills in any consistent
manner. While we also analyzed populations within 3 miles of the
landfills for this review, we did not include those results because
of their close similarity to the results for populations within 1
mile.
The examples that follow illustrate the difference between our
analysis of absolute differences and relative differences between
populations. For these examples, we chose to look at the differences
between the racial composition of people living within 1 mile of
metropolitan landfills and in the rest of the host county.
In our analysis of the absolute differences, we have defined a
difference of at least 10 percent as significant. If the percentage
of nonminorities living within 1 mile was at least 10 percent greater
than the percentage of nonminorities in the rest of the county, we
classified that difference as being significantly more. Likewise, if
the percentage of nonminorities living within 1 mile was at least 10
percent less than the percentage in the rest of the county, we
classified that difference as being significantly less. We applied
the same calculations to minority populations.
Figure IV.1 shows the data for the absolute differences in our
example. The figure shows that more than 60 percent of the
metropolitan landfills had a percentage of nonminorities within 1
mile that was not significantly different from the percentage in the
rest of the county. Only about 13 percent of the landfills had a
percentage of nonminorities within 1 mile that was significantly less
than the percentage in the rest of the county. The second set of
three bars, a mirror image of the first set, shows the data for
minorities.
Figure IV.1: Degree of
Difference Between People
Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan
Landfills and in Rest of Host
County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 190.
\a The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less than
the percentage in the rest of the host county.
\b The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more than
the percentage in the rest of the host county.
The analysis of the relative differences is slightly more
complicated. To calculate the relative difference for race, we
subtracted the percentage of nonminorities in the county from the
percentage within the 1-mile area and divided the result by the
percentage of nonminorities in the county. For race, we again
defined a 10-percent relative difference as significant. The example
below shows how the calculations of absolute and relative differences
yield different results.
-- Absolute difference. If the percentage of nonminorities in the
1-mile area is 84 and the percentage of nonminorities in the
county is 76, the absolute difference is 84 minus 76, or 8.
This difference would not be considered significant in our
analysis because it is less than 10 percent.
-- Relative difference. If the percentage of nonminorities in the
1-mile area is 84 and the percentage of nonminorities in the
county is 76, the relative difference is 84 minus 76 divided by
76, or 10.5 percent. This difference would be considered
significant in our analysis because it is more than 10 percent.
Figure IV.2 shows the data for the relative differences in our
example. The figure shows a different picture than the absolute
differences, particularly for minorities. In almost 60 percent of
the landfills, the percentage of nonminorities within 1 mile is not
significantly different from the percentage in the rest of the
county. The percentage is significantly less in about 15 percent of
the cases; in almost 30 percent of the cases, it is significantly
more. The percentage of minorities living within 1 mile is not
significantly different only 7 percent of the time. The percentage
of minorities living within 1 mile is significantly less 69 percent
of the time and significantly more 23 percent of the time. The more
extreme results for minorities (i.e., fewer instances in which the
difference is not significant) probably occur because the percentage
of minorities is generally lower than the percentage of
nonminorities. Therefore, a small difference between the percentages
in the 1-mile area and in the rest of the county is more likely to be
large relative to the county.
Figure IV.2: Race of People
Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan
Landfills Relative to Rest of
Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190.
Note 2: Percentages for minorities do not add to 100 percent because
of rounding.
\a The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in
relative terms, than the percentage in the rest of the host county.
\b The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in
relative terms, than the percentage in the rest of the host county.
The data in figures IV.3 through IV.8 represent the findings from our
sample of landfills. National estimates cannot be accurately made
without applying a margin of error. The approximate sampling errors
for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills can be found in tables
III.1 and III.2 and should be applied to the data in the appropriate
figure.
Figure IV.3: Race of People
Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan
Landfills Relative to Rest of
Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190.
Note 2: Percentages for minorities do not add to 100 percent because
of rounding.
\a The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in
relative terms, than the percentage in the rest of the host county.
\b The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in
relative terms, than the percentage in the rest of the host county.
Figure IV.4: Race of People
Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Relative to Rest of Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 105.
\a The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in
relative terms, than the percentage in the rest of the host county.
