Community Investment: Information on Selected Facilities That Received Environmental Permits
Published: 2002-05-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Industrial facilities that operate under permits regulating some emissions and discharges have been the subject of complaints from community groups and environmental activists who charge that the facilities expose the surrounding communities to greater environmental risk than the general population. In response, the facilities point out that they contribute to the economic growth of the surrounding communities by employing residents and supporting other community needs, such as schools and infrastructure.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In a survey of selected facilities, GAO found that the number of jobs in some decreased over time. According to facility officials, these jobs included unskilled, trade, technical, administrative, and professional positions with salaries ranging from $15,000 to $80,000 per year. Most of the facilities identified other contributions that they had made or planned to make in the local communities. These included volunteer work such as organizing cleanups; infrastructure improvements such as installing a new water drainage system; and financial assistance to schools, universities, community groups, and other organizations. Property values in a community are affected by many factors, including the condition of the land and houses, the proximity of the property to natural or man-made structures--such as the facilities covered by this study--that might be viewed as desirable or undesirable, and economic conditions in the surrounding or adjacent communities. Information on property values was unavailable for most of the communities and facilities studied. In these locations, community groups voiced concerns that the facilities would cause property values to decline. Officials at 6 of the 15 facilities GAO studied said they had used available incentives or subsidies. The incentives varied, depending on the type of facility and its location, but included tax exemptions, a local bond initiative, reductions in regulatory fees, and reduced utility rates.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: For many years, the location of industrial facilities that are subject to  federal air emissions and water discharge requirements has created  controversy for the surrounding communities.  On the one hand, the  community is striving to bring commerce, jobs, and prosperity to the  community.  On the other hand, the community wants to maintain for its  residents a quality of life that is not further degraded by industrial  emissions and waste.  Some of these facilities, which operate under permits  that regulate certain types of emissions and discharges, have been the  subject of complaints from community groups and environmental activists.   The complaints charge that the facilities expose the surrounding  communities—generally low-income Hispanic and African-American  communities—to greater environmental risk than the general population.   In response, the facilities point out that they contribute to the economic  growth of the surrounding communities by employing residents and  supporting other community needs, such as schools and infrastructure.
To better understand the economic impact of these facilities, you asked us  to study selected facilities and the nearby communities.  Specifically, for  selected facilities you asked us to (1) determine the number and types of  jobs provided, (2) identify contributions the facilities made to their  communities, (3) determine the facilities’ effect, if any, on property values  in their communities, and (4) determine the amount and type of  government subsidies or incentive packages the facilities received.
To address these objectives, we contacted 15 facilities—9 nonhazardous  waste-related facilities, 3 hazardous waste disposal facilities, 2 chemical  plants, and 1 concrete plant—in 9 locations and asked them to provide  information on jobs as well as on other contributions they had made to the  surrounding communities.  In all cases that we selected for our review,  communities had filed complaints about the facilities.  We also contacted  government officials in each of these locations to determine the changes in  property values and to identify any incentives used by the facilities.  In  addition, we interviewed representatives from community and  environmental action groups.  We did not attempt to verify facilities’  contributions to the different communities.  Also, we did not attempt to  estimate the value of incentives.  Finally, results of our work cannot be  projected beyond facilities and the communities we reviewed. Appendix I  provides detailed information on our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, and  the Clean Water Act, the federal government has established requirements  setting limits on emissions and discharges from municipal and private  industrial facilities that might pollute the land, air, or water. EPA shares  responsibility for administering and enforcing these requirements with the  states that have been authorized to administer the permit programs. EPA’s  implementing regulations cover activities such as setting levels and  standards for air emissions, establishing effluent limitation guidelines for  water discharges, evaluating the environmental impacts of air emissions,  monitoring compliance with discharge limits for water permits, ensuring  adequate public participation, and issuing permits or ensuring that state  processes meet federal requirements for the issuance of permits.
