United States General Accounting Office 

Report to Congressional Requesters 1 GAO 

June 1995 HAZARDOUS AND 

NONHAZARDOUS 

WASTE 

Demographics of People 

Living Near WBte 

Facilities 

GAO United States 

General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Besources, Community, and 

Economic Development Division 

B-260941 

June 13, 1995 

The Honorable John Glenn 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John Lewis 

House of Representatives 

As you requested, this report provides information on the race and income of people living near 

nonhazardous municipal solid waste landfills. It also summarizes 10 other studies on the 

demographics near a variety of waste facilities, primarily ones for hazardous waste. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we will make 

no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we 

will send copies to other appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other 

interested parties. We wih also make copies available to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix IX 

Peter F. Guerrero 

Director, Environmental 

Protection Issues 
Executive Summary 

Purpose 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, GA0 was 

asked to (1) provide information on the race and income of people living 

near a sample of nonhazardous municipal landfills, a type of facility that 

had not received much attention in prior research; (2) summarize 10 

studies done by others of the demographics of people living near waste 

facilities, primarily ones for hazardous waste; (3) provide information on 

the efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address 

environmental justice in its regulations on selecting the sites of waste 

facilities and in requirements for public participation in decisions about 

such facilities; and (4) provide information on the extent of the data that 

have been collected to measure the health effects of hazardous and 

nonhazardous facilities on minorities and low-income people. 

Background Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as 

amended in 1984, EPA regulates the operation and to some degree the 

location of thousands of nonhazardous municipal landffis and facilities 

where hazardous waste is treated, stored, and disposed of. EPA is 

authorized to require that such facilities operate safely and that the public 

has an opportunity to participate in the process for granting operating 

permits to them. State and local governments also have regulatory 

responsibilities, particularly in approving the sites for such facilities. 

In response to studies on the broad subject of environmental justice, EPA 

and the administration have begun to reexamine policies and practices 

with regard to their impact on minorities and low-income people. In 1994, 

the President issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to 

Page 2 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
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.i 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. 

Results in Brief over-represented near a majority of the nonhazardous municipal landfills. 

According to GAO'S nationwide sample of municipal landfills, less than half 

of such landfibs 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. 

‘The landfills are classified as metropolitan or nonmetropolitan depending on how the U.S. Bureau of 

the Census classifies the counties in which the landfik are located. 

% GAO’s analysis of race, ‘nonminorities” includes all whites not of Hispanic origin and “minorities.” 

includes sU others. In GAO’s analysis of income and poverty status, “minorities” excludes whites of 

Hispanic origin. This approach was used because of the way the U.S. Bureau of the Census provides 

data to the public. 

Page 3 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Executive Summary 

Principal Findings 

Minorities and Minorities and low-income people living near nonhazardous municipal 

Low-Income People Were landfills were not generally overrepresented. On the basis of its 

Not Overrepresented Near representative sample, GAO estimated that for 73 percent of the 

the Majority of metropolitan 1andfYls and 63 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills, the 

Nonhazardous Municipal percentage of minorities living within f mile was lower than the 

Landfills 

percentage of minorities living in the remainder of the county. GAO also 

estimated that the people living within 1 mile of 54 percent of the 

metropolitan and 52 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills had median 

household incomes that were higher than the incomes of residents in the 

remainder of the county. 

Demographic Studies on The 10 studies on hazardous waste facilities yielded a range of results. 

Hazardous Waste Facilities Three of the 10 studies concluded that minorities were more likely to live 

Have Eelded Varied near hazardous waste sites than nonminorities. Four studies showed either 

Results 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 sixes 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. 

Page 4 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilltke 
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 

Executive summary 

Current federaI 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 potentitiy 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 

caUs for EPA and other federal agencies to ensure that all potentially 

affected segments of the population-including minorities and low-income 

people-are represented in research on health and the environment. EPA’S 

final strategy in response to the order was not available as of March 1995, 

Recommendations 

Agency Comments 

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 

primary focus of environmental justice and that the report should make 

Page 6 GAO/RCED-96-94 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. 

Page 6 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near %ate Faciliti~ 
Page 7 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics oP People Near Waste Facilities 
Contents 

Executive Sun-u-nary 

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Chapter 2 

Environmental Justice-An Evolving Issue 

Minorities and 

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 Likely to Have a 

Higher Percentage of Nonminorities Than Rest of County 

21 

Low-Income People Incomes Near Municipal Landfills Were Higher Than Incomes in 27 

Were Not Rest of County as Often as They Were Lower 

Disproportionately 

Represented Near the 

Majority of 

Nonhazardous 

Municipal Landfills 

Chapter 3 33 

Past Environmental Studies of Hazardous Waste Sites Have Yielded Varied Results 34 

Different Study Questions and Methodologies Used May Have 41 

Justice Studies of Led to Varied Results 

Waste Facilities Have Direct Comparison 3etween Results of Our Study and Others Is 45 

Yielded Varied Difficult 

Attempts to Examine Trends Over Time 46 

Conclusions Observations 47 

Page 8 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographic8 of People Near Waste Facilitiw 
Contents 

Chapter 4 49 

EPAk Regulations for EPA’s Siting Standards for Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste 49 

Facilities 

Site Selection and EPA’s Current Regulations on Public Participation 52 

Public Participation 

Have Not Addressed 

Environmental 

Justice, but Changes 

Are Being Considered 

Chapter 5 

Data on Health 

56 

Federal Efforts to Determine Health Effects of Waste Facilities 

on Minorities and Low-Income Peoule 

56 

Effects of Waste 

Facilities on 

Minorities and 

Low-Income People 

Demographic Conditions and Risk-Reiated Characteristics at 

Municipal Landfills in Our Survey 

EPA’s Attempts to Assess Health Risk of Nonhazardous and 

Hazardous Waste Facilities on General Population 

58 

59 

Appendixes Appendix I: Methodology for Analysis of Municipal Landfills 

Appendix II: Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Surveyed 

Appendix III: People Living Near Municipal Landiills Were Likely 

to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or Lower Than Rate in Rest of 

County 

Appendix TV: Relative Differences Between People Within 1 Mile 

of Landffls 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 

Appendix VIII: Comments From the Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Appendix Ix: Major Contributors to This Report 

62 

70 

72 

78 

88 

103 

106 

116 

120 

Tables Table 3-l: Summary of Conclusions of Demographic Studies 34 

Page 9 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Fadlities 
Contents 

Table I. 1: Response Rate for Survey of Municipal Landfills 

Table III. 1: Sampling Errors for Selected Percentages and Sample 

Sizes of Metropolitan Landfills 

64 

72 

Table III.2: Sampling Errors for Selected Percentages and Sample 

Sizes of Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

73 

Figures 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 

Figure 2.2: NonmetropoIitan Landfills Where Percentage of 

Minorities and Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher 

Than Percentage in Rest of Host County or Nation 

Figure 2.3: Degree of Difference Between People Living Within 1 

Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host County, by 

Race 

22 

23 

25 

Figure 2.4: Degree of Difference Between People Living Within 1 

Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host County, by 

Itace 

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 Nation 

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 

F’igure I. 1: Illustration of a County Boundary With a Municipal 

Landfill and l- and 3Mile Areas 

Figure III.1: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfiis 

Compared With Rate in Rest of Host County or Nation 

Figure III.2: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 

Landlills Compared With Rate in Rest of Host County or Nation 

F’igure III.3: Degree of Difference Between Poverty Rate Within 1 

Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest of Host County 

26 

28 

29 

30 

31 

43 

66 

74 

75 

76 

Page 10 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Contents 

Figure IIL4: Degree of Difference Between Poverty Rate Within 1 

Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest of Host 

County 

Figure IV. 1: Degree of Difference Between People Within 1 Mile 

of Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host County, by Race 

Figure lV.2: Race of People Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan 

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County 

Figure IV.3: Race of People Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan 

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County 

Figure IV.4 Race of People Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County 

Figure IV.5 Median Household Income of People Within 1 Mile of 

Metropolitan Landfii Relative to Rest of Host County 

Figure IV.6 Median Household Income of People Within 1 Mile of 

Nonmetropolitan Landfii Relative to Rest of Host County 

Figure lV.7: Poverty Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan 

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County 

F’igure IV.8: Poverty Rate of People Within 1 Mile of 

Nonmetropolitan Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

Figure V.6: Relative Difference Between Median Household 

Income of People Living Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 

LandlYIs and in Rest of Host County, by Race 

Figure V.7: Metiopolitan Iandfills Where Poverty Rate of 

Minorities and Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher 

Than in Rest of Host County or Nation 

77 

79 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

97 

Page 11 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Contents 

Figure V.8: Absolute Difference Between Poverty Rate of People 

Living Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan LandfiIIs and in Rest of 

Host County, by Race 

Figure V.9: Relative Difference Between Poverty Rate of People 

living Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan LandflUs and in Rest of Host 

County, by Race 

Figure V. 10: Nonmetropolitan Landfills Where Poverty Rate of 

Nonminorities and Minorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher 

Than in Rest of Host County or Nation 

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 

Figure V. 12: Relative Difference Between Poverty Rate of People 

Within 1 Mile of NonmetropoIitan Landfills and in Rest of Host 

County, by Race 

Figure VII.1: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or 

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage 

in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Type of Waste Accepted 

Figure VIE?: LandfiIls 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 

Figure VII.3: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or 

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage 

in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Presence of Leachate 

Collection Systems 

Figure VII.4: LandfiIls Where Percentage of Minorities or 

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage 

in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Groundwater Contamination 

Figure VI1.S: LandfilLs Where Percentage of Minorities or 

Nor-minorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage 

in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Presence of Groundwater 

Monitoring 

98 

99 

loo 

101 

102 

108 

110 

112 

113 

115 

Page 12 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Contents 

Abbreviations 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

EPA 

GAO 

NIEHS 

NPL 

RCRA 

USGS 

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 Geologkal Survey 

Page 13 GAO/RCED-Bls-84 Demomphka of People Near Waste Facllltlce 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

The issue of environmental justice-the question of whether minorities 

and low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of exposure to 

toxic pollutants and any resulting health effects-has been the subject of 

growing concern over the past decade. The issue has become one of the 

top priorities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and following 

the issuance of the administration’s executive order on environmental 

justice in early 1994, many federal agencies are now required to consider 

environmental justice in administering their programs. 

