NCD980602163_19950613_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_USGAO Report - Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste - Demographics of People Living Near Waste Facilities-OCR

GAO
, June 1995
GAO/RCED-95-84
\
United Stal es General Accounting Office
Report to Congressional Requesters
HAZARDOUSAND
NONHAZARDOUS
WASTE
Demographics of People
Living Near Waste
Facilities
Notice: This is a reprint of a GAO report.
I
GAO United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division
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
AB 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 [phone] 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
Purpose
Background
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.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovecy 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 regulatocy
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
Page2 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Results in Brief
Executive Summary
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.
GAO did not find that minorities2 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.
1The 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.
21n GAO's analysis of race, "nonminorities" includes all whites not of Hispanic origin and "minorities"
includes all others. In GA O'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.
Page3 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Principal Findings
Minorities and
Low-Income People Were
Not Overrepresented Near
the Majority of
Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
Demographic Studies on
Hazardous Waste Facilities
Have Yielded Varied
Results
Executive Summary
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.
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.
Page4 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Federal Regulations Have
Not Focused on
Environmental Justice
Few Data Have Been
Collected on the Health
Impacts of Facilities on
Minorities or Low-Income
People
Recommendations
Agency Comments
Executive Summary
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.
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.
GAO is making no recommendations in this report.
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
primacy focus of environmental justice and that the report should make
Page5 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Executive Summary
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.
Page6 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Page7 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
Minorities and
Low-Income People
Were Not
Disproportionately
Represented Near the
Majority of
Nonhazardous
Municipal Landfills
Chapter 3
Past Environmental
Justice Studies of
Waste Facilities Have
Yielded Varied
Conclusions
Environmental Justice-An Evolving Issue
EPA's Efforts to Address Environmental Justice
Executive Order Directs Federal Agencies to Develop
Environmental Justice Strategies
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Agency Comments
Populations Near Municipal Landfills Were More Llkely to Have a
Higher Percentage of Nonminorities Than Rest of County
Incomes Near Municipal Landfills Were Higher Than Incomes in
Rest of County as Often as They Were Lower
Studies of Hazardous Waste Sites Have Yielded Varied Results
Different Study Questions and Methodologies Used May Have
Led to Varied Results
Direct Comparison Between Results of Our Study and Others Is
Difficult
Attempts to Examine Trends Over Time
Observations
2
14
14
15
16
16
19
20
21
27
33
34
41
45
46
47
Page8 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter4
EP A's Regulations for
Site Selection and
Public Participation
Have Not Addressed
Environmental
Justice, but Changes
Are Being Considered
Chapter 5
Data on Health
Effects of Waste
Facilities on
Minorities and
Low-Income People
Appendixes
Tables
Contents
EPA's Siting Standards for Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste
Facilities
EPA's Current Regulations on Public Participation
Federal Efforts to Determine Health Effects of Waste Facilities
on Minorities and Low-Income People
Demographic Conditions and Risk-Related Characteristics at
Municipal Landfills in Our Survey
EPA's Attempts to Assess Health Risk of Nonhazardous and
Hazardous Waste Facilities on General Population
Appendix I: Methodology for Analysis of Municipal Landfills
Appendix II: Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Surveyed
Appendix III: People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were Likely
to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or Lower Than Rate in Rest of
County
Appendix IV: Relative Differences Between People Within 1 Mile
of Landfills and in Rest of County
Appendix V: Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty Rate of
People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County, by Race
Appendix VI: Results From GAO's Survey on Public Participation
at Municipal Landfills
Appendix VII: Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
49
49
52
56
56
58
59
62
70
72
78
88
103
106
Appendix VIII: Comments From the Environmental Protection 116
Agency
Appendix IX: Major Contributors to This Report 120
Table 3.1: Summary of Conclusions of Demographic Studies 34
Page9 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figures
Contents
Table I.1: Response Rate for Survey of Municipal Landfills 64
Table IIl.1: Sampling Errors for Selected Percentages and Sample 72
Sizes of Metropolitan Landfills
Table IIl.2: Sampling Errors for Selected Percentages and Sample 73
Sizes of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Figure 2.1: Metropolitan Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities
and Nonminoriti.es Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than
Percentage in Rest of Host County or Nati.on
Figure 2.2: Nonmetropolitan Landfills Where Percentage of
Minorities and N onminoriti.es Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher
Than Percentage in Rest of Host County or Nati.on
Figure 2.3: Degree of Difference Between People Living Within 1
Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host County, by
Race
Figure 2.4: Degree of Difference Between People Living Within 1
Mile of N onmetropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host County, by
Race
Figure 2.5: Median Household Income Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills Compared With Income in Rest of Host
County or Nation
Figure 2.6: Median Household Income Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills Compared With Income in Rest of
Host County or Nati.on
Figure 2. 7: Degree of Difference Between Median Household
Income Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and Income in
Rest of 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
Figure 3.1: illustrative Example of Different Boundary Areas
Used in Demographic Studies
Figure 1.1: illustration of a County Boundary With a Municipal
Landfill and 1-and 3-Mile Areas
22
23
25
26
28
29
30
31
43
66
Figure IIl.1: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills 74
Compared With Rate in Rest of Host County or Nation
Figure IIl.2: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 75
Landfills Compared With Rate in Rest of Host County or Nati.on
Figure IIl.3: Degree of Difference Between Poverty Rate Within 1 76
Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest of Host County
Page 10 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Contents
Figure III.4: Degree of Difference Between Poverty Rate Within 1 77
Mile of N onmetropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest of Host
County
Figure IV.1: Degree of Difference Between People Within 1 Mile 79
of Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host County, by Race
Figure IV.2: Race of People Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan 81
Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County
Figure IV.3: Race of People Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan 82
Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County
Figure IV.4: Race of People Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 83
Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County