\b The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in
relative terms, than the percentage in the rest of the host county.
Figure IV.5: Median Household
Income of People Within 1 Mile
of Metropolitan Landfills
Relative to Rest of Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 190.
\a The median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent less, in relative terms, than the median household income in
the host county.
\b The median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent more, in relative terms, than the median household income in
the host county.
Figure IV.6: Median Household
Income of People Within 1 Mile
of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Relative to Rest of Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 105.
\a The median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent less, in relative terms, than the median household income in
the host county.
\b The median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent more, in relative terms, than the median household income in
the host county.
Figure IV.7: Poverty Rate of
People Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills Relative
to Rest of Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190.
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
\a The poverty rate of individuals in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent less, in relative terms, than the rate in the host county.
\b The poverty rate of individuals in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent more, in relative terms, than the rate in the host county.
Figure IV.8: Poverty Rate of
People Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Relative to Rest of Host County
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 105.
\a The poverty rate of individuals in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent less, in relative terms, than the rate in the host county.
\b The poverty rate of individuals in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent more, in relative terms, than the rate in the host county.
CROSS-TABULATIONS OF INCOME AND
POVERTY RATE OF PEOPLE WITHIN 1
MILE OF LANDFILLS AND IN REST OF
COUNTY, BY RACE
=========================================================== Appendix V
This appendix provides specific data on our cross-tabulations of
income and poverty by race. The purpose of this analysis was to
determine whether the median household income and poverty rates of
nonminorities and minorities living within 1 mile of municipal
landfills were lower or higher than those of their counterparts in
the rest of the host county. Our sample of landfills showed that the
incomes of nonminorities and minorities were not generally lower than
the income in the rest of the county. Similarly, the poverty rates
of nonminorities and minorities were not generally higher than the
rate in the rest of the county.
We also compared the people living within 1 mile of the landfills
with those in the rest of the nation. We used both absolute
differences and relative differences in these comparisons. (The
distinction between these approaches is explained in app. IV.) As in
our previous analysis, sampling errors must be applied to the figures
below when making estimates about the national universe of municipal
landfills. The approximate sampling errors are found in tables III.1
and III.2 in appendix III.
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY RACE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1
We found that nonminorities and minorities living within 1 mile of
landfills generally had similar or higher median household incomes
than nonminorities and minorities in the rest of the county. We also
found that nonminorities and minorities living near landfills often
had incomes higher than the national median for their counterparts in
the rest of the country.
In metropolitan areas, we found that the median household income of
nonminorities living within 1 mile of landfills was as likely to be
higher than the income in the rest of the county as it was to be
lower. For nonmetropolitan landfills, the income was likely to be
higher 57 percent of the time. Furthermore, the median household
income of nonminorities living within 1 mile of metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan landfills was higher than the national median
household income for nonminorities 48 and 44 percent of the time,
respectively. (See figs. V.1 and V.4.)
For metropolitan areas, only 24 percent of the landfills had
nonminorities living within 1 mile with a median household income
that was significantly lower in absolute terms than the income of
nonminorities in the rest of the county. The median household income
of the people living near the remaining landfills were either not
significantly different or were significantly higher. In
nonmetropolitan areas, only 10 percent of the landfills had
nonminorities living nearby with a significantly lower income than
the people in the rest of the county. (See figs. V.2 and V.5.)
Finally, for metropolitan areas we found that 27 percent of the
landfills had nonminorities living within 1 mile whose median
household income was significantly less in relative terms than the
income in the rest of the county. The remaining 73 percent had an
income that was not significantly different or was significantly
higher. For nonmetropolitan areas, 19 percent of the landfills had
nonminorities living nearby with a significantly lower income in
relative terms than the people in the rest of the county. (See figs.
V.3 and V.6.)
With respect to minorities, we found that the median household income
near 67 percent of the metropolitan landfills was higher than the
median income of minorities in the rest of the county. For
nonmetropolitan landfills, 43 percent of the landfills showed this
pattern. In metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, the median
household income of minorities living within 1 mile of landfills was
higher than the national median household income for minorities 53
and 37 percent of the time, respectively. (See figs. V.1 and V.4.)