Environmental 

Justice-An Evolving 

Issue 

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,’ we reported 

that for three of the four 1andfG 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 198’7, 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 Iocation of 

commercial hazardous waste facilities, the race of the residents proved to 

be more significant. 

‘Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfk and Their Correlation With Racial and Economic Status of 

Surrounding Communities (GAO/‘RCED-83-1133, June 1, 1983). 

Page 14 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

EPA’s Efforts to In response to these growing concerns, in July 1990 EPA established the 

Address Environmental Equity Workgroup to review whether racial minorities and 

low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of environmental risk 

Environmental Justice 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 

P4xge16 GAOIRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

management programs in EPA could better address the concerns of 

minorities and/or low-income people. 

Executive Order 

A On February 11, 1994, the President issued Executive Order 12898, entitled 

Directs Federal 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations. Among other things, the order requires 

Agencies to Develop federal agencies to develop a comprehensive strategy for making 

Environmental Justice environment+l justice a part of their decision-making and operations. 

Strategies 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; worldng with agencies to 

develop strategies to ensure environmental justice; and coordinating 

health research, data collection, and analysis. Periodic reports to describe 

the implementation of the order are also required. To implement the order, 

task forces have been established on (1) research and health, (2) outreach, 

(3) data collection, (4) enforcement and compliance, (5) implementation, 

(6) Native Americans, (7) definitions and standards, and (8) interagency 

projects. 

Objectives, Scope, 

and Methodology 

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: 

l information on the racial and income characteristics of people living near 

a nationwide sample of nonhazardous municipal solid waste landfills; 

l 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-96-M Demographics of People Near Waste FacilMes 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

l information on the extent to which WA addresses environmental justice in 

its requirements for selecting sites and soliciting public participation in the 

process of building solid and hazardous waste facilities; and 

l 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 landiills, 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 

%I our analysis of race, “nonminorities” includes aI 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 

dak? to the public. 

“As we explain in chapter 2, the results of our analysis of people within 3 miIes of landfills were 

comparable to those of our l-mile analysis and are not included in this report. 

Page 17 GAO/RCED95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Y 

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 (GA@‘RcED-95158R, 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-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste FaciIitiea 

I 

I 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Our survey of landfills also gathered information on design characteristics 

and other factors that could be indicators of potential risk to people living 

nearby. We cross-tabulated the demographic data from the l-mile areas 

with several of these characteristics, including the use of protective liners, 

leachate (liquid that percolates through landfills) collection systems, and 

groundwater monitoring. The purpose was to determine whether or not 

minorities or low-income people were disadvantaged with respect to the 

presence of these characteristics. We discuss the results of this effort in 

appendix VII. 

We conducted our review between February 1993 and March 1995 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Agency Comments 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 GAOAZCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 2 

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 alI nonhazardous municipal 

landfills in the nation, neither minorities nor low-income people were 

overrepresented near lanrlt”llls 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.l 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 

l-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 landfiis. 

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 Ynonhazardousn to describe these landl?lls, a 

small amount of hazardous waste from households and industry can be 

legally disposed of in them. (See app. II for more detail on certain 

characteristics of municipal landfills.) Over the years, the regulations on 

how landfills are designed and constructed have become more protective. 

EPA regulations promulgated in 1993 require that newly built municipal 

landfills have liners, leachate collection systems, and groundwater 

‘In addition, we examined (I) the povetty rates of people Iiving within 1 mile of landfills, (2) the 

relative difference between the incomes and poverty rates of people living within 1 mile of the landfills 

and in the rest of the county, and (3) the way the income and poverty rates of people living near 

landfills broke out by race, These data are presented in appendixes III, IV, and V, respectively. 

%achate is liquid originating from precipitation, groundwater, or from the waste itself that flows 

through a landfill. It may be released into gmundwater 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 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Msjority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfilb 

monitoring. When landfills are filled they must be closed in a manner 

designed to minimize the release of leachate. 

- 

Populations Near Nonminorities made up 80 and 84 percent of the population within 1 mile 

Municipal Landfills 

Were More Likely to 

Have a Higher 

Percentage of 

Nonrnino>ties Than 

Rest of County 

of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan municipal landfills, compared with 

the 1990 national averages of 73 and 85 percent, respectively.3 The 

populations near landtIlls often had a higher percentage of nonminorities 

than the rest of the county in which the landGIl 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 

nonmetropohtan land6Jls was generally higher than the percentage living 

in the rest of the county and the nation. Similady, the percentage of 

minorities was lower more often than not. 

3The people living withii 1 mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills were compared with 

those living in all metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties in the rest of the nation, respectively. 

Page 21 GAWRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfills 

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 

100 Percentrgo of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

T: 3 

Compared With 

Host County 

8 8 I 

I 9 

Compared With 

National 

Average. 

Note: N = 190. 

The national average for metropolitan areas is 73 percent nonminority. 

The data in figure 2.1 and all of the figures that follow represent the 

findings from our sample of landfills. National estimates cannot be 

accurately made without applying a margin of error. The approximate 

sampling errors (which range from 3 to 10 percent) can be found in tables 

III. 1 and III.2 in appendix III and should be applied to the data in each 

figure. For example, in figure 2.1,27 percent of the landfills had a 

percentage of minorities within 1 mile that was higher than the percentage 

in the rest of the county. Using 27 percent and a sample size of 190, the 

sampling error from table III. 1 for figure 2.1 is approximately 5 percent. By 

applying this approximate sampling error, we can estimate that between 

22 and 32 percent of metropolitan landfills nationwide had a percentage of 

minorities that was higher than the percentage in the rest of the county. 

Page 22 GAO/RCED-96-M Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazard ous Municipal 

LandfUb 

As figure 2.2 shows, we estimate that 37 percent of nonmetropolitan 

1andIUs had a percentage of minoriti& living nearby that was higher than 

the percentage in the rest of the county. We estimate that 32 percent of 

nonmetropolitan landfills had a percentage of minorities living nearby that 

was higher than the percentage of minorities in nonmetropolitan areas 

nationwide. 

Figure 2.2: Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

Where Percentage of Minorities and 

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile 

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest 

of Host County or Nation 

100 Percentage of lmdfillr 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

36 

20 

IO 

0 

Compared With 

Host County 

Note: N = 105. 

Compared With 

National 

Average* 

*The national average for nonmetropolitan areas is 85.1 percent nonminority. 

We also found that in the vast majority of cases, the racial differences 

between those living near a 1andf1U and those in the rest of the host county 

were not significant. That is, the percentage of minorities or nonrninorities 

Page 23 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographica of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfllls 

living within 1 mile of the landfills was not significantly higher or 

significantly lower than it was in the host county.4 

Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show how much the percentage of minorities or 

nonminorities living near a landfill differed from the percentage of these 

groups in the host county. For example, figure 2.3 shows that for 

62 percent of metropolitan landfills, the difference between both the 

minority and nonminority populations in the l-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. 

Page 24 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Nat Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfills 

Figure 2.3: Degree of Difference 

Between People Living Within 1 Mile of 

Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of 

Host County, by Race 

100 Perwntags of Landfills 

90 

00 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Comparison of 

Nonminorities 

Comparison of 

Minorities 

Note: N = 190 

aThe 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 l-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 land6Us-about 9 percent-had a significantly higher 

percentage of minorities living nearby than the rest of the county. 

Page 26 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilitb 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the MJority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfills 

Figure 2.4: Degree of Difference 

Between People Living Within 1 Mile of 

Nonmetropolitan Landfills and in Rest 

of Host County, by Race 

100 Percentage of Lmdfitls 

90 

60 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

Comparison of 

Nonminorities 

Comparison of 

Minorities 

Note: N = 105 

“The percentage in the i-mile area is at least 10 percent less than the percentage in the rest of 

the host county. 

bThe percentage in the l-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 

l-mile area near the landfill was 97 percent nonminority, while the 

population in the rest of the county was 96 percent nonminority. Another 

urban landfll in a southwestern county of almost 600,000 people showed a 

significant racial difference. While the population in the l-mile area around 

Page 26 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfills 

that landfill was 61 percent nonminority and 39 percent minority, the 

population in the rest of the county was 75 percent nonminority and 

25 percent minority-a difference of 14 percent. 

The people living near our sample of municipal landfills were more likely 

to be nonminorities than minorities relative to the rest of the host county 

in all regions of the country. We divided the country into four regions: 

Northeast, South/Southwest, Midwest, and West. We did not have a large 

enough sample of landfills in each region to make regional estimates. 

Therefore, our conclusions about individual regions can only reflect 

conditions at our sample of landfills within those regions. In each region, a 

mqjority of the landfills had larger percentages of nonminorities Iiving 

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 metropoIitan and 53 percent of nonmetropolitan 

landfills had higher percentages of nonminorities living within 1 mile than 

lived in the rest of the county. In the South/Southwest, 60 percent of 

metropolitan and 61 percent of nonmetropolitan 1andfiIIs had higher 

percentages of nonminorities living within 1 mile than lived in the rest of 

the c~unty.~ 

Incomes Near 

Municipal Landfills 

Were Higher Than 

Incomes in Rest of 

County as Often as 

They Were Lower 

Low-income people were not overrepresented near municipal landfills 

relative to people in the rest of the county. The people living near 

metropolitan landfills were more likely to have higher incomes relative to 

those in the nation than were the people living near nonmetropolitan 

landfills. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 compare the median household incomes of 

the people living within 1 mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 

landfills with those of the people in the rest of Ihe county and the nation. 

These figures show that in both metropolitan and nonmetropoIitan areas, 

the people near landfills had median household incomes that were higher 

than the incomes in the rest of the county as often as they had incomes 

that were lower. The people living near metropolitan landfills were about 

as likely to have median household incomes higher than the national 

median for metropolitan areas as not. However, the people living near 

nonmetropolitan landfills were more likely to have incomes lower than the 

national median for nonmetropolitan areas. 

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 states in EPA’s Regions IV and VI. The 

Midwest included the states in EPA’s Regions V, VII, and VIII. The West included the 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 nonmetropoktn landfills; SoutWSouthwest, 60 and 36; 

Midwest, 29 and 23; West, 34 and 29. 