While EPA has retained oversight responsibility for these activities, it has  authorized state, tribal, and local authorities to perform most activities  related to issuing permits to industrial facilities.  These authorities— referred to as permitting authorities—receive federal funding from EPA to  carry out these activities and must adopt standards that are equivalent to or  more stringent than the federal standards.  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act  and EPA’s Title VI implementing regulations prohibit permitting authorities  from taking actions that are intentionally discriminatory or that have a  discriminatory effect based on race, color, or national origin.  EPA’s Title VI  regulations allow citizens to file administrative complaints with EPA that  allege discrimination by programs or activities receiving EPA funding [40  C.F.R.§§7.120(1998)].
Title VI complaints must be filed in response to a specific action, such as  the issuance of a permit. Because they must be linked to the actions of the  recipients of federal funds, complaints alleging discrimination in the  permitting process are filed against the permitting authority, rather than the  facility receiving the permit. Complaints may be based on one permitting  action or may relate to several actions or facilities that together have  allegedly had an adverse disparate impact.  Neither the filing of a Title VI  complaint nor the acceptance of one for investigation by EPA stays the  permit at issue.
As of February 7, 2002, EPA’s complaint system showed 44 pending  complaints alleging that state agencies had taken actions resulting in  adverse environmental impacts that disproportionately affected protected  groups.  Of these complaints, 30 involved complaints that were accepted by  EPA and were related to permits allowing proposed facilities to operate at a  specified level of emissions. Other complaints involved issues such as  cleanup enforcement and compliance.
section_title: Information on Number and Types of Jobs
paragraphs: The 15 facilities covered in our study included waste treatment plants,  recycling operations, landfills, chemical plants, and packaging facilities.   These facilities were in nine locations, and some were in rural areas, while  others were in urban areas. (See app. II for additional information on the  location and description of the facilities).  All of the facilities that we  studied reported that they had provided jobs as a result of the creation or  expansion of their facility. As shown in table 1, the number of full-time  jobs ranged from 4 to 103 per facility, with 9 of the facilities having 25 jobs  or less.  Most of the facilities involved waste-related operations, which  generally employ small numbers of employees.
For four of the facilities, information was available from documents  prepared before the facilities began operating on the number of jobs the  facilities had estimated they would provide.  In each of these cases, the  number of jobs estimated was greater than the number of jobs provided.   Specifically, Genesee Power Station estimated it would provide 30 jobs and  provided 25; ExxonMobil estimated it would provide 50 jobs and provided  40; Natural Resources Recovery estimated it would provide between 15 and  40 jobs and provided 6; and Safety-Kleen, Inc., estimated it would provide  50 jobs in Westmoreland and provided 22.
Officials from a few facilities told us that their facilities, in addition to  providing jobs directly, generated additional jobs outside of the facility.   For example, a document from ExxonMobil indicated that for every job  provided at the plant, 4.6 jobs resulted elsewhere in the East Baton Rouge  Parish economy.  Also, Chemical Waste Management officials told us that  their landfill increased business in the area and that this enhanced business  could result in more jobs.  We did not verify the facilities’ estimates of jobs  generated outside of the facility.
In some cases, the number of jobs at these facilities decreased over time.   For example, jobs at the chemical waste facility in Kettleman City,  California, decreased from 200 in 1990 to 103 in 2002; and jobs at a similar  facility in Buttonwillow, California, decreased from 110 in 1987 to 23 in  2002.  In addition, jobs at a fertilizer plant in New York decreased from 80 in  1993 to 39 in 2002.  Officials from the two facilities in California told us that  the changes resulted from a decreased demand for the facilities due to a  reduction in the amount of waste generated by a more environmentally  conscious public.
We obtained information on the salary ranges and types of jobs provided  for 14 of the 15 facilities. According to officials at these facilities, the  salaries for the jobs provided varied from about $15,000 to $80,000 per year,  depending on factors such as the type of work and the location of the  facility.  However, the information that the facilities provided was not  detailed enough to allow us to determine the numbers for each job type, the  salaries for individual jobs, or the number of jobs filled by people from the  surrounding communities.  The information indicates a wide range of  salaries; however, community organizations in some locations told us that,  in their view, the majority of the jobs filled by community residents were  low paying.