The median income of minorities living within 1 mile of metropolitan
landfills was significantly lower than it was in the rest of the
county 20 percent of the time. For nonmetropolitan landfills, 28
percent of the landfills showed this pattern. (See figs. V.2 and
V.5.)
Finally, the median income of minorities living near metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan landfills was significantly lower in relative terms
than the income of the people in the rest of the county 26 and 43
percent of the time, respectively. Therefore, in the majority of
instances, the median income was not significantly different or was
significantly higher, in relative terms. (See figs. V.3 and V.6.)
Figure V.1: Metropolitan
Landfills Where Median
Household Income of Minorities
and Nonminorities Living Within
1 Mile Was Higher Than in Rest
of Host County or Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 168 for minorities in the
comparison with the income in the county. N = 190 for both in the
comparison with national averages.
Note 2: The income of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is compared
with the income of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the
income of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with the income
of minorities outside that area.
Figure V.2: Absolute
Difference Between Median
Household Income of People
Living Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills and in
Rest of Host County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 168 for minorities. The
percentages for nonminorities do not add to 100 percent because of
rounding.
Note 2: The income of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is compared
with the income of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the
income of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with the income
of minorities outside that area.
\a The median household income of the people in the 1-mile area is at
least $5,000 less than the median household income in the rest of the
host county.
\b The median household income of the people in the 1-mile area is at
least $5,000 more than the median household income in the rest of the
host county.
Figure V.3: Relative
Difference Between Median
Household Income of People
Living Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills and in
Rest of Host County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 168 for minorities.
Note 2: Percentages for minorities do not add to 100 percent because
of rounding.
Note 3: The income of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is compared
with the income of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the
income of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with the incomes
of minorities outside that area.
\a The median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent less, in relative terms, than the income in the rest of the
host county.
\b The median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent more, in relative terms, than the income in the rest of the
host county.
Figure V.4: Nonmetropolitan
Landfills Where Median
Household Income of Minorities
and Nonminorities Living Within
1 Mile Was Higher Than in Rest
of Host County or Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 89 for minorities in the
comparison with county incomes. N = 105 for both in comparison with
national averages.
Note 2: The income of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is compared
with the income of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the
income of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with the income
of minorities outside that area.
Figure V.5: Absolute
Difference Between Median
Household Income of People
Living Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills and
in Rest of Host County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 89 for minorities.
Note 2: The income of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is compared
with the income of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the
income of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with the income
of minorities outside that area.
\a The median household income of the people in the 1-mile area is at
least $5,000 less than the median household income in the rest of the
host county.
\b The median household income of the people in the 1-mile area is at
least $5,000 more than the median household income in the rest of the
host county.
Figure V.6: Relative
Difference Between Median
Household Income of People
Living Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills and
in Rest of Host County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 89 for minorities.
Note 2: The income of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is compared
with the income of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the
income of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with the income
of minorities outside that area.
\a The median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent less, in relative terms, than the income in the rest of the
host county.
\b The median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent more, in relative terms, than the income in the rest of the
host county.
POVERTY RATES BY RACE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2
We found that the poverty rates of both nonminorities and minorities
living within 1 mile of landfills were higher than the rates of their
counterparts in the rest of the county less than half of the time.
This was also true when we compared the poverty rates of
nonminorities and minorities living within 1 mile of landfills with
the rates of their counterparts across the country.
For metropolitan landfills, the poverty rate of nonminorities living
within 1 mile were higher than they were in the rest of the county 39
percent of the time.\1 For nonmetropolitan landfills, the rate of
nonminorities living nearby was higher 46 percent of the time. The
poverty rate of nonminorities within 1 mile of both metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan landfills was higher than the national rate of
nonminorities 45 percent of the time. (See figs. V.7 and V.10.)
The poverty rate of nonminorities within 1 mile of metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan landfills was significantly higher than the rate of
nonminorities in the rest of the county 22 and 30 percent of the
time, respectively. Consequently, they were not significantly
different or were significantly lower about 78 and 70 percent of the
time, respectively. (See figs. V.8 and V.11.)