Page 27 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facitities 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfills 

Figure 2.5: Median Household Income 

Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills 

Compared With Income in Rest of Host 

County or Nation 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

9. 

60 

70 

60 

64 

50 46 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

El 

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 

54 

46 

la 

Note- N = 190. 

aThe national median for metropolitan areas is $32.086. 

Page 28 GAO/RCED-9584 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilitlw 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

tandfilts 

Figum 2.6: Median Household Income 

Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 

Landfills Compared With Income in 

Rest of Host County or Nation 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

60 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

65 

52 

40 

35 

Kl II 

Percent Percent 

Where Where 

Income Income 

IS Is 

Higher Lower 

Compared With 

Host County 

Percent Percent 

Where WllSl-3 

Income Income 

Is IS 

Higher Lower 

Compared With 

National 

Median. 

Note: N = 105. 

BThe 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 timen 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. 

“For the purposes of this analysis, we define a significant difference in median household income as 

one greater than $5,000. App. III contains figures showing the relative difference between income6 of 

people within Iiving within 1 mile of landfills and people living in the rest of the county. 

Page 29 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfills 

Figure 2.7~ Degree of Difference 

Between Median Household Income 

Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills 

and Income in Rest of Host County 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 48 

40 

31 

30 

21 

20 

10 

0 

Loi 

Note: N L 190 

aThe median household income of the people in the l-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-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfills 

Figure 2.8: Degree of Difference 

Between Median Household Income 

Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 

Landfills and Income in Rest of Host 

County 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

- 

Note 1: N = 105 

Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding 

aThe median household rncome of the people in the l-mile area was at least $5,000 less than the 

median household income in the rest of the host county. 

bThe median household tncome of the people in the i-mile area was at least $S,COO 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. 

Page 31 GAO/&CED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste FacJUtJes 
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were 

Not Disproportionately Represented Near 

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal 

Landfills 

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-96-94 Demographics ofPeople Near Waste Faclllties 
Chapter 3 

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.’ 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 

(GAOIRCED-95158R, June 13, 19%). 

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 

land-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. 

‘The studies examined a variety of locations where hazardous and nonhazardous waste is found, 

including hazardous and nonhazardous waste facilities regulated under RCRA; hazardous waste sites 

regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA), as amended; and cement plants. In this report, we refer to these locations collectively as 

facilities or sites. 

Page 33 GAO/EKED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilitiw 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste 

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions 

Studies of Hazardous 

Waste Sites Have 

around facilities that handle hazardous waste, were regional or national in 

scope, and were conducted after 1986. Only two of the studies also 

Yielded Varied Results 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. “z. 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 

Number and type(s) of 

Study’s author and date facilities Sponsor 

United Church of Christ 415 RCRAa commercial United Church of Christ 

Commission for Racial hazardous waste Commission for Racial 

Justice and Public Data facilities and 18,164 Justice 

Access, Inc., CERCLAb “uncontrolled” 

1987 toxic waste sites 

Main concl&ions 

Racetethnicity Income 

ZIP codes where ZIP codes where 

facilities were located facilities were located 

were more likely to have were more likely to have 

higher minority populations with lower 

populations”; incomes. 

race/ethnicity was a 

stronger indicator of 

proximity to waste 

facilities than income. 

Claritas, Inc. for Waste 132 RCRA hazardous Waste Management, Inc. Most ZIP codes where Not studied. 

Management, Inc., 1992 and nonhazardous waste facilities were located 

facilities operated by had a lower percentage 

Waste Management, Inc. of minoritiesC than the 

host state. 

E.B. Attah for EPA’s 4,855 CERCLA 

Region IV, 1992 hazardous waste sites 

EPA and Clark Atlanta 

University 

At the county level, the Not studied. 

study found no 

relationship between the 

number of sites and the 

percentage of 

minoritiesd At the census 

tracte level, the average 

number of CERCLA sites 

increased as the 

percentage of minorities 

increased. 

(continued) 

‘In these summari es, 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 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste 

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions 

Number and type(s) of Main conclusions 

Studv’s author and date facilities Sponsor Racekthnicity Income 

ViGYAN, Inc., for EPA, 

1992 

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 fess than the 

percentages of blacks 

and Hispanics living in 

the surrounding county. 

(GAO’s conclusjons 

based on EPA’s data.) 

John A. Hird, 1993 788 Superfund sites’ 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. 

Rae Zimmerman, 1993 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. 

Center for PoLcy 530 RCRA commercial National Association for Minority populationsc in ZIP codes where 

Alternatives, hazardous waste facilities the Advancement of 1993 were more likely to facilities were located 

1994 (update of United Colored People and live in ZIP codes where 

Church of Christ study) 

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. 

Social and Demographic 454 RCRA commercial Waste Management, 

Research Institute, 

Using three different Using three different 

hazardous waste facilittes tnc., and the Institute for 

University of 

geographic study areas geographic study areas 

Chemical Waste 

Massachusetts-Amherst, 

in metropolitan areas, the in metropolitan areas, the 

Management authors concluded that authors concluded that 

1994 there was no consistent there was no consistent 

national-level associatjon 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) 

Page 36 GAOIRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste 

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions 

Number and type(s) of Main conclusions 

Study’s author and date facilities Sponsor Race/ethnicity Income 

Rae Zimmerman, for EPA’s 210 Superfund sites EPA Within 1 mile of the sites, Rents and housing 

Region II, 1994 the weighted and values were used as a 

unweighted mean and proxy for income. Values 

median percentages for within 1 -mile area were 

minority populations’ lower than state 

were below or about the averages. 

same as the proportions 

in the state. 

ICF Inc., and ViGYAN Inc., 41 cement plants, EPA The percentage of The percentage of 

for EPA, 1994 including 29 that burned minoritiesC within 1 and 5 people below the poverty 

hazardous waste as fuel miles of the plants was line within 1 and 5 miles 

and 12 that did not. greater about as often as of the plants was greater 

it was less than the about as often as it was 

percentage of minorities less than the poverty rate 

in the host county. for the host county. 

(GAO’s conclusion (GAO’s conclusion 

based on EPA’s data.) 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 Liablllty 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 

=ln this study, minority populations are defined as including persons of Hlspanic 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 

boundanes and an average population of 4,000. 

fln this study, people of Hispanic origin were analyzed independently of racial categories. Thus, 

Hispanics may be included In the data on racial minorities to some extent. 

g”Superfund sites” refers to sites on the National Priorities List. They are sites that EPA has 

evaluated and determined should be cleaned up under CERCLA. As of December 1994, there 

were 1,288 sites on or proposed for the list. 

Yn 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 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facikfea 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste 

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions 

Studies Reached Various 

Conclusions About 

Whether Minorities Were 

Overrepresented Near 

Waste Facilities 

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 percenwe 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-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmentul Justice Studies of Waste 

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions 

The University of Massachusetts-Amherst group examined race and 

ethnic@ 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 marginaIIy 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 facihties 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 RCEU 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 l/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 Super-fund 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 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste 

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions 

Studies That Examined 

Income Levels Showed 

Varied Results 

divided on the issue. Using a simple unweighted analysiq3 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 lV 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 anaIysis would account for such 

population differences. 

Page 39 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste 

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions 

19 percent lower than the national average. However, the study reports 

that these differences were not statistically significant. The study done for 

EPA’S Region II analyzed Superfimd 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 

Super-fund 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 Super-fund sites. A higher 

median value for housing in the county was strongly correlated with a 

larger number of Super-fund sites, while higher poverty levels were 

signiticantly 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 RCEZA 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/BCED-95-M Demographics of People Near Waste Fscilitles 
Chapter 3 

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 perc&age of 

economically disadvantaged people. 

Studies Contain Few Data 

on Race by Income 

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 ethnic&y with such sites. 

In its study, the United Church of Christ concluded that race was a 

stronger indicator than income of the location of waste facilities. However, 

the published report did not present detailed data to support this 

statement. Others, including Hird and the authors of the University of 

Massachusetts-Amherst study, performed analyses that accounted for race 

and income or economic variables but did not conduct cross-tabulations. 

Different Study 

Questions and 

Methodologies Used 

May Have Led to 

Varied Results 

The 10 studies were intended to answer different research questions, and 

thus different results could be expected. All the studies examined a variety 

of samples of facilities that handled hazardous waste, and two also 

examined facilities that handled nonhazardous waste. They also analyzed 

different geographic areas around the facilities and compared the 

demographics in those areas with the demographics in a variety of larger 

areas to determine whether inequity existed. Furthermore, the studies 

chose different subsets of the minority population to examine. 

Different Research One reason for the different results of the 10 studies could be that the 

Questions Were Examined authors asked different research questions. The two most common types 

of questions can be summarized as follows: 

l In terms of all “areas” (whether defined as counties, ZIP codes, census 

tracts, block groups, or some other measure), are minorities or 

Page 41 GAOIRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 3 

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 proftie of people further away? 

These two very different research questions can yield different results. In 

the first case, the focus is broad-national or regional, for example. In the 

second case, the focus is on the local level-the level at which decisions 

are made on where facilities will be located. 

Size of Sample and Qpe of The five studies that examined RCRA commercial hazardous waste facihties 

Facility used sample sizes ranging from 35 to over 500. In the three studies that 

focused on Super-fund 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 sites4 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 was& facilities. EPA 

studied 29 cement plants that burned hazardous waste as fuel and 12 

plants that did not. 

Area of Comparison 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 “communityn 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 l/2 mile or 5 miles. By comparison, our 

study addressed a l-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 3i’,O00 CERCJA 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-M 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. 

3.1: Illustrative Example of Different Boundary Areas Used in Demographic Studies 

v County boundary 

I_ Census tract boundary 

ZIP code boundary 

The studies also used different areas for comparison, which may also have 

influenced their findings. For example, the studies by the United Church of 

Page 43 GAO/RCED-96-84 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 ail 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 over-represented 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 ail counties without Superfimd 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 Super-fund 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. 

bike 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, l/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 l/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 l/4 mile to 4 miles of Super-fund 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 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste 

Faclities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions 

Definition of Minority 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. n Also, the authors of that study did not 

distinguish black Hispanics from black non-Hispanics. Similarly, 

Zimmerman did not break out the data on Hispanics by race. 