Figure IV.5: Median Household Income of People Within 1 Mile of 84
Metropolitan Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County
Figure IV.6: Median Household Income of People Within 1 Mile of 85
Nonmetropolitan Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County
Figure IV. 7: Poverty Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan 86
Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County
Figure IV.8: Poverty Rate of People Within 1 Mile of 87
Nonmetropolitan Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County
Figure V. l: Metropolitan Landfills Where Median Household 90
Income of Minorities and Nonminorities Llving Within 1 Mile Was
Higher Than in Rest of Host County or Nation
Figure V.2: Absolute Difference Between Median Household 91
Income of People Llving Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills
and in Rest of Host County, by Race
Figure V.3: Relative Difference Between Median Household 92
Income of People Llving Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills
and in Rest of Host County, by Race
Figure V.4: Nonmetropolitan Landfills Where Median Household 93
Income of Minorities and Nonminorities Llving Within 1 Mile Was
Higher Than in Rest of Host County or Nation
Figure V.5: Absolute Difference Between Median Household 94
Income of People Llving Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan
Landfills and in Rest of Host County, by Race
Figure V.6: Relative Difference Between Median Household 95
Income of People Llving Within 1 Mile of N onmetropolitan
Landfills and in Rest of Host County, by Race
Figure V. 7: Metropolitan Landfills Where Poverty Rate of 97
Minorities and Nonminorities Llving Within 1 Mile Was Higher
Than in Rest of Host County or Nation
Page 11 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Contents
Figure V.8: Absolute Difference Between Poverty Rate of People 98
Living Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills and in Rest of
Host County, by Race
Figure V.9: Relative Difference Between Poverty Rate of People 99
Living Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host
County, by Race
Figure V.10: Nonmetropolitan Landfills Where Poverty Rate of 100
Nonminorities and Minorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher
Than in Rest of Host County or Nation
Figure V.11: Absolute Difference Between Poverty Rate of People 101
Living Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills and in Rest of
Host County, by Race
Figure V.12: Relative Difference Between Poverty Rate of People 102
Within 1 Mile of N onmetropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host
County, by Race
Figure Vll.1: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or 108
Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Type of Waste Accepted
Figure Vll.2: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or 110
Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Presence of Llned Waste
Cells
Figure Vll.3: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or 112
Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Presence of Leachate
Collection Systems
Figure Vll.4: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or 113
Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Groundwater Contamination
Figure Vll.5: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or 115
Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage
in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Presence of Groundwater
Monitoring
Page 12 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Contents
Abbreviations
ATSDR
CERCLA
EPA
GAO
NIEHS
NPL
RCRA
USGS
Page 13
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980
Environmental Protection Agency
General Accounting Office
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
National Priorities List
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
United States Geological Survey
GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 1
Introduction
Environmental
Justice-An Evolving
Issue
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.
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.
1Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation With Racial and Economic Status of
Surrounding Communities (GAO/RCED-83-168, June 1, 1983).
Page 14 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
EP .Ns Efforts to
Address
Environmental Justice
Chapter 1
Introduction
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
Page 15 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Executive Order
Directs Federal
Agencies to Develop
Environmental Justice
Strategies
Objectives, Scope,
and Methodology
Chapter I
Introduction
management programs in EPA could better address the concerns of
minorities and/or low-income people.
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.
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;
Page 16 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 1
Introduction
• 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 racial2 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
21n our analysis of race, "nonrninorities" 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.
Page 17 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 1
Introduction
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.
Page 18 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Agency Comments
Chapter 1
Introduction
Our swvey 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 VIL
We conducted our review between February 1993 and March 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
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.
Page 19 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
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, leachate2 collection systems, and groundwater
11n 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 l 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.
2Leachate 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.
Page 20 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Populations Near
Municipal Landfills
Were More Likely to
Have a Higher
Percentage of
Nonminorities Than
Rest of County
Chapter 2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
monitoring. When landfills are filled they must be closed in a manner
designed to minimize the release of leachate.
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.
3The people living within l mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills were compared with
those living in all metropolitan and nonrnetropolitan counties in the rest of the nation, respectively.
Page 21 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
Chapter 2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
73
27
Compared With
Host County
Note: N = 190.
82
Compared With
National
Average•
8The 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. I 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. I 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.
Page 22 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
Chapter2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
As figure 2.2 shows, we estimate that 37 percent ofnonmetropolitan
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.
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
63
60
50
40 37
30
20
10
0
Compared With
Host County
Note: N = 105.
68
32
Compared With
National
Average•
8The 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
Page 23 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
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
nonrninorities 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 nonrninority populations in the I-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.
4For purposes of the analysis in this report, we considered differences of 10 percent or more as
significant.
Page24 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 2.3: Degree of Difference
Between People Living Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of
Host County, by Race
Chapter 2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
62
60
50
40
30
20
13
10
0
Comparison of
Nonminorities
Note: N = 190.
25
62
25
Comparison of
Minorities
4The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less than the percentage in the rest of
the host county.
bThe 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.