In relative terms, the poverty rate of nonminorities near
metropolitan landfills was significantly lower 53 percent of the time
and significantly higher only 32 percent of the time. For
nonmetropolitan areas, the poverty rate of nonminorities was
significantly lower 40 percent of the time and significantly higher
35 percent of the time. (See figs. V.9 and V.12.)
The poverty rate of minorities living near metropolitan landfills was
higher than the rate in the rest of the county 26 percent of the
time. The rate of minorities living near nonmetropolitan landfills
was higher 42 percent of the time. Minorities in metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas had poverty rates higher than the national
average of minorities 15 and 22 percent of the time. (See figs. V.7
and V.10.)
The poverty rate of minorities was significantly lower within 1 mile
of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills than it was in the rest
of the county 71 and 51 percent of the time, respectively. (See
figs. V.8 and V.11.) In absolute terms, the poverty rate of
minorities in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas was
significantly lower than it was in the rest of the county 72 and 51
percent of the time, respectively. (See figs. V.9 and V.12.)
Figure V.7: Metropolitan
Landfills Where Poverty Rate of
Minorities and Nonminorities
Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher
Than in Rest of Host County or
Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190
Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is
compared with the rate of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise,
the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with
the rate of minorities outside that area.
Figure V.8: Absolute
Difference Between Poverty Rate
of People Living Within 1 Mile
of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
and in Rest of Host County, by
Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 180 for minorities. The
percentages for nonminorities do not add to 100 percent because of
rounding.
Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is
compared with the rate of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise,
the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with
the rate of minorities outside that area.
\a The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 2.5
percent less than the rate in the rest of the host county.
\b The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 2.5
percent more than the rate in the rest of the host county.
Figure V.9: Relative
Difference Between Poverty Rate
of People Living Within 1 Mile
of Metropolitan Landfills and
in Rest of Host County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 180 for minorities.
Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is
compared with the rate of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise,
the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with
the rate of minorities outside that area.
\a The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent less, in relative terms, than the rate in the rest of the
host county.
\b The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent more, in relative terms, than the rate in the rest of the
host county.
Figure V.10: Nonmetropolitan
Landfills Where Poverty Rate of
Nonminorities and Minorities
Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher
Than in Rest of Host County or
Nation
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 96 for minorities in the
comparison with the poverty rate in the county. N = 105 for both in
the comparison with national averages.
Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is
compared with the rate of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise,
the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with
the rate of minorities outside that area.
Figure V.11: Absolute
Difference Between Poverty Rate
of People Living Within 1 Mile
of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
and in Rest of Host County, by
Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 96 for minorities. The
percentages for nonminorities do not add to 100 percent because of
rounding.
Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is
compared with the rate of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise,
the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with
the rate of minorities outside that area.
\a The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 2.5
percent less than the rate in the rest of the county.
\b The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 2.5
percent more than the rate in the rest of the county.
Figure V.12: Relative
Difference Between Poverty Rate
of People Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills and
in Rest of Host County, by Race
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 94 for minorities.
Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is
compared with the rate of nonminorities outside that area. Likewise,
the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is compared with
the rate of minorities outside that area.
\a The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent less, in relative terms, than the rate in the rest of the
host county.
\b The poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 10
percent more, in relative terms, than the rate in the rest of the
host county.
--------------------
\1 Nationally, poverty rates reported in the 1990 census were much
higher for minorities than for nonminorities: about 25 percent
compared with about 9 percent.
RESULTS FROM GAO'S SURVEY ON
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT MUNICIPAL
LANDFILLS
========================================================== Appendix VI
The majority of our survey's questions about public participation
concerned those landfills that began receiving waste after January 1,
1988.\1 We selected this timeframe because it more accurately
reflects relatively current state and local decision-making
procedures. As mentioned in appendix II, about 70 percent of the
landfills in our sample were established before 1980. Only 45 of the
633 respondents fit our criterion. Therefore, the responses to our
questions cannot be used to generalize about the facilities
nationwide that began operation after 1988.