EPA’S Region IV used the terms “white” and “minority.” Because this study 

defines “minority” as the total population minus the white population, 

Hispanics may be undercounted. Although Hispanics represent only about 

1 percent of the region’s population, they may be a significant factor in 

certain cities or regions. For example, in Florida, one of the states in 

Region Iv, Hispanics make up almost 9 percent of the population. 

Direct Comparison It would be difficult to compare the results of our analysis in chapter 2 

Between Results of with those of the studies addressed in this chapter because of the many 

differences between them. We examined nonhazardous waste landfills, 

Our Study and Others while the other studies focused primarily on several types of hazardous 

Is Difficult 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 46 GAOIRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 3 

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 

landf?lls. 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 1andfiUs 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. 

B 

Attempts to Examine All of the studies that we reviewed examined a “snapshot” of population 

Trends Over Time 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 

‘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 l-mile area 

Page 46 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 3 

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.” 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 unsuccessful7 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. 

Observations Our findings of a mix of conclusions and methodologies in the other 

studies can be used to make several observations. One is that standardized 

methods would be useful in determining whether specific communities are 

experiencing environmental inequity. To achieve such standardization, 

agencies would need methods that, at a minimum, (1) consistently define 

racial minorities; (2) identify a study area that is, in fact, affected by 

polluting facilities; and (3) compare the study area with an appropriate 

larger area 

An important limitation of our study and the others we reviewed is the 

assumption that proximity to a facility leads to risk. However, closeness to 

a facility is only a proxy for risk. Living 1 mile from one facility may be 

much different than living 1 mile from another facility, given differences in 

the types and volumes of hazardous waste handled and in humans’ 

exposure to that waste. In fact, living 1 mile from the same facility but in 

different directions, could have different effects, depending on the flow of 

air and groundwater, for example. Future work that quantifies the actual 

GVicki 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-Amher study also report that they are investigating 

trends in demographics over time near hazardous waste sites. 

?Fhese landfills were taken from our larger sample of 296 facilities, and all began operations between 

1977 and 1981. 

Page 47 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste 

Facilities Have Yieided 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, utihties, 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-96-94 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Cha&er 4 

EPA’s Regulations for Site Selection and 

Public Participation Have Not Addressed 

Environmental Justice, but Changes Are 

Being Considered - 

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 

specificalIy 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 reguIations 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 typicaIly take effect 

when EPA or the state’ 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 landfiG included a number of questions about the 

techniques used at specific landfills to increase public participation. The 

results are discussed in appendix VI. 

EPA’s Siting Standards The restrictions that EPA places on where facilities can be located do not 

for Hazardous and specifically limit their proximity to people, nor do they take into account 

Nonhazardous Waste 

the demographics of residents. Because planning for land use traditionally 

has been a local concern, state and local governments have played a much 

Facilities 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. 

‘Many states am authorized by EPA to issue permits for waste facilities. 

Page 49 GAOIRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 4 

EPA’s Begulations for Site Selection and 

Public Participation Have Not Addressed 

Environmental Justice, but Changes Are 

Being Considered 

EPA’s Current Restrictions For nonhazardous municipal landfills, the type of facility we surveyed, EPA 

on the Location of issued comprehensive regulations in 1991 that began to take effect in 

Facilities October 1993. These regulations apply to existing and new landfills, and 

address location, among other things. These more extensive regulations 

have caused many landftis to close and wilI have a significant impact on 

facilities built in the future. 

The restrictions on the location of nonhazardous landfills generahy 

concern specific geological characteristics. The regulations restrict 

landfills from being located in floodplains and geologically unstable areas 

or near airports.” 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 landffls. 

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. 

EPA Has Chosen Not to 

Propose New Location 

Standards for Hazardous 

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 

*Landfills attract birds, which can pose a threat to aircraft. 

Page SO GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
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. 

State Standards on 

Locating Facilities Near 

Land Used for Residences 

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 

properly line most commonly required is 200 feet but ranges from 50 feet 

to l/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. 

“OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Draft Final Report, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, EPA, Apr. 25, 1994. 

‘State-byState Sumrxui es of Social Siting Criteria, working draft prepared for the RCRA Siting 

Workgroup by ICF Incorporated, July 28, 1994. 

Page 61 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 4 

EPA’s Regulations for Site Selection and 

Public Participation Have Not Addressed 

Environmental Justice, but Changes Are 

Being Considered 

EPA’s Current 

Regulations on Public 

environmental justice. They are intended, however, to allow citizens, 

including members of minority and low-income communities, the 

Participation opportunity to influence the permits issued to waste facilities. EPA noted in 

its response to our draft report that its current regulations allow members 

of the public to comment on environmental justice and other issues and 

that the agency considers all public comments before issuing a permit, 

particularly those concerning the protection of human health. 

EPA’s Current Public 

Participation Regulations 

for Nonhazardous 

Facilities 

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 

s 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 
Chapter 4 

EPA’s Regulations for Site Selection and 

Public Participation Have Not Addressed 

Environmental Justice, but Changes Are 

Being Considered 

EPA’s Current Public 

Participation Regulations 

for Hazardous Facilities 

EPA’S current regulations for granting operating permits to hazardous 

waste facilities likewise call for public participation but do not specifically 

address environmental justice. When EPA or an authorized state receives a 

permit application for a facility, it must begin compiling a mailing list of 

interested community members in order to communicate important 

information about the permit process to them. After the agency has 

reviewed the application and made a preliminary decision, it must notify 

the public of its decision and make either the draft permit or the notice of 

intent to deny the permit available for public comment. The agency must 

mail notices to the citizens on the list and issue notices in a major local 

newspaper and over local radio stations. 

Members of the public may request a hearing on the draft permit or the 

notice of intent to deny a permit. Hearings must be held at times and 

places that facilitate public attendance. Final decisions on the permit must 

include a written response to both the written comments and those made 

at the public hearing. 

EPA’s Proposal for Earlier 

Public Notice and 

Attention to 

Environmental Justice 

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 ail 

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 RCFCA. The agency also asked 

Page 53 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 4 

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 uf the RCRA 

program for issuing permits, such as corrective action5 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. 

EPA’s Guidance to Regions In September 1993, EPA’S Office of Solid Waste issued the RCRA Public 

and States to Improve Involvement Manual. The purpose of the manual is to help EPA’S regional 

Public Participation offices and RcR&au%horized 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 

5Cmrective action is a term used in the RCRA program to refer to the investigation and cleanup of 

contamination at hazardous waste facilities. 

Page 54 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 4 

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 necessary. EPA also encourages the formation of a 

community advisory panel to serve as the voice of the community. 

Executive Order’s 

Requirements on Public 

Participation 

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 aseas 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 66 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilltles 
Chapter 5 

Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities on 

Minorities and Low-Income People 

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.’ 

In our survey of municipal k&fills, we found little association between 

the race, income, or poverty status of residents near landftis and certain 

1andfiIl 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. 

Federal Efforts to 

Determine Health 

Effects of Waste 

Facilities on 

Minorities and 

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 

Low-Income People environmental justice in their actions. 

EPA’s Workgroup and 

Conference 

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 Ail 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 

‘Other agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, are also required to da so by 

the executive order. Their efforts were not within the scope of our review. 

Page 66 GAOIRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
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 polhrtants, 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, “’ 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.” 

Interagency Task Force on In the executive order on environmental justice, the administration 

Research and Health directed federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their 

Established Under overall mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and 

Executive Order 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 alI potentially affected segments of the 

ZM.R.I. Soliman,C.T.LleRosa, H.W.Mielke,and K Bota 

Page 67 GAO/RCED-96-M Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 5 

Data on Health Effects of Waste Facllitiea 

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 significantIy 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 

&a.ft strategy c&Us for EPA to assess and compare the environmental and 

human health risks borne by populations identified by race, national 

origin, or income. The broad objectives spelled out in the draft strategy do 

not specifically address hazardous and nonhazardous waste facilities. 

Demographic 

Conditions and 

Risk-Related 

Characteristics at 

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 

Municipal Landfills in 

contamination. For example, we did not fmd that a disproportionate 

percentage of minorities or low-income people within 1 mile of landfills 

Our Survey that lack protective Liners. The results of our analyses are presented in 

appendix VII3 

“Our information on the relationship between landfill characteristics and population demographics 

cannot always be used to make national estimates because there were not always enough cases in the 

categories that we reviewed. 

Page 68 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 6 

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 reIated to risk. 

EPA’s Attempts to 

Assess Health Risk of 

Nonhazardous and 

Hazardous Waste 

Facilities on General 

Population 

While there is little evidence concerning the health effects of waste 

facilities on minorities or low-income people, EPA has attempted to assess 

the risks of these facilities to the general population. In the course of 

developing regulatory requirements for municipal landfills and hazardous 

waste facilities, EPA has developed models that predict potential human 

exposures to hazardous releases and the potential health effects. 

According to EPA'S analysis, the potential deaths resulting from exposure 

are low for both types of facilities. We did not evaluate the validity of 

either of these risk models because doing so was beyond the scope of our 

work. 

EPA’s Risk Assessments for 

Nonhazardous Waste 

Landfills 

In its 1988 proposed regulation for municipal landfills, EPA noted that 

“existing data are not sufficient to conclusively demonstrate that 

[municipal landtills] 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 lo6 (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 ‘IO-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 landfiils 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 69 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demogxaphics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Chapter 5 

Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilitb 

on Minorities and Low-Income People 

the number of additional cancer deaths to 3.3 as old landfills are replaced 

with new ones, 

EPA’s Risk Assessments for EPA has also projected the potential adverse health effects of contaminated 

Hazardous Waste Facilities hazardous waste facilities. EPA estimated that 1,200 cancer cases would 

result over the 12ELyear 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 

faciIities are converted to residential use in the future, approximately 1,800 

sites could cause cancer and noncancer health effects. 

Page 60 GACURCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Page 61 GAO/WED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste hci.Uties 
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal 

Landfills 

This appendix describes our methodology for surveying and analyzing 

municipal solid waste landfills. Our mail survey allowed us to (I) examine 

selected characteristics of such landfills and develop information on their 

location and (2) describe the demographic characteristics of people living 

nearby. Our approach in conducting the survey allowed us to make 

national estimates about the characteristics of such landftis and the 

demographics of those living nearby for both metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan areas. 