Page 25 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Wute Facilities
Figure 2.4: Degree of Difference
Between People Living Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills and in Rest
of Host County, by Race
Chapter2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
Comparison of
Nonminorities
Note: N = 105.
74
17
Comparison of
Minorities
8The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less than the percentage in the rest of
the host county.
bThe 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
Page 26 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Incomes Near
Municipal Landfills
Were Higher Than
Incomes in Rest of
County as Often as
They Were Lower
Chapter 2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
that landfill was 61 percent nonrninority 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 nonrnetropolitan
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
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 nonrnetropolitan
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 nonrnetropolitan 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
nonrnetropolitan landfills were more likely to have incomes lower than the
national median for nonmetropolitan areas.
5We 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 st.ates in EPA's Regions IV and VI. The
Midwest included the states in EPA's Regions V, VII, and VIII. The West included the st.ates 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.
Page 27 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 2.5: Median Household Income
Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills
Compared With Income in Rest of Host
County or Nation
Chapter 2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
54 54
50
40
30
20
10
46 46
0
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Where Where Where Where
Income Income Income Income
Is Is Is Is
Higher Lower Higher Lower
Compared With Compared With
Host County National
Median•
Note: N = 190.
8The national median for metropolitan areas is $32,086.
Page 28 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 2.6: Median Household Income
Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan
landfills Compared With Income in
Rest of Host County or Nation
Chapter 2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
52
48
Percent Percent
Where Where
Income Income
Is Is
Higher Lower
Compared With
Host County
Note: N = 105.
35
Percent Percent
Where Where
Income Income
Is Is
Higher Lower
Compared With
National
Median•
•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.
6For 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.
Page 29 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 2.7: Degree of Difference
Between Median Household Income
Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills
and Income in Rest of Host County
Chapter 2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50 48
40
31
30
21
20
10
0
Note: N = 190.
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page 30 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 2.8: Degree of Difference
Between Median Household Income
Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan
Landfills and Income in Rest of Host
County
Chapter 2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfills
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70 70
60
50
40
30
22
20
10 9
0
Note 1: N = 105.
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
8The 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.
bThe 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 poverty7-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.
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.
Page31 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter2
Minorities and Low-Income People Were
Not Disproportionately Represented Near
the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal
Landfllls
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.
Page 32 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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.
1The 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 Llability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended; and cement plants. In this report, we refer to these locations collectively as
facilities or sites.
Page 33 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
Studies of Hazardous
Waste Sites Have
Yielded Varied Results
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 author and date
United Church of Christ
Commission for Racial
Justice and Public Data
Access, Inc.,
1987
Claritas, Inc. for Waste
Management, Inc., 1992
E.B. Attah for EPA's
Region IV, 1992
Number and type(s) of
facilities
41 5 RCRN commercial
hazardous waste
facilities and 18,164
CERCLN "uncontrolled"
toxic waste sites
Sponsor
United Church of Christ
Commission for Racial
Justice
132 RCRA hazardous Waste Management, Inc.
and nonhazardous waste
facilities operated by
Waste Management, Inc.
4,855 CERCLA EPA and Clark Atlanta
hazardous waste sites University
Main conclusions
Race/ethnicity
ZIP codes where
facilities were located
were more likely to have
higher minority
populationsc;
race/ethnicity was a
stronger indicator of
proximity to waste
facilities than income.
Income
ZIP codes where
facilities were located
were more likely to have
populations with lower
incomes.
Most ZIP codes where Not studied.
facilities were located
had a lower percentage
of minoritiesc than the
host state.
At the county level, the Not studied.
study found no
relationship between the
number of sites and the
percentage of
minorities.d At the census
tract" level, the average
number of CERCLA sites
increased as the
percentage of minorities
increased.
(continued)
21n these summaries, we use the terms used by the studies' authors to identify population groups.
Page 34 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Study's author and date
ViGYAN, Inc., for EPA,
1992
John A. Hird, 1993
Rae Zimmerman, 1993
Center for Policy
Alternatives,
1994 (update of United
Church of Christ study}
Social and Demographic
Research Institute,
University of
Massachusetts-Amherst,
1994
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
Number and type(s) of Main conclusions
facilities Sponsor Race/ethnicity Income
35 RCRA commercial EPA In the majority of cases, Not studied.
hazardous waste landfills the percentages of
blacks and Hispanics'
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.)
788 Superfund sites1 University of Counties with more No link was found
Massachusetts-Amherst minoritiesd had more between poorer counties
Superfund sites when and the number of
other socioeconomic Superfund sites they
factors were held contained.
constant.
814 Superfund sites EPA and New York When the author used When the author used
University unweighted averages, unweighted averages,
the percentages of the poverty rate in
blacks and Hispanicsh in Superfund communities
Superfund communities was comparable to that
were lower than they in the nation. On a
were in the nation. When weighted basis, the
averages were weighted poverty rate in Superfund
to take into account the communities was slightly
communities' population, higher but still
blacks and Hispanics comparable to that in the
were found to be more nation. The association of
prevalent in Superfund poverty with location was
communities than is less pronounced than
typical of the nation. that of race/ethnicity.
530 RCRA commercial National Association for Minority populations0 in ZIP codes where
hazardous waste facilities the Advancement of 1993 were more likely to facilities were located
Colored People and live in ZIP codes where were more likely to have
United Church of Christ facilities are located than populations with lower
Commission for Racial they were in 1980; incomes.
Justice race/ethnicity was still a
stronger indicator of
proximity to a facility than
income.
