United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1995 HAZARDOUS AND

NONHAZARDOUS

WASTE

Demographics of People

Living Near Waste

Facilities

GAO/RCED-95-84

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-260041 

June 13, 1995

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable John Lewis

House of Representatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this report are listed in appendix IX.

Peter F. Guerrero

Director, Environmental

 Protection Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose Thousands of facilities in the nation generate or manage industrial,

commercial, and household waste and other pollutants that have the

potential to pose health threats to people exposed to them. Some

researchers have stated that racial minorities and low-income people

(1) are not adequately brought into the decision-making process for

selecting the sites of waste facilities, (2) are disproportionately exposed to

pollutants in their communities, and (3) may suffer disproportionate

health effects as a result of such exposure. The overall question of

whether the burden of waste facilities and environmental pollutants—such

as lead, selected air pollutants, and pesticides—is disproportionate among

groups of people and should be alleviated is known as “environmental

justice.”

At the request of the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee

on Governmental Affairs and Representative John Lewis, GAO reviewed

certain aspects of the environmental justice issue. Specifically, GAO was

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

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

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

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

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

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

environmental justice in its regulations on selecting the sites of waste

facilities and in requirements for public participation in decisions about

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

have been collected to measure the health effects of hazardous and

nonhazardous facilities on minorities and low-income people.

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

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

location of thousands of nonhazardous municipal landfills and facilities

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

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

has an opportunity to participate in the process for granting operating

permits to them. State and local governments also have regulatory

responsibilities, particularly in approving the sites for such facilities.

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

and the administration have begun to reexamine policies and practices

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

the President issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to

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.1

 The results of GAO’s analyses only apply to nonhazardous

municipal landfills and should not be extended to hazardous waste

facilities. GAO also summarized the findings and methodologies of 10

recent national or regional studies that focused primarily on the

demographics of people living near hazardous waste facilities.

Results in Brief GAO did not find that minorities2

 or low-income people were

overrepresented near a majority of the nonhazardous municipal landfills.

According to GAO’s nationwide sample of municipal landfills, less than half

of such landfills had a percentage of minorities or low-income people

living within 1 mile of the facility that was higher than the percentage in

the rest of the county.

The 10 studies that GAO summarized, which focused primarily on the

demographics of people living near hazardous waste facilities, had varied

conclusions. Some concluded that minorities and low-income people were

disproportionately found near waste facilities, while others did not. It is

difficult to generalize about the conclusions reached by the studies

because the authors examined different types of facilities and used

different methodologies and definitions of “racial minority.”

EPA’s limited requirements on where hazardous and nonhazardous waste

facilities may be located have not addressed environmental justice. EPA’s

current requirements for public participation in decisions also have not

addressed environmental justice, but the agency recently proposed

regulations in which it requested public comment on how to address this

issue.

GAO found that few data were available on the health effects of hazardous

and nonhazardous waste sites on minorities or low-income people.

1

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

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

2

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

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

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

data to the public.

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

Principal Findings

Minorities and

Low-Income People Were

Not Overrepresented Near

the Majority of

Nonhazardous Municipal

Landfills

Minorities and low-income people living near nonhazardous municipal

landfills were not generally overrepresented. On the basis of its

representative sample, GAO estimated that for 73 percent of the

metropolitan landfills and 63 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills, the

percentage of minorities living within 1 mile was lower than the

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

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

metropolitan and 52 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills had median

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

remainder of the county.

Demographic Studies on

Hazardous Waste Facilities

Have Yielded Varied

Results

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

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

near hazardous waste sites than nonminorities. Four studies showed either

that there was no significant association between the location of a waste

site and minority populations or that minorities were less likely to live

nearby. The three remaining studies each used more than one

methodology, and each yielded multiple conclusions as to whether a

disproportionate percentage of minorities lived near the facilities.

Seven of the 10 studies also reviewed economic factors. Three of the seven

concluded that the incomes of people living near hazardous waste

facilities were lower than the incomes of people living farther away. Two

studies presented data showing that the incomes of people living near

facilities were not significantly different from the incomes of people in the

comparison area. The two remaining studies each reported multiple

conclusions depending on the methodology used.

The varied results of the studies could have been influenced by the fact

that they examined a variety of types of facilities, were intended to answer

different research questions, and used different sample sizes and methods.

An important limitation of these studies, as well as with GAO’s study of

nonhazardous municipal landfills, is the assumption that proximity to a

facility correlates to potential health risks. This assumption may not

always hold true at specific locations.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Executive Summary

Federal Regulations Have

Not Focused on

Environmental Justice

Current federal regulations require that hazardous and nonhazardous

waste facilities be located in a protective setting (e.g., not in a floodplain

or fault zone) but do not consider the demographics of the people living

near the proposed facilities. Local government zoning laws are more likely

to influence the proximity of pollution sources to people by regulating

local land use.

While the public may comment to EPA on environmental justice issues

during the process for issuing operating permits for hazardous and

nonhazardous facilities, EPA’s public participation requirements do not

specify that environmental justice be addressed. EPA’s process for issuing

permits generally begins after a site has been approved by state or local

governments. In 1994, EPA proposed new regulations that would require

applicants for operating permits for hazardous waste facilities to notify the

public before submitting the application to EPA and to conduct an informal

public meeting. The proposal also asks for public comment on how EPA

can address environmental justice in the context of public participation in

decisions about hazardous waste facilities.

Few Data Have Been

Collected on the Health

Impacts of Facilities on

Minorities or Low-Income

People

EPA estimates that many hundreds of nonhazardous municipal landfills and

hazardous waste facilities have contaminated the groundwater, soil, and

air, thereby potentially exposing people to harmful chemicals. EPA’s risk

models, however, project low rates of additional deaths from cancer as a

result of exposure to these facilities.

Few data exist to document harmful health effects of exposure to

hazardous or nonhazardous waste facilities, and virtually no work has

been done to document disproportionate health effects on minorities or

low-income people. The 1994 executive order on environmental justice

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

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

people—are represented in research on health and the environment. EPA’s

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

Recommendations GAO is making no recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments 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 5 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Executive Summary

clear that environmental justice relates to a broader set of issues. GAO

agrees that environmental justice involves broader issues and has further

clarified the report on this point. EPA suggested that GAO clarify its

discussion of the requirement in the 1994 executive order that federal

agencies collect demographic data for areas around certain facilities and

sites. GAO has made this clarification. EPA also suggested that GAO clarify

the federal, state, and local roles in the process for selecting sites and

granting permits to RCRA facilities. GAO has emphasized the roles of the

various government agencies in the report as appropriate. The full text of

EPA’s comments and GAO’s responses to them are provided in appendix

VIII.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Page 7 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

14

Environmental Justice—An Evolving Issue 14

EPA’s Efforts to Address Environmental Justice 15

Executive Order Directs Federal Agencies to Develop

Environmental Justice Strategies

16

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 16

Agency Comments 19

Chapter 2 

Minorities and

Low-Income People

Were Not

Disproportionately

Represented Near the

Majority of

Nonhazardous

Municipal Landfills

20

Populations Near Municipal Landfills Were More Likely to Have a

Higher Percentage of Nonminorities Than Rest of County

21

Incomes Near Municipal Landfills Were Higher Than Incomes in

Rest of County as Often as They Were Lower

27

Chapter 3 

Past Environmental

Justice Studies of

Waste Facilities Have

Yielded Varied

Conclusions

33

Studies of Hazardous Waste Sites Have Yielded Varied Results 34

Different Study Questions and Methodologies Used May Have

Led to Varied Results

41

Direct Comparison Between Results of Our Study and Others Is

Difficult

45

Attempts to Examine Trends Over Time 46

Observations 47

Page 8 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Contents

Chapter 4 

EPA’s Regulations for

Site Selection and

Public Participation

Have Not Addressed

Environmental

Justice, but Changes

Are Being Considered

49

EPA’s Siting Standards for Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste

Facilities

49

EPA’s Current Regulations on Public Participation 52

Chapter 5 

Data on Health

Effects of Waste

Facilities on

Minorities and

Low-Income People

56

Federal Efforts to Determine Health Effects of Waste Facilities

on Minorities and Low-Income People

56

Demographic Conditions and Risk-Related Characteristics at

Municipal Landfills in Our Survey

58

EPA’s Attempts to Assess Health Risk of Nonhazardous and

Hazardous Waste Facilities on General Population

59

Appendixes Appendix I: Methodology for Analysis of Municipal Landfills 62

Appendix II: Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

Surveyed

70

Appendix III: People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were Likely

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

County

72

Appendix IV: Relative Differences Between People Within 1 Mile

of Landfills and in Rest of County

78

Appendix V: Cross-Tabulations of Income and Poverty Rate of

People Within 1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County, by Race

88

Appendix VI: Results From GAO’s Survey on Public Participation

at Municipal Landfills

103

Appendix VII: Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

106

Appendix VIII: Comments From the Environmental Protection

Agency

116

Appendix IX: Major Contributors to This Report 120

Tables Table 3.1: Summary of Conclusions of Demographic Studies 34

Page 9 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Contents

Table I.1: Response Rate for Survey of Municipal Landfills 64

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

Sizes of Metropolitan Landfills

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

22

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

23

Figure 2.3: Degree of Difference Between People Living Within 1

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

Race

25

Figure 2.4: Degree of Difference Between People Living Within 1

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

Race

26

Figure 2.5: Median Household Income Within 1 Mile of

Metropolitan Landfills Compared With Income in Rest of Host

County or Nation

28

Figure 2.6: Median Household Income Within 1 Mile of

Nonmetropolitan Landfills Compared With Income in Rest of

Host County or Nation

29

Figure 2.7: Degree of Difference Between Median Household

Income Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and Income in

Rest of Host County

30

Figure 2.8: Degree of Difference Between Median Household

Income Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills and Income in

Rest of Host County

31

Figure 3.1: Illustrative Example of Different Boundary Areas

Used in Demographic Studies

43

Figure I.1: Illustration of a County Boundary With a Municipal

Landfill and 1- and 3-Mile Areas

66

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

Compared With Rate in Rest of Host County or Nation

74

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

Landfills Compared With Rate in Rest of Host County or Nation

75

Figure III.3: Degree of Difference Between Poverty Rate Within 1

Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest of Host County

76

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

Figure III.4: Degree of Difference Between Poverty Rate Within 1

Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest of Host

County

77

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

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

79

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

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County

81

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

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County

82

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

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County

83

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

Metropolitan Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County

84

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

Nonmetropolitan Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County

85

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

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County

86

Figure IV.8: Poverty Rate of People Within 1 Mile of

Nonmetropolitan Landfills Relative to Rest of Host County

87

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

90

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

91

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

92

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

93

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

94

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

95

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

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 Landfills and in Rest of

Host County, by Race

98

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

Living Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host

County, by Race

99

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

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

101

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

Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills and in Rest of Host

County, by Race

102

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

108

Figure VII.2: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage

in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Presence of Lined Waste

Cells

110

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

112

Figure VII.4: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage

in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Groundwater Contamination

113

Figure VII.5: Landfills Where Percentage of Minorities or

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile Was Higher Than Percentage

in Rest of Host County, Stratified by Presence of Groundwater

Monitoring

115

Page 12 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Contents

Abbreviations

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act of 1980

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NPL National Priorities List

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

USGS United States Geological Survey

Page 13 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 1983,1

 we reported

that for three of the four landfills surveyed, African Americans made up

the majority of the population living nearby. In addition, at least 26 percent

of the population in all four communities was below the poverty level.

In 1987, the United Church of Christ published a nationwide study of the

association between hazardous waste facilities and the

racial/socioeconomic composition of the communities hosting such

facilities. The study, Toxic Waste and Race in the United States, reported

that race was the most significant factor among the variables tested in

association with the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities

regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The

study found that the communities with the greater number of commercial

hazardous waste facilities had the highest percentages of racial and ethnic

minorities as residents. According to the study, while the economic status

(measured by household income and housing values) of residents in the

host communities appeared to play an important role in the location of

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

be more significant.

1

Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation With Racial and Economic Status of

Surrounding Communities (GAO/RCED-83-168, June 1, 1983).

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

Introduction

EPA’s Efforts to

Address

Environmental Justice

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

Environmental Equity Workgroup to review whether racial minorities and

low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of environmental risk

and to develop recommendations accordingly. In June 1992, the

workgroup issued its final report: Environmental Equity: Reducing Risk

for All Communities. The group concluded that racial minorities and

low-income people were disproportionately exposed to lead, selected air

pollutants, hazardous waste facilities, contaminated fish, and agricultural

pesticides in the workplace. EPA’s report stated that the information

available on the environmental risk was limited but outlined an agenda for

EPA to help better define the problem.

Among its recommendations, the report said that EPA should establish

mechanisms, along with the necessary staff and resources, to help ensure

that concerns about environmental justice are incorporated into the

agency’s long-term planning and operations. To this end, in

November 1992 EPA established an Office of Environmental Equity, which

was renamed the Office of Environmental Justice in 1994. The office

serves as the agency’s point of contact for outreach, technical assistance,

and information on environmental pollution affecting racial minorities and

low-income communities. Complementing the activities of the Office of

Environmental Justice are (1) an Executive Steering Committee, (2) a

Policy Working Group, and (3) a core of environmental justice

coordinators in program offices in EPA’s headquarters and in all regional

offices. The Executive Steering Committee, made up of deputy assistant

administrators and deputy regional administrators, is to provide direction

on strategic planning to ensure that environmental justice is incorporated

into the agency’s operations. The Policy Working Group’s objective is to

ensure policy development and coordination of environmental justice

projects across the agency’s program offices. Environmental justice

coordinators are to provide education and information about

environmental justice in their offices and regions. EPA has also established

the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, under the authority

of the Federal Advisory Council Act, to advise the Administrator of EPA on

environmental justice issues.