Our universe of potential landfills was derived from a list maintained by 

the Solid Waste Association of North America. The association provided 

us with a computerized list of 4,321 federal and nonfederal landfills that 

were thought to meet two criteria (1) they were municipal solid waste 

landfills and (2) they were operating at some time in 1992. The 

association’s list did not include landfills in Montana We received a list of 

87 municipal solid waste landfills in operation in that state in 1992 from 

Montana’s State Office of Solid Waste and added them to our list of 

landfills. We identified 78 landfills that were federal facilities and removed 

them from the list. Therefore, the total number of landfills in our universe 

was 4,330. 

We then determined if each landfill was in a metropolitan or 

nonmetropolitan county, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

based on whether the ZIP code of’the landfill was within a metropolitan or 

nonmetropolitan county. This classification resulted in a universe of 1,498 

metropolitan landfills and 2,832 nonmetropolitan landfills. We then 

sampled 500 metropolitan and 500 nonmetropolitan landfills with equal 

probability. 

We designed a questionnaire that requested several pieces of information 

about each landfill. This information included, but was not limited to, the 

location; ownership and size of the landfill; types of waste accepted; 

presence of protective liners, groundwater monitoring, or contamination 

at the landf-ill; and opportunities for the community surrounding the 

landlill 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 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal 

Landfllls 

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 landa. 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 nonfederal facilities that had accepted municipal solid 

waste and were operating during 1992. We had to exclude responses from 

10 metropolitan and 1 nonmetropolitan landfills for other reasons that are 

explained in the table. To determine our response rate, we took the 

number of usable responses (190 metropolitan and 105 nonmetropolitan 

landfills) and divided that figure by the original sample size minus the 

returns that did not meet the criteria for inclusion in our universe (300 

minus 59 for metropolitan landfills, and 150 minus 18 for nonmetropolitan 

landfills). Our response rates for the subsample were about 79 percent for 

the metropolitan landfills and about 80 percent for the nonmetropolitan 

landfills. 

Table 1.1: Response Rate for Survey of Municipal Landfills 

Surveys from overall sample for analysis of landfill 

characteristics 

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan 

Universe i ,498 2,832 

Sample size 500 500 

USGS maps from subsample for demographic 

analysis of landfills 

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan 

I ,498 2,832 

300 150 

Returned (usable) 302 321 190 105 

Returned (not usable) 

Closed before 1992 48 39 29 14 

Not a municipal 

landfill 

Federal facility 

Returned after 

cut-off date 

Facility never 

opened 

OtheP 

39 23 28 4 

3 0 1 0 

3 1 1 0 

1 1 1 0 

9 1 9 1 

Not returned 95 114 41 26 

Return rate 

Response rate 

ai .o% 77.2% 66.3% 

73.8% 73.4% 78.8% 

Ten landfills were misclassified in terms of their metropoliian and nonmetropditan status. 

Because they were misclassified, we did not include them in the analysis. 

82.6% 

79.5% 

Page 64 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Wnstt Facilities 
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of MunicipaJ 

Landfllla 

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 overah sample for analysis of landfill characteristics” in 

table I. 1. When comparing the demographics of people living near the 

landfill area with those in the rest of the county, presented in chapter 2, 

we used the samples under the columns headed YJSGS maps from 

subsample for demographic analysis of landfills.” 

We also cross-tabulated several of the landfill characteristics and the 

demographic data for the information in chapter 5 and appendix VII. We 

used data for this analysis only from those landfills that returned both a 

usable survey and a usable USGS map. Our cross-tabulation analysis 

included 187 metropolitan and 103 nonmetropolitan municipal landfills. 

These landfills are a subset of the 190 metropolitan and 105 

nonmetropolitan 1andfiIls identified in table I. 1. 

For our demographic analysis of the landfills that returned maps, we 

digitized (traced) the boundary of each 1andflIl using special software from 

the USGS that allowed us to determine the latitude and longitude deiining 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. 1.1.) We were able to digitize a total of 190 metropolitan 

landfills and 105 nonmetropolitan landfills. 

Page 66 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal 

Landfills 

Figure 1.1: Illustration of a County 

Boundary With a Municipal Landfill 

and l- and 3-Mile Areas 

To determine the demographics of the people living near the landtills, 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 l- 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 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilitim 
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal 

Landfills 

within the l- 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 sJl 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 l- 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 l- and 3-mile areas with 

the population in the rest of the county rather than to some other 

geographic area such as the city or state. This decision was a compromise 

that we made for the following reasons. 

According to our survey, most municipal solid waste landfills are owned 

and operated by local or county governments. Our survey results also 

indicated that local or county governments had approved the locations for 

most landfills. Furthermore, the average landfill @ublic 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 l- 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 l- 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 l- and 3-mile 

areas with the population in the rest of the city would also have presented 

a problem in cases in which the l- 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 l- and 3-mile areas with those in the rest of the county. 

Page 67 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal 

Landfills 

In this process, we excluded block groups within the l- 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 l-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 I- and 3-mile area and the corresponding rest of the county, we 

developed demographic information on five areas: race/ethnicity (we 

included whites of Hispanic origin with the minority population), poverty 

status, median household income, poverty status by race/ethnicity, and 

median household income by race/ethnicity. All of the demographic data 

came from either the U.S. Bureau of Census Summary Tape File 1A or the 

Summary Tape File 3A. For the data on income @overty 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 l- 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 l-mile area, we would expect that approximately 50 percent of 

the population within the l-mile area would be nonminorities. If 

nonminorities made up only 30 percent of the population in the l-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-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix 1 

Methodology for Analysh ofMunicipal 

Landfilis 

We also compared the data from the l-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 avaiIable 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 L-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 plu&ninus figure. A sampling error indicates 

how closely we can reproduce from a sample the results that we would 

obtain if we were to take a complete count of the universe using the same 

measurement methods. By adding the sampling error to and subtracting it 

from the estimate, upper and lower bounds for each estimate were 

developed. This range is called a confidence interval. Sampling errors and 

confidence intervals are stated at a certain confidence level-in this case 

95 percent. For example, a confidence interval, at the 95-percent 

confidence level, means that in 95 out of 100 instances, the sampling 

procedure we used would produce a confidence interval containing the 

universe value we are estimating. The sampling errors for our analysis are 

found in tables III. 1 and III.2 of appendix III. 

Page 69 GAWIKED-95-64 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Surveyed 

We surveyed 500 metropolitan and 500 nonmetropolitan municipal 

1andlUs about a variety of solid waste issues. The responses to a select 

number of those questions are summarized below for metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan landfills. All of the percentages reflect only those 

landfills that responded to the questions. 

. On the basis of usable’ survey responses we received from 301 

metropolitan and 322 nonmetropolitan landfills in operation at some time 

in 1992, we estimate that 69 percent (+/- 5 percent?) of metropolitan 

landfills and 79 percent (+I’- 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. 

9 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. 

l The average metropolitan landfill received about 50 percent (+I-5 percent) 

of its waste from the communiw 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 stie. Out-of-state waste averaged less than 1 percent 

(+/- 1 percent) of the waste received by each metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan municipal landfill. 

l 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 largequantity generators, 

respectively. 

+ About 51 percent (+/- 6 percent) of the metropolitan landfiis had received 

asbestos, about 49 percent (+/- 6 percent) had received sewage sludge, and 

‘See table I. 1 in app. I, which gives the data on the number of usable and unusable responses. 

“Sampling errors have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 

“EPA prohibited municipal landfills from accepting hazardous waste from largequantity generators 

starting in 1980. Municipal landfills are allowed to accept hazardous waste from smallquantity 

generators. 

Page 70 GAOACED-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 (+I- 6, 5, and 2 percent), respectively. 

9 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. 

l Among nonmetropolitan landfills, 69 percent (-+I- 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. 

l Forty-seven percent (+/- 6 percent) of metropolitan landfills did not have 

protective liners beneath any of their waste units. Fifty-five percent (+/- 

6 percent) of the metropolitan landfills did not have leachate collection 

systems in place at any of their waste units. Over 90 percent (+/- 3 percent) 

said that they had groundwater monitoring. About 16 percent (+/- 

4 percent) said that the landfill had caused groundwater contamination at 

some time. 

l 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-96-84 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 

While median household income is one indicator of people’s economic 

status, the poverty rate-whether a person’s income is below the national 

definition of poverty’- is another indicator. On the basis of our survey, we 

found that the people living near municipal landfills were not likely to 

have a higher poverty rate than the people in the rest of the county. Data 

from this analysis are presented below. 

The data in figures III,1 through III.4 represent the findings from our 

sample of landfills. National estimates cannot be accurately made without 

applying a margin of error. The approximate sampling errors for the data 

on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills can be found in tables III. 1 

and III.2 and should be applied to the data in each appropriate figure. 

Table III.1 : Sampling Errors for 

Selected Percentages and Sample 

Sizes of Metropolitan Landfills 

Sample size (N) and related sampling error at the 9bpercent 

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. 

L’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 

812,674 for a nonfarm family of four. In our analysis, we used the census data for individuals below the 

poverty line. 

Page 72 GAOiRCED-96~84 Demographks of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix III 

People Llviug Near Municipal Landfllls Were 

Likely to Have Poverty Rate SMlar to or 

Lower Than Rate ln Rest of County 

Table 111.2: Sampling Errors for 

Selected Percentages and Sample 

Sizes of Nonmetropolitan Landfills Percentage of 

landfills 

5 

Sample size (N) and related sampling error at the 95percent 

confidence level 

90 95 100 105 

4 4 4 4 

10 6 6 6 6 

15 7 7 7 7 

20 8 a a 7 

2.5 9 a 8 a 

30 9 9 9 a 

35 10 9 9 9 

40 10 10 9 9 

45 10 10 9 9 

50 10 10 9 9 

Note: Sampling errors have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 

Figures III. 1 and III.2 compare the poverty rate of individuals living within 

1 mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills with the rate for 

individuals in the rest of the county and the nation. The poverty rate for 

the people living near metropolitan landfills was higher than the rate for 

people in the surrounding county 31 percent of the time. The poverty rate 

for these people was also higher than the national average for 

metropolitan areas about 23 percent of the time. The people Iiving 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. 