The small number of respondents to our questions on this issue
indicated that local governments or landfill owner/operators took a
variety of steps to encourage public participation in the site
selection and permit approval processes. However, without knowing
more about the specific conditions at each of these landfills, which
was beyond the scope of our review, we are not able to judge the
adequacy of the actions they took.
Our questions on public participation can be divided into two
categories. The first set of questions addressed public involvement
in the decision to place the facility in a particular location
(siting). The second set of questions addressed public involvement
in decisions about the construction and operation of the facility.
Only a few of the questions were intended to determine how the
facilities' owner/operators addressed concerns about environmental
justice. All of the percentages presented below reflect only those
respondents who reported that they could answer our questions.
--------------------
\1 We asked all landfills whether their state and local governments
currently require public notice and hearings on the planned siting of
landfills. About 90 percent of 633 respondents said that they knew
about their state and local public notice and hearing requirements.
Well over 90 percent of respondents who said they knew answered that
their state currently requires public notice of the planned siting of
landfills. A smaller number, but still over 90 percent who said they
knew, answered that their state currently requires a public hearing
regarding the planned siting and operation of municipal landfills.
About 68 percent of those that said they knew answered that the local
community requires public notice of the planned siting of a landfill.
About 64 percent of those who said they knew answered that the local
community requires public hearings.
It is important to recognize at least two facts when analyzing these
responses. First, the high percentage of state and local laws
requiring notices and hearings is the current condition and does not
necessarily mean that these requirements were in effect when most
landfills were sited. Second, local governments that do not have
laws requiring notice or hearings may be bound by state laws that do
require them.
SITE SELECTION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:0.1
-- For about two-thirds of the landfills that had begun operations
after 1988, respondents said that they held public hearings to
discuss alternative locations before the final location was
selected. Over 70 percent responded that written and/or verbal
comments from the public on the selection of the site were
collected or recorded.
-- About half of the respondents said that more than one site was
formally considered for the landfill. One-third of those said
that at least one of the locations was rejected because of
public opposition.
-- Respondents reportedly used a variety of methods to make
announcements about the proposed landfill site. They placed
announcements in newspapers in over 80 percent of the cases but
used radio, television, or public meeting places as a means for
disseminating information much less often.
-- Siting boards or commissions responsible for selecting the site
were formed in less than two-thirds of the cases. However, few
respondents said that a private citizen from the landfill
community served on such a board or commission.
-- Nearly all of respondents that held public hearings said they
were at locations and times that were easily accessible to the
public. About three-fifths of respondents said that they made
presentations to neighborhood groups and established a public
repository of information on the proposed site at an accessible
location. Three-fifths also said that they used channels of
communication that the community relies on for its information,
such as churches or particular radio or television stations,
although these answers appear to be contrary to the respondents'
answer to the previous question on methods of disseminating
information.
-- Less than one-quarter of the respondents said that they
encouraged the formation of a community advisory panel. None
said that they provided funding to the public for analyzing the
proposed site. About two-fifths said that multilingual fact
sheets and interpreters for public meetings were not applicable
(implying that the community did not have a significant foreign-
language population). Of the other respondents, only two said
that interpreters were provided.
SITE CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix VI:0.2
-- Three-quarters of the respondents said that public hearings were
held to review the details of the construction and operation of
the landfill before its construction. Over 80 percent said that
written and/or verbal comments from the public were collected or
recorded. With this high level of public participation, about
half said that public comments led to modifications in how their
landfill was constructed or operated. Most commonly modified
were the transportation routes approaching the facility,
followed by the hours of operation. For a smaller number of
landfills, respondents reported modifications to the size of the
facility, the distance between the waste units and nearby
property used for specific purposes, the type of waste accepted,
or the use of visual screening devices such as trees or berms to
obscure the view of the facility.
-- About half of the respondents said that a board or commission
was formed to make decisions about the facility's construction
or operation. Less than half of those, in turn, said that
private citizens from the landfill community served on the
board.
-- The responses to our questions about the techniques used to help
people participate in issues concerning the construction and
operations of the landfill were similar to the questions about
site selection. Over half of all respondents said that they had
held public hearings at accessible times and locations, provided
fact sheets and made presentations to neighborhood groups, and
established an accessible repository of information on the
proposed landfill.