The facilities provided the following information:  The ExxonMobil Corporation told us that their facility in Louisiana had  both hourly and salaried jobs.  According to ExxonMobil, its hourly jobs  included mechanics, electricians, and laboratory technicians; and its  average wage was about $23 an hour, which is equivalent to $47,840 per  year. Salaried jobs included engineers, a chemist, accountants, and  administrative assistants, and the average salary was just under $70,000  annually.
The Texas Industries Package Plant, located in Texas, told us that its  jobs included plant manager, sales representative, dispatcher, packaging  coordinator, maintenance mechanic, plant operator, crew operators,  crew members, and administrative positions. The salaries ranged from  about $10 to $15 per hour, which is equivalent to $20,800 and $31,200 per  year, respectively.
The three hazardous waste treatment facilities in California reported  that the jobs at their facilities—facility manager, manager, heavy  equipment operators, plant operators, truck receiving operators,  customer service representatives, and waste acceptance specialists— had salaries ranging from $28,000 to $82,000 annually.
The nine nonhazardous waste-related facilities located in Connecticut,  Louisiana, Michigan, and New York reported having jobs that included  facility site managers, site supervisors, scale and machine operators,  technical assistants, mechanics, and laborers. Salaries for these jobs  ranged from $7.50 to $33.50 per hour, which is equivalent to $15,600 and  $69,680 per year, respectively.
About half of the facilities provided some information on whether their  jobs were filled by people from the communities.  Specifically, according to  information provided by the Hunts Point, South Bronx, New York facilities,  a large number of employees in the waste-related facilities resided in the  Bronx.  The Hunts Point Water Pollution Control Plant had 67 employees  from the Bronx, with 1 living in the immediate Hunts Point neighborhood.   Safety-Kleen, Inc., told us that the majority of the employees in its two  facilities lived in the county where the facilities were located.
Over the years of the Genesee Power Station’s operation, about half of the  68 employees resided in Flint or Genesee County, Michigan; however, the  facility did not indicate how many employees, if any, lived in Genesee  Township—the home of the power station—or the Flint community that is  close to the plant.  Similarly, information provided by the Texas Industries  Package Plant in Austin, Texas, indicated that its 10 employees all resided  in a nearby community, town, or city but did not identify the number from  the community immediately surrounding the plant.  And in a 1998  document submitted to EPA, Natural Resources Recovery, Inc., indicated  that four of its five employees lived in the town where the plant was  located.  However, community representatives told us that few, if any, town  residents worked at the landfill at the time of our visit.
section_title: Contributions to the Community
paragraphs: As shown in table 2, officials from 10 of the 15 facilities said they had  contributed to the communities in which they were located.  Specifically,  they performed volunteer work that included offering firefighting  assistance and organizing cleanups in the area.  They also made  infrastructure improvements, such as installing a new water drainage  system.  In addition, some of the facilities made or were planning to make  financial contributions in the communities where they were located.  These  financial contributions would assist schools and universities as well as  community groups and other organizations.  For example, the Genesee  Power Station awarded eight $1,000 scholarships to high school students.
In three communities, the facilities established foundations or funds to  manage and disburse the financial contributions.  One foundation was set  up following legal action taken by community groups.  In another case, the  foundation was not linked to legal action.  The fund resulted from  collaboration among the state environmental agency, the facility, and the  community that ultimately resulted in the community dropping its  complaint with EPA.  The facilities and community groups in these three  locations provided the following information:  The Kettleman City Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit  corporation, was set up after legal action was taken by the community  against Chemical Waste Management.  The foundation was organized to  improve the quality of life of the residents of Kettleman City and nearby  areas of Kings County, California, by developing capacity, leveraging  additional resources, and protecting the environment and residents’  health and welfare.  The board of this foundation consisted of the legal  representative for the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment;  three community residents; and the manager of the Chemical Waste  Management facility.  Chemical Waste Management provided $115,000 to  the foundation.  In addition, Chemical Waste Management agreed to  make further contributions annually, based on tons of municipal waste  disposed at its landfill.  Since 1998, Chemical Waste Management has  contributed almost $300,000 to the foundation.  Some of these funds are  to be used to help build the Kettleman City Community Center, which  plans to provide a variety of social services.