Page 73 GAO/RCED-96-34 Demographics of People Near Waste Facllltlea 
Appendix III 

People Livlng Near Municipal Landfills Were 

Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or 

Lower Than Rate ln Rest of County 

Figure 111.1: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile 

of Metropolitan Landfills Compared 

With Rate in Rest of l-lost County or Nation 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 69 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

0 

Percent Percent Percent Percent 

Where Where Where Where 

Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty 

Rate Is Rate Is Rate lo Rate Is 

Higher Lqwer Higher Lower 

Compared With 

Host County 

Compared With 

National 

Average’ 

Note: N = 190. 

aThe national average for metropolitan areas IS 12.1 percent 

Page 74 GAO/RCED-96-84 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 

of Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

Compared With Rate in Rest of Host 

County or Nation 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

60 55 

5o 45 

40 

30 

20 

0 

ll 

Percent Percent 

Where Where 

Poverty Poverty 

Rate lo Rate Is 

Higher Lower 

10 

59 41 

h 

Percent Percent 

Where Where 

Poverty Poverty 

Rate Is Rate Is 

Higher Lower 

Compared With 

Host County 

Compared With 

National 

Average0 

Note: N = 105. 

aThe national average for nonmetropolitan areas is lE.8 percent. 

Figures III.3 and III.4 show how much the poverty rate of the people living 

within 1 mile of the landfills differed from the rate of the people in the rest 

of the county. The poverty rate for individuals living near metropolitan 

landfills was not often significantly higher than the rate in the rest of the 

county.2 The rate was about the same or significantly lower most of the 

time. The same held true for people living near nonmetropolitan landfills. 

2For the purposes of this analysis, a significant difference in the poverty rate is defined as more than 

2.5 percent. In app. IV, we show the relative difference between the poverty rates of people living 

within 1 mile of the landfills and in the rest of the county 

Page 75 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix III 

People Living Near Municipal Landfllls Were 

Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or 

Lower Than Rate ln Rest of County 

Figure 111.3: Degree of Difference 

Between Poverty Rate Within 1 Mite of 

Metropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest 

of Host County 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

60 

70 

60 

50 47 

40 35 

30 

20 

cllr 

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 l-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 l-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 
Appendix III 

People Living Near Municipal LandfilLs Were 

Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or 

Lower Than Rate in Rest of County 

Figure 111.4: Degree of Difference 

Between Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of 

Nonmetropolitan Landfills and Rate in 

Rest of Host County 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

60 

70 

60 

50 

4o 35 34 

30 30 

20 

10 

0 

m 

Noie 1, N = 105 

Note 2: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

BThe poverty rate of the people in the l-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 l-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 FacUitiea 
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. 1 shows the data for the absolute differences in our example. 

The figure shows that more than 60 percent of the metropolitan landfills 

had a percentage of nonminorities within 1 mile that was not significantly 

different from the percentage in the rest of the county. Only about 

13 percent of the landfills had a percentage of nonminorities within 1 mile 

that was significantly less than the percentage in the rest of the county. 

The second set of three bars, a mirror image of the first set, shows the data 

for minorities. 

Page 78 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix N 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County 

Figure IV.1 : Degree of Difference 

Between People Within 1 Mile of 

Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of 

Host County, by Race 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

60 

70 

ta 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

62 

Comparison of Comparison of 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Note: N = 190. 

aThe percentage in the l-mile area is at least IO 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 hoat 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 l-mile area 

and divided the result by the percentage of nonminorities in the county. 

For race, we again defined a lo-percent relative difference as significant. 

The example below shows how the calculations of absolute and relative 

differences yield different results. 

l Absolute difference. If the percentage of nonminorities in the l-mile area is 

84 and the percentage of nonminorities in the county is 76, the absolute 

Page 79 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 Mile of Landfills 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 l-mile area is 

84 and the percentage of nonminorities in the county is 76, the relative 

difference is 84 minus 76 divided by 76, or 10.5 percent. This difference 

would be considered significant in our analysis because it is more than 

10 percent. 

Figure IV+2 shows the data for the relative differences in our example. The 

figure shows a different picture than the absolute differences, particularly 

for minorities. In almost 60 percent of the landfills, the percentage of 

nonminorities within 1 mile is not significantly different from the 

percentage in the rest of the county. The percentage is significantly less in 

about 15 percent of the cases; in almost 30 percent of the cases, it is 

significantly more. The percentage of minorities living within 1 mile is not 

significantly different only 7 percent of the time. The percentage of 

minorities living within 1 mile is significantly less 69 percent of the time 

and significantly more 23 percent of the time. The more extreme results 

for minorities (i.e., fewer instances in which the difference is not 

significant) probably occur because the percentage of minorities is 

generally lower than the percentage of nonminorities. Therefore, a small 

difference between the percentages in the I-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 
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County 

MiTe of Metropolitan Lmbfills Relative Iall Percentage of Landfills 

to Rest of Host County 

80 

70 

60 51 

69 

r 

n 

Comparison of 

Nonminorities 

Comparison of 

Minorities 

Note 1. N = 190. 

Note 2: Percentages for minorities do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

aThe percentage in the l-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 l-mile area is at least IO 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 landf& can be found in tables III. 1 and 

III.2 and should be applied to the data in the appropriate figure. 

Page 81 GAOIRCED-96-M Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County 

Figure IV.3: Race of People Within 1 

Mile of Metropolitan landfills Relative 

to Rest of Host County 

100 Percentage ot Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

60 !a 

60 

40 

30 211 

20 

10 

0 

69 

Comparison of Comparison of 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Note 1: N = 190. 

Note 2: Percentages for minorities do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

BThe percentage in the 1 -mile area is at feast 10 percent less, in relative terms, than the 

percentage in the rest of the host county. 

bThe percentage in the l-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-95-M Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 MiIe of Landfills and in Rest of County 

Figure IV.4: Race of People Within 1 

Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

1 

1 

100 Percentage of Landtills 

Relative to Rest of Host County 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 ,9 

I 

56 

Xl 

14 

Comparison of Comparison of 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Note: N = 105 

aThe 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 

Page83 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities Y 
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 Mile of LandfZlls and In Rest of County 

Figure 1V.5: Median Household Income 

of Psople Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan 

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host 

County 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

a0 

70 

60 

50 

40 40 

35 

3o 25 

20 

10 

0 

a 

Note: N = 190 

aThe median household income in the l-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 i-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms, 

than the median household income in the host county. 

Page 84 GAOAZCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 Mile of LandfIlLs and in Rest of County 

Figure IV.6: Median Household Income 

of People Within 1 Mile of 

Nonmetropolitan Landfills Relative to 

Rest of Host County 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

$0 

70 

60 55 

50 

40 

30 

20 16 

Note: N = 105. 

aThe median household income in the I-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 l-mile area is at least IO percent more, in relative terms, 

than the median household income In the host county. 

Page 86 GAO/RCED-95-94 Demographics of People Near Waste FaciRtles 
Appendix lV 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County 

Figure IV.7: Poverty Rate of People 

Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills 

Relative to Rest of Host County 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

Note 1: N = 190. 

Note 2 Percentages do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

aThe poverty rate of individuals in the l-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 l-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms, 

than the rate in the host county 

Page 86 GAOiRCED-96-M Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix N 

Relative Differences Between People Within 

1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County 

Figure IV.8: Poverty Rate of People 

Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 100 

Landfills Relative to Rest af Host 

County 90 

60 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Percentage of landfills 

39 

Note: N = f05. 

BThe poverty rate of individuals in the l-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms, than 

the rate in the host county. 

Vhe poverty rate of individuals in the l-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 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, 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. 

Median Household 

Income by Race 

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 landffls was as likely to be higher 

than the income in the rest of the county as it was to be lower. For 

nonmetropolitan landfills, the income was likely to be higher 57 percent of 

the time. Furthermore, the median household income of nonminorities 

living within 1 mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills was 

higher than the national median household income for nonminorities 48 

and 44 percent of the time, respectively. (See figs. V. 1 and V.4.) 

For metropolitan areas, only 24 percent of the landfills had nonminorities 

living within 1 mile with a median household income that was significantly 

lower in absolute terms than the income of nonminorities in the rest of the 

county. The median household income of the people living near the 

remaining landfills were either not significantly different or were 

significantly higher, In nonmetropolitan areas, only 10 percent of the 

landfills had nonminorities living nearby with a significantly lower income 

than the people in the rest of the county. (See figs. V.2 and V.5.) 

Page 88 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Fszilities 
Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfflls and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

Finally, for metropolitan areas we found that 27 percent of the landfrrs 

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. I and V.4.) 

The median income of minorities living with.in ! 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 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of LandfIlls and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

Figure V.l: Metropolitan Landfills 

Where Median Household Income of 

Minorities and Nonminorities Living 

Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than in Rest 

of Host County or Nation 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

so 

60 

70 67 

60 r 

50 50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

LL 

landfills With Landfills With 

Peoples’ Peoples’ 

Incomes Higher Incomes Higher 

Than Host Than Nat’1 

County 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 I-mrle area is compared with the income of 

nonmlnorities outside that area. Likewise, the income of minorities in the l-mile area is compared 

with the income of minorities outside that area. 

Page 90 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landflll~ and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

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 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

60 

70 

60 

47 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Y 

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 l-mile area is compared with the income of 

nonmrnoritjes outsrde that area. Likewise, the income of minorities in the l-mile area is compared 

wrth the income of minorities outside that area. 

aThe median household income of the people in the l-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 l-mile area is at least $5,000 more than the 

median household income in the rest of the host county. 

Page 91 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

Figure VA Rdative Difference 

Between Median Household Income of 

People Living Within 1 Mile of 

Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of 

Host County, by Race 

100 

90 

60 

Percentage of Landfills 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Note 1: N = 190 for nonmlnorities and 168 for minorities. 

Note 2: Percentages for minorities do not add to 100 percent because of rounding 

Note 3: The Income of nonminorities in the l-mile area is compared with the income of 

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the income of minotilies in the 1 -mile area is compared 

with the incomes of minorities outside that area. 

aThe median household income rn the l-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relatrve terms, 

than the income in the rest of the host county. 

bThe median household income in the 1 -mile area is at least IO percent more, In relative terms, 

than the income in the rest of the host county. 