-- About half said that they used channels of communication that
the community relies on for information. Fewer than one-fifth
said that they encouraged the formation of a community advisory
panel. Finally, none of the respondents provided funding to the
public for analyzing the proposed site.
CROSS-TABULATIONS OF DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA AND LANDFILL CHARACTERISTICS
========================================================= Appendix VII
Chapter 5 discusses the issue of the potential health effects
associated with hazardous and nonhazardous waste facilities. We
indicate that few data exist to support the assumption that these
facilities cause negative health effects. We also indicate that we
cross-tabulated the demographics of the people living near municipal
landfills with data obtained from our survey of landfills. These
data included answers to our questions about five landfill
characteristics: the type of waste accepted at the landfill; the use
of liners, leachate collection systems, and groundwater monitoring;
and the incidence of groundwater contamination. We chose these
characteristics because of their possible implications for the risks
posed by the landfills. For example, a landfill without liners might
pose more risk than one with liners. We caution, however, that the
presence or absence of any of these characteristics does not
necessarily increase or decrease risk.
For each cross-tabulation, we stratified the data from chapter 2 and
appendix III according to the answers respondents provided to our
question about the landfills' characteristics. For example, we
determined whether the landfills where a higher percentage of
minorities lived within 1 mile than lived in the rest of the county
were more likely to have liners than the landfills where a lower
percentage of minorities lived nearby than lived in the rest of the
county.
Our analysis produced 30 cross-tabulations: the five landfill
characteristics cross-tabulated with race, income, and poverty status
for both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills. The data on
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills have been combined in the
figures below. We were able to test for statistically significant
associations between landfill characteristics and demographic data in
25 of the 30 cross- tabulations. In the other five
cross-tabulations, the data were not sufficient to conduct such tests
(either our sample size was too small or too few landfills had the
relevant characteristic).
Of the 25 statistical tests we conducted, only one test indicated
that the landfill characteristics were associated with the
demographic data. We found that in nonmetropolitan areas, the
landfills where a higher percentage of minorities lived nearby than
lived in the rest of the county were significantly more likely to
have groundwater monitoring than the landfills where a higher
percentage of nonminorities lived nearby. (See fig. VII.5.)
The remaining tests for both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
landfills showed that the racial and economic data were not
significantly associated with the landfill characteristics. We did
not find, for example, that landfills where a higher percentage of
minorities lived nearby were more likely to lack liners than those
landfills where a higher percentage of nonminorities lived nearby.
The figures that follow provide the data from our cross-tabulation of
the race of the people living within 1 mile of landfills with the
five landfill characteristics. We did not include the cross-
tabulations for median income and poverty. We did not find that the
percentage of low-income people living near landfills that have
characteristics that might increase the risk of harmful exposure was
disproportionate relative to the rest of the county.
While reading the following figures, it is important to keep in mind
the percentage of landfills that have or do not have what we have
defined as "risky" characteristics. For example, in figure VII.1, 78
percent of the metropolitan and 62 percent of the nonmetropolitan
landfills had accepted some "risky" categories of waste.
Our intent was not to make comparisons between metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan landfills, although such comparisons can be made if
the sampling errors of the estimates are considered. The sampling
errors for the estimates are provided in tables III.1 and III.2 in
appendix III.
TYPE OF WASTE ACCEPTED BY
LANDFILLS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.1
A characteristic that could be associated with potential risk is the
type of waste that a landfill has accepted over the years.
Respondents to our survey provided information on over 10 types of
waste they have accepted. These types include household garbage,
commercial waste, construction and demolition debris, nonhazardous
industrial waste, hazardous industrial waste from both small- and
large-quantity generators, incinerator ash, infectious waste,
asbestos, and sewage sludge. Although it is not possible to say
conclusively that the presence of one type of waste will increase the
potential for risk, for the purposes of our analysis we placed each
landfill into one of two categories depending on the types of waste
that it had accepted. The first category was landfills that reported
having received only household garbage, commercial waste,
construction and demolition debris, and nonhazardous industrial
waste. We estimate that 22 percent of the metropolitan landfills and
38 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills were in this category.