The Buttonwillow Community Foundation was established in June 1994.
The directors of the foundation included representatives from local  government offices, the Chamber of Commerce, and a senior citizens’  group.  This foundation’s primary function was to provide grants to  facilitate projects promoting the health, education, recreation, safety  and welfare of the Buttonwillow residents.  Safety-Kleen, Inc., provided  an initial $50,000 donation to the foundation. Its annual contribution to  the foundation is linked to the tons of waste received at the facility, and  in calendar years 2000 and 2001, these contributions exceeded $100,000.
The North Meadow Municipal Landfill worked with the community to  address the community’s concerns.  Consequently, a fund called the  Economic Development Account was established for economic  development for minority business enterprises, social welfare projects,  relief of the poor and underprivileged, environmental education,  community revitalization, amelioration of public health concerns, and  for other charitable purposes within Hartford.  A board consisting of  community group and city representatives would determine how to  distribute funds from the account.  At the time of our review, the facility  had agreed to provide $9.7 million for the account over 10 years.  In  exchange for these contributions, the community group agreed to  accept the landfill’s expansion and withdraw the complaint to EPA.
Despite these efforts, community residents often felt these contributions  were inadequate.
section_title: Information on Property Values
paragraphs: Property values in a community are affected by many factors, including the  condition of the land and houses; the proximity of the property to natural  or manmade structures—such as the facilities covered by this study—that  might be viewed as desirable or undesirable; and economic conditions in  the surrounding or adjacent communities.  Information on property values  was not available for most of the communities where the facilities were  located.  For example, in some rural and unincorporated areas, information  on property values was kept for a limited number of properties or was  based on property sales, which were infrequent and had not occurred since  the facilities had begun operating.
Some information was available for two locations—Genesee Township,  Michigan, and South Bronx, New York.  Even in these two locations, the  information available was not specific enough to isolate the effect of the  facility on property values because of the other factors that can affect  property values, such as the location of other manufacturing or waste- related facilities in the area or economic activity in adjacent areas.  The  Genesee Township tax assessor provided information showing that  property values in the area had not changed.  In the South Bronx, property  assessment data indicated that property values had increased in the Hunts  Point neighborhood—the neighborhood where multiple waste  management facilities were located.  For this case, local officials stated  that the increase occurred because of factors such as expanding economic  development and the rising cost of housing in Manhattan.
In locations where property values were not available, community groups  voiced concerns that the facilities would cause property values to decline.
For example, residents of Alsen, Louisiana, believed that the location of  nearby industrial facilities, including the facilities studied for this report,  affected property values and reduced homeowners’ ability to sell their  homes for a reasonable price.  Similar concerns were included in the  complaints regarding the hazardous waste landfills in California.  The Alum  Crest Acres Association, Inc., a community group in Columbus, Ohio, and  the Garden Valley Neighborhood Association located near the Texas  Industries Austin Package Plant also expressed concern about the effect of  the industrial facilities on their property values.
section_title: Incentives Received by the Facilities
paragraphs: Six of the 15 facilities we studied said they used incentives or subsidies that  were available in a particular area.  Officials from these facilities also said  that they chose their location because of low land costs, favorable zoning,  or other factors. The incentives varied, depending on the type of facility  and its location, but included tax exemptions, a local bond initiative,  reductions in regulatory fees, and reduced utility rates.