Page 92 GAO/RCED-95-94 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of LandfilLs and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

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 

100 

go 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Percentage of Landfills 

b7 43 

37 

.ll Lb 

Landfills With Landfills With 

Peoples’ Peoples’ 

Incomes Higher Incomes Higher 

Than Host Than Nat’1 

County Average 

Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 89 for minorities in the comparison with county incomes. N 

= 105 for both in comparison with national averages. 

Note 2: The income of nonminorities in the l-mile area is compared with the income of 

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the income of minorities in the l-mile area is compared 

with the income of minorities outside that area. 

Page 93 GAOIRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

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 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

62 

60 55 

50 

40 

30 28 

20 

Nonmlnorities Minorities 

Note 1: N = 105 for nonminonties 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 l-mile area is compared 

with the income of minorities outside that area. 

dThe median household income of the people in the l-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 l-mile area is at least $5,000 more than the 

median household Income in the rest of the host county. 

Page 94 GAOIRCED-SS-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

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 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Percentage of Landfills 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Note 1: N = 105 for nonmlnorities 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 l-mile area is compared 

with the income of minorities outside that area. 

=The median household income in the l-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 l-mile area IS at least 10 percent more, in relative terms, 

than the income in the rest of the host county. 

Poverty Rates by Race 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 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfllls 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 nonmetropolitan areas, the poverty 

rate of nor-minorities 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 landftis 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.) 

‘Nationally, poverty ties reported in the 1990 census were much higher for minorities than for 

nonminorities: about 25 percent compared with about 9 percent. 

Page 96 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills- and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

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 

100 Percentage of Landlills 

SO 

80 

70 

60 

50 

Landfills With Landfills With 

People’s People’s 

Poverty Rate Poverty Rate 

Higher Than Higher Than 

Host Co. Nat’1 Ave. 

Note 1: N = 190 

Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the 1 -mile area is compared with the rate of 

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the l-mile area is 

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area. 

Page 97 GAO/RCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

Figure V-8: Absolute Difference 

Between Poverty Rate of People Living 

Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan 

Landfills and in Rest of H&t County, 

by Race 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

80 

Nonminorities Minorities 

‘1 

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 l-mile area IS compared with the rate of 

nonmlnorities outside that area. LIkewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the l-mile area is 

compared with the rate of mlnorlties outside that area. 

aThe poverty rate of the people in the l-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 l-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 
Appendix Y 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

Figure V.9: Relative Difference 

Between Poverty Rate of People Living 

Within t Mile of Metropolitan Landfills 

and in Rest of Host County, by Race 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

5. 3 

- 

32 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 180 for minonties. 

Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the l-mile area is compared with the rate of 

nonminorities outside that area. Lrkewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the l-mite area is 

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area. 

“The poverty rate of the people in the l-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 I-mlie area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms, 

than the rate in the rest of the host county. 

Page 99 GACVRCED-SC-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Witbin 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

Figure V.10: Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

Where Poverty Rate of Nonminorities 

and Minorities Living Within 1 Mile 

Was Higher Than in Rest of Host 

County or Nation 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

60 

70 

60 50 46 

42 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 1 

Landfills With Landfills With 

People’s People’s 

Poverty Rate Poverty Rate 

Higher Than Higher Than 

Host Co. Nat’1 Ave. 

I5 

22 

L 

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 nonmlnorities in the l-mile area is compared with the rate of 

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the i-mile area is 

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area 

Page 100 GAOKRCED-96-84 Demographics ofPeople Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

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 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

60 

70 

60 

50 

-. 

4o 35 34 35 

30 30 

20 

14 

10 

0 

ELI -A 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 96 for minorities. The percentages for nonminorities do not 

add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the l-mile area is compared with the rate of 

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the poverty rate of minorities rn the l-mile area is 

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area. 

aThe poverty rate of the people in the l-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 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

P / 
Appendix V 

Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty 

Rate. of People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and 

in Rest of County, by Race 

Figure V.12: Relative Difference 

B&een Poverty Rate of People Within 

1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

and in Rest of Host County, by Race 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 4o 35 

30 25 

20 

10 

0 

DLi 

51 

35 

14 

Nonminorities Minorities 

Note 1’ N = 105 for nonminorities and 94 for minorities 

Note 2: The poverty rate of nonminorities in the l-mile area is compared with the rate of 

nonminorities outside that area. LIkewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the l-mile area is 

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area. 

aThe poverty rate of the people in the l-mile area is at least IO percent less, in relattve 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 Cl percent more, in relative terms, 

than the rate in the rest of the host county 

Page 102 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix Vl 

Results From GAO’s Survey on Public 

Participation at Municipal Landfills 

The majority of our survey’s questions about public participation 

concerned those landfills that began receiving waste after January 1,1988.’ 

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 landfii 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. AU of the percentages presented 

below reflect only those respondents who reported that they could answer 

our questions. 

Site Selection . 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 

‘We asked all landfills whether their state and local governments currently require public notice and 

hearings on the planned siting of landfills. About 90 percent of 633 respondents said that they knew 

about their state and local public notice and hearing requirements. Well over 90 percent of 

respondents who said they knew answered that their state currently requires public notice of the 

planned siting of landfills A smaller number, but still over 90 percent who said they knew, answered 

that their state currently requires a public hearing regarding the planned siting and operation of 

municipal landfills. 

About 68 percent of those that said they knew answered that the local community requires public 

notice of the planned siting of a landfill. About 64 percent of those who said they knew answered that 

the local community requires public hearmgs 

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 requirmg 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 
Appendix VI 

ResuJts 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 formahy 

considered for the landfti. One-third of those said that at least one of the 

locations was rejected because of public opposition. 

l 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 eases but used 

radio, television, or public meeting places as a means for disseminating 

information much less often. 

l 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. 

l 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. 

l Less than onequarter of the respondents said that they encouraged the 

formation of a community advisory panel. None said that they provided 

funding to the public for analyzing the proposed site, About two-fifths said 

that multilingual fact sheets and interpreters for public meetings were not 

applicable (implying that the community did not have a significant 

foreign-language population). Of the other respondents, only two said that 

interpreters were provided. 

Site Construction and 

Operation 

. 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 

/ 

i 

Page 104 GAO/WED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix VJ 

Results From GAO’s Survey on Public 

Participation at Municipal Landpills 

waste accepted, or the use of visual screening devices such as trees or 

berms to obscure the view of the facility. 

l About half of the respondents said that a board or commission was formed 

to make decisions about the facilily’s construction or operation. Less than 

half of those, in turn, said that private citizens from the landfill community 

served on the board. 

l 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. 

l 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 GAOLRCED-96-M Demographics of People Near Waste FsetJitJes 
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data atid 

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 

survey of landfills. These data included answers to our questions about 

five landtill characteristics: the type of waste accepted at the landfill; the 

use of liners, leachate collection systems, and groundwater monitoring; 

and the incidence of groundwater contamination. We chose these 

characteristics because of their possible implications for the risks posed 

by the landfills. For example, a landfill without liners might pose more risk 

than one with liners. We caution, however, that the presence or absence of 

any of these characteristics does not necessarily increase or decrease risk. 

For each cross-tabulation, we stratified the data from chapter 2 and 

appendix III according to the answers respondents provided to our 

question about the landfills’ characteristics. For example, we determined 

whether the landfills where a higher percentage of minorities lived within 

1 mile than lived in the rest of the county were more likely to have liners 

than the landftis where a lower percentage of minorities lived nearby than 

lived in the rest of the county. 

Our analysis produced 30 cross-tabulations: the five IandEll 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 

1andfYl characteristics were associated with the demographic data We 

found that in nonmetropolitan areas, the landfii 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 

1andfiIls 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-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and 

Landfill Characteristics 

associated with the landffl characteristics. We did not find, for example, 

that landfills where a higher percentage of minorities lived nearby were 

more likely to lack liners than those landfills where a higher percentage of 

nonminorities lived nearby. 

The figures that follow provide the data from our cross-tabulation of the 

race of the people living within 1 mile of landfills with the five landfill 

characteristics. We did not include the cross-tabulations for median 

income and poverty. We did not find that the percentage of low-income 

people living near landfills that have characteristics that might increase 

the risk of harmful exposure was disproportionate relative to the rest of 

the county. 

While reading the following figures, it is important to keep in mind the 

percentage of landfills that have or do not have what we have defined as 

“risky” characteristics. For example, in figure VII. 1, 78 percent of the 

metropolitan and 62 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills had accepted 

some ?-i&y” categories of waste. 

Our intent was not to make comparisons between metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan landfills, although such comparisons can be made if the 

sampling errors of the estimates are considered. The sampling errors for 

the estimates are provided in tables III. 1 and III2 in appendix III. 

Type of Waste Accepted by A characteristic that could be associated with potential risk is the type of 

Landms 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 largequantity 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 landhll 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 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and 

Landfill Characteristics 

wastes. We estimate that 78 percent of the mekropolitan landfills and 

62 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills were in this category. 

We did not find a statistically significant association between the 

percentage of minorities living within 1 mile of landfills compared with the 

rest of the county and the acceptance of any of the “risky” wastes. These 

data are presented in figure VII. 1. 

Figure VII.1 : Landfills Where 

Percenlase of Minorities or 

Nonminokies Living Within 1 Mile 

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest 

of Host County, Stratified by Type of 

Waste ACcepted 

100 Percentage of Landfills 

90 

80 

70 

50 

40 

3o 26 

20 

10 

0 

Municipal, 

Commercial, 

and/or Industrial 

Waste 

All Types at 

Waste 

Municipal, 

Commercial, 

and/or Industrial 

Waste 

All Types of 

Waste 

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

I, Pet Mlnorlty Is Higher In I-MIlea 

Pet. Nonminonty Is Higher In I-Mllet 

Note: N = 187 for metropolitan landfills and 103 for nonmetropolitan landfills. 

aN = 50 lor 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 GAOIRCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and 

Landfill Characteristics 

within them. Taking figure VII. 1 as an example, note that the four clusters 

of bar graphs represent metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfiis. Each 

cluster represents those landfik that had accepted the two categories of 

waste that we established. There are two bar graphs for each category of 

waste: one representing the landfills that had a percentage of minorities 

living within 1 mile that is equal to or higher than lived in the rest of the 

county, and one representing landfills that had a higher percentage of 

nonminorities living within 1 mile than lived in the rest of the county. 