The second category was landfills that reported having also received
any of the other more "risky" wastes. We estimate that 78 percent of
the metropolitan landfills and 62 percent of the nonmetropolitan
landfills were in this category.
We did not find a statistically significant association between the
percentage of minorities living within 1 mile of landfills compared
with the rest of the county and the acceptance of any of the "risky"
wastes. These data are presented in figure VII.1.
Figure VII.1: Landfills Where
Percentage of Minorities or
Nonminorities Living Within 1
Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County,
Stratified by Type of Waste
Accepted
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 187 for metropolitan landfills and 103 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\a N = 50 for metropolitan landfills and 39 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\b N = 137 for metropolitan landfills and 64 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
Although only one of the figures below illustrates a statistically
significant association, it may be helpful to point out some of the
data contained within them. Taking figure VII.1 as an example, note
that the four clusters of bar graphs represent metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan landfills. Each cluster represents those landfills
that had accepted the two categories of waste that we established.
There are two bar graphs for each category of waste: one
representing the landfills that had a percentage of minorities living
within 1 mile that is equal to or higher than lived in the rest of
the county, and one representing landfills that had a higher
percentage of nonminorities living within 1 mile than lived in the
rest of the county. Finally, the notes indicate the number of
landfills that fell into each category.
The data in figure VII.1 could be described in the following manner:
Of the 50 metropolitan landfills where the percentage of minorities
living within 1 mile was equal to or higher than the percentage in
the rest of the county, 26 percent (13) received only municipal,
commercial, and/or industrial waste, and 74 percent (37) received
other types of waste. Of the 137 landfills where the percentage of
nonminorities living within 1 mile was higher than the percentage in
the rest of the county, 21 percent (29) received only municipal,
commercial, and/or industrial waste, and 79 percent (108) received
other types of waste. The same type of description could be made of
the nonmetropolitan landfills in figure VII.1, as well as in the rest
of the figures.
LINERS BENEATH WASTE CELLS
IN LANDFILLS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.2
Landfills are located in different geological settings, contain
different types of waste, and were designed and built to different
specifications. Nevertheless, some landfill features are generally
accepted as important for protecting human health and the
environment. One of those features is a protective liner beneath the
waste cell. Liners can be made of synthetic materials or compacted
clay. Both are intended to be relatively impermeable to liquids
moving through the landfill.
For the purposes of our analysis, we placed each landfill into one of
two categories: (1) landfills that had no liners and (2) landfills
that had liners for at least one waste unit. Among the metropolitan
landfills, we estimate that about 53 percent of the landfills had
liners and about 47 percent did not. Among the nonmetropolitan
landfills, we estimate that about 34 percent had liners and about 66
percent did not.
We found no statistically significant association between the use of
protective liners and the percentage of minorities living within the
1 mile of the landfills compared with the percentage in the rest of
the county. These data are presented in figure VII.2.
Figure VII.2: Landfills Where
Percentage of Minorities or
Nonminorities Living Within 1
Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County,
Stratified by Presence of Lined
Waste Cells
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 175 for metropolitan landfills and 98 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\a N = 46 for metropolitan landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\b N = 129 for metropolitan landfills and 60 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
BENEATH LANDFILLS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.3
Leachate collection systems are another design feature that is
intended to protect against contamination from landfills. The
systems collect liquid, known as leachate, after it percolates down
through the landfill. The leachate is pumped out of the landfill and
treated, thereby reducing the likelihood that it will permeate the
landfill and enter the groundwater.
We established the same types of categories with regard to the
landfills' leachate collection systems: (1) landfills that had no
leachate collection systems and (2) landfills that had leachate
collection systems for at least one waste cell. Among the
metropolitan landfills, about 54 percent did not have leachate
collection systems and about 46 percent did. Among the
nonmetropolitan landfills, about 82 percent did not have such systems
and about 18 percent did.