In Louisiana, the state granted ExxonMobil an industrial tax exemption  from state, parish, and local taxes on property such as buildings,  machinery, and equipment that were used as part of the manufacturing  process.  This exemption, which is available to any manufacturing  company that builds or expands a facility within the state, is initially  available for 5 years but may be renewed for an additional 5 years.   According to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development,  ExxonMobil’s polyolefin plant had received tax exemptions worth  approximately $193 million between 1990 and June 2000.  Also, in 2001,  approximately $139 million was filed for the ad valorem tax exemption  related to the Polypropylene project.
The Buttonwillow and Westmoreland, California, hazardous waste facilities  received a low-interest bond issued by the California Pollution Control  Financing Authority in the amount of $19.5 million, and the facility in  Kettleman City experienced a 40-percent reduction in regulatory fees as a  result of provisions granted by the state in January 1998. In the latter case,  facility representatives said the provisions were intended to help keep the  facility from laying off employees.
In the Hunts Point community in the South Bronx, the New York Organic  Fertilizer Company was eligible for discount rates from the utility  company—Consolidated Edison—because of its location.  The utility  company offered this incentive to any facility that located in a certain  community and hired a percentage of employees from that community.   Also, Tri Boro Fibers, a recycling company located in Hunts Point, received  a local tax exemption that was available to all recycling facilities for  trucking fees and certain purchases.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: Certain EPA units provided technical comments on a draft of this report.   EPA’s Office of Civil Rights commented that the report needed (1) more  detailed information on the number and types of jobs and on those jobs  provided to the communities nearest the facilities and (2) a comparison of  property values in the communities closest to the facilities to similar  communities.  As stated in the report, the facilities covered in this study  were not required to provide information, however most of them  voluntarily provided some job-related information.  Facilities were not  required to provide a specified number of jobs to receive permits to locate  in a given area.  A property value comparison would not have been possible  considering the data limitation and accessibility issues that we identified.   EPA generally agreed with the information about the agency and provided  clarifications which we incorporated into this report where appropriate.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the  date of the report.  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees and the Administrator of the Environmental  Protection Agency.  We will also make copies available to others on  request.  If you have any questions about this report, please contact Nancy  Simmons, Assistant Director, or me at (202) 512-8678.  Key contributors to  this assignment are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this engagement were to (1) determine the number and  types of jobs provided, (2) identify contributions made by the facilities to  their communities, (3) determine the facilities’ effect, if any, on property  values in their communities, and (4) determine the amount and type of  government subsidies or incentive packages the facilities received. We did  not examine the environmental impact of the facilities or the associated  impact, if any, on the health of the communities in which they were located.
We selected facilities for this engagement from the Environmental  Protection Agency’s (EPA) complaint system.  These complaints involved  facilities that received environmental permits and were located in  communities that felt the facilities’ operations were having a  disproportionate impact on them.  As of February 7, 2002, the system  contained 44 complaints, of which EPA had accepted 36 for further review.
As agreed with the requesters, we considered only facilities covered by  complaints involving issues related to the permitting process (30 of the 36  accepted complaints).  We initially selected three of the complaints, which  involved three locations and eight of the facilities covered in our study.  We  found that 1 of these complaints involved 26 waste-related facilities. As  agreed with our requestors’ staffs, we included 6 of the 26 facilities in the  scope of this engagement.  Subsequently, using geographic location, type of  facility, and population density (urban versus rural), we selected seven  additional complaints involving diverse facilities and locations.  We found  that two of these complaints involved facilities that were no longer in  business; consequently, we excluded them from our analysis.  The  remaining five complaints involved six additional locations and seven  facilities.  Table 3 outlines the 9 locations and 15 facilities included in our  study.