454 RCRA commercial Waste Management, Using three different Using three different
hazardous waste facilities Inc., and the Institute for geographic study areas geogr.aphic study areas
Chemical Waste in metropolitan areas, the in metropolitan areas, the
Management authors concluded that authors concluded that
there was no consistent there was no consistent
national-level association national-level association
between the location of between the location of
facilities and the facilities and the
percentage of blacks percentage of
and Hispanicsh living low-income people living
nearby. nearby.
(continued)
Page35 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Study's author and date
Rae Zimmerman, for EPA's
Region 11, 1994
ICF Inc., and ViGYAN Inc.,
for EPA, 1994
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
Number and type(s) of
facilities
210 Superfund sites
41 cement plants,
including 29 that burned
hazardous waste as fuel
and 12 that did not.
Sponsor
EPA
EPA
Main conclusions
Race/ethnicity
Within 1 mile of the sites,
the weighted and
unweighted mean and
median percentages for
minority populations1
were below or about the
same as the proportions
in the state.
The percentage of
minoritiesc within 1 and 5
miles of the plants was
greater about as often as
it was less than the
percentage of minorities
in the host county.
(GAO's conclusion
based on EPA's data.)
Income
Rents and housing
values were used as a
proxy for income. Values
within 1-mile area were
lower than state
averages.
The percentage of
people below the poverty
line within 1 and 5 miles
of the plants was greater
about as often as it was
less than the poverty rate
for the host county.
(GAO's conclusion
based on EPA's data.)
"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.
bCERCLA 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.
0In thi s 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.
din this study, only race was analyzed. People of Hispanic origin were not analyzed.
"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.
1In 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.
9"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.
hln 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.
Page 36 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Studies Reached Various
Conclusions About
Whether Minorities Were
Overrepresented Near
Waste Facilities
Chapter 3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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.
Page 37 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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
Page 38 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Studies That Examined
Income Levels Showed
Varied Results
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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.
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
3An 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.
Page39 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
19 percent lower than the national average. However, the study reports
that these cliff erences 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
Page 40 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Studies Contain Few Data
on Race by Income
Different Study
Questions and
Methodologies Used
May Have Led to
Varied Results
Different Research
Questions Were Examined
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
(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.
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.
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.
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
Page 41 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Size of Sample and Type of
Facility
Area of Comparison
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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.
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.
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
4As 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.
Page 42 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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
-County boundary
--Census tract boundary
ZIP code boundary
Note: Lines may serve
as boundary for more than one area
0 5 10
Miles
Single ZIP code
spans several
The studies also used different areas for comparison, which may also have
influenced their findings. For example, the studies by the United Church of
Page43 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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.
Page 44 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Definition of Minority
Direct Comparison
Between Results of
Our Study and Others
Is Difficult
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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 F1orida, one of the states in
Region IV, Hispanics make up almost 9 percent of the population.
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
Page 45 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Attempts to Examine
Trends Over Time
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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.
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
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.
Page46 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Observations
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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.
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 Llving 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
6Vicki 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.
7These landfills were taken from our larger sample of 295 facilities, and all began operations between
1977 and 1981.
Page47 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter3
Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste
Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions
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.
Page 48 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
J
Chapter4
EP ~s Regulations for Site Selection and
Public Participation Have Not Addressed
Environmental Justice, but Changes Are
Being Considered
EP A's Siting Standards
for Hazardous and
Nonhazardous Waste
Facilities
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 state1 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.
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.
1Many states are authorized by EPA to issue pennits for waste facilities.
Page49 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
EP A's Current Restrictions
on the Location of
Facilities
EPA Has Chosen Not to
Propose New Location
Standards for Hazardous
Facilities
Chapter4
EPA's Regulations for Site Selection and
Public Participation Have Not Addressed
Environmental Justice, but Changes Are
Being Considered
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.
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
2Landfills attract birds, which can pose a threat to aircraft.
Page 50 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
State Standards on
Locating Facilities Near
Land Used for Residences
Chapter 4
EPA's Regulations for Site Selection and
Public Participation Have Not Addressed
Environmental Justice, but Changes Are
Being Considered
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.
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.
30SWER Environmental Justice Task Force Draft Final Report, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, EPA, Apr. 25, 1994.
•state-by-State Summaries of Social Siting Criteria, working draft prepared for the RCRA Siting
Workgroup by ICF Incorporated, July 28, 1994.
Page 51 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
EP .Ns Current
Regulations on Public
Participation
EP A's Current Public
Participation Regulations
for Nonhazardous
Facilities
Chapter4
EPA's Regulations for Site Selection and
Public Participation Have Not Addressed
Environmental Justice, but Changes Are
Being Considered
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 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.
Page 52 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
EPA'.s Current Public
Participation Regulations
for Hazardous Facilities
EP A's Proposal for Earlier
Public Notice and
Attention to
Environmental Justice
Chapter4
EPA's Regulations for Site Selection and
Public Participation Have Not Addressed
Environmental Justice, but Changes Are
Being Considered
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 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
Page 53 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
EPA's Guidance to Regions
and States to Improve
Public Participation
Chapter4
EPA's Regulations for Site Selection and
Public Participation Have Not Addressed
Environmental Justice, but Changes Are
Being Considered
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.
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
6Corrective action is a term used in the RCRA program to refer to the investigation and cleanup of
contamination at hazardous waste facilities.