Finally, the notes indicate the number of landfills that fell into each 

category. 

The data in figure VII. 1 could be described in the following manner: Of the 

50 metropolitan landfills where the percentage of minorities living within 1 

mile was equal to or higher than the percentage in the rest of the county, 

26 percent (13) received only municipal, commercial, and/or industrial 

waste, and 74 percent (37) received other types of waste. Of the 137 

landfills where the percentage of nonminorities living within 1 mile was 

higher than the percentage in the rest of the county, 21 percent 

(29) received only municipal, commercial, and/or industrial waste, and 

79 percent (108) received other types of waste. The same type of 

description could be made of the nonmetropolitan landfills in figure VII. 1, 

as well as in the rest of the figures. 

Liners Beneath Waste Cells Landfills are located in different geological settings, contain different types 

in Landfills 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 
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. 

Figure Vll.2: Landfills Where 

Percentage of Minorities or 100 Percentage of Landfills 

Nonrnino~ities Living Within 1 Mile 

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest 

of Host County, Stratified by Presence 

of Lined Waste Cells 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Some Cells No Cells Have Some Cells No Cells Have 

Have Liners Liners Have Liners Liners 

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

L-L Pet Mlnorlty Is Higher In I-MIlea 

Pet. Nonminority Is Higher Ifl 1-Mlleb 

Note: N = 175 for metropolitan landfills and 98 for nonmetropolitan landfills 

aN = 46 for metropolitan landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan landfills. 

“N = 129 for metropolitan landfills and 60 for nonmetropolitan landfills. 

Leachate Collection Leachate collection systems are another design feature that is intended to 

Systems Beneath Landfills protect against contamination from 1andfiIls. 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 wiIl 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-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and 

Landfill Characteristics 

Figure Vll.3: Landfills Where 

Percentage 01 Minorities or 100 Percentage of Lenclfills 

Nonminokies Living Within 1 Mile 

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest 

of Host County, Stratified by Presence 

of Leschate Collection Systems 

Some Cells No Cells Have Some tills No Cells Have 

Have Leachate Leachate Have Leachate Leachete 

Collection Collection Collection Collection 

Systems Systems Systems Systems 

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

II- Pet Mtnonty 1s Higher In I-Mile’ 

PC!. Nonminoriry Is Hbgher In 1-Mile@ 

Note: N = 182 for metropolitan landfills and 99 for nonmetropolitan landfills. 

BN = 48 for metropolhn landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan landfills. 

bN = 134 for metropolitan landfills and 61 for nonmetropolitan landfills. 

Groundwater Landfills have the potential to release contaminated materials even if 

Contamination at Landfills 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-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and 

Landfill Charactutstics 

Again, we cross-tabulated these data with race. We found no statistically 

signiscant association between groundwater contamination and the race 

of the people living near metropolitan or nonmetropolitan landfills. These 

data are presented in figure VII.4. 

Figure Vll.4: landfills Where 

Percentage ol Minoritie8 or 

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile 

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest 

of Host County, Stratified by 

Groundwater Contamination 

Pwcwtage of Landfills 

100 

60 

60 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Har Been l Has Nat Been a Hew Been a Has Not Been a 

Source of Source of Source of Source of 

Qrcundwnter Groundwalsr Groundweier Groundwater 

Contaminetion Contamination Contamination Contamination 

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

1 1 Pet :. Mmorlty Is Higher In l-Miles 

Pet. Nonminor~ty Is Higher In 1-MileD 

Note: N = 171 for metropolitan landfills and 94 for nonmetropolitan landfills 

aN = 47 for metropolitan landfills and 37 for nonmetropolitan landfills. 

bN =124 for metropolitan landfills and 57 for nonmetropolitan landfills. 

Groundwater Monitoring 

at 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 landffl so that groundwater samples can be taken and 

Page 113 GAOIRCED-95-94 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 landftis, 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 landflls 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 
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and 

Landfill Characteristics 

Figure Wl.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 

Percentage of Landfills 

100 

90 

60 

70 

60 

Landfills Have 

Groundwater 

Monitorhg 

Landfilts Do Not 

Have 

Groundwater 

Monitoring 

Landfills Have 

Groundweier 

Monitoring 

LandfIlls Do Not 

Have 

Groundwater 

Moniloring 

Metropofitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills 

1 1 Pet .” Mlnonty Is Higher In I-Milea 

Pet. NonmInorIty Is Higher In I-Mlleb 

Note. N = 186 for metropolitan landfills and 100 for nonmetropolitan 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 MWAGEMENT 

Director, Environmental Protection Iesuee 

Resourcee , Community and Economic Development Division 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Wr. GuerrerO: 

I am replying to your letter of April 16, 1995, requesting 

that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review and 

officially comment on a General Accounting Office (GAO) draft 

report entitled m and Wo~&z -waste: 

Qf Peonls Li ina NMr mte Fw (GAO/RCED-95-84). We are 

grateful forvyou and your staff meeting with members 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. The text of the report leaves the reader rith tbo 

impreeeion that the Biting of rante faailitioe is thn primmy 

toaue of environmental juetioe. 

Since the focus of the GAO study is limited to issues 

related to non-hazardous municipal solid waste facilitiee 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 low-risk segment of the over 47,000 waste disposal 

sites in the country which 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 ju6tice issues, 

Page116 GAOIRCED-95-84DemographicsofPeopleNearWaeteFacilities 
AppendixVIII 

CommentsFromtheEnvironmentaI 

Protection Agency 

Now on p. 2. 

See comment 2. 

Now on p. 55. 

See comment 3. 

To correct this impression, we suggest that the report's 

Purpose section state that environmental justice concerns go 

beyond those relating to the location of waste facilities and the 

resulting exposure to pollutants from 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 issue6 such as concern over 

cumulative or multiple exposures to environmental hazards. 

The report's eguating of environmental justice to waste 

facilities also creates the impression on page 3 that Executive 

Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Kinority Populations and Low-Income Populations*, is limited to 

addressing issues raised in studies of wade 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 communities 

and low-income communities and to foster non-discrimination in 

Federal programs that substantially affect human haalth 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-incose populations. The Order is also 

intended to provide minority communities and low-income 

communities access to public information on, and an opportunity 

for public participation in, 

the environment. 

matters relating to human health or 

2. Desoription of Zxaoutive order 12898 

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 requirements of 

the Order. For example, on page 65, 

Order requires "Federal agencies, 

the report states that the 

whenever practicable and 

appropriate, to collect and analyze" demographic information vpfor 

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." 

Page117 GAOIRCED-96-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Environmental 

Protection Agency 

See comment 4. 

See comment 5. 

Now on p. 5 and pp. 

49-50. 

See comment 6. 

Page118 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 

3. Yothodology 

EPA continues to work on developing d8mographic datagathering and social statistical analyeie tools that can help 

identify and address environm8ntal juetice concerns. As noted 

in Chapter 111~0 reviaw of the methodological variations in other 

studies, it ~0Uld b8 premature t0 Suggest that the Study r8li88 

on an eStabliShed methodok?qy. 

4. Th8 report do88 Sot oWr8Utly oh8raoterire m sitieq 

end permitting proeaarmm 

The report do88 not clearly dietinguieh batween 

anvironmental justice ieeu8e related to the local land we 

process as compared to lacation standards. With regard to lend 

uS8, land areas are generally toned 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 RCEU facility 

(e-g., not in a flood plain, not on a fault line). The F8deral 

location standards do not control the local land uee process. 

The report, at page 6 and pages 56-57, should be clarified on 

th8S8 points. 

With regard to the witting process, th8 report euqqeete 

that no avenue exists pursuant to current Federal regulations for 

addressing environmental justice concerne. However, current EPA 

rcgulationli allow members of the public to comment on 

8nVirOnUtental jUStiC8 and Other iS8U8S related to proposed RCRA 

permitting actions. EPA then conriders all public comments prior 

t0 permit iS6UanCs, particularly those CormD8ntU With a nexus to 

the protection of human health. 

Thank you for providing the opportunity to cement on this 

draft report. I hop8 that this information assists in clarifying 

the issue6 for the final report. 

Sincerely, 

J&athan 2, Cannon 

Arisietant Administrator 

and Chief Financial Officer 
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. 

GAO’s Comments location of waste facilities and have revised the report to clarify this point, 

2. We have revised the report to reflect this information about the 

executive order. 

3. We have revised the report to include this clarification about the 

requirement in the executive order. 

4. We support EPA'S efforts in this area and agree there are limitations to 

existing methodologies. 

5. We have revised the report’s executive summary to include this 

information. We also believe that chapter 4 of the report makes it clear 

that local governments have a large role. 

6. We have revised the report to include this information about EPA'S 

regulations on public participation. 

Page 119 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
Appendix IX 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Resources, c 

Gerald E. Killian, Assistant Director 

Community, and 

Economic 

Development 

Allan Rogers, A&&ant Director 

Ross Campbell, Evaluator-in-Charge 

Larry D. Turman, Senior Evaluator 

Mitchell B. Kaqman, Senior Operations Research Analyst 

Division, Washington, Judy K. Pagano, Senior Operations Research Analyst 

D.C. Kelly S. Ervin, Social 

T 

ientist 

Phyllis Turner, Comm n&&ions Analyst 

(160205) Page I20 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities 
orderiiag Etiorlnatioa 

The first copy qf each GAO report and testimony is free. 

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the 

follc@tig address, accompanied by a cheek 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. 

U.S. General Accounting 0fXice 

P.O. Box 6015 

Gaithersbur& MD 20884-6016 

.or visit: 

Room 11.00 

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) 

U.S. GeneraI Accounting OfKce 

Washingtun, DC 

Orders may also be placid by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. 

Each day, GAO issues a ‘st of newly’available reports and 

testimony. To receive f f csimile copies of the daily list or any 

list from the past 30 dayi, please call (301) 258-4097 using a 

touchtone phone. A rec+rded menu wiU provide information on 

how to obtain thdse list&. 
United St&es 

General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20648-0001 

Bulk Mail 

Postage & Fees Paid 

GAO 

Address Correction Requested 

I Permit No. GlOO 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300