Many of EPA’s offices and regions are developing action plans for

environmental justice, conducting conferences and workshops, and

undertaking research on this issue. For example, in April 1994 EPA’s Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response issued a task force report on

environmental justice addressing how hazardous and solid waste

Page 15 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 1 

Introduction

management programs in EPA could better address the concerns of

minorities and/or low-income people.

Executive Order

Directs Federal

Agencies to Develop

Environmental Justice

Strategies

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

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations

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

federal agencies to develop a comprehensive strategy for making

environmental justice a part of their decision-making and operations.

The order applies to specified federal agencies and others designated by

the President that conduct any federal program or activity that

substantially affects human health or the environment. These activities are

as diverse as removing lead from public housing, controlling pollution in

urban rivers, licensing hazardous waste incinerators, and regulating farm

workers’ exposure to pesticides.

The order established an Interagency Working Group on Environmental

Justice composed of the heads of various federal agencies. The working

group is charged with, among other things, providing guidance to agencies

on identifying environmental justice problems; working with agencies to

develop strategies to ensure environmental justice; and coordinating

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

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

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

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

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

projects.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

At the request of the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee

on Governmental Affairs and Representative John Lewis, we agreed to

obtain information on the demographics of people living near waste

facilities. In discussions with the requesters’ offices, we agreed to provide

the following:

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

a nationwide sample of nonhazardous municipal solid waste landfills;

• a summary of the results of other studies conducted by EPA, industry, and

academia on the demographics of people living near waste facilities,

primarily ones for hazardous waste;

Page 16 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 1 

Introduction

• information on the extent to which EPA addresses environmental justice in

its requirements for selecting sites and soliciting public participation in the

process of building solid and hazardous waste facilities; and

• information on the data that have been collected on the potential health

effects of solid and hazardous waste facilities on minorities and

low-income people living nearby.

To obtain general information about the nation’s municipal solid waste

landfills and make national estimates about this information, we

conducted a survey of 500 metropolitan and 500 nonmetropolitan landfills.

We received 791 responses, of which 623 were usable. Most of the

responses we could not use were from landfills that did not meet our

criteria of being nonfederal municipal landfills that were open during 1992.

We received the majority of the responses in early 1994. More details on

how we conducted this survey are included in appendix I, and details of

some of the general information we collected are in appendix II.

To specifically address the first objective on the racial and income

characteristics of people living near nonhazardous municipal solid waste

landfills, we added several questions to the original survey for a subsample

of 300 metropolitan and 150 nonmetropolitan landfills to determine their

location. The subsample was taken to provide a manageable workload

that, because of our sample design, would allow us to make national

estimates about the characteristics of people living near metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills as compared with those residing in the rest of

the county. We received responses from 259 metropolitan and 124

nonmetropolitan landfills, of which 190 and 105 were usable because they

fit our criteria of being nonfederal facilities that had accepted municipal

waste and were operating in 1992. Using a geographic information system

computer program in conjunction with 1990 data from the U.S. Bureau of

the Census, we collected data on the racial2

 and income characteristics of

people living within 1 and 3 miles of the 295 landfills and compared these

with the characteristics of people living in the rest of the county as a

whole.3

 This comparison enabled us to determine whether minorities

and/or poor people are more or less likely than nonminorities and/or

higher-income people to live near nonhazardous municipal landfills. A

2

In our analysis of race, “nonminorities” includes all whites not of Hispanic origin and “minorities”

includes all others. In our analysis of income and poverty status, “minorities” excludes whites of

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

data to the public.

3

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

comparable to those of our 1-mile analysis and are not included in this report.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 1 

Introduction

more detailed summary of our approach and methodology for this

objective is contained in appendix I.

To address the second objective of summarizing studies done by others,

primarily on the demographics of people living near hazardous waste

facilities, we undertook a literature search to identify relevant studies on

the extent to which racial minorities or poor people are more likely than

nonminorities or higher-income people to have waste facilities in their

communities. We limited our search to studies of either a national or

regional scope that had been conducted since 1986 on nonhazardous and

hazardous waste disposal, treatment, or storage facilities. We identified 10

studies of hazardous waste facilities that met our criteria. These studies

had been conducted by EPA, academia, advocacy organizations, and

industry. Only 2 of the 10 studies also addressed nonhazardous waste

facilities. We summarized the results and conclusions that the authors

presented and the methodologies and assumptions they used to conduct

their analyses. A summary of the studies is contained in chapter 3. An

expanded version of our summaries is contained in our report entitled 10

Studies on Demographics Near Waste Facilities (GAO/RCED-95-158R, June 13,

1995).

To address the third objective on the extent to which EPA addresses

environmental justice in its siting and public participation requirements,

we reviewed the relevant policies, regulations, and guidance for the RCRA

program that outline the requirements with which owner/operators of

municipal and hazardous waste facilities must comply in order to

construct and operate their facilities. We also reviewed the requirements

for public participation outlined in the February 1994 executive order on

environmental justice and a rule proposed by EPA in June 1994 on public

participation. In addition, we examined a 1994 study conducted on behalf

of EPA on the states’ regulations for siting hazardous waste facilities.

For the fourth objective concerning efforts to assess the potential health

effects of living near municipal and hazardous waste facilities, we

reviewed relevant literature and interviewed officials at EPA and the

Department of Health and Human Services. Under the executive order on

environmental justice, EPA and the Department of Health and Human

Services share a large part of the responsibility for research on the

relationship between the environment and human health. Among other

information, we reviewed the detailed data on health that EPA uses to

support its current regulations for regulating municipal and hazardous

waste facilities.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 1-mile areas

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

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

groundwater monitoring. The purpose was to determine whether or not

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

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

appendix VII.

We conducted our review between February 1993 and March 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

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 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

We found that the percentage of minorities and low-income people living

within 1 mile of nonhazardous municipal landfills was more often lower

than the percentage in the rest of the county. When the data from our

sample were used to make estimates about all nonhazardous municipal

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

overrepresented near landfills in any consistent manner.

We compared the percentage of minorities and nonminorities living within

1 mile of municipal landfills with the percentage in the rest of the county

and the nation. We also examined the difference between the median

household incomes of the people within 1 mile and the people in the rest

of the county and the nation.1

 If minorities or low-income people were

subject to environmental inequity, the comparisons should show more

municipal landfills with a higher percentage of minorities or low-income

people living nearby than were living in the rest of the county. Again, this

was not the case.

We conducted similar analyses of the populations within 3 miles of the

landfills and arrived at results that were comparable to the results for the

1-mile area. Consequently, the data for people living within 3 miles are not

included in this report.

The data presented in this chapter describe the populations within 1 mile

of one type of waste facility—nonhazardous waste municipal landfills.

These data provide information only about populations near that type of

facility. Nonhazardous municipal landfills are typically owned and

operated by local governments, although a substantial number are owned

by private companies. The majority of the waste sent to these facilities is

household and commercial garbage and nonhazardous industrial waste.

Despite the use of the term “nonhazardous” to describe these landfills, a

small amount of hazardous waste from households and industry can be

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

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

how landfills are designed and constructed have become more protective.

EPA regulations promulgated in 1993 require that newly built municipal

landfills have liners, leachate2

 collection systems, and groundwater

1

In addition, we examined (1) the poverty rates of people living within 1 mile of landfills, (2) the

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

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

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

2

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

through a landfill. It may be released into groundwater unless it is captured by a collection system. It

may also be contaminated with hazardous substances leached from the waste.

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 Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal

Landfills

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

designed to minimize the release of leachate.

Populations Near

Municipal Landfills

Were More Likely to

Have a Higher

Percentage of

Nonminorities Than

Rest of County

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

of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan municipal landfills, compared with

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

 The

populations near landfills often had a higher percentage of nonminorities

than the rest of the county in which the landfill is located (hereafter

referred to as the host county). Furthermore, we found very little

difference between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in terms of

the racial composition of the people living near landfills relative to the

people in the rest of the county.

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show how often the percentage of minorities and

nonminorities living within 1 mile of the metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills was higher than the percentage of minorities and

nonminorities in the rest of the county and the nation. As these figures

show, the percentage of nonminorities living near both metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills was generally higher than the percentage living

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

minorities was lower more often than not.

3

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

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

Page 21 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

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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nonminorities

Minorities

Nonminorities

Minorities

73

27

82

18

Compared With

Host County

Compared With

National

Averagea

Note: N = 190.

aThe 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-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

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

landfills had a percentage of minorities living nearby that was higher than

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

nonmetropolitan landfills had a percentage of minorities living nearby that

was higher than the percentage of minorities in nonmetropolitan areas

nationwide.

Figure 2.2: Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Where Percentage of Minorities and

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest

of Host County or Nation

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nonminorities

Minorities

Nonminorities

Minorities

63

37

68

32

Compared With

Host County

Compared With

National

Averagea

Note: N = 105.

aThe national average for nonmetropolitan areas is 85.1 percent nonminority.

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

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

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

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

Minorities and Low-Income People Were

Not Disproportionately Represented Near

the Majority of Nonhazardous Municipal

Landfills

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

significantly lower than it was in the host county.4

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

nonminorities living near a landfill differed from the percentage of these

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

62 percent of metropolitan landfills, the difference between both the

minority and nonminority populations in the 1-mile area and the rest of the

county was not significant (less than 10 percent). As the figure also shows,

there were few landfills—about 13 percent—where the percentage of

minorities living within 1 mile was significantly higher than it was in the

host county.

4

For 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

Not 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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

13

62

25 25

62

13

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 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more than the percentage in the rest of

the host county.

As figure 2.4 shows, for nonmetropolitan landfills, an even larger

percentage—over 70—showed a difference in racial makeup of less than

10 percent when compared with the host county. And even fewer of these

nonmetropolitan landfills—about 9 percent—had a significantly higher

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

Page 25 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 2 

Minorities and Low-Income People Were

Not Disproportionately Represented Near

the Majority 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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

9

74

17 17

74

9

Comparison of

Nonminorities

Comparison of

Minorities

Note: N = 105.

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 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more than the percentage in the rest of

the host county.

Two examples of specific landfills help to illustrate the figures above. One

landfill that fell in the middle category (where the percentage of

nonminorities was not significantly different than the nonminority

population in the rest of the county; in other words, within 10 percent

more or less than the rest of the county) is in a metropolitan area in a

northeastern county with over 330,000 people. The population in the

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

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

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

significant racial difference. While the population in the 1-mile area around

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

majority of the landfills had larger percentages of nonminorities living

within 1 mile than lived in the rest of the county. However, the degree to

which this was true differed from region to region. For example, in the

Northeast, 81 percent of metropolitan and 53 percent of nonmetropolitan

landfills had higher percentages of nonminorities living within 1 mile than

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

metropolitan and 61 percent of nonmetropolitan landfills had higher

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

the county.5

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 the county and the nation.

These figures show that in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas,

the people near landfills had median household incomes that were higher

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

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

as likely to have median household incomes higher than the national

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

nonmetropolitan landfills were more likely to have incomes lower than the

national median for nonmetropolitan areas.

5

We defined the four regions on the basis of EPA’s regions. The Northeast included the states in EPA’s

Regions I, II, and III. The South/Southwest included the states in EPA’s Regions IV and VI. The

Midwest included the states in EPA’s Regions V, VII, and VIII. The West included the states in EPA’s

Regions IX and X. The number of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills in the four regions were

as follow: Northeast, 67 metropolitan and 17 nonmetropolitan landfills; South/Southwest, 60 and 36;

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

Page 27 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

Figure 2.5: Median Household Income

Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills

Compared With Income in Rest of Host

County or Nation

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Where

Income

Is

Higher

Percent

Where

Income

Is

Lower

Percent

Where

Income

Is

Higher

Percent

Where

Income

Is

Lower

54

46

54

46

Compared With

Host County

Compared With

National

Mediana

Note: N = 190.

aThe national median for metropolitan areas is $32,086.

Page 28 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

Figure 2.6: Median Household Income

Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan

Landfills Compared With Income in

Rest of Host County or Nation

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Where

Income

Is

Higher

Percent

Where

Income

Is

Lower

Percent

Where

Income

Is

Higher

Percent

Where

Income

Is

Lower

52

48

35

65

Compared With

Host County

Compared With

National

Mediana

Note: N = 105.

aThe national median for nonmetropolitan areas is $23,075.

Figures 2.7 and 2.8 show the degree of difference between the median

incomes of the people living within 1 mile of landfills and the incomes of

people in the rest of the county. The people near nonmetropolitan landfills

were less likely to have median household incomes that differed

significantly from incomes in the rest of the county than were those living

near metropolitan landfills. As figure 2.7 shows, the incomes of the people

living near metropolitan landfills were significantly lower than those of the

people in the rest of the county about 21 percent of the time and

significantly higher about 31 percent of the time.6

 Meanwhile, as figure 2.8

shows, the incomes of the people living near nonmetropolitan landfills

were significantly lower than those of the people in the rest of the county

9 percent of the time and significantly higher 22 percent of the time.

6

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

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

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

Page 29 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

Figure 2.7: Degree of Difference

Between Median Household Income

Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills

and Income in Rest of Host County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Median Income Is

Significantly Lessa

Median Income Is Not Significantly Different

Median Income Is

Significantly Moreb

21

48

31

Note: N = 190.

aThe median household income of the people in the 1-mile area was at least $5,000 less than the

median household income in the rest of the host county.

bThe median household income of the people in the 1-mile area was at least $5,000 more than the

median household income in the rest of the host county.