Page 54 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Executive Order's
Requirements on Public
Participation
Chapter4
EPA's Regulations for Site Selection and
Public Participation Have Not Addressed
Environmental Justice, but Changes Are
Being Considered
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 necessacy. EPA also encourages the formation of a
community advisory panel to serve as the voice of the community.
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.
Page 55 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Fadlities
Chapter 5
Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities on
Minorities and Low-Income People
Federal Eff arts to
Determine Health
Effects of Waste
Facilities on
Minorities and
Low-Income People
EPA's Workgroup and
Conference
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.
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.
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
10ther 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.
Page 56 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Interagency Task Force on
Research and Health
Established Under
Executive Order
Chapter 5
Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities
on Minorities and Low-Income People
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."
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
2M.R.I. Soliman, C.T. DeRosa, H.W. Mielke, and K Bota
Page 57 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Demographic
Conditions and
Risk-Related
Characteristics at
Municipal Landfills in
OurSmvey
Chapter5
Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities
on Minorities and Low-Income People
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.
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 1 mile of landfills
that lack protective liners. The results of our analyses are presented in
appendix VII. 3
30ur 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.
Page 58 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
EPNs Attempts to
Assess Health Risk of
Nonhazardous and
Hazardous Waste
Facilities on General
Population
EPA's Risk Assessments for
Nonhazardous Waste
Landfills
Chapter 5
Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities
on Minorities and Low-Income People
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.
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.
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 1()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
Page 59 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
EP A's Risk Assessments for
Hazardous Waste Facilities
Chapters
Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities
on Minorities and Low-Income People
the number of additional cancer deaths to 3.3 as old landfills are replaced
with new ones.
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.
Page 60 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Page 61 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facil.ities
Appendix I
Methodology for Analysis of Municipal
Landfills
This appendix describes our methodology for swveying and analyzing
municipal solid waste landfills. Our mail swvey 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 swvey 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 nonf ederal 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
was4,330.
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
Page 62 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I
Methodology for Analysis of Municipal
Landfills
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.
Page 63 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I
Methodology for Analysis of Municipal
Landfills
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 nonf ederal 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 1.1: Response Rate for Survey of Municipal Landfills
Universe
Sample size
Returned (usable)
Returned (not usable)
Closed before 1992
Not a municipal
landfill
Federal facility
Returned after
cut-off date
Facility never
opened
Other•
Not returned
Return rate
Response rate
Surveys from overall sample for analysis of landfill USGS maps from subsample for demographic
characteristics analysis of landfills
Metropolitan Non metropolitan Metropolitan Non metropolitan
1,498 2,832 1,498 2,832
500 500 300 150
302 321 190 105
48 39 29 14
39 23 28 4
3 0 0
3 0
0
9 9
95 114 41 26
81.0% 77.2% 86.3% 82.6%
73.8% 73.4% 78.8% 79.5%
•Ten landfills were misclassified in terms of their metropolitan and nonmetropolitan status.
Because they were misclassified, we did not include them in the analysis.
Page 64 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I
Methodology for Analysis of Municipal
Landfills
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 1.1. 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 VIL 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 1.1.
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.
Page 65 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 1.1: Illustration of a County
Boundary With a Municipal Landfill
and 1-and 3-Mile Areas
Appendix I
Methodology for Analysis of Municipal
Landfills
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
Page 66 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I
Methodology for Analysis of Municipal
Landfills
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 smvey, 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.
Page 67 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I
Methodology for Analysis of Municipal
Landfills
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 lA 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.
Page 68 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I
Methodology for Analysis of Municipal
Landfills
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 IIl.1 and III.2 of appendix III.
Page 69 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix II
Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Suiveyed
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 usable1 survey responses we received from 301
metropolitan and 322 nonmetropolitan landfills in operation at some time
in 1992, we estimate that 69 percent ( +/-5 percent2) 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
1See table 1.1 in app. I, which gives the data on the number of usable and unusable responses.
2Sarnpling errors have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
3EPA prohibited municipal landfills from accepting hazardous waste from large-{J.uantity generators
starting in 1980. Municipal landfills are allowed to accept hazardous waste from small-{J.uantity
generators.
Page 70 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix II
Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Surveyed
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
sometime.
• 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.
Page 71 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix III
People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were
Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or
Lower Than Rate in Rest of County
Table 111.1: Sampling Errors for
Selected Percentages and Sample
Sizes of Metropolitan Landfills
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 poverty1-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.
Sample size (N) and related sampling error at the 95-percent
Percentage of confidence level
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 111.1, 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.
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.
Page 72 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Table 111.2: Sampling Errors for
Selected Percentages and Sample
Sizes of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Appendix III
People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were
Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or
Lower Than Rate in Rest of County
Sample size (N) and related sampling error at the 95-percent
Percentage of confidence level
landfills 90 95 100 105
5 4 4 4
10 6 6 6
15 7 7 7
20 8 8 8
25 9 8 8
30 9 9 9
35 10 9 9
40 10 10 9
45 10 10 9
50 10 10 9
Note: Sampling errors have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Figures IIl.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.
4
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
9
Page 73 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 111.1: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile
of Metropolitan Landfills Compared
With Rate in Rest of Host County or
Nation
Appendix III
People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were
Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or
Lower Than Rate in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
31
Percent
Where
Poverty
Rate ls
Higher
69
Percent
Where
Poverty
Rate Is
Lqwer
Compared With
Host County
Note: N = 190.