We found no statistically significant association between the use of
protective leachate collection systems and the percentage of
minorities living within 1 mile of the landfills compared with the
percentage in the rest of the county. These data are presented in
figure VII.3.
Figure VII.3: Landfills Where
Percentage of Minorities or
Nonminorities Living Within 1
Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County,
Stratified by Presence of
Leachate Collection Systems
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 182 for metropolitan landfills and 99 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\a N = 48 for metropolitan landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\b N = 134 for metropolitan landfills and 61 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AT
LANDFILLS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.4
Landfills have the potential to release contaminated materials even
if liners or leachate collection systems are used. We asked survey
respondents whether their facility had ever been determined to have
caused groundwater contamination. We divided the landfills into
categories depending upon whether or not they had caused groundwater
contamination. Among the metropolitan landfills, 18 percent reported
that such contamination had been detected, and 82 percent reported
that it had not. Among the nonmetropolitan landfills, 7 percent
reported that such contamination had occurred, and 93 percent said
that it had not.
Again, we cross-tabulated these data with race. We found no
statistically significant association between groundwater
contamination and the race of the people living near metropolitan or
nonmetropolitan landfills. These data are presented in figure VII.4.
Figure VII.4: Landfills Where
Percentage of Minorities or
Nonminorities Living Within 1
Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County,
Stratified by Groundwater
Contamination
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 171 for metropolitan landfills and 94 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\a N = 47 for metropolitan landfills and 37 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\b N =124 for metropolitan landfills and 57 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING AT
LANDFILLS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:0.5
Groundwater monitoring is used by landfills to detect leachate that
has been released by the waste units. Groundwater wells are
installed at the perimeter of the landfill so that groundwater
samples can be taken and analyzed for contaminants that might
originate from the landfill. If the monitoring detects contaminants,
corrective measures can be implemented to reduce their spread.
Among the metropolitan landfills, 92 percent reported that they
conduct some level of groundwater monitoring. Among the
nonmetropolitan landfills, 67 percent reported that they monitor the
groundwater.
We cross-tabulated these data with the demographic data as before.
We found a statistically significant association between groundwater
monitoring and the race of the people living near nonmetropolitan
landfills. Figure VII.5 shows that the landfills where the
percentage of minorities living within 1 mile was higher than the
percentage in the rest of the county were significantly more likely
(82 percent vs. 58 percent) to have groundwater monitoring than the
landfills at which the percentage of nonminorities living nearby was
higher than the percentage in the rest of the county.
Figure VII.5: Landfills Where
Percentage of Minorities or
Nonminorities Living Within 1
Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County,
Stratified by Presence of
Groundwater Monitoring
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: N = 186 for metropolitan landfills and 100 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\a N = 49 for metropolitan landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
\b N = 137 for metropolitan landfills and 62 for nonmetropolitan
landfills.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VIII
COMMENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
========================================================= Appendix VII
See comment 1.
(See figure in printed edition.)
Now on p. 2.
See comment 2.
Now on p. 55.
See comment 3.
(See figure in printed edition.)
See comment 4.
See comment 5.
Now on p. 5 and pp. 49-50.
See comment 6.
The following are GAO's comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) letter dated May 1, 1995.
GAO'S COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1
1. We agree that the issue of environmental justice is broader than
the location of waste facilities and have revised the report to
clarify this point.
2. We have revised the report to reflect this information about the
executive order.
3. We have revised the report to include this clarification about the
requirement in the executive order.
4. We support EPA's efforts in this area and agree there are
limitations to existing methodologies.
5. We have revised the report's executive summary to include this
information. We also believe that chapter 4 of the report makes it
clear that local governments have a large role.
6. We have revised the report to include this information about EPA's
regulations on public participation.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IX
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IX:1
Allen Li, Associate Director
Gerald E. Killian, Assistant Director
Allan Rogers, Assistant Director
Ross Campbell, Evaluator-in-Charge
Larry D. Turman, Senior Evaluator
Mitchell B. Karpman, Senior Operations Research Analyst
Judy K. Pagano, Senior Operations Research Analyst
Kelly S. Ervin, Social Scientist
Phyllis Turner, Communications Analyst
*** End of document. ***