Page 30 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Median Income Is

Significantly Lessa

Median Income Is Not Significantly Different

Median Income Is

Significantly Moreb

9

70

22

Note 1: N = 105.

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

aThe median household income of the people in the 1-mile area was at least $5,000 less than the

median household income in the rest of the host county.

bThe median household income of the people in the 1-mile area was at least $5,000 more than the

median household income in the rest of the host county.

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

status, poverty rates—whether a person’s income is below the national

definition of poverty7

—is another indicator. In our survey, we found that

the people living near municipal landfills were not likely to have higher

poverty rates than the people in the rest of the county. The data from this

analysis are presented in appendix III.

7

“Poverty” is defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as an individual or family income below a

certain amount. In 1990, this amount, known as the poverty line, was $6,310 for an individual and

$12,674 for a nonfarm family of four. In our analysis, we used the census data for individuals below the

poverty line.

Page 31 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

We also examined the median income and poverty status of the people

living near landfills by race. Our data did not indicate that either

low-income minorities or low-income nonminorities living near landfills

were disadvantaged relative to minorities and nonminorities living in the

rest of the county. These data are presented in appendix V.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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.1 The studies varied

in their conclusions regarding whether minorities or low-income people

have a disproportionate number of waste facilities in their communities.

For example, while several of the studies concluded that minorities or

low-income people bear a disproportionate burden, others concluded that

they do not. Some studies, depending on the type of analyses conducted,

had mixed results regarding whether minorities or low-income people

were disproportionately burdened by the presence of waste facilities in

their communities. An expanded version of our summaries is contained in

our report entitled 10 Studies on Demographics Near Waste Facilities

(GAO/RCED-95-158R, June 13, 1995).

The variety of methodologies used in the studies appears to have

influenced their results. The researchers focused on different types of

facilities, including landfills, incinerators, storage, and treatment sites. In

addition, the researchers applied different definitions of minorities and of

the affected area around the facilities.

None of the 10 studies—nor our work with nonhazardous

landfills—accounted for changes that may have occurred in the

demographics around the facilities between the time the facilities were

sited and the period that the studies addressed. Specifically, they did not

address whether the presence of the facility contributed to current

residential patterns around it. While it is important to determine the

current demographic condition around waste facilities, it is also important,

when addressing environmental justice issues, to know the conditions at

the time the facilities were built and how they have changed over time.

Generally, these studies, as well as our own analysis of nonhazardous

landfills, each focused on one category of facility and did not attempt to

account for the cumulative effects of all types of pollution sources within

particular communities. Such an analysis could provide a more complete

picture of the burden of pollution sources imposed on various

demographic groups, including minorities or low-income people.

1

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

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

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

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

facilities or sites.

Page 33 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions

Studies of Hazardous

Waste Sites Have

Yielded Varied Results

All 10 studies that we summarized examined demographic conditions

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

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

examined facilities that handle nonhazardous waste.

It is difficult to generalize about the conclusions drawn by the studies

because the authors examined different universes and used different

methodologies and definitions of “racial minority.”2

 Table 3.1 summarizes

the main conclusions of these 10 studies. In the case of the studies done

for EPA on 35 commercial hazardous waste landfills and 41 cement plants,

we derived our own conclusions from the data gathered for the studies

because the agency did not draw its own conclusions.

Table 3.1: Summary of Conclusions of Demographic Studies

Main conclusions

Study’s author and date

Number and type(s) of

facilities Sponsor Race/ethnicity Income

United Church of Christ

Commission for Racial

Justice and Public Data

Access, Inc.,

1987

415 RCRAa commercial

hazardous waste

facilities and 18,164

CERCLAb “uncontrolled”

toxic waste sites

United Church of Christ

Commission for Racial

Justice

ZIP codes where

facilities were located

were more likely to have

higher minority

populationsc;

race/ethnicity was a

stronger indicator of

proximity to waste

facilities than income.

ZIP codes where

facilities were located

were more likely to have

populations with lower

incomes.

Claritas, Inc. for Waste

Management, Inc., 1992

132 RCRA hazardous

and nonhazardous waste

facilities operated by

Waste Management, Inc.

Waste Management, Inc. Most ZIP codes where

facilities were located

had a lower percentage

of minoritiesc than the

host state.

Not studied.

E.B. Attah for EPA’s

Region IV, 1992

4,855 CERCLA

hazardous waste sites

EPA and Clark Atlanta

University

At the county level, the

study found no

relationship between the

number of sites and the

percentage of

minorities.d At the census

tracte level, the average

number of CERCLA sites

increased as the

percentage of minorities

increased.

Not studied.

(continued)

2

In these summaries, we use the terms used by the studies’ authors to identify population groups.

Page 34 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions

Main conclusions

Study’s author and date

Number and type(s) of

facilities Sponsor Race/ethnicity Income

ViGYAN, Inc., for EPA,

1992

35 RCRA commercial

hazardous waste landfills

EPA In the majority of cases,

the percentages of

blacks and Hispanicsf

living near landfills were

equal to or less than the

percentages of blacks

and Hispanics living in

the surrounding county.

(GAO’s conclusions

based on EPA’s data.)

Not studied.

John A. Hird, 1993 788 Superfund sitesf University of

Massachusetts-Amherst

Counties with more

minoritiesd had more

Superfund sites when

other socioeconomic

factors were held

constant.

No link was found

between poorer counties

and the number of

Superfund sites they

contained.

Rae Zimmerman, 1993 814 Superfund sites EPA and New York

University

When the author used

unweighted averages,

the percentages of

blacks and Hispanicsh in

Superfund communities

were lower than they

were in the nation. When

averages were weighted

to take into account the

communities’ population,

blacks and Hispanics

were found to be more

prevalent in Superfund

communities than is

typical of the nation.

When the author used

unweighted averages,

the poverty rate in

Superfund communities

was comparable to that

in the nation. On a

weighted basis, the

poverty rate in Superfund

communities was slightly

higher but still

comparable to that in the

nation. The association of

poverty with location was

less pronounced than

that of race/ethnicity.

Center for Policy

Alternatives,

1994 (update of United

Church of Christ study)

530 RCRA commercial

hazardous waste facilities

National Association for

the Advancement of

Colored People and

United Church of Christ

Commission for Racial

Justice

Minority populationsc in

1993 were more likely to

live in ZIP codes where

facilities are located than

they were in 1980;

race/ethnicity was still a

stronger indicator of

proximity to a facility than

income.

ZIP codes where

facilities were located

were more likely to have

populations with lower

incomes.

Social and Demographic

Research Institute,

University of

Massachusetts-Amherst,

1994

454 RCRA commercial

hazardous waste facilities

Waste Management,

Inc., and the Institute for

Chemical Waste

Management

Using three different

geographic study areas

in metropolitan areas, the

authors concluded that

there was no consistent

national-level association

between the location of

facilities and the

percentage of blacks

and Hispanicsh living

nearby.

Using three different

geographic study areas

in metropolitan areas, the

authors concluded that

there was no consistent

national-level association

between the location of

facilities and the

percentage of

low-income people living

nearby.

(continued)

Page 35 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions

Main conclusions

Study’s author and date

Number and type(s) of

facilities Sponsor Race/ethnicity Income

Rae Zimmerman, for EPA’s

Region II, 1994

210 Superfund sites EPA Within 1 mile of the sites,

the weighted and

unweighted mean and

median percentages for

minority populationsf

were below or about the

same as the proportions

in the state.

Rents and housing

values were used as a

proxy for income. Values

within 1-mile area were

lower than state

averages.

ICF Inc., and ViGYAN Inc.,

for EPA, 1994

41 cement plants,

including 29 that burned

hazardous waste as fuel

and 12 that did not.

EPA The percentage of

minoritiesc within 1 and 5

miles of the plants was

greater about as often as

it was less than the

percentage of minorities

in the host county.

(GAO’s conclusion

based on EPA’s data.)

The percentage of

people below the poverty

line within 1 and 5 miles

of the plants was greater

about as often as it was

less than the poverty rate

for the host county.

(GAO’s conclusion

based on EPA’s data.)

aRCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, which regulates

the generation, storage, treatment, disposal, and transportation of hazardous and, to some extent,

nonhazardous solid waste.

bCERCLA is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980, as amended, also known as Superfund. CERCLA “uncontrolled” hazardous waste sites

refers to sites that have been listed by EPA as needing an assessment to determine whether they

are serious enough to be placed on the National Priorities List for cleanup under CERCLA.

cIn this study, minority populations are defined as including persons of Hispanic origin and

blacks, American Indians, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Eskimos and Aleuts, and others that are

nonwhite and not of Hispanic origin. No double counting of persons of Hispanic origin and racial

minorities occurs.

dIn this study, only race was analyzed. People of Hispanic origin were not analyzed.

eThe Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census defines census tracts as small, locally

defined statistical areas in metropolitan areas and some counties. They generally have stable

boundaries and an average population of 4,000.

f

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

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

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

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

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

hIn this study, only people of Hispanic origin and blacks were analyzed. Also, because people of

Hispanic origin were analyzed independently of blacks, Hispanics may be included in the data

shown for blacks to some extent.

Page 36 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 percentage of blacks and

Hispanics living nearby. The study found one variable for which there was

a strong, consistent, and often significant association with the location of a

facility. This variable was the concentration of people who worked in

manufacturing occupations in the census tract.

Page 37 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions

The University of Massachusetts-Amherst group examined race and

ethnicity near RCRA hazardous waste facilities in metropolitan areas. The

study contained several analyses using geographic study areas of varying

distances. The authors reported, for example, that the percentage of

blacks in census tracts where facilities are located was about the same

(14.5 percent) as it was in the remaining census tracts with no facilities

(15.2 percent). The percentage of Hispanics in tracts with facilities was

9.4 percent compared with 7.7 percent for tracts without facilities;

however, the difference was considered only marginally significant. In

contrast, when the tracts containing facilities were defined to include

areas within 2.5 miles of the sites and then compared with all the

remaining tracts without facilities in metropolitan areas, the results

changed dramatically. For the census tracts encompassed within 2.5 miles

of the facilities, the authors found the percentages of blacks (24.7 percent)

and Hispanics (10.7 percent) were significantly higher than the

13.6 percent for blacks and 7.3 percent for Hispanics residing in the tracts

without facilities. The authors concluded that their analyses showed no

consistent national-level association between the location of commercial

hazardous waste facilities and the percentage of blacks and Hispanics

residing nearby.

Waste Management, Inc., and EPA also studied samples of RCRA commercial

hazardous waste facilities. Waste Management analyzed 132 of its

facilities, which included about 30 commercial hazardous waste facilities.

EPA commissioned a study on the universe of 35 commercial hazardous

waste landfills. Waste Management concluded that the ZIP codes in which

its facilities (for both hazardous and nonhazardous waste) are located had

lower percentages of minorities than the host state about 75 percent of the

time. EPA did not draw conclusions from the study conducted for the

agency by ViGYAN Inc., which compared populations within 1/2 mile to 5

miles of the facilities with populations in the host county. We reviewed

EPA’s analyses of the study’s data and concluded that in the majority of the

cases, the data showed that the percentages of blacks and Hispanics living

near the landfills were equal to or less than the percentages in the county.

One of the three studies that examined sites on the Superfund National

Priorities List concluded that minorities were more likely to live nearby.

John Hird’s 1993 study concluded that counties with higher concentrations

of minorities had more Superfund sites when factors such as median

housing value, poverty levels, and unemployment rates were held constant

to remove them from the analysis. Rae Zimmerman’s 1993 study was

Page 38 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions

divided on the issue. Using a simple unweighted analysis,3 the author

concluded that the percentages of blacks and Hispanics in Superfund

communities were lower than those in the nation. However, Zimmerman

reported that when weighted averages were used to take into account the

communities’ population level, blacks and Hispanics were more prevalent

in Superfund communities than they were in the nation. The study

conducted for EPA’s Region II in 1994 found the weighted or unweighted

mean and median percentages to be below or about the same for minority

populations living within 1 mile of Superfund sites as they were in the

state(s).

Several of the studies also covered CERCLA sites—those that EPA identified

as needing an evaluation to determine whether they should be placed on

the National Priorities List and cleaned up under the Superfund program.

The United Church of Christ reported that blacks were heavily

overrepresented in the populations of the six metropolitan areas with the

most CERCLA sites. EPA’s Region IV reported that at the census-tract level,

the average number of CERCLA sites increased as the percentage of

minorities increased but that at the county level, there was no relationship

between the number of sites and the percentage of minorities.

Studies That Examined

Income Levels Showed

Varied Results

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

3

An unweighted analysis counts each community the same even though one community might have a

population of 1,000 and another a population of 10,000. A weighted analysis would account for such

population differences.

Page 39 GAO/RCED-95-84 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 Superfund sites in New York and New Jersey and

found that the characteristics of house value and rent (used as proxies for

income) were lower within 1 mile of the sites than these characteristics

across the state.

In contrast, other studies concluded that poverty levels were lower or not

significantly different near facilities. For example, Hird examined

Superfund sites, using the host county as the study area. According to this

study, no statistical link existed between poorer counties and the number

of Superfund sites they contained. The results indicated that more

economically advantaged counties (in terms of both wealth and the

absence of poverty) were likely to have more Superfund sites. A higher

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

larger number of Superfund sites, while higher poverty levels were

significantly associated with fewer such sites.

Rae Zimmerman and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst study found

mixed results in terms of economic factors. Zimmerman examined the

locations of 814 Superfund sites in 622 communities across the country

and concluded that the unweighted mean percentage of people below the

poverty level was slightly lower than but comparable to that of the nation.

In contrast, when weighted averages were used, she concluded that

14 percent of the people in all of the study areas were living below the

poverty level. This percentage was somewhat higher than the national

average, which at that time was 12.4 percent. However, Zimmerman did

not consider these differences to be significant.

The University of Massachusetts-Amherst group also examined poverty

rates near RCRA hazardous waste facilities in metropolitan areas. The study

contained several analyses in which the authors used geographic study

areas of varying distances. The authors reported, for example, that the

mean percentage of families below the poverty level in census tracts with

facilities was about the same (14.5 percent) as it was in the remaining

census tracts without facilities (13.9 percent). In contrast, when the tracts

containing facilities were defined to include areas within 2.5 miles of the

sites and then compared with all the remaining tracts without facilities, the

results changed. For the census tracts falling within 2.5 miles of facilities,

the authors found that the percentage of families below the poverty level

(19 percent) was significantly higher than the percentage of families below

the poverty level residing in the census tracts without facilities

Page 40 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 percentage 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 ethnicity with such sites.

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

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

the published report did not present detailed data to support this

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

Massachusetts-Amherst study, performed analyses that accounted for race

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

Different Study

Questions and

Methodologies Used

May Have Led to

Varied Results

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

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

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

examined facilities that handled nonhazardous waste. They also analyzed

different geographic areas around the facilities and compared the

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

areas to determine whether inequity existed. Furthermore, the studies

chose different subsets of the minority population to examine.

Different Research

Questions Were Examined

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

authors asked different research questions. The two most common types

of questions can be summarized as follows:

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

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

Page 41 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 profile of people further away?

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

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

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

are made on where facilities will be located.

Size of Sample and Type of

Facility

The five studies that examined RCRA commercial hazardous waste facilities

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

focused on Superfund sites, one study had a sample of 210 Superfund sites

in one region, while the other two analyzed about 800 sites nationwide.

The United Church of Christ and EPA’s Region IV analyzed the populations

around more than 18,000 and 4,800 CERCLA sites,4

 respectively.

The other two types of facilities included in the studies are nonhazardous

waste facilities and cement plants. Waste Management, Inc., examined the

population near all of its disposal facilities—about 100 nonhazardous

waste landfills and about 30 commercial hazardous waste facilities. EPA

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

plants that did not.

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 “community” potentially affected by the facility. Because

these communities can vary dramatically in size, their definition can have

an impact on the results. The study areas included census tracts, ZIP

codes, communities, counties, and zones with boundaries at a specific

distance from the facility, such as 1/2 mile or 5 miles. By comparison, our

study addressed a 1-mile area around a facility’s boundaries.

Figure 3.1 illustrates the relationship between the different boundaries

that have been used in the studies. The boundaries do not have standard

sizes; these are for illustrative purposes only. This example shows the

4

As of December 1994, about 37,000 CERCLA sites had been evaluated and 1,288 had been placed on or

proposed for the National Priorities List. At the time the United Church of Christ did its study, the

national inventory of CERCLA sites was about 18,000.

Page 42 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions

potential differences between areas as defined by a county boundary, a

ZIP code, a census tract, or a specified distance from a facility located in a

metropolitan area. While all the people within a 3-mile area are closer, by

definition, to the landfill than anyone outside of the area, that is not

necessarily true for a census tract or ZIP code. As figure 3.1 shows, a

resident in a census tract hosting a facility may live further from the

facility than a resident in an adjacent census tract.

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

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAAAAAA

AAAAAA

Miles

Note: Lines may serve

as boundary for more than one area

0 5 10

County boundary

Census tract boundary

ZIP code boundary

Single ZIP code

spans several 

census tracts

1-mile

area

3-mile

area

Individual ZIP codes, each

spanning two counties

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-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions

Christ and the Center for Policy Alternatives, which used the ZIP codes of

commercial hazardous waste facilities as their study area, compared these

areas with all the residential ZIP codes across the country where no

facilities were located. The University of Massachusetts-Amherst study

compared census tracts where commercial hazardous waste facilities were

located with census tracts where there were no facilities. The authors of

the first two studies concluded that minorities were overrepresented near

these facilities, while the University of Massachusetts-Amherst group

reported that there was no consistent national association in metropolitan

areas between the location of facilities and the percentage of blacks and

Hispanics. A possible reason for this may be the difference in size between

ZIP codes and census tracts.

As another example, while Hird compared counties where Superfund sites

were located with all counties without Superfund sites, Zimmerman

compared communities containing Superfund sites with the geographic

region (north, east, south, west) in which these communities were located

and with the country as a whole. Hird concluded that there was no link

between poverty levels in the counties and the number of Superfund sites.

Zimmerman’s study was divided in its findings, concluding that on an

unweighted basis the poverty rate in Superfund communities was

comparable to that in the nation but that when the analysis was weighted

to take into account the communities’ population level, the poverty rate

was slightly higher.

Like the United Church of Christ, Waste Management used ZIP codes in its

study of its own facilities. However, its study compared populations living

in ZIP code areas with the percentage of these populations in the host

state. EPA’s Region IV categorized census tracts and counties by the

percentages of minorities they contained and calculated the average

number of CERCLA facilities per census tract and county. The study done

for EPA of 35 commercial hazardous waste landfills compared the racial

demographics within various distances—for example, 1/2 to 5 miles—with

the demographics in the host county, the host state, and the nation. EPA’s

study of cement plants also used 1/2 to 5-mile distances, and compared the

people living near them with the people living in the host county and the

nation. The study for EPA’s Region II compared the demographics for

distances ranging from within 1/4 mile to 4 miles of Superfund sites with

the demographics of the host state and the surrounding municipality.

However, the primary focus of the analysis was for areas 1 mile from sites.

Page 44 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 3 

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities 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.” Also, the authors of that study did not

distinguish black Hispanics from black non-Hispanics. Similarly,

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

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

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

Hispanics may be undercounted. Although Hispanics represent only about

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

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

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

Direct Comparison

Between Results of

Our Study and Others

Is Difficult

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

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

differences between them. We examined nonhazardous waste landfills,

while the other studies focused primarily on several types of hazardous

waste facilities. Our methodology also differed from the methodology used

by most of the studies.

The only other study to examine a large number of nonhazardous waste

facilities was the study by Waste Management, which examined the

populations near 132 facilities, including about 100 nonhazardous waste

landfills and treatment facilities. The company used a much different

methodology than we did, comparing racial demographics within ZIP

codes with demographics statewide. While the difference in

methodologies makes comparison inexact, the results of the two studies

are somewhat consistent. Waste Management found that about 75 percent

of its hazardous and nonhazardous facilities were located in ZIP codes that

had an equal or higher percentage of whites than the state did. We found

Page 45 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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

landfills. There may be more similarity between the nonhazardous waste

landfills in our study and the hazardous waste landfills in EPA’s study than

there is between nonhazardous waste landfills and the other types of

facilities studied. While EPA did not draw conclusions, our interpretation of

the data in this study shows that it, too, found that, in the majority of cases

the percentages of blacks and Hispanics living within a 5-mile radius of the

facilities were equal to or less than the percentages of blacks and

Hispanics living in the surrounding county.

Attempts to Examine

Trends Over Time

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

characteristics from around the time the study was done. The studies’

authors generally used the most recent data available—from either the

1980 or 1990 census. That approach does not address any changes that

have occurred in demographics around a site since it was first approved

and built.

One hypothesis that has been suggested is that communities near a waste

facility (or other locally undesirable land use) become more populated

5

As noted in ch. 2, the results of our analysis of the 3-mile area are not provided in this report because

they were comparable to the results of our analysis of the 1-mile area.

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.6

 The proposed explanation is that the presence of the

facility may cause those who can afford to move to become dissatisfied

and leave the neighborhood. Also, by making the neighborhood less

desirable, the presence of a facility may decrease property values, making

housing more affordable to low-income people. This “market dynamic”

could lead to low-income people moving into the area. And, to the extent

that minorities have lower average incomes than nonminorities, it could

result in a disproportionate share of minorities moving near the facility.

We attempted to examine changes in demographics subsequent to the

siting of 27 municipal solid waste landfills but were unsuccessful.7

 The

Census Bureau did not have the necessary computerized geographic data

that would have allowed us to compare the 1980 census data for

populations within 1 and 3 miles of the landfills with the data for these

populations from the 1990 census.

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

6

Vicki Been, “Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Siting or

Market Dynamics?,” The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 103, No. 6, Apr. 1994.

The authors of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst study also report that they are investigating

trends in demographics over time near hazardous waste sites.

7

These landfills were taken from our larger sample of 295 facilities, and all began operations between

1977 and 1981.

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

Past Environmental Justice Studies of Waste

Facilities Have Yielded Varied Conclusions

risk to people living near facilities would enhance understanding of this

issue.

In addition, studies done on the cumulative effects of multiple pollution

sources in residential communities could provide a more comprehensive

look at the total potential impact of environmental factors. The studies

that we reviewed—as well as our own—examined the populations near a

particular class of facilities, such as Superfund sites; hazardous waste

landfills; or facilities for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous

waste. The cumulative effects of other types of pollution sources could

also be studied, including hazardous waste generators, utilities, sewage

treatment plants, and freeways. Conducting such studies using standard

methodologies and factoring in geographic patterns specific to the

localities will challenge researchers.

Page 48 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 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

specifically restrict facilities from being located in residential areas and do

not consider environmental justice. EPA recently chose not to propose new

standards that could have restricted hazardous waste facilities in

residential areas because it believed these standards would not be

cost-effective.

EPA’s regulations as of March 1995 for providing the public with an

opportunity to participate in decisions about hazardous and nonhazardous

waste facilities have not specifically addressed environmental justice. The

regulations that EPA does have on public participation typically take effect

when EPA or the state1

 is deciding whether an operating permit will be

granted, which normally occurs after the site has been selected. State and

local governments typically determine the opportunities for public

involvement in decisions about the location of a site. In June 1994, EPA

proposed new regulations that would require an organization to notify the

public that it intends to apply for an operating permit, although this would

probably occur after the site has been selected. In proposing the

regulations, EPA also asked for public comment on how it can modify its

public participation regulations to better integrate minority and

low-income communities into the decision-making process. In 1993, EPA

issued guidance for its regions and the states on how to encourage public

participation, including amongst minority and low-income communities,

when they are considering permit applications for hazardous waste

facilities. Our survey of landfills included a number of questions about the

techniques used at specific landfills to increase public participation. The

results are discussed in appendix VI.

EPA’s Siting Standards

for Hazardous and

Nonhazardous Waste

Facilities

The restrictions that EPA places on where facilities can be located do not

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

the demographics of residents. Because planning for land use traditionally

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

larger role in determining the location of waste facilities and often have

regulations regarding how close these facilities can be to populated areas.

EPA’s approach has been that if design and operating standards are met, it

is not necessary for the protection of human health to limit the location of

the facilities in relation to residences.

1

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

Page 49 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 Restrictions

on the Location of

Facilities

For nonhazardous municipal landfills, the type of facility we surveyed, EPA

issued comprehensive regulations in 1991 that began to take effect in

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

address location, among other things. These more extensive regulations

have caused many landfills to close and will have a significant impact on

facilities built in the future.

The restrictions on the location of nonhazardous landfills generally

concern specific geological characteristics. The regulations restrict

landfills from being located in floodplains and geologically unstable areas

or near airports.2

 In addition, they restrict new landfill units or lateral

expansions of existing units in wetlands, seismic impact zones, and fault

areas. The restrictions do not necessarily prohibit landfills from being

located in any of these areas, but require that owners or operators

applying for a permit demonstrate that they have taken adequate

precautionary measures.

For hazardous waste facilities, only one RCRA requirement affects the

proximity of waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to

communities: Containers with ignitable or reactive waste must be at least

50 feet away from the facility’s property line. Current general standards for

locating hazardous waste facilities, including hazardous landfills, are not

quite as comprehensive as the 1991 standards for nonhazardous landfills.

The restrictions that apply to hazardous waste facilities concern seismic

areas, floodplains, salt dome formations, and underground mines and

caves. Wetlands are not specifically identified. Furthermore, the seismic

considerations for hazardous facilities are not as comprehensive as those

in the standards for the nonhazardous facilities.

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

2

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

Page 50 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

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

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

to 1/2 mile.

The 1994 draft study also pointed out that most local governments have

zoning and planning requirements that address suitable locations and

control such items as proximity to populations. However, the draft study

did not list those requirements because of the vast number of specific local

laws.

3

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

Response, EPA, Apr. 25, 1994.

4

State-by-State Summaries of Social Siting Criteria, working draft prepared for the RCRA Siting

Workgroup by ICF Incorporated, July 28, 1994.

Page 51 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

Participation

EPA’s public participation regulations do not specifically address

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

including members of minority and low-income communities, the

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

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

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

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

particularly those concerning the protection of human health.

EPA’s Current Public

Participation Regulations

for Nonhazardous

Facilities

EPA’s current regulations for soliciting public participation in the process

for issuing permits to nonhazardous waste facilities do not specifically

address environmental justice. However, they do require the agency

issuing the permit, generally the state, to hold a public hearing before

approving a permit if the agency determines there is a significant degree of

public interest in the proposed permit. To meet this requirement, the

agency must

• make pertinent documents, such as permit applications and draft permits,

available to the public in convenient locations;

• maintain lists of interested people and notify them when important

information is available;

• publicize notices of public hearings and mail notices to the interested

parties on the list at least 30 days before the hearing; and

• hold hearings at times and places that facilitate public attendance and

make available a public record.

Our survey of municipal landfills included questions on public

participation directed to the landfills in our sample that began operation

after January 1, 1988. (Forty-five of the 622 respondents fit that criterion.)

The questions were designed to learn the steps that landfill owners and

operators had taken to provide opportunities for the public to participate

in the process of selecting a site and issuing an operating permit. Over

two-thirds of the respondents said that they held public hearings to

discuss both the location and the operation of the facility. About

one-quarter did not hold hearings. In a number of instances in which

hearings were held, the respondents indicated that the public had

influenced either the location or operation of the facility. More detail on

the responses is found in appendix VI.

Page 52 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 all

affected members of the community, including minorities and low-income

people.

Under the proposed approach, EPA or the state would be required to notify

the public when it received an application for a permit. The notice must

include specific information about the application and the responsible

contact person in the EPA or state office that grants permits. Furthermore,

EPA or the state would be authorized to require that the applicant establish

and maintain a repository of information about the application.

In addition to the specific proposals, EPA solicited comments from the

public on a number of environmental justice issues. EPA asked for

comments on ways to incorporate concerns about environmental justice

into the public participation process under RCRA. The agency also asked

Page 53 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 of the RCRA

program for issuing permits, such as corrective action.5 EPA was interested

in receiving comments on suggested methodologies and procedures for

analyzing the “cumulative risk” and “cumulative effects” associated with

human exposure to multiple sources of pollution. EPA also asked for

comments on recommendations developed by the Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response Environmental Justice task force, such as

compiling a national summary of existing state, tribal, and local

government requirements with regard to environmental justice for

selecting sites for facilities.

EPA’s Guidance to Regions

and States to Improve

Public Participation

In September 1993, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste issued the RCRA Public

Involvement Manual. The purpose of the manual is to help EPA’s regional

offices and RCRA-authorized state regulatory agencies achieve effective

public participation concerning permits and corrective actions at

hazardous waste facilities. A section of the manual is devoted to

promoting environmental justice through public participation. While this

guidance may improve public participation in EPA’s permit process,

according to EPA the guidance was not necessarily intended to affect

public participation in state and local governments’ decisions about where

facilities are located.

The manual describes over 25 activities that EPA and state staff should

consider implementing in order to involve all segments of the community

in the process for granting permits to hazardous waste facilities under

RCRA. Some of the activities are designed to gauge the community’s

reaction to and concerns about a facility. EPA recommends that staff

conduct interviews with local residents, elected officials, or community

groups to obtain this information.

EPA also recommends that staff prepare a public involvement plan; that is,

a specific plan for interacting with the community when a permit is being

considered. The plan is supposed to assess the level of community interest

and recommend activities for involving the community in the process.

EPA makes specific recommendations for addressing environmental justice

in public involvement programs. Staff are advised to adapt to the special

needs of the community and to identify internal channels of

5

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

contamination at hazardous waste facilities.

Page 54 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have a

substantial local environmental, human health, or economic effect on the

surrounding populations when such facilities or sites become the subject

of a substantial federal environmental, administrative, or judicial action.

The information is to be publicized unless prohibited by law. Agencies

could use this information to help design appropriate public participation

efforts.

Page 55 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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.1

In our survey of municipal landfills, we found little association between

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

landfill characteristics that could be used as indicators of risk, such as

groundwater contamination, types of waste, or the use of protective liners.

Over the years, evidence has been gathered of contamination being

released into the environment by municipal waste landfills and hazardous

waste facilities. However, the health effects risk models that EPA has

developed and used in support of its rulemakings predict that the number

of additional cancer-related deaths resulting from exposure to materials

released from landfills and hazardous waste facilities would be relatively

low. We did not evaluate the validity of these risk models.

Federal Efforts to

Determine Health

Effects of Waste

Facilities on

Minorities and

Low-Income People

In recent years, EPA has formed a workgroup and cosponsored a

conference to examine the health effects of pollution sources, including

nonhazardous and hazardous waste facilities, but the results have been

inconclusive because of a lack of sufficient data. An interagency task force

established in 1994 responding to the executive order on environmental

justice intends to assist in coordinating the collection of such data and to

provide guidance to federal agencies in their strategies for considering

environmental justice in their actions.

EPA’s Workgroup and

Conference

In 1991, EPA’s Administrator formed an Environmental Equity Workgroup

and asked it, among other things, to “review and evaluate the evidence

that racial minority and low-income people bear a disproportionate risk

burden.” The EPA workgroup collected data on a wide range of sources of

environmental pollution.

In 1992, the workgroup issued a report entitled Environmental Equity:

Reducing Risk For All Communities. While the report concluded that

minorities may have a greater potential for exposure to hazardous and

nonhazardous waste facilities, it did not provide any evidence of harmful

health effects. In general, EPA concluded that “there is . . . a surprising lack

1

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

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

Page 56 GAO/RCED-95-84 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 pollutants, the

scientific data are not sufficient to establish unequivocally the link

between environmental health risks and income or minority status.

In a second paper, entitled “Hazardous Wastes, Hazardous Materials and

Environmental Health Inequity,”2

 the authors reported substantial

disparities between the health of African Americans and that of other

Americans. They also reported that establishing the causes of these

disparities was difficult because of a lack of data. They called for

“extensive epidemiological studies to evaluate the full extent of the impact

of hazardous materials on various minority communities.”

Interagency Task Force on

Research and Health

Established Under

Executive Order

In the executive order on environmental justice, the administration

directed federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their

overall mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and

adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. It

required each federal agency to develop, by March 1995, a strategy for

addressing environmental justice issues within their operations. The order

also tasks the agencies with, among other things, improving research and

data collection and ensuring that all potentially affected segments of the

2

M.R.I. Soliman, C.T. DeRosa, H.W. Mielke, and K. Bota.

Page 57 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 5 

Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities

on Minorities and Low-Income People

population—such as minorities and low-income people—are represented

in research on health and the environment whenever possible.

An interagency working group was formed to advise the agencies on

preparing their strategies. A number of task forces have been created to

assist the working group in carrying out its functions. One is the task force

on health and research, which is cochaired by representatives from the

Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor.

The responsibilities of this task force are to (1) identify research on health

issues conducted by other agencies, (2) interact with other agencies that

are conducting studies on multiple exposures or that may have collected

data, and (3) compile information on human exposure to chemicals and

toxic substances and get a better understanding of how agencies are using

this information to estimate health effects.

Like the other federal agencies, EPA is required to prepare a strategy for

addressing environmental justice. A draft of EPA’s strategy was available

for review as of January 1995. With respect to health issues, one of EPA’s

objectives is to ensure that the agency’s environmental policies are based

on sound science and significantly address and incorporate environmental

justice and socioeconomic concerns into research. Another objective is to

expand EPA’s capability to conduct research in areas where the agency can

make the greatest contribution to environmental justice, including human

exposure, cumulative risk, risk reduction, and pollution prevention. The

draft strategy calls for EPA to assess and compare the environmental and

human health risks borne by populations identified by race, national

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

not specifically address hazardous and nonhazardous waste facilities.

Demographic

Conditions and

Risk-Related

Characteristics at

Municipal Landfills in

Our Survey

In our analysis of survey results and demographic data, we found little

association between the race, income, or poverty status of people living

near the landfills and landfill characteristics related to potential risk. The

characteristics that we analyzed include the types of waste received and

the presence of features designed to protect against potential releases of

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

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

that lack protective liners. The results of our analyses are presented in

appendix VII.3

3

Our information on the relationship between landfill characteristics and population demographics

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

categories that we reviewed.

Page 58 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 5 

Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities

on Minorities and Low-Income People

Our reason for examining these relationships was to determine whether

minority or low-income populations were more prevalent near landfills

that might be perceived as risky. While it is difficult to generalize about the

risks posed by a landfill, our analysis assumes that risk could increase

with the acceptance of hazardous waste and the absence of protective

design features. None of these conditions necessarily means that a specific

landfill poses a risk to people living nearby, but the public may perceive

such characteristics to be related to risk.

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 landfills] currently are harming human health . . . . However,

the Agency’s recently completed risk assessments indicate that [municipal

landfills] present future potential risks to human health.”

In 1988, using these risk assessment models, EPA estimated that 17 percent

of municipal landfills posed risks greater than 1 in 106

 (i.e., an exposed

individual would have a greater than 1 in 1 million chance of contracting

cancer in that individual’s lifetime as a result of the exposure. The

exposure is assumed to have lasted over the 70-year lifespan of the

individual). The assessment considered only groundwater contamination

and used data on the distance of landfills to drinking-water wells. EPA did

not estimate the risks from contamination of surface water, soil, or air.

In October 1991, EPA issued its final rule for the location and operating

standards for these landfills. In that rulemaking, EPA cited a risk

assessment of the landfills in operation before the new regulations went

into effect that projected 5.7 additional cancer deaths across the country

over a 300-year period. EPA estimated that the new regulations will reduce

Page 59 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Chapter 5 

Data on Health Effects of Waste Facilities

on Minorities and Low-Income People

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

with new ones.

EPA’s Risk Assessments for

Hazardous Waste Facilities

EPA has also projected the potential adverse health effects of contaminated

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

result over the 128-year modeling period if the contaminated facilities are

not cleaned up. If these facilities are cleaned up, EPA estimated that there

would still be about 800 cancer cases. The projections accompanied EPA’s

1993 regulations for cleaning up contaminated hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities.

EPA estimated that unless corrective action (the cleanup of the facilities) is

conducted, 920 to 1,700 hazardous waste facilities could cause either

cancer or noncancer health risks to people. EPA also estimated that if

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

sites could cause cancer and noncancer health effects.

Page 60 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Page 61 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 (1) examine

selected characteristics of such landfills and develop information on their

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

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

national estimates about the characteristics of such landfills and the

demographics of those living nearby for both metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas.

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

the Solid Waste Association of North America. The association provided

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

was 4,330.

We then determined if each landfill was in a metropolitan or

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

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

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

metropolitan landfills and 2,832 nonmetropolitan landfills. We then

sampled 500 metropolitan and 500 nonmetropolitan landfills with equal

probability.

We designed a questionnaire that requested several pieces of information

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

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

presence of protective liners, groundwater monitoring, or contamination

at the landfill; and opportunities for the community surrounding the

landfill to voice its opinions about the location and construction of the

landfill.

We also subsampled 300 of the 500 metropolitan and 150 of the 500

nonmetropolitan landfills. We did this to determine the exact geographic

location of each landfill so that we could compare the demographics of the

people living near the landfill with those residing in the rest of the county.

For this subsample, we asked additional questions about location on the

Page 62 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal

Landfills

questionnaire and included one or more United States Geological Survey

(USGS) 1:24,000 scale maps of the surrounding areas that we determined

would contain the landfill. The landfill owner/operators were asked to

return the USGS maps with their landfill’s boundaries outlined on the basis

of roads and other natural features displayed on the USGS map. We chose

to work with a subsample of the 1,000 randomly selected landfills that was

manageable in size but would allow us to make national estimates.

We solicited expert review of a preliminary version of the questionnaire

from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Solid Waste.

We then determined the validity of the instrument by pretesting a

preliminary version on selected individuals who represented the

owner/operators of landfills of varying size and in different parts of the

United States. We pretested first in six locations: Warrenton, Va.; York,

Penn.; Dover, Del.; Baltimore, Md; Hedgesville, W. Va.; and Richmond, Va.

Based on the comments and reactions from these pretests, we revised the

questionnaire so that the questions would be uniformly interpreted and

understood. Next, we pretested the revised version of the questionnaire at

four additional locations (Jonesboro, Ga.; Dallas, Tex.; San Diego, Calif.

and Brooklyn, Ohio) and incorporated the comments and suggestions

from these pretests. We also received written comments on a version of

the questionnaire from a firm that owns and operates many landfills across

the country.

We mailed 1,000 questionnaires to the owner/operators identified on our

mailing list. The owner/operators were asked to complete and return the

questionnaires within 10 days. We kept a log to track which questionnaires

had and had not been returned.

We sent another questionnaire to nonrespondents, and after 3 to 4 weeks,

we mailed postcards to nonrespondents. These postcards alerted the

owner/operators to the second mailing of the questionnaire and asked for

their quick response.

If we still did not receive a response, we telephoned the owner/operators

to determine whether they had received the questionnaire and intended to

return it. In some cases, the owner/operator agreed to return the survey

but did not do so expeditiously. In those instances, we mailed another

postcard to encourage a response. In a few cases, we encouraged

owner/operators who were reluctant to complete the questionnaire to at

least return the USGS map with their landfill’s boundaries drawn in.

Page 63 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal

Landfills

About 79 percent (791) of the 1,000 initial questionnaires were returned,

and about 85 percent (383) of the 450 in the subsample were returned. As

illustrated in table I.1, for the subsample, 59 of the responses from 259

metropolitan landfills and 18 of the responses from 124 nonmetropolitan

landfills were not usable in our analysis because they did not meet our

criteria of being nonfederal facilities that had accepted municipal solid

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

10 metropolitan and 1 nonmetropolitan landfills for other reasons that are

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

number of usable responses (190 metropolitan and 105 nonmetropolitan

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

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

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

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

the metropolitan landfills and about 80 percent for the nonmetropolitan

landfills.

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

Surveys from overall sample for analysis of landfill

characteristics

USGS maps from subsample for demographic

analysis of landfills

Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

Universe 1,498 2,832 1,498 2,832

Sample size 500 500 300 150

Returned (usable) 302 321 190 105

Returned (not usable)

Closed before 1992 48 39 29 14

Not a municipal

landfill

39 23 28 4

Federal facility 3 0 1 0

Returned after

cut-off date

3 1 1 0

Facility never

opened

1 1 1 0

Othera 9 1 9 1

Not returned 95 114 41 26

Return rate 81.0% 77.2% 86.3% 82.6%

Response rate 73.8% 73.4% 78.8% 79.5%

aTen landfills were misclassified in terms of their metropolitan and nonmetropolitan status.

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

Page 64 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal

Landfills

The impact of the nonrespondents may be investigated by conducting a

follow-up study that compares nonrespondents to respondents to

determine whether the nonrespondents are different from the

respondents. Given time and resource restraints, we did not conduct this

follow-up survey.

We edited the completed questionnaires to ensure that they had been

completed correctly. If responses to the questions appeared to be

contradictory, we made additional telephone calls to verify or correct the

data.

We performed several different types of analysis using various data from

our different samples. To describe the general characteristics of landfills

presented in appendix II, we used the samples under the columns headed

“Surveys from overall sample for analysis of landfill characteristics” in

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

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

we used the samples under the columns headed “USGS maps from

subsample for demographic analysis of landfills.”

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

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

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

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

included 187 metropolitan and 103 nonmetropolitan municipal landfills.

These landfills are a subset of the 190 metropolitan and 105

nonmetropolitan landfills identified in table I.1.

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

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

the USGS that allowed us to determine the latitude and longitude defining a

landfill’s boundary. Using a geographic information system computer

program, we developed two areas that separated the landfill from the rest

of the county. These areas were 1 and 3 miles from the boundary of the

landfill. (See fig. I.1.) We were able to digitize a total of 190 metropolitan

landfills and 105 nonmetropolitan landfills.

Page 65 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal

Landfills

Figure I.1: Illustration of a County

Boundary With a Municipal Landfill

and 1- and 3-Mile Areas

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

0 5

Miles

10

3-mile area

1-mile area

Landfill

To determine the demographics of the people living near the landfills, we

used the finest level of aggregation possible, the census block group. We

did not use the census block because the U.S. Bureau of the Census did

not report data on income at this level.

For each landfill, we determined which block groups were either partially

or completely within the landfill’s 1- and 3-mile areas. If the block group

was completely within the area, we used its complete demographic

information (e.g., number of minorities and nonminorities). If the block

group was partially within the area, its demographic information was

proportioned on the basis of the amount of the block group area falling

Page 66 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal

Landfills

within the 1- or 3-mile area. The number of minorities and nonminorities

residing in complete and partial block groups was then summed to

determine the total number living in the 1- or 3-mile area. In effect, we

counted all the people in some block groups and a portion of the people in

other block groups when we totaled the number of people within the area.

To determine the demographic characteristics of those living outside the

area, we subtracted the number of people living in the area from the

number living in the county. We made all our comparisons between the

people living in the area and the people living in the rest of the county.

Within the 1- and 3-mile areas, we counted only those people in the county,

not those in an adjacent county.

We chose to compare the population within the 1- and 3-mile areas with

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

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

that we made for the following reasons.

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

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

indicated that local or county governments had approved the locations for

most landfills. Furthermore, the average landfill (public or private)

typically received most of its waste from within the county.

Ideally, we would have classified the landfills according to which

government jurisdiction (city or county) had approved the location. If the

city made the decision, we would have compared the population within

the 1- and 3-mile areas with the population in the rest of the city. If the

county made the decision, we would have compared the populations

within the 1- and 3-mile areas with the population in the rest of the county.

To do so, however, would have required a larger sample to allow for

sufficient samples in both categories. We did not have adequate resources

to increase the sample size. Comparing the populations in the 1- and 3-mile

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

a problem in cases in which the 1- or 3-mile area occupied nearly all of the

area of the city, leaving little to compare. This situation would have

occurred more often in rural areas. Furthermore, in some instances, city

governments had decided to locate a city-operated facility on

unincorporated land outside the city limits. This circumstance would have

confused our analysis. We therefore decided to compare the populations

within the 1- and 3-mile areas with those in the rest of the county.

Page 67 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal

Landfills

In this process, we excluded block groups within the 1- and 3-mile areas

that fell outside the county in which the facility was located (host county).

In 35 of the 295 landfills we analyzed, the 1-mile area extended into at least

one other county. In 101 instances, the 3-mile area extended into at least

one other county. We chose not to include the people in the other counties

in our analysis because we did not believe it was appropriate to compare

the demographics of people in the host county with the demographics of

people from both that county and the adjacent counties. Our reasoning

was that people in the adjacent counties were unlikely to have had an

opportunity to influence the decision about where the facility was located.

Not including the people in the adjacent counties does present a limitation

in our analysis, however, because these people could be affected by the

facility in the same manner as people in the host county.

For each 1- and 3-mile area and the corresponding rest of the county, we

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

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

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

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

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

Summary Tape File 3A. For the data on income (poverty and median

income), the census data included whites of Hispanic origin with the

white, or nonminority, population.

We used the data that described the rest of the county to establish what

would be expected in the 1- or 3-mile area if the groups were not

disproportionate. For example, if non-Hispanic whites (termed in this

study “nonminorities”) composed 50 percent of the county’s population

outside a 1-mile area, we would expect that approximately 50 percent of

the population within the 1-mile area would be nonminorities. If

nonminorities made up only 30 percent of the population in the 1-mile

area, nonminorities would appear to be overrepresented. Thus, every

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfill in our sample was treated

equally and categorized as having more or fewer minorities than expected.

In the above case, the landfill would be classified as having fewer

nonminorities than expected. We also classified metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills as having significantly more nonminorities than

expected, about what was expected, or significantly fewer than expected.

Thus, in the example above, we would have classified the landfill as having

significantly fewer nonminorities than expected. We performed this type

of analysis for all of the demographic data.

Page 68 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix I 

Methodology for Analysis of Municipal

Landfills

We also compared the data from the 1-mile areas with data on the nation

as a whole. We used national data for the same variables: race, median

household income, and poverty status. We analyzed each variable in terms

of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. While most of these data were

readily available from the 1990 census, some extrapolation was necessary

to arrive at national data on median household income and poverty status

by race.

Finally, we cross-tabulated the demographic data from the 1-mile areas

with several landfill characteristics selected as possible indicators of risk.

These characteristics included the use of protective liners, leachate

collection systems, and groundwater monitoring. The purpose was to

determine whether minorities or low-income people were

underrepresented with respect to the presence of these characteristics.

Because we used a sample (called a probability sample) to develop our

estimates, each estimate has a measurable precision, or sampling error,

that may be expressed as a plus/minus figure. A sampling error indicates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

procedure we used would produce a confidence interval containing the

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

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

Page 69 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix II 

Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

Surveyed

We surveyed 500 metropolitan and 500 nonmetropolitan municipal

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

number of those questions are summarized below for metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills. All of the percentages reflect only those

landfills that responded to the questions.

• On the basis of usable1 survey responses we received from 301

metropolitan and 322 nonmetropolitan landfills in operation at some time

in 1992, we estimate that 69 percent (+/- 5 percent2

) of metropolitan

landfills and 79 percent (+/- 5 percent) of nonmetropolitan landfills were

owned by counties and municipal governments. About 24 percent (+/-

5 percent) of metropolitan and 13 percent (+/- 4 percent) of

nonmetropolitan landfills were privately owned.

• The average metropolitan landfill was about 191 acres in size, but the

range was from 1 acre to 2,000 acres. The average nonmetropolitan landfill

was about 98 acres, while the range was from 1 acre to 1,200 acres.

• The average metropolitan landfill received about 50 percent (+/-5 percent)

of its waste from the community where it was located and 36 percent (+/-

4 percent) from the remainder of the county. Only about 7 percent (+/-

3 percent) of the metropolitan landfills accepted out-of-state waste.

Nonmetropolitan landfills received about 61 percent (+/- 7 percent) of

their waste from the local community and about 34 percent (+/- 4 percent)

from the remainder of the county. About 3 percent (+/-2 percent) received

waste from out of state. Out-of-state waste averaged less than 1 percent

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

nonmetropolitan municipal landfill.

• Typically, the waste sent to the landfills was household waste, industrial

nonhazardous waste, and construction-related debris. We estimate that

only about 7 percent (+/- 3 percent) of the metropolitan landfills had

received hazardous waste from sources that generate small quantities of

waste and less than 3 percent (+/- 2 percent) had received hazardous

waste from sources that generate large quantities of waste.3

 Among

nonmetropolitan landfills, 8 and 1 percent (+/- 3 and 1 percent) had

received hazardous waste from small- and large-quantity generators,

respectively.

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

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

1

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

2

Sampling errors have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

3

EPA prohibited municipal landfills from accepting hazardous waste from large-quantity generators

starting in 1980. Municipal landfills are allowed to accept hazardous waste from small-quantity

generators.

Page 70 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix II 

Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

Surveyed

about 13 percent (+/- 4 percent) had received ash from municipal

incinerators. For nonmetropolitan landfills the percentages were 43, 36,

and 5 percent (+/- 6, 5, and 2 percent), respectively.

• About 73 percent (+/- 5 percent) of the metropolitan landfills began

receiving waste before 1980, and less than 3 percent (+/-2 percent) began

after 1990. Twenty-three percent (+/- 5 percent) of the metropolitan

landfills had closed by the time they received the questionnaire. Of those

that planned to close and could estimate their closing date, 25 percent (+/-

6 percent) said they would close by the end of 1995. Of the landfills

planning to continue their operations beyond 1995, 64 percent (+/-

8 percent) planned to operate beyond the year 2000.

• Among nonmetropolitan landfills, 69 percent (+/- 5 percent) began

receiving waste before 1980, and 1 percent (+/- 1 percent) began after

1990. Twenty-seven percent (+/- 5 percent) of the nonmetropolitan

landfills had closed by the time they received the questionnaire. Of those

that planned to close and could estimate their closing date, 49 percent (+/-

7 percent) said they would close by the end of 1995. Of the landfills

planning to continue their operations beyond 1995, 64 percent (+/-

6 percent) planned to operate beyond the year 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

some time.

• Sixty-six percent (+/- 5 percent) of nonmetropolitan landfills did not have

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

5 percent) of the nonmetropolitan landfills did not have leachate

collection systems in place at any of their waste units. About 67 percent

(+/- 5 percent) said that they had groundwater monitoring. About 7 percent

(+/- 3 percent) said that the landfill had caused groundwater

contamination at some time.

Page 71 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix III 

People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were

Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or

Lower Than Rate in Rest of County

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

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

definition of poverty1

—is another indicator. On the basis of our survey, we

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

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

from this analysis are presented below.

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

sample of landfills. National estimates cannot be accurately made without

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

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

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

Table III.1: Sampling Errors for

Selected Percentages and Sample

Sizes of Metropolitan Landfills

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

confidence level Percentage of

landfills 160 165 170 175 180 185 190

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

15 5 5 5 5 5 5 4

20 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

25 6 6 6 6 6 5 5

30 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

35 7 7 6 6 6 6 6

40 7 7 7 6 6 6 6

45 7 7 7 7 6 6 6

50 7 7 7 7 6 6 6

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

For example, in figure III.1, the people living within 1 mile of 31 percent of

the metropolitan landfills had a higher poverty rate than the rate in the rest

of the county. Using 31 percent and a sample size of 190, the sampling

error at the 95-percent confidence level for the information in figure III.1 is

approximately 6 percent. By applying this approximate sampling error, we

can estimate that the people living within 1 mile of between 25 and

37 percent of metropolitan landfills had a poverty rate higher than the rate

in the rest of the county.

1

“Poverty” is defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as an individual or family income below a

certain amount. In 1990, this amount, known as the poverty line, was $6,310 for an individual and

$12,674 for a nonfarm family of four. In our analysis, we used the census data for individuals below the

poverty line.

Page 72 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix III 

People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were

Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or

Lower Than Rate in Rest of County

Table III.2: Sampling Errors for

Selected Percentages and Sample

Sizes of Nonmetropolitan Landfills

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

confidence level Percentage of

landfills 90 95 100 105

5 4 4 4 4

10 6 6 6 6

15 7 7 7 7

20 8 8 8 7

25 9 8 8 8

30 9 9 9 8

35 10 9 9 9

40 10 10 9 9

45 10 10 9 9

50 10 10 9 9

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

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

1 mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills with the rate for

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

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

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

for these people was also higher than the national average for

metropolitan areas about 23 percent of the time. The people living near

nonmetropolitan landfills had a poverty rate higher than the rate in the

host county and the national average for nonmetropolitan areas about 45

and 59 percent of the time, respectively.

Page 73 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 III.1: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile

of Metropolitan Landfills Compared

With Rate in Rest of Host County or

Nation

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Where

Poverty

Rate Is

Higher

Percent

Where

Poverty

Rate Is

Lower

Percent

Where

Poverty

Rate Is

Higher

Percent

Where

Poverty

Rate Is

Lower

31

69

23

77

Compared With

Host County

Compared With

National

Averagea

Note: N = 190.

aThe national average for metropolitan areas is 12.1 percent.

Page 74 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 III.2: Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile

of Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Compared With Rate in Rest of Host

County or Nation

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Where

Poverty

Rate Is

Higher

Percent

Where

Poverty

Rate Is

Lower

Percent

Where

Poverty

Rate Is

Higher

Percent

Where

Poverty

Rate Is

Lower

45

55

59

41

Compared With

Host County

Compared With

National

Averagea

Note: N = 105.

aThe national average for nonmetropolitan areas is 16.8 percent.

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

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

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

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

county.2

 The rate was about the same or significantly lower most of the

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

2

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

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

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

Page 75 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 III.3: Degree of Difference

Between Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of

Metropolitan Landfills and Rate in Rest

of Host County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

47

35

19

Note 1: N = 190.

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

aThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area was at least 2.5 percent less than the rate in the

rest of the host county.

bThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area was at least 2.5 percent more than the rate in

the rest of the host county.

Page 76 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix III 

People Living Near Municipal Landfills Were

Likely to Have Poverty Rate Similar to or

Lower Than Rate in Rest of County

Figure III.4: Degree of Difference

Between Poverty Rate Within 1 Mile of

Nonmetropolitan Landfills and Rate in

Rest of Host County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

35 34

30

Note 1: N = 105.

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

aThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area was at least 2.5 percent less than the rate in the

rest of the host county.

bThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area was at least 2.5 percent more than the rate in

the rest of the host county.

Page 77 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within

1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County

This appendix and appendix V expand on the data presented in chapter 2

and appendix III, in which we showed the absolute differences between

the people living within 1 mile of landfills and the people in the rest of the

host county with respect to race, income, and poverty. The analyses in this

appendix address the relative differences in race, income, and poverty

status between people living within 1 mile of the landfills and the rest of

the host county. Calculations of both absolute and relative differences are

equally valid but can produce widely different results for particular

situations, as demonstrated below. In the interest of thoroughness, we

conducted both analyses. However, the overall results were the same. We

found that neither minorities nor low-income people were

disproportionately represented near landfills in any consistent manner.

While we also analyzed populations within 3 miles of the landfills for this

review, we did not include those results because of their close similarity to

the results for populations within 1 mile.

The examples that follow illustrate the difference between our analysis of

absolute differences and relative differences between populations. For

these examples, we chose to look at the differences between the racial

composition of people living within 1 mile of metropolitan landfills and in

the rest of the host county.

In our analysis of the absolute differences, we have defined a difference of

at least 10 percent as significant. If the percentage of nonminorities living

within 1 mile was at least 10 percent greater than the percentage of

nonminorities in the rest of the county, we classified that difference as

being significantly more. Likewise, if the percentage of nonminorities

living within 1 mile was at least 10 percent less than the percentage in the

rest of the county, we classified that difference as being significantly less.

We applied the same calculations to minority populations.

Figure IV.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 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

Figure IV.1: Degree of Difference

Between People Within 1 Mile of

Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of

Host County, by Race

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

13

62

25 25

62

13

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 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more than the percentage in the rest of

the host county.

The analysis of the relative differences is slightly more complicated. To

calculate the relative difference for race, we subtracted the percentage of

nonminorities in the county from the percentage within the 1-mile area

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

For race, we again defined a 10-percent relative difference as significant.

The example below shows how the calculations of absolute and relative

differences yield different results.

• Absolute difference. If the percentage of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is

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

Page 79 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

difference is 84 minus 76, or 8. This difference would not be considered

significant in our analysis because it is less than 10 percent.

• Relative difference. If the percentage of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is

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

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

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

10 percent.

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

figure shows a different picture than the absolute differences, particularly

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

nonminorities within 1 mile is not significantly different from the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

significant) probably occur because the percentage of minorities is

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

difference between the percentages in the 1-mile area and in the rest of the

county is more likely to be large relative to the county.

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

Figure IV.2: Race of People Within 1

Mile of Metropolitan Landfills Relative

to Rest of Host County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

14

58

28

69

7

23

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 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms, than the

percentage in the rest of the host county.

bThe percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms, than the

percentage in the rest of the host county.

The data in figures IV.3 through IV.8 represent the findings from our

sample of landfills. National estimates cannot be accurately made without

applying a margin of error. The approximate sampling errors for

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

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

Page 81 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

Figure IV.3: Race of People Within 1

Mile of Metropolitan Landfills Relative

to Rest of Host County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

14

58

28

69

7

23

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 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms, than the

percentage in the rest of the host county.

bThe percentage in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms, than the

percentage in the rest of the host county.

Page 82 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within

1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County

Figure IV.4: Race of People Within 1

Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Relative to Rest of Host County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Lessa

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Not Significantly Different

Pct. in 1-Mile Is Significantly Moreb

9

71

20

56

14

30

Comparison of

Nonminorities

Comparison of

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.

Page 83 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

Figure IV.5: Median Household Income

of People Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host

County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Median Income Is

Significantly Lessa

Difference in Income Is Not Significant

Median Income Is

Significantly Moreb

25

35

40

Note: N = 190.

aThe median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms,

than the median household income in the host county.

bThe median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms,

than the median household income in the host county.

Page 84 GAO/RCED-95-84 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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Median Income Is

Significantly Lessa

Median Income Is Not Significantly Different

Median Income Is

Significantly Moreb

16

56

28

Note: N = 105.

aThe median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms,

than the median household income in the host county.

bThe median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms,

than the median household income in the host county.

Page 85 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

Figure IV.7: Poverty Rate of People

Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills

Relative to Rest of Host County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

63

14

24

Note 1: N = 190.

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

aThe poverty rate of individuals in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms, than

the rate in the host county.

bThe poverty rate of individuals in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms,

than the rate in the host county.

Page 86 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix IV 

Relative Differences Between People Within

1 Mile of Landfills and in Rest of County

Figure IV.8: Poverty Rate of People

Within 1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan

Landfills Relative to Rest of Host

County

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

39

27

34

Note: N = 105.

aThe poverty rate of individuals in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms, than

the rate in the host county.

bThe poverty rate of individuals in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms,

than the rate in the host county.

Page 87 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 landfills was as likely to be higher

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

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

the time. Furthermore, the median household income of nonminorities

living within 1 mile of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills was

higher than the national median household income for nonminorities 48

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

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

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

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

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

remaining landfills were either not significantly different or were

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

landfills had nonminorities living nearby with a significantly lower income

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

Page 88 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

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

had nonminorities living within 1 mile whose median household income

was significantly less in relative terms than the income in the rest of the

county. The remaining 73 percent had an income that was not significantly

different or was significantly higher. For nonmetropolitan areas,

19 percent of the landfills had nonminorities living nearby with a

significantly lower income in relative terms than the people in the rest of

the county. (See figs. V.3 and V.6.)

With respect to minorities, we found that the median household income

near 67 percent of the metropolitan landfills was higher than the median

income of minorities in the rest of the county. For nonmetropolitan

landfills, 43 percent of the landfills showed this pattern. In metropolitan

and nonmetropolitan areas, the median household income of minorities

living within 1 mile of landfills was higher than the national median

household income for minorities 53 and 37 percent of the time,

respectively. (See figs. V.1 and V.4.)

The median income of minorities living within 1 mile of metropolitan

landfills was significantly lower than it was in the rest of the county

20 percent of the time. For nonmetropolitan landfills, 28 percent of the

landfills showed this pattern. (See figs. V.2 and V.5.)

Finally, the median income of minorities living near metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills was significantly lower in relative terms than the

income of the people in the rest of the county 26 and 43 percent of the

time, respectively. Therefore, in the majority of instances, the median

income was not significantly different or was significantly higher, in

relative terms. (See figs. V.3 and V.6.)

Page 89 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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.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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nonminorities

Minorities

Nonminorities

Minorities

50

67

48

53

Landfills With

Peoples’

Incomes Higher

Than Host

County

Landfills With

Peoples’

Incomes Higher

Than Nat’l

Average

Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 168 for minorities in the comparison with the income in the

county. N = 190 for both in the comparison with national averages.

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

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

with the income of minorities outside that area.

Page 90 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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.2: Absolute Difference

Between Median Household Income of

People Living Within 1 Mile of

Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of

Host County, by Race

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Median Income Is

Significantly Lessa

Median Income Is Not Significantly Different

Median Income Is

Significantly Moreb

Median Income Is

Significantly Lessa

Median Income Is Not Significantly Different

Median Income Is

Significantly Moreb

24

48

27

20

33

47

Nonminorities Minorities

Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 168 for minorities. The percentages for nonminorities do not

add to 100 percent because of rounding.

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

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

with the income of minorities outside that area.

aThe median household income of the people in the 1-mile area is at least $5,000 less than the

median household income in the rest of the host county.

bThe median household income of the people in the 1-mile area is at least $5,000 more than the

median household income in the rest of the host county.

Page 91 GAO/RCED-95-84 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.3: Relative Difference

Between Median Household Income of

People Living Within 1 Mile of

Metropolitan Landfills and in Rest of

Host County, by Race

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Income Is Significantly Lessa

Income Is Not Significantly Different

Income Is Significantly Moreb

Income Is Significantly Lessa

Income Is Not Significantly Different

Income Is Significantly Moreb

27

39

34

26

17

58

Nonminorities Minorities

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

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

Note 3: The income of nonminorities in the 1-mile area is compared with the income of

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

with the incomes of minorities outside that area.

aThe median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms,

than the income in the rest of the host county.

bThe median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms,

than the income in the rest of the host county.

Page 92 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nonminorities

Minorities

Nonminorities

Minorities

57

43 44

37

Landfills With

Peoples’

Incomes Higher

Than Host

County

Landfills With

Peoples’

Incomes Higher

Than Nat’l

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 1-mile area is compared with the income of

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

with the income of minorities outside that area.

Page 93 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Median Income Is

Significantly Lessa

Median Income Is Not Significantly Different

Median Income Is

Significantly Moreb

Median Income Is

Significantly Lessa

Median Income Is Not Significantly Different

Median Income Is

Significantly Moreb

10

62

28 28

55

17

Nonminorities Minorities

Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 89 for minorities.

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

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

with the income of minorities outside that area.

aThe median household income of the people in the 1-mile area is at least $5,000 less than the

median household income in the rest of the host county.

bThe median household income of the people in the 1-mile area is at least $5,000 more than the

median household income in the rest of the host county.

Page 94 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Income Is Significantly Lessa

Income Is Not Significantly Different

Income Is Significantly Moreb

Income Is Significantly Lessa

Income Is Not Significantly Different

Income Is Significantly Moreb

19

48

33

43

28 29

Nonminorities Minorities

Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 89 for minorities.

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

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

with the income of minorities outside that area.

aThe median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms,

than the income in the rest of the host county.

bThe median household income in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms,

than the income in the rest of the host county.

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 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

For metropolitan landfills, the poverty rate of nonminorities living within 1

mile were higher than they were in the rest of the county 39 percent of the

time.1

 For nonmetropolitan landfills, the rate of nonminorities living

nearby was higher 46 percent of the time. The poverty rate of

nonminorities within 1 mile of both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan

landfills was higher than the national rate of nonminorities 45 percent of

the time. (See figs. V.7 and V.10.)

The poverty rate of nonminorities within 1 mile of metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills was significantly higher than the rate of

nonminorities in the rest of the county 22 and 30 percent of the time,

respectively. Consequently, they were not significantly different or were

significantly lower about 78 and 70 percent of the time, respectively. (See

figs. V.8 and V.11.)

In relative terms, the poverty rate of nonminorities near metropolitan

landfills was significantly lower 53 percent of the time and significantly

higher only 32 percent of the time. For nonmetropolitan areas, the poverty

rate of nonminorities was significantly lower 40 percent of the time and

significantly higher 35 percent of the time. (See figs. V.9 and V.12.)

The poverty rate of minorities living near metropolitan landfills was higher

than the rate in the rest of the county 26 percent of the time. The rate of

minorities living near nonmetropolitan landfills was higher 42 percent of

the time. Minorities in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas had

poverty rates higher than the national average of minorities 15 and

22 percent of the time. (See figs. V.7 and V.10.)

The poverty rate of minorities was significantly lower within 1 mile of

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills than it was in the rest of the

county 71 and 51 percent of the time, respectively. (See figs. V.8 and V.11.)

In absolute terms, the poverty rate of minorities in metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas was significantly lower than it was in the rest of the

county 72 and 51 percent of the time, respectively. (See figs. V.9 and V.12.)

1

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

nonminorities: about 25 percent compared with about 9 percent.

Page 96 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nonminorities

Minorities

Nonminorities

Minorities

39

26

45

15

Landfills With

People’s

Poverty Rate

Higher Than

Host Co.

Landfills With

People’s

Poverty Rate

Higher Than

Nat’l 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 1-mile area is

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area.

Page 97 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 Host County,

by Race

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

36

43

22

71

8

21

Nonminorities Minorities

Note 1: N = 190 for nonminorities and 180 for minorities. The percentages for nonminorities do not

add to 100 percent because of rounding.

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

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area.

aThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 2.5 percent less than the rate in the

rest of the host county.

bThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 2.5 percent more than the rate in the

rest of the host county.

Page 98 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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.9: Relative Difference

Between Poverty Rate of People Living

Within 1 Mile of Metropolitan Landfills

and in Rest of Host County, by Race

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

53

15

32

72

7

21

Nonminorities Minorities

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

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

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area.

aThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms, than

the rate in the rest of the host county.

bThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms,

than the rate in the rest of the host county.

Page 99 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.10: Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Where Poverty Rate of Nonminorities

and Minorities Living Within 1 Mile

Was Higher Than in Rest of Host

County or Nation

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nonminorities

Minorities

Nonminorities

Minorities

46

42 45

22

Landfills With

People’s

Poverty Rate

Higher Than

Host Co.

Landfills With

People’s

Poverty Rate

Higher Than

Nat’l Ave.

Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 96 for minorities in the comparison with the poverty rate in

the county. N = 105 for both in the comparison with national averages.

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

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area.

Page 100 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

35 34

30

51

14

35

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 1-mile area is compared with the rate of

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area.

aThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 2.5 percent less than the rate in the

rest of the county.

bThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 2.5 percent more than the rate in the

rest of the county.

Page 101 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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

Between Poverty Rate of People Within

1 Mile of Nonmetropolitan Landfills

and in Rest of Host County, by Race

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Lessa

Poverty Rate Is Not Significantly Different

Poverty Rate Is Significantly Moreb

40

25

35

51

14

35

Nonminorities Minorities

Note 1: N = 105 for nonminorities and 94 for minorities.

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

nonminorities outside that area. Likewise, the poverty rate of minorities in the 1-mile area is

compared with the rate of minorities outside that area.

aThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent less, in relative terms, than

the rate in the rest of the host county.

bThe poverty rate of the people in the 1-mile area is at least 10 percent more, in relative terms,

than the rate in the rest of the host county.

Page 102 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VI 

Results From GAO’s Survey on Public

Participation at Municipal Landfills

The majority of our survey’s questions about public participation

concerned those landfills that began receiving waste after January 1, 1988.1

 We selected this timeframe because it more accurately reflects relatively

current state and local decision-making procedures. As mentioned in

appendix II, about 70 percent of the landfills in our sample were

established before 1980. Only 45 of the 633 respondents fit our criterion.

Therefore, the responses to our questions cannot be used to generalize

about the facilities nationwide that began operation after 1988.

The small number of respondents to our questions on this issue indicated

that local governments or landfill owner/operators took a variety of steps

to encourage public participation in the site selection and permit approval

processes. However, without knowing more about the specific conditions

at each of these landfills, which was beyond the scope of our review, we

are not able to judge the adequacy of the actions they took.

Our questions on public participation can be divided into two categories.

The first set of questions addressed public involvement in the decision to

place the facility in a particular location (siting). The second set of

questions addressed public involvement in decisions about the

construction and operation of the facility. Only a few of the questions were

intended to determine how the facilities’ owner/operators addressed

concerns about environmental justice. All of the percentages presented

below reflect only those respondents who reported that they could answer

our questions.

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

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

municipal landfills.

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

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

the local community requires public hearings.

It is important to recognize at least two facts when analyzing these responses. First, the high

percentage of state and local laws requiring notices and hearings is the current condition and does not

necessarily mean that these requirements were in effect when most landfills were sited. Second, local

governments that do not have laws requiring notice or hearings may be bound by state laws that do

require them.

Page 103 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VI 

Results From GAO’s Survey on Public

Participation at Municipal Landfills

responded that written and/or verbal comments from the public on the

selection of the site were collected or recorded.

• About half of the respondents said that more than one site was formally

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

locations was rejected because of public opposition.

• Respondents reportedly used a variety of methods to make

announcements about the proposed landfill site. They placed

announcements in newspapers in over 80 percent of the cases but used

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

information much less often.

• Siting boards or commissions responsible for selecting the site were

formed in less than two-thirds of the cases. However, few respondents

said that a private citizen from the landfill community served on such a

board or commission.

• Nearly all of respondents that held public hearings said they were at

locations and times that were easily accessible to the public. About

three-fifths of respondents said that they made presentations to

neighborhood groups and established a public repository of information

on the proposed site at an accessible location. Three-fifths also said that

they used channels of communication that the community relies on for its

information, such as churches or particular radio or television stations,

although these answers appear to be contrary to the respondents’ answer

to the previous question on methods of disseminating information.

• Less than one-quarter of the respondents said that they encouraged the

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

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

that multilingual fact sheets and interpreters for public meetings were not

applicable (implying that the community did not have a significant

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

interpreters were provided.

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

Page 104 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VI 

Results From GAO’s Survey on Public

Participation at Municipal Landfills

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

berms to obscure the view of the facility.

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

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

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

served on the board.

• The responses to our questions about the techniques used to help people

participate in issues concerning the construction and operations of the

landfill were similar to the questions about site selection. Over half of all

respondents said that they had held public hearings at accessible times

and locations, provided fact sheets and made presentations to

neighborhood groups, and established an accessible repository of

information on the proposed landfill.

• About half said that they used channels of communication that the

community relies on for information. Fewer than one-fifth said that they

encouraged the formation of a community advisory panel. Finally, none of

the respondents provided funding to the public for analyzing the proposed

site.

Page 105 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

Chapter 5 discusses the issue of the potential health effects associated

with hazardous and nonhazardous waste facilities. We indicate that few

data exist to support the assumption that these facilities cause negative

health effects. We also indicate that we cross-tabulated the demographics

of the people living near municipal landfills with data obtained from our

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

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

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

and the incidence of groundwater contamination. We chose these

characteristics because of their possible implications for the risks posed

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

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

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

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

appendix III according to the answers respondents provided to our

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

whether the landfills where a higher percentage of minorities lived within

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

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

lived in the rest of the county.

Our analysis produced 30 cross-tabulations: the five landfill characteristics

cross-tabulated with race, income, and poverty status for both

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills. The data on metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills have been combined in the figures below. We

were able to test for statistically significant associations between landfill

characteristics and demographic data in 25 of the 30 cross-tabulations. In

the other five cross-tabulations, the data were not sufficient to conduct

such tests (either our sample size was too small or too few landfills had

the relevant characteristic).

Of the 25 statistical tests we conducted, only one test indicated that the

landfill characteristics were associated with the demographic data. We

found that in nonmetropolitan areas, the landfills where a higher

percentage of minorities lived nearby than lived in the rest of the county

were significantly more likely to have groundwater monitoring than the

landfills where a higher percentage of nonminorities lived nearby. (See fig.

VII.5.)

The remaining tests for both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan landfills

showed that the racial and economic data were not significantly

Page 106 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

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

that landfills where a higher percentage of minorities lived nearby were

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

nonminorities lived nearby.

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

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

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

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

people living near landfills that have characteristics that might increase

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

the county.

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

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

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

metropolitan and 62 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills had accepted

some “risky” categories of waste.

Our intent was not to make comparisons between metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan landfills, although such comparisons can be made if the

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

the estimates are provided in tables III.1 and III.2 in appendix III.

Type of Waste Accepted by

Landfills

A characteristic that could be associated with potential risk is the type of

waste that a landfill has accepted over the years. Respondents to our

survey provided information on over 10 types of waste they have accepted.

These types include household garbage, commercial waste, construction

and demolition debris, nonhazardous industrial waste, hazardous

industrial waste from both small- and large-quantity generators,

incinerator ash, infectious waste, asbestos, and sewage sludge. Although it

is not possible to say conclusively that the presence of one type of waste

will increase the potential for risk, for the purposes of our analysis we

placed each landfill into one of two categories depending on the types of

waste that it had accepted. The first category was landfills that reported

having received only household garbage, commercial waste, construction

and demolition debris, and nonhazardous industrial waste. We estimate

that 22 percent of the metropolitan landfills and 38 percent of the

nonmetropolitan landfills were in this category. The second category was

landfills that reported having also received any of the other more “risky”

Page 107 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

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

62 percent of the nonmetropolitan landfills were in this category.

We did not find a statistically significant association between the

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

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

data are presented in figure VII.1.

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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Municipal,

Commercial,

and/or Industrial

Waste

All Types of

Waste

Municipal,

Commercial,

and/or Industrial

Waste

All Types of

Waste

26

21

74

79

33

41

67

59

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Milea

Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mileb

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

aN = 50 for metropolitan landfills and 39 for nonmetropolitan landfills.

bN = 137 for metropolitan landfills and 64 for nonmetropolitan landfills.

Although only one of the figures below illustrates a statistically significant

association, it may be helpful to point out some of the data contained

Page 108 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 landfills. Each

cluster represents those landfills that had accepted the two categories of

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

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

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

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

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

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

category.

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

50 metropolitan landfills where the percentage of minorities living within 1

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

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

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

landfills where the percentage of nonminorities living within 1 mile was

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

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

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

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

as well as in the rest of the figures.

Liners Beneath Waste Cells

in Landfills

Landfills are located in different geological settings, contain different types

of waste, and were designed and built to different specifications.

Nevertheless, some landfill features are generally accepted as important

for protecting human health and the environment. One of those features is

a protective liner beneath the waste cell. Liners can be made of synthetic

materials or compacted clay. Both are intended to be relatively

impermeable to liquids moving through the landfill.

For the purposes of our analysis, we placed each landfill into one of two

categories: (1) landfills that had no liners and (2) landfills that had liners

for at least one waste unit. Among the metropolitan landfills, we estimate

that about 53 percent of the landfills had liners and about 47 percent did

not. Among the nonmetropolitan landfills, we estimate that about

34 percent had liners and about 66 percent did not.

We found no statistically significant association between the use of

protective liners and the percentage of minorities living within the 1 mile

Page 109 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 VII.2: Landfills Where

Percentage of Minorities or

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest

of Host County, Stratified by Presence

of Lined Waste Cells

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Some Cells

Have Liners

No Cells Have

Liners

Some Cells

Have Liners

No Cells Have

Liners

59

50

41

50

32 35

68 65

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Milea

Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mileb

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

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

bN = 129 for metropolitan landfills and 60 for nonmetropolitan landfills.

Leachate Collection

Systems Beneath Landfills

Leachate collection systems are another design feature that is intended to

protect against contamination from landfills. The systems collect liquid,

known as leachate, after it percolates down through the landfill. The

leachate is pumped out of the landfill and treated, thereby reducing the

likelihood that it will permeate the landfill and enter the groundwater.

Page 110 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

We established the same types of categories with regard to the landfills’

leachate collection systems: (1) landfills that had no leachate collection

systems and (2) landfills that had leachate collection systems for at least

one waste cell. Among the metropolitan landfills, about 54 percent did not

have leachate collection systems and about 46 percent did. Among the

nonmetropolitan landfills, about 82 percent did not have such systems and

about 18 percent did.

We found no statistically significant association between the use of

protective leachate collection systems and the percentage of minorities

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

rest of the county. These data are presented in figure VII.3.

Page 111 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

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

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Some Cells

Have Leachate

Collection

Systems

No Cells Have

Leachate

Collection

Systems

Some Cells

Have Leachate

Collection

Systems

No Cells Have

Leachate

Collection

Systems

56

42 44

58

11

23

89

77

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Milea

Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mileb

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

aN = 48 for metropolitan landfills and 38 for nonmetropolitan landfills.

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

Groundwater

Contamination at Landfills

Landfills have the potential to release contaminated materials even if

liners or leachate collection systems are used. We asked survey

respondents whether their facility had ever been determined to have

caused groundwater contamination. We divided the landfills into

categories depending upon whether or not they had caused groundwater

contamination. Among the metropolitan landfills, 18 percent reported that

such contamination had been detected, and 82 percent reported that it had

not. Among the nonmetropolitan landfills, 7 percent reported that such

contamination had occurred, and 93 percent said that it had not.

Page 112 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

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

significant association between groundwater contamination and the race

of the people living near metropolitan or nonmetropolitan landfills. These

data are presented in figure VII.4.

Figure VII.4: Landfills Where

Percentage of Minorities or

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest

of Host County, Stratified by

Groundwater Contamination

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Has Been a

Source of

Groundwater

Contamination

Has Not Been a

Source of

Groundwater

Contamination

Has Been a

Source of

Groundwater

Contamination

Has Not Been a

Source of

Groundwater

Contamination

17 19

83 81

16

2

84

98

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Milea

Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mileb

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 landfill so that groundwater samples can be taken and

Page 113 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

analyzed for contaminants that might originate from the landfill. If the

monitoring detects contaminants, corrective measures can be

implemented to reduce their spread.

Among the metropolitan landfills, 92 percent reported that they conduct

some level of groundwater monitoring. Among the nonmetropolitan

landfills, 67 percent reported that they monitor the groundwater.

We cross-tabulated these data with the demographic data as before. We

found a statistically significant association between groundwater

monitoring and the race of the people living near nonmetropolitan

landfills. Figure VII.5 shows that the landfills where the percentage of

minorities living within 1 mile was higher than the percentage in the rest of

the county were significantly more likely (82 percent vs. 58 percent) to

have groundwater monitoring than the landfills at which the percentage of

nonminorities living nearby was higher than the percentage in the rest of

the county.

Page 114 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VII 

Cross-Tabulations of Demographic Data and

Landfill Characteristics

Figure VII.5: Landfills Where

Percentage of Minorities or

Nonminorities Living Within 1 Mile

Was Higher Than Percentage in Rest

of Host County, Stratified by Presence

of Groundwater Monitoring

Percentage of Landfills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Landfills Have

Groundwater

Monitoring

Landfills Do Not

Have

Groundwater

Monitoring

Landfills Have

Groundwater

Monitoring

Landfills Do Not

Have

Groundwater

Monitoring

94 91

6 9

82

58

18

42

Metropolitan Landfills Nonmetropolitan Landfills

Pct. Minority Is Higher In 1-Milea

Pct. Nonminority Is Higher In 1-Mileb

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

aN = 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.

Page 116 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Appendix VIII 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Now on p. 2.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 55.

See comment 3.

Page 117 GAO/RCED-95-84 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.

Page 118 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
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 1. We agree that the issue of environmental justice is broader than the

location of waste facilities and have revised the report to clarify this point.

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

executive order.

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

requirement in the executive order.

4. We support EPA’s efforts in this area and agree there are limitations to

existing methodologies.

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

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

that local governments have a large role.

6. We have revised the report to include this information about EPA’s

regulations on public participation.

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

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Allen Li, Associate Director

Gerald E. Killian, Assistant Director

Allan Rogers, Assistant Director

Ross Campbell, Evaluator-in-Charge

Larry D. Turman, Senior Evaluator

Mitchell B. Karpman, Senior Operations Research Analyst

Judy K. Pagano, Senior Operations Research Analyst

Kelly S. Ervin, Social Scientist

Phyllis Turner, Communications Analyst

(160205) Page 120 GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

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

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/RCED-95-84 Demographics of People Near Waste Facilities