23
Percent
Where
Poverty
Rate Is
Higher
77
Percent
Where
Poverty
Rate Is
Lower
Compared With
National
Average•
"The national average for metropolitan areas is 12.1 percent.
Page 74 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure llt2: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile
of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Compared With Rate in Rest of Host
County or Nation
Appendix III
People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were
Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or
Lower Than Rate in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
45
Percent
Where
Poverty
Rate Is
Higher
55
Percent
Where
Poverty
Rate ls
Lower
Compared With
Host County
Note: N = 105.
59
Percent
Where
Poverty
Rate ls
Higher
41
Percent
Where
Poverty
Rate Is
Lower
Compared With
National
Average•
8The national average for nonmetropolitan areas is 16.8 percent.
Figures IIl.3 and IIl.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.
2For the pw-poses 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.
Page 75 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 111.3: Degree of Difference
Between Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest
of Host County
Appendix III
People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were
Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or
Lower Than Rate in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50 47
40 35
30
20 19
10
0
Note 1: N = 190.
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
"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.
bThe 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.
Page 76 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure 111.4: Degree of Difference
Between Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills and Rate in
Rest of Host County
Appendix III
People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were
Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or
Lower Than Rate in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40 35 34
30 30
20
10
0
Note 1: N = 105.
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
•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.
bThe 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.
Page 77 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County
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. I 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 frrst set, shows the data
for minorities.
Page 78 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure IV.1: Degree of Difference
Between People Within 1 Mile of
Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of
Host County, by Race
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
62
60
50
40
30
20
Comparison of
Nonminoritles
Note: N = 190.
25 25
Comparison of
Minorities
62
8The percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less than the percentage in the rest of
the host county.
bThe 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 IO-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
Page 79 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix IV
Relative Difl'erences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfllls and in Rest of County
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 cliff erent 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.
Page 80 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure IV.2: Race of People Within 1
Mile of Metropolitan Landfills Relative
to Rest of Host County
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mlle of Landfills and in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Comparison of
Non minorities
Note 1: N = 190.
58
28
69
Comparison of
Minorities
23
Note 2: Percentages for minorities do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
"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.
bThe 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 ill.1 and
111.2 and should be applied to the data in the appropriate figure.
Page 81 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure IV.3: Race of People Within 1
Mile of Metropolitan landfills Relative
to Rest of Host County
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 14
10
0
Comparison of
Nonminorities
Note 1: N = 190.
58
28
69
Comparison of
Minorities
23
Note 2: Percentages for minorities do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page 82 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure IV.4: Race of People Within 1
Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
Relative to Rest of Host County
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
71
70
60
50
40
30
20
9
Comparison of
Nonminorities
Note: N = 105.
20
56
Comparison of
Minorities
30
•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.
bThe 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.
Page 83 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure IV.5: Median Household Income
of People Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan
Landfills Relative to Rest of Host
County
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
25
Note: N = 190.
40
35
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page 84 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure IV.6: Median Household Income
of People Within 1 Mile of
Nonmetropolitan Landfills Relative to
Rest of Host County
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Note: N = 105.
56
28
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page85 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure IV.7: Poverty Rate of People
Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills
Relative to Rest of Host County
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
63
Note 1: N = 190.
24
Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
"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.
bThe 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.
Page 86 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure IV.8: Poverty Rate of People
Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan
Landfills Relative to Rest of Host
County
Appendix IV
Relative Differences Between People Within
1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40 39
34
30 27
20
10
0
Note: N = 105.
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page 87 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
Median Household
Income by Race
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.
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.l 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.)
Page 88 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
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.)
Page 89 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
50
Landfills With
Peoples'
Incomes Higher
Than Host
County
48
Landfills With
Peoples'
Incomes Higher
Than Nat'I
Average
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.
Page 90 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
24
Non minorities
48
27
20
Minorities
47
33
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.
•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.
bThe 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.
Page 91 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographlca of People Near Wute Faclllties
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within I Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 27
20
10
Non minorities
34
26
Minorities
Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 168 for minorities.
58
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.
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page 92 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landtills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60 57
50
40
30
20
10
43
Landfills With
Peoples'
Incomes Higher
Than Host
County
44
37
Landfills With
Peoples'
Incomes Higher
Than Nat'I
Average
Note 1: N = 105 for non minorities 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.
Page 93 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
62
60 55
50
40
30 28 28
20
10 10
0
Nonminorlties Minorities
Note 1: N = 105 for non minorities 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.
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page 94 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
Poverty Rates by Race
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
48
19
Non minorities
33
43
Minorities
Note 1: N = 105 for non minorities and 89 for minorities.
28 29
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.
•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.
bThe 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.
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.
Page 95 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
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 non metropolitan 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.)
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.
Page 96 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40 39
30
20
10
0
Landfills With
People's
Poverty Rate
Higher Than
Host Co.
Note 1: N = 190
26
45
Landfills With
People's
Poverty Rate
Higher Than
Nat'I Ave.
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.
Page 97 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Percentage of Landfills
43
36
22
Nonminorities
71
Minorities
21
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.
•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.
bThe 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.
Page 98 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
l
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
72
70
60
53
50
40
32
30
20 15
10
0
Nonminorities Minorities
Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 180 for minorities.
21
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.
"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.
bThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 1 0 percent more, in relative terms,
than the rate in the rest of the host county.