To determine the number of jobs provided, the contributions the facilities  made to the communities, and the impact on property values, we used a  structured data collection instrument to interview officials from each  facility and from state or local economic development and planning  organizations.  We asked for information such as the number of jobs  provided over time, the number of jobs filled by people in the communities  nearest the facilities, the types of jobs offered, and the salaries for each job.   However, we did not examine whether the jobs represented a net increase  in jobs within the community.  Where available, we obtained property  assessment information from local tax assessment offices.  We also  interviewed representatives from community and environmental action  groups, some of which were involved in filing complaints with EPA. We  analyzed documents pertaining to jobs at the facilities, property values  before and after the facilities began operating or expanding, contributions  to the community, and program planning; reviewed public hearings related  to the issuance of environmental permits; and reviewed economic and  demographic data.  In general, we did not independently verify the  information provided.
To determine the subsidies or tax incentives that the facilities used, we  interviewed officials from the facilities and from state or local economic  development and planning organizations.  We also reviewed documents  obtained from these officials.
We conducted our work between May 2001 and May 2002 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We obtained  comments on a draft of this report from EPA officials.  We also asked the  representatives of some facilities with whom we consulted to review  portions of the draft of this report for accuracy and clarity.  Their  comments are incorporated into this report as appropriate.
section_title: Location and Description of the Industrial Facilities
subsections: section_title: Alsen, Louisiana
paragraphs: Alsen is located along the Mississippi River near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in  an industrial corridor.  Located along this corridor are facilities such as  petrochemical plants that produce one-fifth of all U.S. petrochemicals, a  lead smelter, a commercial hazardous waste incinerator, and landfills.   Alsen is located in a rural area where the population is predominantly low  income and African-American.  Two of the facilities included in this report  are located in Alsen—ExxonMobil and Natural Resources Recovery, Inc.
The ExxonMobil facility produces both polyethylene and polypropylene  (plastic) for textile, film, and automotive markets and is located in a cluster  of petrochemical companies.  The Louisiana Environmental Action  Network and the North Baton Rouge Environmental Association filed a  complaint with EPA against the Louisiana Department of Environmental  Quality for issuing a permit for ExxonMobil’s expansion of an existing  plant.  According to officials at the facility, a $150-million expansion was  initiated in 1998 and, with a capacity of 600 million pounds, will increase  production to meet the growing demand for polypropylene.
Natural Resources Recovery, Inc., is a construction and demolition debris  landfill.  The facility also recycles wood and construction material.  As with  ExxonMobil, Louisiana Environmental Action Network and North Baton  Rouge Environmental Association filed a complaint with EPA against the  Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality concerning Natural  Resources Recovery, Inc.
section_title: Hunts Point, South Bronx, New York
paragraphs: The residential population within the Hunts Point community consisted of  about 12,000 people in 2000, many of whom were renters. Community  residents are largely Hispanic and African-American, and many residents  are low income.  The community is home to many industrial facilities,  including numerous waste treatment facilities.  Six of the waste treatment  facilities are included in this report—Waste Management (Truxton), Waste  Management (Barretto), Tri Boro Fibers, Hunts Point Water Pollution  Control Plant, New York Organic Fertilizer Company, and Tristate Transfer  Associates Inc.  Respectively, these facilities handle carting and demolition,  transfer clean fill material, recycle nonhazardous waste, treat sewage,  conduct thermal drying of biosolid waste, and collect garbage.  Most of  these facilities have operated since the 1980s and 1990s.  These and other  facilities are the subject of a complaint filed with EPA by U. S.  Congressman Serrano and various Hunts Point community groups against  the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New  York City Department of Sanitation concerning the issuance of permits to  operate existing and proposed facilities.
section_title: Buttonwillow, Westmoreland, and Kettleman City, California
paragraphs: These three communities are located in sparsely populated portions of  Kern County, Imperial County, and Kings County, respectively.  Residents of  all three communities are predominantly Hispanic and low income.  In  addition, each of the communities is home to one of the three hazardous  waste treatment facilities included in our study.