Page 99 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure V .10: Non metropolitan Landfills
Where Poverty Rate of Nonminorities
and Minorities Living Within 1 Mile
Was Higher Than in Rest of Host
County or Nation
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
46
Landfills With
People's
Poverty Rate
Higher Than
Host Co.
42 45
Landfills With
People's
Poverty Rate
Higher Than
Nat'I Ave.
22
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.
Page 100 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
35
Non minorities
30
51
Minorities
Note 1: N = 105 for non minorities 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.
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page 101 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure V.12: Relative Difference
Between Poverty Rate of People Within
1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills
and in Rest of Host County, by Race
AppendixV
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty
Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and
in Rest of County, by Race
100 Percentage of Landfills
90
80
70
60
50
40 40
35
30 25
20
10
0
Nonminorities Minorities
Note 1: N = 105 for non minorities 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.
8The 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.
bThe 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.
Page 102 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VI
Results From GAO's Survey on Public
Participation at Municipal Landfills
Site Selection
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.
• 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
1We 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.
Page 103 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Site Construction and
Operation
Appendix VI
Results From GAO's Survey on Public
Participation at Municipal Landfills
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.
• 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
Page 104 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VI
Results From GAO's Survey on Public
Participation at Municipal Landfills
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.
Page 105 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
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
smvey 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 ill 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
Page 106 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Type of Waste Accepted by
Landfills
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
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 I 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 oflow-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. I, 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. I and III.2 in appendix III.
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"
Page 107 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure Vll.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
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
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.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of Landfills
79
67
41
26
[)I
Municipal, All Types of Municipal, All Types of
Commercial, Waste Commercial, Waste
and/or Industrial and/or Industrial
Waste Waste
Metrop.,litan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills
(=:=J Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Mile•
IR Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mileb
Note: N = 187 for metropolitan landfills and 103 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
•N = 50 for metropolitan landfills and 39 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
bN = 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
Page 108 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Liners Beneath Waste Cells
in Landfills
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
within them. Taking figure VIl.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 oflandfills that fell into each
category.
The data in figure VIl.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 7 4 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.
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
Page 109 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure Vll.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
Leachate Collection
Systems Beneath Landfills
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
of the landfills compared with the percentage in the rest of the county.
These data are presented in figure VII.2.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of Landfills
59
Some Cells
Have Liners
50
No Cells Have
Liners
Some Cells
Have Liners
No Cells Have
Liners
Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills
CJ Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Mile•
El!IJI Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mile0
Note: N = 175 for metropolitan landfills and 98 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
8N = 46 for metropolitan landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
bN = 129 for metropolitan landfills and 60 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
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.
Page 110 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
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.
Page 111 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure Vll.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
Groundwater
Contamination at Landfills
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage of Landfills
56 58
Some Cells No Cells Have
Have Leachate Leachate
Collection Collection
Systems Systems
23 ~
Some Cells
Have Leachate
Collection
Systems
89
No Cells Have
Leachate
Collection
Systems
Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills
~ Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Mile•
111111 Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mileb
Note: N = 182 for metropolitan landfills and 99 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
8N = 48 for metropolitan landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
bN = 134 for metropolitan landfills and 61 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
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.
Page 112 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure Vll.4: Landfills Where
Percentage of Minorities or
Nonminoritles Living Within 1 Mlle
Was Higher Than Percentage In Rest
of Host County, Stratified by
Groundwater Contamination
Groundwater Monitoring
at Landfills
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landftll Characteristics
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.
Percentage of Landfills
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Cl
Has Been a
Source of
Groundwater
Contamination
Has Not Been a
Source of
Groundwater
Contamination
16
Q..
Has Been a
Source of
Groundwater
Contamination
98
Has Not Been a
Source of
Groundwater
Contamination
Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills
~ Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Mile•
111111 Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mile0
Note: N = 171 for metropolitan landfills and 94 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
8N = 47 for metropolitan landfills and 37 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
bN =124 for metropolitan landfills and 57 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
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
Page 113 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
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.
Page 114 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Figure Vll.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
Appendix VII
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and
Landfill Characteristics
Percentage of Landfills
100
94
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Landfills Have
Groundwater
Monitoring
9 ~
Landfills Do Not
Have
Groundwater
Monitoring
82
58
Landfills Have
Groundwater
Monitoring
42
Landfills Do Not
Have
Groundwater
Monitoring
Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills
CJ Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Mile•
ffillllm Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mile0
Note: N = 186 for metropolitan landfills and 100 for non metropolitan landfills.
•N = 49 for metropolitan landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
bN = 137 for metropolitan landfills and 62 for nonmetropolitan landfills.
Page 115 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VIII
Comments From the Environmental
Protection Agency
Note: GAO comments
supplementing those in the
report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See comment 1.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Mr. Peter F. Guerrero
Director, Environmental Protection Issues
Resources, Community and Economic Development Division
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Kr. Guerrero:
OFFICE Of
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
I am replying to your letter of April 18, 1995, requesting
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review and
officially comment on a General Accounting Office (GAO) draft
report entitled Hazardous and Nonhazardous waste; Demographics of People Livi ng Near waste Facilities (GAO/RCED-95-84). we are grateful for you and your staff meeting with mellbers of EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of General
counsel and Office of Environmental Justice to discuss earlier
drafts of the report.
As you know, EPA is working to integrate environmental
justice into the mission of the Agency. We do not believe that
environmental justice is simply a waste issue, but a way the
Agency conducts business. It is important that no community or
population experiences disproportionately high adverse human
health or environmental effects of pollution.
1. Tb• text of the report leaves the reader with the
iapression that th• siting of waste facilities is th• prillary
focus of envirolllllental justice.
Since the focus of the GAO study is limited to issues
related to non-hazardous municipal solid waste facilities and the
analysis of past studies of hazardous and non-hazardous waste
facilities, the report should clearly distinguish this subset of
issues from the broader sets of issues comprising environmental
justice. We note that there are over 5,300 municipal waste
landfills in the country. These landfills are a small,
relatively l ow-risk segment of the over 47,000 waste disposal
sites in the country wh i ch include Superfund sites as well as
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated hazardous
waste facilities. We appreciate that the title of the report
reflects the limited scope of the report; however, the text of
the report, particularly in the Executive summary, gives the
impression that waste facilities comprise the universe of
environmental justice issues.
Page 116
(Jv_ Recyeledlllecyc:lable n-D Pl'lnlld with Soy/Canoea Ink on paper trllll: '00 contailne•t-SO'KiNCJdldflbrer
GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Now on p. 2.
See comment 2.
Now on p. 55.
See comment 3.
Appendix VIII
Comments From the Environmental
Protection Agency
To correct this impression, we suggest that the report••
Purpose section state that environ11ental justice concerns go
beyond those relating to the location of waste facilities and the
resulting exposure to pollutants fro■ those facilities. For
example, the short list of several environmental justice issues
on page 15 of the report should be included in the Purpose
section. In addition, this section should note that there are
other important environmental justice issues such as concern over
cumulative or multiple exposures to environmental hazards.
The report's equating of environmental justice to waste
facilities also creates the impression on page 3 that Executive
Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environaental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations", is limited to
addressing issues raised in studies of waste facilities. While
environmental justice issues relating to waste facilities or
sites are important, the Order issued by President Clinton on
February 11, 1994, addresses a larger set of issues.
The Order was issued to focus Federal attention on the
environmental and human health conditions in minority co■munities
and low-income co-unities and to foster non-discrimination in
Federal programs that substantially affect human health or the
environment. Agencies, including EPA, have developed strategies
to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects in minority
populations and low-income populations. The Order is also
intended to provide minority communities and low-income
colDl'llunities access to public information on, and an opportunity
for public participation in, matters relating to human health or
the environment.
2. Description of Executive order 12ata
We believe the GAO report should consistently use the
terminology of the Order. The Order is tailored to address
specific situations; however, by paraphrasing the Order, the
report tends to mischaracterize the scope and/or requir-ents of
the Order. For example, on page 65, the report states that the
Order requires "Federal agencies, whenever practicable and
appropriate, to collect and analyze" demographic infor11ation •tor
areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have a
substantial local environmental, human health, or economic
effect." While the report does not make it clear, the Order also
imposes this data requirement for non-federal facilities "when
such facilities become the subject of a substantial Federal
environmental administrative or judicial action."
Page 117 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
See comment 4.
See comment 5.
Now on p. 5 and pp.
49-50.
See comment 6.
Appendix VIII
Comments From the Environmental
Protection Agency
3. xetbodology
EPA continues to work on developing demographic data-
gathering and social statistical analysis tools that can help identify and address environmental justice concerns. As noted
in Chapter III's review of the methodological variations in other
studies, it would be preaature to suggest that the study relies
on an established methodology.
4. ft• report does not oorreotly obaraoteri•• Rell ■ltinq
and peraittin9 proo•••••
The report does not clearly distinguish between
environmental justice issues related to the local land use
process as compared to location standards. With regard to land
use, land areas are generally zoned for residential, industrial,
or other use by local or county authorities. By contrast, EPA
has established some minimum standards for the type of locations
that would provide a protective setting for a RCRA facility
(e.g., not in a flood plain, not on a fault line). The Federal
location standards do not control the local land use process.
The report, at page 6 and pages 56-57, should be clarified on
these points.
With regard to the permitting process, the report suggests
that no avenue exists pursuant to current Federal regulations for
addressing environmental justice concerns. However, current BPA
regulations allow members of the public to co-ent on environmental justice and other issues related to proposed RCRA
permitting actions. EPA then considers all public co111J11ents prior
to permit issuance, particularly those comments with a nexus to
the protection of human health.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to co11111ent on this
draft report. I hope that this information assists in clarifying
the issues for the final report.
Page 118
Sincerely,
, vi / · l!t,,y)(; . ( /if,f!!.,
Johathan Z .-Cannon
A~sistant Administrator
and Chief Financial Officer
GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
GAO's Comment~
Appendix VIII
Comments From the Environmental
Protection Agency
The following are GAo's comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) letter dated May 1, 1995.
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 summacy 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.
Page 119 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix IX
Major Contributors to This Report
Resources,
Community, and
Economic
Development
Division, Washington,
D.C.
(160205)
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
Page 120 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW ( corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling [phone]
or by using fax number [phone], or TDD [phone].
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call [phone] using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:
[e-mail]
w PRINTED ON (!:JC) RECYCLED PAPER
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
SHIP TO:
GROVER NICHOLSON
4609 LINDSAY DR
RALEIGN NC 27612
Request# 3511805 95 3
10/19/95 / 09:32 m
10/19/95 / 21:09 V
IIII Ill II 111111111111111111111 II
35118050llp205 f~rm Document Number V RCED-95-84
I .