Safety-Kleen, Inc.—the world’s largest recycler of automotive and  industrial fluid wastes—operates the facilities located in Buttonwillow and  Westmoreland.  These facilities collect, process, recycle, and dispose of a  range of hazardous wastes.  The Buttonwillow facility, which accepts a  wide range of EPA regulated hazardous and nonhazardous waste, has been  operating since 1982.  The area immediately surrounding the facility is  irrigated agricultural and undeveloped land.  Irrigated agriculture, oil  production, and waste disposal are the predominant land uses for several  miles around the facility, and the closest residence is about 3 miles away.   The Westmoreland facility began operating in 1980 and also accepts a wide  range of EPA regulated hazardous and nonhazardous waste.  Like the  Buttonwillow facility, the Westmoreland facility processes and disposes of  both hazardous and nonhazardous waste.
Chemical Waste Management operates the third facility, which is located  about 4 miles from Kettleman City in Kings County, California.  This facility  provides hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal services to a  variety of customers—including universities, government agencies, and  private industry—throughout California and the western United States.  In  addition, the facility has a separate landfill that handles municipal solid  waste generated from two counties.
The Parents for Better Living of Buttonwillow, People for Clean Air and  Water of Kettleman City, and Concerned Citizens of Westmoreland filed a  complaint with EPA against the California Department of Toxic Substances  Control and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, regarding these  three hazardous waste landfills.
section_title: Genesee Township, Michigan
paragraphs: Genesee Township is a suburban area located in Genesee County and is  adjacent to the city of Flint, which is the fourth-largest city in Michigan.   Residents near the facility are largely low income and minority.
The Genesee Power Station is a wood-burning power plant located in an  industrial park within the township. Using waste wood, the plant produces  electricity for a power company that services about 35,000 homes in Flint  and Genesee Township.   The area surrounding the plant includes a cement- making plant, an asphalt plant, a fuel storage facility, and a residential  community.
The Saint Francis Prayer Center filed a complaint with EPA against the  Michigan Department of Environmental Quality regarding the issuance of a  permit for the Genesee Power Station.
section_title: Hartford, Connecticut
paragraphs: Hartford is an urban area in central Connecticut.  The North Meadow  Municipal Landfill—one of the facilities covered in our study—has existed  for over 75 years and is located in north Hartford in a community of about  35,000 people.  The city of Hartford owns the landfill, which is run by the  Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority. The facility is located in an area  that abuts an industrial zone containing auto dealerships, the city’s public  works garage, a junkyard, vacant buildings, and other industrial businesses.    The neighborhood near the facility is largely minority and suffers from  poorly maintained and abandoned buildings.
The Organized North Easterner and Clay Hill and North End, Inc., filed a  complaint with EPA against the Connecticut Department of Environmental  Protection regarding this landfill.  However, after subsequent discussions  among representatives of the community, the state environmental agency,  and the facility, an agreement was reached and the complaint was  withdrawn.
section_title: Austin, Texas
paragraphs: While Austin is considered the home of the Texas Industries Austin  Package Plant, which was included in our study, the plant is located outside  of the city.  The plant produces packaged products that include various  types of concrete, mortar, sand, cement and asphalt mixes. It primarily sells  its products to construction companies in the southwestern United States.
The Garden Valley Neighborhood Association—which represents a largely  minority, residential community close to the plant—filed a complaint with  EPA against the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission  regarding the concrete plant.
section_title: Columbus, Ohio
paragraphs: The Georgia Pacific facility has operated in an urban area on the south side  of Columbus, Ohio, in Franklin County since 1971.  The facility annually  produces 110 million pounds of resin as well as 235 million pounds of  formaldehyde, which is used in making plywood, particleboard, ceiling  tiles, laminates, and other products.
On behalf of a community near this facility that is approximately 80 percent  minority, Alum Crest Acres Association, Inc., and South Side Community  Action Association filed a complaint with EPA concerning the permit  issued for this facility by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and  the City of Columbus.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Staff members who made key contributions to this report were Gwenetta  Blackwell-Greer, Emily Chalmers, M. Grace Haskins, Tina Kinney, Tina  Morgan, and Paul Thompson.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs