ML11356A490

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater (Cle) Pre-Filed Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit CLE000027, Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards: Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

ML11356A490
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/22/2011
From:	Faber D, Krieg E Northeastern Univ
To:	NRC/SECY
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML11356A487	List: ML11356A487 ML11356A488 ML11356A489 ML11356A490 ML11356A491 ML11356A492 ML11356A493
References
RAS 21633, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML11356A490 (12)

Text

Exhibit CLE000027 Submitted 12/22/11 Environmental Justice Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards: Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Daniel R. Faber 1 and Eric J. Krieg 2 1 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; 2 Department of Sociology, Buffalo State College, Buffalo, New York, USA the basis of generating reasonably sized groups This study analyzes the social and geographic distribution of ecological hazards across 368 commu- with easily recognizable boundaries. The nities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Combining census data with a variety of environ- lower-income groups are not intended to mental data, we tested for and identified both income-based and racially based biases to the indicate poverty conditions.

geographic distribution of 17 different types of environmentally hazardous sites and industrial The percentage of total population made facilities. We also developed a composite measure of cumulative exposure to compare the relative up of people of color determines the racial overall risks characteristic of each community. To the best of our knowledge, this point system composition of a community, which we makes this the first environmental justice study to develop a means for measuring and ranking coded as follows, (1) low minority, less than cumulative exposure for communities. The study also controls for the intensity of hazards in each 5% people of color; (2) moderately low community by accounting for the area across which hazards are distributed. The findings indicate minority, 5-14.99%; (3) moderately high that ecologically hazardous sites and facilities are disproportionately located and concentrated in minority, 15-24.99%; and (4) high minor-communities of color and working-class communities. The implication of this research for policy- ity, 25% and greater. The vast majority of makers and citizen advocates is that cumulative exposure of residents to environmentally hazardous towns in Massachusetts have very small facilities and sites should receive greater consideration regarding community demographics and minority populations of less than 5%.

environmental health indicators. We conclude that the provision of additional resources for envi- However, when we analyzed the remaining ronmental monitoring and ranking, as well as yearly progress reports, is necessary for communities towns (Table 4), 10% increases in population and state agencies to achieve equal access to clean and healthy environments for all residents.Key proportions seemed logical for generating rel-words: environmental justice, environmental policy, exposure assessment, hazardous waste sites, atively acceptable frequencies in each cate-public health, toxic release inventory.Environ Health Perspect110(suppl 2):277-288 (2002). gory. The distribution of non-White http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/suppl-2/277-288faber/abstract.html populations as percentage of total population is extremely positively skewed, with a mean of 4.5% and a standard deviation of 9.5.

We analyze whether environmentally haz- Downtown Boston (for the purposes of the Only nine communities in the state have ardous industrial facilities, power plants, report, Downtown Boston encompasses between 15 and 24.99% people of color, and municipal solid waste combustors (incinera- Central Boston and Chinatown, Back Bay 11 communities have 25% or more.

tors), toxic waste sites, landfills of all types, and and Beacon Hill, the South End, and the We made comparisons of low- and high-trash transfer stations are unequally distributed Fenway/Kenmore neighborhoods). Because income communities and of low-minority-regarding the income and/or racial composi- these more specific neighborhoods making and high-minority-status communities in tion of communities in Massachusetts. We up all of Boston and Barnstable are included, terms of exposure rates to environmentally used demographic data from the 1990 U.S. summary data for all-Boston and all- hazardous industrial facilities, waste sites, Census, as well as data collected in the spring Barnstable are excluded from the totals. As a power plants, incinerators, trash transfer sta-and summer of 2000 from the Massachusetts result, a total of 368 communities are ana- tions, and landfills of all types. As illustrated Department of Environmental Protection lyzed in this report. Only in Tables 1 and 2 in Table 5, we assigned a point total to each (DEP), U.S. Environmental Protection of this report, where the most overburdened facility or site based on our assessment of the Agency (U.S. EPA), and the Massachusetts communities in the state are ranked, are relative risks it typically represents to the Toxics Use Reduction Institute, to analyze the Boston and Barnstable as all neighborhoods community. We then added these point exposure rates of all 351 cities and towns combined reintroduced to create a total of totals for each community and divided by (minor civil divisions, or MCDs) in the state 370 communities.) total area to arrive at a density figure. The to the environmentally hazardous industrial Each of the 368 communities is classified density figure provides a more accurate facilities and sites listed above. Although 2000 by class and racial composition. Median assessment of the environmental hazards U.S. Census data would have been more household income determines the class confronting a given community because it appropriate for us to use, it was not available status of a community (1), low income, at the time. At least one study shows that $0-$29,999; (2) medium-low income, This article is part of the monographAdvancing biases to the distribution of ecological hazards $30,000-$39,999; (3) medium-high income, Environmental Justice through Community-Based worsen over time1). ( $40,000-$49,999; and (4) high income, Participatory Research.

In addition to these 351 cities and towns $50,000 and above. These categories reflect Address correspondence to E.J. Krieg, Dept. of in Massachusetts, we also included seven reasonable cutoff points in the data because, Sociology, Buffalo State College, 1300 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo, NY 14222 USA. Telephone: (716) subtowns or neighborhoods within the larger first, the data have no distinct gaps in the 878-6629. Fax: (716) 878-4009. E-mail: kriegej@

town of Barnstable: Barnstable, Centerville, income distribution of towns, and second, the buffalostate.edu Cotuit, Hyannis, Marstons Mills, Osterville, $40,000 cutoff point divides the lower- and For their invaluable research assistance, we thank and West Barnstable. We also include higher-income communities into roughly K. Fredricks, T. Zilliox, E. Bourgeois, A. Gross-12 subtowns or neighborhoods within the equally sized halves (Table 3). The distribu- man, H. Tenney, W. Hope, S. Peck, S. Weinstein, larger city of Boston: Allston/Brighton, tion of incomes takes the shape of a relatively P. Bakely, P. Hunter, P. Loh, K. Smalls, V. Eady, and M. Wilson. The authors remain solely respon-Charlestown, Dorchester, East Boston, Hyde normal curve with a mean of $41,293 and a sible for the content of this report.

Park, Jamaica Plain, Mattapan, Roslindale, standard deviation of $11,742. We selected a Received 13 August 2001; accepted 23 Roxbury, South Boston, West Roxbury, and $10,000 decrease/increase from $40,000 on November 2001.

Environmental Health Perspectives

• VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002 277

Environmental Justice

• Faber and Krieg controls for the size the community and the facilities and sites that is nearly nine times definition in light of the definition of envi-severity of the facility/site. Among our find- greater than that for low-minority communi- ronmental justice, which we borrow from ings: low-income communities face a cumu- ties. Clearly, not all communities in Bryant (2). Although we do not limit our lative exposure rate to environmentally Massachusetts are polluted equallylower- definitions of environmental racism and hazardous facilities and sites that is 3.13-4.04 income communities and communities of environmental classism to conditions charac-times greater than that for all other commu- color are disproportionately impacted. terized by an overburden of ecological haz-nities (measured by median household We define environmental injustice as ards, we consider such overburdens to be income) in the state. In addition, high- unequal access to healthy and clean envi- indicators of both environmental racism and minority communities face a cumulative ronments, including environmental ameni- environmental classism. We also stress that exposure rate to environmentally hazardous ties. We can better understand this broad this study makes no attempt to argue causal Table 1. Most intensively overburdened communities in Massachusetts (total points per square mile).

Points per Rank Town name square mile Class status of town Racial status of town 1 Downtown Bostona 224.8 Low income ($29,468) High minority (31.9%)

2 Charlestown 134.3 Medium-low ($35,706) Moderate-low minority (5.1%)

3 Chelsea 127.4 Low income ($24,144) High minority (30.3%)

4 South Boston 126.2 Low income ($25,539) Low minority population (4.2%)

5 East Boston 123.3 Low income ($22,925) Moderate-high minority (23.6%)

6 Cambridge 115.0 Medium-low income ($33,140) Moderate-high minority (24.9%)

7 Somerville 104.7 Medium-low income ($32,455) Moderate-low minority (11.3%)

8 Roxbury 101.3 Low income ($20,518) High minority (94.0%)

9 Allston/Brighton 100.0 Low income ($25,262) High minority (26.9%)

10 Watertown 98.6 Medium-high income ($43,490) Low minority (3.8%)

11 Everett 98.1 Medium-low income ($30,786) Moderate-low minority (6.0%)

12 Boston (all neighborhoods) 84.0 Low income ($29,180) High minority (37%)

13 Dorchester 81.3 Low income ($29,468) High minority (50.7%)

14 Lawrence 59.3 Low income ($22,183) High minority (34.9%)

15 Malden 57.8 Medium-low income ($34,244) Moderate-low minority (10.1%)

Totals 15 towns 14 of the 15 most intensively overburdened towns 9 of the 15 most intensively overburdened towns are are of lower-income status (less than $40,000) of higher minority status (15% or more people of color) aDowntown Boston encompasses Central Boston and Chinatown, Back Bay and Beacon Hill, the South End, and the Fenway/Kenmore neighborhoods.

Table 2. Most extensively overburdened communities in massachusetts (total points per town).

Points per Rank Town Total points square mile Class status of town Racial status of town 1 Boston (all) 3,972 84 Low income ($29,180) High minority (37%)

2 Worcester 1,248 32.4 Low income ($28,955) Moderate-low minority (12.7%)

3 Downtown Bostona 1,014 224.8 Low income ($29,468) High minority (31.9%)

4 Springfield 999 30.1 Low income ($25,656) High minority (31.2%)

5 Cambridge 820 115.0 Medium-low income ($33,140) Moderate-high minority (24.9%)

6 New Bedford 619 25.8 Low income ($22,647) Moderate-low minority (12.2%)

7 Waltham 611 44.9 Medium-low income ($38,514) Moderate-low minority (8.7%)

8 Lowell 611 42.0 Low income ($29,351) Moderate-high minority (18.8%)

9 East Boston 556 123.3 Low income ($22,925) Moderate-high minority (23.6%)

10 Framingham 537 20.3 Medium-high income ($42,948) Moderate-low minority (9.6%)

11 Brockton 502 23.2 Medium-low income ($31,712) Moderate-high minority (19.6%)

12 Dorchester 490 81.3 Low income ($29,468) High minority (50.7%)

13 Pittsfield 490 11.6 Low income ($29,987) Low minority (4.6%)

14 Lynn 488 36.2 Low income ($28,553) Mod.-high minority (17.0%)

15 Fall River 477 12.5 Low income ($22,452) Low minority (2.7%)

16 Newton 467 25.6 High income ($59,719) Moderate-low minority (7.0%)

17 Woburn 461 35.7 Medium-high income ($42,679) Low minority (3.0%)

18 Chicopee 451 18.9 Low income ($28,905) Low minority (4.4%)

19 Natick 443 27.6 Medium-high income ($49,229) Low minority (4.7%)

20 Somerville 442 104.7 Medium-low income ($32,455) Moderate-low minority (11.3%)

Total 16 of 20 towns most extensively overburdened 9 of 20 towns most extensively overburdened towns are lower income status ($39,999 or less) are of higher minority status (15% or more) aFor the purposes of this report, downtown Boston encompasses Central Boston and Chinatown, Back Bay and Beacon Hill, the South End, and the Fenway/Kenmore neighborhoods.

Cumulative data on the median household income is not available, but appears to fall below the $29,179 figure for Greater Boston as a whole (a low-income category).

Table 3. Median household income. Table 4. Percentage of population that is non-White.

Income bracket Frequency  % Valid % Cumulative % Income bracket Frequency  % Valid % Cumulative %

$0 to $29,999 50 13.6 13.6 13.6 Less than 5% 299 81.3 81.3 81.3

$30,000 to $39,999 137 37.2 37.2 50.8 5-14.99% 49 13.3 13.3 94.6

$40,000 to $49,999 114 31.0 31.0 81.8 15-24.99% 9 2.4 2.4 97.0

$50,000 or more 67 18.2 18.2 100.0 25% or more 11 3.0 3.0 100.0 Total 368 100.0 100.0 Total 368 100.0 100.0 278 VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002

• Environmental Health Perspectives

Environmental Justice

• Unequal exposure to ecological hazards associations between social and environmen- 70,491 people of color. Approximately Hazardous waste sites nationwide are tal conditions. It is descriptive in its orienta- 61,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of among the more concentrated environmen-tion alone, and neither the data nor the type the Iron Horse Park Superfund site in North tal hazards confronting low-income neigh-of analysis allows for discussions of causality. Billerica. In addition to these Superfund sites, borhoods and communities of color.

Massachusetts has over 21,000 DEP haz- According to a 1987 report by the United Unequal Exposure to ardous waste sites. Together, 3,389 of these Church of Christs Commission on Racial Hazardous Waste Sites Superfund or DEP sites are considered to pre- Justice (20), three of every five African In thousands of communities across the sent health risks. Americans and Latinos nationwide live in United States, billions of pounds of highly For residents living near Superfund and communities that have illegal or abandoned toxic chemicals, including mercury, dioxin, other major toxic waste sites, the National toxic dumps. Communities with one haz-polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, lead, and Research Council also found a disturbing ardous waste facility have twice the percent-heavy metals such as chromium, have been pattern of elevated health problems, includ- age of people of color as those with none, dumped in the midst of unsuspecting neigh- ing heart disease, spontaneous abortions and and the percentage triples in communities borhoods. These sites poison the land, cont- genital malformations, and death rates; with two or more waste sites. A subsequent aminate drinking water, and potentially infants and children suffer a higher inci- follow-up study conducted in 1994 has now cause cancer, birth defects, nerve and liver dence of cardiac abnormalities, leukemia, found the risks for people of color to be even damage, and other illnesses. In a 1991 study, kidney-urinary tract infections, seizures, greater than in 1987: they are 47% more the National Research Council found that learning disabilities, hyperactivity, skin dis- likely than Whites to live near these poten-over 41 million people lived within 4 miles orders, reduced weight, central nervous sys- tially health-threatening facilities (21). In of at least one of the nations roughly 1,500 tem damage, and Hodgkins disease (6-8). short, race and poverty are the two most crit-Superfund waste sites (3). Although these Scientists also believe that exposure to indus- ical demographic factors for determining dumps are the worst of the worst, in 1993 trial chemicals contributed to the dramatic where commercial hazardous waste facilities the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment increases since the 1950s in cancer of the are located in the United States (including estimated that the United States has as many testis, prostate gland, kidney, breast, skin, and hazardous waste generators of all sizes across as 439,000 other hazardous waste sites (4). lung, as well as malignant myeloma, non- Massachusetts) (22). Industry itself often In Massachusetts, 32 sites, located (totally Hodgkins lymphoma, and numerous child- blatantly states that the disempowered of or partially) in 42 towns, are on the U.S. EPA hood cancers (9-11)attributable to the American society should serve as the dump-NPL, or Superfund, list. The Fort Devens site death of half a million Americans each year. ing ground for American business. A 1984 encompasses parts of the towns of Ayer, In Massachusetts, elevated rates of leukemia report by Cerrell Associates for the Shirley, Lancaster, and Harvard. The Ford (especially among children) have been linked California Waste Management Board, for Devens-Sudbury Training Annex site encom- to the industrial chemical trichloroethylene instance, openly recommended that pollut-passes parts of the towns of Sudbury, found in the town of Woburns drinking ing industries and the state locate hazardous Maynard, Hudson, and Stow. The Hanscom water, as well as tetrachloroethylene in drink- waste facilities in lower socio-economic Field/Hanscom Air Force Base site encom- ing water on the Upper Cape (12-14). neighborhoods because those communities passes parts of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Massachusetts now has one of the highest had a much lower likelihood of offering and Lincoln. The Otis Air National Guard/ rates of breast cancer in the countrysome political opposition (23).

Camp Edwards site encompasses parts of 4,400 women are diagnosed and 1,000 Federal governmental enforcement Falmouth, Bourne, Sandwich, and Mashpee. women die each year. Women living on Cape actions also appear to be uneven regarding The South Weymouth Naval Air Station site Cod are particularly vulnerable, with a 20% the class and racial composition of the encompasses parts of Weymouth, Abington, higher rate of breast cancer than women liv- impacted community. According to a 1992 and Rockland. The W.R. Grace & Company, ing elsewhere in the state (15). nationwide study, Superfund toxic waste Inc., site encompasses parts of Acton and Many current policy initiatives may be sites in communities of color are likely to be Concord. The remaining 26 sites are located intensifying problems they were designed to cleaned 12-42% later than are sites in White in single towns (5). These towns are home to cure. Most environmental laws require busi- communities. Communities of color also more than 1,072,017 residents, including nesses to contain pollution sources for more witness average government penalties for proper treatment and disposal (in contrast to violations of hazardous waste laws ($55,318)

Table 5. Environmental hazard point system. the previous practice of dumping on-site or that are only one sixth the average penalty Points for rating into nearby commons). Once the pollution is assessed in predominantly White communi-severity of each trapped, the manufacturing industry pays ties ($335,566). The study also concluded Type of hazardous facility or site facility or site the state or a private company for its treat- that the government takes an average of DEP hazardous waste site (general) 1 ment and disposal. The waste, now com- 20% longer to place toxic waste dumps in DEP hazardous waste site (Tier I-II) 5 modified, becomes mobile, crossing local, minority communities on the NPL, or U.S. EPA NPL (Superfund) waste site 25 state, and even national borders in search of Superfund, list for cleanup than it does in Large power planttop five polluter 25 Small power plant 10 efficient (i.e., low-cost and politically feasi- placing sites located in White areas (24).

Proposed power plant 5 ble) areas for treatment, incineration, and/or Massachusetts currently has over 21,038 TURA industrial facility 5 disposal. More often than not, the waste sites hazardous waste sites, including 3,389 more Municipal incinerator 20 and facilities are themselves hazardous and serious Tier I-II sites, according to March Resource recovery facility 10 located in poor or working-class neighbor- 2000 DEP data (25). As required under state Incinerator ash landfill 5 hoods and communities of color (16-18). In law, hazardous waste sites must be ranked Demolition landfill 3 Illegal site 5 this respect, an environmental issue affecting according to the severity of their risk to Sludge landfill 5 the general population has been addressed in human health and the environment. The Tire pile 5 a manner that displaces the problem in a new DEP has developed a tier classification sys-Municipal solid waste landfill 5 form onto more politically marginalized sec- tem for determining the danger level of a Trash transfer station 5 tors of the population (19). hazardous waste site to the public health and Environmental Health Perspectives

• VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002 279

Environmental Justice

• Faber and Krieg the environment. Sites can be classified as appear to be concentrated in lower-income of the population average 162.5 sites.

Tier IA, IB, IC, or II, with Tier IA sites communities in Massachusetts. Communities Communities considered moderately high requiring the most stringent oversight and where median household income is less than minority (where people of color compose Tier II the least. We used a numerical rank- $30,000 contain an average of 120.9 DEP 15-24.99% of the population) average nearly ing sheet (NRS) to calculate the numerous hazardous waste sites, whereas communities 190 sites. As a result, higher-minority com-ecological and public health factors that where the median household income is munities, where people of color compose determine a sites classification. The NRS $30,000 or greater contain an average of 15% or more of the population, average well has five main sections (25): 41.9-50.2 hazardous waste sites. As a result, over 4 times as many DEP hazardous waste

1. The exposure pathways section evaluates low-income communities average roughly sites as low-minority communities.

the ways a person can be exposed to tox- 2-3 times more DEP hazardous waste sites To control for the size of the community, ics, specifically the soil, groundwater, sur- than higher-income communities. we calculated the number of sites per square face water, and air. However, if lower-income communities mile to obtain a more accurate exposure rate.

2. The disposal site characteristics section are typically larger in size, one would expect This revealed an even more pronounced evaluates the toxicity of the released mate- them to have a higher number of such sites. racial bias. High-minority communities aver-rial(s). To control for the size of the community, we age 27.2 DEP hazardous waste sites per

3. The human population and land uses sec- calculated the number of sites per square mile square mile, whereas low-minority commu-tion evaluates the potential risks based on to obtain a more accurate exposure rate. This nities average 2.9 hazardous waste sites per nearby population and land and water revealed an even more pronounced class bias. square mile. Thus, high-minority communi-uses. Low-income communities, where median ties have 9 times more hazardous waste sites

4. The ecological population section evaluates household income is less than $30,000, aver- per square mile than low-minority communi-the potential risks posed to the environ- age nearly 14 DEP hazardous waste sites per ties. These figures remain consistent with ment based on the sites proximity to square mile. In contrast, higher-income com- comparisons of the more serious Tier I-II sensitive areas such as wetlands and munities, where median household income is hazardous waste sites. In short, communities endangered species. $30,000 or more, average 3.1-4.1 hazardous of color experience a far higher exposure rate

5. The mitigating disposal site specific condi- waste sites per square mile. Thus, low-income to DEP hazardous waste sites than predomi-tions section takes into account conditions communities have approximately 3.5-4 more nantly White communities, indicating that at the site not otherwise factored into the hazardous waste sites per square mile than race is strongly associated with the location of NRS. higher-income communities. These figures tier and nontier hazardous waste sites in DEP ranks a large number of the most remain relatively consistent with comparisons Massachusetts (Table 7).

serious Tier IA sites in suburban areas rather of the more serious Tier I-II hazardous waste Only in the case of U.S. EPA Superfund than in urban areas such as Boston, citing sites. In short, low-income communities in sites do the class and racial biases associated drinking water issues as one of the primary Massachusetts experience a far higher expo- with DEP hazardous waste sites disappear.

reasons. The presence of a hazardous waste sure rate to DEP hazardous waste sites than This trend could be accounted for by the site in a larger urban area where the drinking higher-income communities. high number of Superfund sites on military water is transported from a distant reservoir These disparities repeat for communities facilities often located in rural and suburban may not pose the same threat as it would in of color. In Massachusetts, communities locales near more affluent communities, par-a suburban/rural community dependent on where people of color compose less than 5% ticularly on Cape Cod. At least 47 Tier IA local groundwater sources. of the population average 41.2 DEP haz- sites are in Bourne because of contamination As indicated in Table 6, a significant con- ardous waste sites, whereas communities from the Massachusetts Military Reservation centration of both Tier I-II and nontier sites where people of color compose 25% or more (Figure 1).

Table 6. Class-based disparities in the location of hazardous waste sites.

DEP tier I-II Towns with Average number Average number Number DEP hazardous hazadous U.S. EPA of DEP hazardous of DEP hazardous Median household income of towns (% waste sites waste sites Superfund sites waste sites waste sites (1990 U.S. Census category) of all towns) Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean per town per square mile

$0 to $29,999 (low) 50 (13.6) 6,044 (28.7) 120.9 987 (29.1) 19.7 5 (10.4) 0.10 120.9 13.9

$30,000 to $39,999 (medium-low) 137 (37.2) 6,863 (32.6) 50.1 1,101 (32.5) 8.0 14 (29.2) 0.10 50.1 4.1

$40,000 to $49,999 (medium-high) 114 (31.0) 4,771 (22.7) 41.9 742 (21.9) 6.5 17 (35.4) 0.15 41.9 3.1

$50,000 or more (high) 67 (18.2) 3,360 (16.0) 50.2 559 (16.5) 8.3 12 (25.0) 0.18 50.2 3.2 Totals 368 (100) 21,038 (100) 3,389 (100) 48 (100) 63.3 5.0 Information on all hazardous waste sites was provided by DEP and U.S. EPA databases in March 2000. All DEP waste site information provided above includes U.S. EPA Superfund sites as part of the count.

Table 7. Racially-based disparities in the location of hazardous waste sites.

DEP tier I-II Towns with Average number Average number Number DEP hazardous hazadous U.S. EPA of DEP hazardous of DEP hazardous Non-White population of towns (% waste sites waste sites Superfund sites waste sites waste sites (1990 U.S. Census category) of all towns) Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean per town per square mile 5-14.99% (low-moderate) 49 (13.3) 5,219 (24.8) 106.5 849 (25.1) 17.3 16 (33.3) 0.33 106.5 9.0 15-24.99% (moderate-high) 9 (2.4) 1,708 (8.1) 189.8 257 (7.6) 28.6 3 (6.3) 0.33 189.8 23.4 25% or more (high) 11 (3.0) 1,787 (8.5) 162.5 314 (9.3) 28.6 0 (0.0) 0.00 162.5 27.2 Totals 368 (100) 21,038 (100) 3,389 (100) 48 (100) 63.0 Information on all hazardous waste sites was provided by DEP and U.S. EPA databases in March 2000. All DEP waste site information provided above includes U.S. EPA Superfund sites as part of the count.

280 VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002

• Environmental Health Perspectives

Environmental Justice

• Unequal exposure to ecological hazards Unequal Exposure to Landfills Massachusetts has a total of 954 different of every other type of landfill than higher-and Transfer Stations landfill types, of which the majority (566) income communities ($40,000 or above).

Landfills can also pose hazards to communi- are garbage dumps. As outlined in the For instance, whereas lower-income commu-ties. Seven former Massachusetts landfills are Tables 8 and 9, the states landfills and trash nities make up 50.8% of all towns in the now federal Superfund sites. Even newer land- transfer stations are concentrated in lower- state, they are home to 58.9% of all inciner-fills, which are lined with plastic, can threaten income communities and communities of ator ash landfills, 66.7% of all demolition underground water supplies. Tables 8 and 9 color. In communities where the median landfills, 71.4% of all illegal sites, 74.5% of provide data on seven different types of land- household income is less than $30,000, all sludge landfills, 69.5% of all tire piles, fills and related facilities: incinerator ash land- there are 0.18 of these landfill-types per and 58.9% of all transfer stations.

fills, demolition landfills, illegal sites, sludge square mile, a figure slightly higher than the Racially based biases to the distribution of landfills, tire piles, municipal solid waste land- 0.13-0.15 rates for higher-income commu- landfill types are prominent. Analyzing all fills (garbage dumps), and trash transfer sta- nities. Municipal solid waste landfills make landfill types, communities where people of tions. Of these sites, incinerator ash landfills up 57.5% of all landfill types and are found color compose less than 5% of the population are typically most hazardous, because fly ash in 91.3% of all communities, making them average 0.13 of all landfill types per square wastes produced by incinerators and power relatively constant across all communities. mile, whereas communities where people of plants contain concentrated levels of heavy When municipal solid waste landfills are color compose 25% or more of the population metals such as arsenic, lead, and cadmium; removed from the analysis, it is clear that average 0.36 landfill types per square mile, a radioactive elements; cancer-causing organic lower-income communities (<$40,000 aver- rate nearly 3 times higher. These data clearly compounds; and other contaminants. age income) have a much greater proportion reveal race biases and class biases to the loca-tion of all landfill types, with the exception of municipal solid waste landfills.

Mean number of sites per square mile A B Mean number of sites per square mile 30 27 16 Unequal Exposure to 14 14 Polluting Industrial Facilities 23 12 20 American industry produces enormous 10 quantities of pollution and toxic waste each 8 year. According to the U.S. EPA Toxic 10 6 Release Inventory (TRI) for 1998, some 9 4 4

23,000 facilities reported a total of 7.3 bil-2 3 3 lion pounds of chemical pollutants released 3

0 0 into the nations air, water, land, and under-Less 5 to 15 to 25% or $0 to $30,000 to $40,000 to $50,000 than 5% 14.99% 24.99% more $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 or more ground areas. The vast majority of these Percentage of population that is non-White Median household income pollutants93.9% (or 6.9 billion pounds)

Figure 1. Unequal exposure to hazardous waste sites, compared with an average of 4.94 sites per square were released into the environment mile for all 368 Massachusetts communities in 2000. (A) Exposure to hazardous waste sites by race. (B) directly on-site (26). Thus, citizens who Exposure to hazardous waste sites by class. work and reside in the communities in Table 8. Class-based disparities in the location of all landfill types.

Number Incinerator Municipal Average Average Median household of towns ash Demolition Illegal Sludge Tire solid waste Transfer number of all number of income (1990 U.S. (% of all landfills landfills sites landfills piles landfills stations landfill types all landfill types Census category) towns) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) per town per square mile

$0 to $29,999 (low) 50 (13.6) 2 (11.8) 8 (20.5) 7 (33.3) 12 (20.3) 5 (21.7) 69 (12.2) 33 (14.4) 2.9 0.18

$30,000 to $39,999 137 (37.2) 8 (47.1) 18 (46.2) 8 (38.1) 32 (54.2) 11 (47.8) 203 (35.9) 102 (44.5) 2.8 0.13 (med.-low)

$40,000 to $49,999 114 (31.0) 7 (41.2) 9 (23.1) 5 (23.8) 12 (20.3) 5 (21.7) 185 (32.7) 62 (27.1) 2.5 0.15 (med.-high)

$50,000 or more 67 (18.2) 0 (0.0) 4 (10.3) 1 (4.1) 3 (5.1) 2 (8.7) 109 (19.3) 32 (14.0) 2.3 0.14 (high)

Totals 368 (100) 17 (100) 39 (100) 21 (100) 59 (100) 23 (100) 566 (100) 229 (100) 2.6 0.15 Information on all landfills was provided by DEP databases in April 2000.

Table 9. Racially based disparities in the location of all landfill types.

Number Incinerator Municipal Average Average Non-White pop- of towns ash Demolition Illegal Sludge Tire solid waste Transfer number of all number of ulation (1990 U.S. (% of all landfills landfills sites landfills piles landfills stations landfill types all landfill types Census category) towns) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) Count (%) per town per square mile Less than 5% (low) 299 (81.3) 11 (64.7) 30 (76.9) 14 (66.7) 50 (84.7) 21 (91.3) 445 (78.6) 180 (78.6) 2.5 0.13 5-14.99% 49 (13.3) 5 (29.4) 4 (10.3) 3 (14.3) 5 (8.5) 2 (8.7) 92 (16.3) 35 (15.3) 3.0 0.16 (low-moderate) 15-24.99% 9 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 3 (7.7) 0 (0.0) 4 (6.8) 0 (0.0) 17 (3.0) 8 (3.5) 3.6 0.30 (moderate-high) 25% or more (high) 11 (3.0) 1 (5.9) 2 (5.1) 4 (19.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 12 (2.1) 6 (2.6) 3.1 0.36 Totals 368 (100) 17 (100) 39 (100) 21 (100) 59 (100) 23 (100) 566 (100) 229 (100) 2.6 0.15 Information on all landfills was provided by DEP databases in April 2000.

Environmental Health Perspectives

• VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002 281

Environmental Justice

• Faber and Krieg which these facilities are located typically 50% of the Latinos are estimated to live in Here we summarize information from experience much greater exposure rates to what are categorized as the most polluted the states Large Quantity Toxics Users who industrial pollutants (27). areas, compared to only 34% of Whites reported to the Massachusetts Toxics Use Exposure to industrial pollutionespe- (36). Unequal exposure to air pollutants for Reduction Act (TURA) program from 1990 cially air pollutionis proving deadly to tens lower-income families and people of color is to 1998 (1998 is the most recent year that of thousands of citizens. Human exposure to further aggravated by substandard housing, TURA data are available) (41). TURA began hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) can result in inadequate healthcare, a lack of public parks in 1989 with the goal of reducing toxic waste both acute and chronic health effects. Short- and safe spaces, and a lack of social services. generation by 50% by 1997. The program term, acute effects can include eye irritation, In a previous study, Maxwell (37,38) includes a database of toxic waste use similar nausea, difficulty breathing, asthma, or even explored whether polluting industrial land to that of the federal TRI but with more death. Long-term, chronic effects include uses were differentially distributed regarding detailed information. As required under damage to the respiratory or nervous systems, the racial (percentage of minority population) TURA, a company must report the quantity birth defects and damage to reproductive sys- and class (median family income and percent- and types of toxic chemicals it uses if it annu-tems, neurological disorders, and cancer. age living in poverty) compositions of 351 ally manufactures, processes, or uses 10,000 Aggravated by the exhaust from over 200 mil- cities and towns in Massachusetts. Maxwell pounds of toxic chemicals or more. These lion motor vehicles (particularly in larger met- also examined whether higher intensities of toxic chemicals pose a threat to nearby resi-ropolitan areas), industrial air pollution kills polluting land uses were associated with dents, workers, and the environment from over 60,000 Americans each year. Half a mil- increased incidence of certain cancers. The potential accidents, emissions on-site into the lion people living in the most polluted areas study used demographic and land use data immediate environment, worker handling, in 151 cities across the country face a risk of from three time points spanning the 35-year waste disposal, toxins in the product, and death that is 15-17% higher than that for period from 1950 to 1985, as well as historical product disposal.

those living in the least polluted areas (28). data on industry. The study sought to answer Between 1990 and 1998, 1,029 distinct In Massachusetts, poor air quality poses a two questions: a) Are there inequities in the TURA facilitiesranging from a high of 727 serious threat to public health. According to social distribution of polluting land uses across firms in 1991 to a low of 520 in 1998used data provided by the U.S. EPA Cumulative Massachusetts communities? b) Are higher over 9.886 billion pounds of toxic chemicals Exposure Project (CEP), every county in intensities of polluting land uses associated in production (values do not include quanti-Massachusetts has levels of key airborne toxic with increased cancer in Massachusetts com- ties for chemicals considered trade secrets).

chemicals in the form of volatile organic com- munities? This study found that traditional During this same time, these large industrial pounds that exceed health-based state levels. manufacturing industries (associated with the facilities produced 370,163,204 pounds of At least 16 toxic compounds exceed the old economy) inequitably burdened lower- chemical waste byproduct that they reported acceptable levels of concentration set by both income, higher-poverty, and higher-minority as transferred off-site for recycling, recovery, federal regulatory agencies and the Allowable communities. The results of the regression treatment, and/or disposal. Another Ambient Limits, a health-based risk standard analyses of land use and cancer also suggested 164,385,598 pounds of toxic chemical waste of the DEP (29,30). For instance, concentra- that higher intensities of total manufacturing byproduct they released on-site directly into tions of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formalde- and industrial/commercial land uses were asso- the environment (discharged into the air, hyde, and acroleinchemicals that are ciated with a higher incidence of lung cancer ground, underground areas, or adjacent bod-known to cause numerous adverse health (and probably also bladder cancer and non- ies of water) of the communities in which effects, including neurological disorders, birth Hodgkins lymphoma) (39). they were locatedan amount equivalent to defects, reproductive disorders, and respira- A 1993 study of Essex, Hampden, 2,055 tractor-trailer trucks each loaded with tory diseasesexceed Massachusetts allowable Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester 80,000 pounds of toxic waste (42,43). The ambient limits in all counties by up to 80 counties in Massachusetts between 1987 and electric, gas, and sanitary services sector is the times. Nearly 1,300 deaths are caused by par- 1992 with data collected by the U.S. EPA largest source of on-site releases to the envi-ticulate air pollution in Massachusetts statisti- under the federal Resource Conservation and ronment under TURA. In 1998, the 28 firms cal metropolitan areas each year (31). Recovery Act (RCRA) (40) found that the vast in this sector accounted for 39% of all on-site In recent years, a number of studies have majority of people of color are concentrated in releases, 71% of which were hydrochloric been conducted on the unequal exposure to the counties where 82.7% of the states large acid. The chemical and allied products sector, air pollution and other environmental haz- quantity generators (LQG) of toxic materials which represents a little over half of total ards. The findings of these studies point to a and all commercial hazardous waste treatment, statewide use, accounted for 13% of total on-consistent pattern of environmental racism storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities are site releases and 31% of off-site transfers.

and class-based ecological injustices (32). located. However, a closer analysis of Suffolk As shown in Table 10, communities with Within Americas urban areas, for instance, County found that 13.2% of LQG/TSD facil- a median household income of less than lower-income people (particularly those liv- ities were located in the mostly minority com- $30,000 or between $30,000 to $39,999 ing below the poverty level) are found to be munities (census block groups) and that compose 50.8% of all communities in more exposed to combined concentrations 26.4% of the facilities were located in the Massachusetts but are home to 66.2% of all of air pollutants than higher-income popula- mostly White communities. Thus, it did not TURA facilities and 85.6% of all chemicals tions. Similarly, people of color are consis- appear that in Suffolk County LQG and TSD used by TURA facilities between 1990 and tently exposed to significantly more air facilities were concentrated in minority com- 1998. More important, communities with pollution nationwide than are Whites, with munities. Likewise, the study also found that these median household incomes received a gap that is wider and more consistent than 34% of these facilities were located in the 78.7% of all chemical emissions into the that for income bias (33,34). According to poorest communities (measured by quartiling local environment by TURA facilities during the U.S. EPA, 57% of all Whites nationwide block groups)with a median income of this time. Although communities with live in areas with poor air quality, compared $21,615 or lesswhereas 22.6% of facilities median household incomes of $40,000 or to 80% of all Latinos (35). In Los Angeles, were found in the wealthiest communities more represent nearly half of all communities 71% of the citys African Americans and with a median income of $37,452 or more. in the state (49.2%), they house only 33.8%

282 VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002

• Environmental Health Perspectives

Environmental Justice

• Unequal exposure to ecological hazards of all TURA facilities, 21.3% of all chemical mile, 3.75-5.79 times as many pounds of only 5.4% of towns in the state (Table 12).

emissions, and 14.4% of all chemicals used chemical emissions into the environment per Table 13 shows that communities where peo-by TURA facilities from 1990 to 1998. town, and roughly seven times as many ple of color compose 25% or more of the In fact, as shown in Table 11, communi- pounds of chemical emissions per square mile. population average 8.8 TURA facilities and ties with a median household income of less Thus, the data indicate that the class status of 1.1 TURA facilities per square mile, com-than $30,000 average 6.3 TURA facilities per a community is a significant predictor of the pared to an average of just 2 facilities and town, 932,910 total pounds of chemical emis- level of exposure to TURA industrial facilities 0.12 facilities per square mile for communi-sions released into the environment per town, and emissions. The data indicate that lower- ties where people of color compose less than and 73,061 total pounds of chemical emis- income communities bear a greatly dispropor- 5% of the population. In short, high-minority sions per square mile of town space for tionate burden of the pollution emitted by communities average over 4 times as many 1990-1998. This contrasts sharply with com- these types of industrial facilities. TURA industrial facilities and over 9 times as munities with median household incomes of The data also show that communities of many TURA industrial facilities per square 40,000-$49,999, which average 1.8 TURA color are overburdened. Although communi- mile as do low-minority communities in facilities per town, 161,028 total pounds of ties where people of color compose less than Massachusetts. Furthermore, higher-minority chemical emissions per town, and 10,937 15% of the population account for 86.2% of communities (where 15% or more of the pounds of chemical emissions per square mile all chemical emissions and 84.1% of all population are people of color) average of town space. In comparison with upper- TURA facilities, they also account for 94.6% 1,061,041-1,216,360 total pounds of chemi-income communities (median household of all communities in the state. Although cal emissions from TURA industrial facilities income $40,000 or more), low-income com- communities where people of color compose and 110,718-123,770 pounds of chemical munities average over three times as many 15% or more of the population receive only emissions from TURA facilities per square TURA industrial facilities, three times as 13.8% of all TURA emissions and house mile for 1990-1998, compared to just many TURA industrial facilities per square 15.9% of all TURA facilities, they compose 342,579 pounds of total chemical emissions Table 10. Class-based disparities in the location and emission levels of TURA industrial facilities (1990-1998).

Median household Number of TURA total chemical TURA total chemical TURA total Number of distinct income (1990 U.S. towns (% of emissions (lb) transfers (lb) chemical use (lb) TURA facilities Census category) all towns) Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean

$0 to $29,999 (low) 50 (13.6) 46,645,477 (28.4) 932,910 101,318,279 (27.4) 2,026,366 4,476,070,293 (45.3) 89,521,406 317 (30.8) 6.3

$30,000 to $39,999 137 (37.2) 82,734,924 (50.3) 603,905 188,923,288 (51.0) 1,379,002 3,981,354,062 (40.3) 29,060,979 364 (35.4) 2.7 (med-low)

$40,000 to $49,999 114 (31.0) 18,357,199 (11.2) 161,028 53,110,764 (14.3) 465,884 734,856,631 (7.4) 6,446,111 201 (19.5) 1.8 (med-high)

$50,000 or more (high) 67 (18.2) 16,647,998 (10.1) 248,478 26,810,873 (7.2) 400,162 693,992,469 (7.0) 10,358,097 147 (14.3) 2.2 Totals 368 (100) 164,385,598 (100) 370,163,204 (100) 9,886,273,455 (100) 1,029 (100)

Table 11. Class-based disparities in the exposure rate to TURA industrial facilities (1990-1998).

Average number Average number of Average total TURA Average total TURA Median household income Number of towns of TURA facilities TURA facilities chemical emissions chemical emissions (lb)

(1990 U.S. Census category) (% of all towns) per town per square mile (lb) per town per square mile

$0 to $29,999 (low) 50 (13.6) 6.3 0.49 932,910 73,061

$30,000 to $39,999 (med-low) 137 (37.2) 2.7 0.21 603,905 55,524

$40,000 to $49,999 (med-high) 114 (31.0) 1.8 0.13 161,028 10,937

$50,000 or more (high) 67 (18.2) 2.2 0.12 248,478 12,502 Table 12. Racially based disparities in the location and emission levels of TURA industrial facilities (1990-1998).

Non-White pop- Number of TURA total chemical TURA total chemical TURA total Number of distinct ulation (1990 U.S. towns (% of emissions (lb) transfers (lb) chemical use (lb) TURA facilities Census category) all towns) Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean Count (%) Mean Less than 5% (low) 299 (81.3) 102,730,053 (62.5) 343,579 219,844,801 (59.4) 735,267 5,051,993,299 (51.1) 16,896,299 601 (58.4) 2.0 5-14.99% 49 (13.3) 39,036,778 (23.7) 796,669 114,887,155 (31.0) 2,344,636 1,885,264,731 (19.1) 38,474,790 264 (25.7) 5.4 (low-moderate) 15 to 24.99% 9 (2.4) 10,947,318 (6.7) 1,216,369 14,415,034 (3.9) 1,601,670 182,564,805 (1.8) 20,284,978 67 (6.5) 7.4 (moderate-high) 25% or more (high) 11 (3.0) 11,671,449 (7.1) 1,061,041 21,016,214 (5.7) 1,910,565 2,766,450,620 (28.0) 251,495,511 97 (9.4) 8.8 Totals 368 (100) 164,385,598 (100) 370,163,204 (100) 9,886,273,455 (100) 1,029 (100)

Table 13. Racially based disparities in the exposure rate to TURA industrial facilities (1990-1998).

Average number Average number Average total TURA Average total TURA Non-White population Number of town of TURA facilities of TURA facilities chemical emissions chemical emissions (1990 U.S. Census category) (% of all towns) per town per square mile (lb) per town (lb) per square mile Less than 5% (low) 299 (81.3) 2.0 0.12 343,579 22,735 5-14.99% (low-moderate) 49 (13.3) 5.4 0.40 796,689 86,014 15-24.99% (moderate-high) 9 (2.4) 7.4 0.75 1,216,369 123,770 25% or more (high) 11 (3.0) 8.8 1.1 1,061,041 110,718 Environmental Health Perspectives

• VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002 283

Environmental Justice

• Faber and Krieg and 22,735 pounds of chemical emissions per volatile organic compounds in the presence of a result of a loophole in clean air laws, 14 square mile for low-minority communities. sunlight. Smog is a major trigger of asthma, plants in New England are legally polluting Thus, in comparison with low-minority increased lung inflammation, coughing, and at much higher levels than newer plants built communities, high-minority communities emergency hospitalization due to respiratory since 1977. The oldest fossil-fuel power average roughly 3-3.5 times as many pounds distress. The unhealthiest levels of smog are plantsthose built before 1977are not of chemical emissions into the environment generally recorded during the summer (45). required to meet the same emissions stan-from local TURA facilities and 4.86-5.44 Power plants are also major contributors of dards as newer, cleaner plants (49).

times as many pounds of chemical emissions gases that cause global warming and toxic As indicated in Table 14, the states per square mile. Thus, the racial status of a mercury emissions that seriously threaten power plants are disproportionately located community once again appears to be a major public health and environmental quality. in communities of color and lower-income factor in the level of exposure to TURA indus- In Massachusetts, nearly 1,300 residents communities. Although just 5.4% of all trial facilities and pollution. The data indicate of statistical metropolitan areas die each year communities in the state are communities that communities of color bear a greatly dis- from particulate air pollution (46). Air qual- where people of color compose 15% or more proportionate burden of the pollution emitted ity continues to deteriorate. During the of the population, they are home to 18.2%

by these types of facilities (Figure 2). summer of 1999, Massachusetts recorded 21 of all active power plants and 23.4% of all unhealthy air days, where the ozone level of proposed power plants in the state. Likewise, Unequal Exposure those days surpassed the allowable limit set although 50.8% of all towns in the state are to Power Plants by the U.S. EPA. The people currently most communities where median household The electric power industry is one of the most vulnerable to the effects of breathing smoggy income is less than $40,000, they are home polluting industries in New England and the air are children, the elderly, and people with to 65.6% of all active power plants and 63%

entire country. In 1998, electric utilities gen- asthma or other respiratory diseases (47). of all proposed power plants.

erated 1.1 billion pounds of toxic chemical Despite ongoing attempts to control smog Five of the dirtiest power plants in the emissions nationwide, according to U.S. and soot-forming pollutants, the risk of statethe Canal, Brayton Point, Salem EPA-TRI data. In fact, electric utilities emis- developing cancer or reproductive, develop- Harbor, Mount Tom, and Mystic plants sions of sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid mental, or neurological disorders due to are legally emitting at 2.9-4.0 times the pushed them near the top of the toxic inven- chemical exposures in the air necessitates fur- emission rate of plants built after 1977. The tory in many states (44). Power plants are also ther efforts in controlling air pollutants. five plants are responsible for 89% of sulfur major contributors to the formation of smog. Coal and oil-burning power plants, dioxide emissions and 57% of nitrous oxide Smog, also called ground-level ozone, is specifically those plants built prior to 1977, emissions from all stationary sources in formed when nitrogen oxides, emitted as a are a major source of air pollution in the Massachusetts (the Brayton Point plant is the byproduct of burning fossil fuels at electric state. In fact, utilities in Massachusetts are largest, most polluting power plant in all of power plants and in automobiles, mix with responsible for over 60% of the states soot- New England). In fact, these five plants are forming sulfur dioxide emissions, 15% of responsible for more than 50% of the power A the states smog-causing nitrogen oxide plant pollution in all of New England, pro-Mean emissions (lb) per square mile 140,000 emissions, and 30% of the states heat-trap- ducing more than 24 million tons of heat-ping carbon dioxide emissions. Sulfur diox- trapping carbon dioxide emissions in 1998.

120,000 123,770 110,718 ide emissions are the main precursor to the And pollution rates from these power plants 100,000 creation of soottiny particles that pene- have been increasing substantially since 1996 80,000 86,014 trate deep into the throat and lungs. Fossil- (50,51). As a result, these five power plants 60,000 fuel power plants are also responsible for are the largest industrial sources of green-40,000 more than 800 pounds of airborne mercury house gasses in the state (52).

emissions every year. Mercury causes severe As shown in Table 15, four of the five 20,000 22,735 damage the neurological system and has plants are located in low-income or moder-0 developmental effects on fetuses and small ately low-income communities. Clearly, Less 5 to 15 to 25% or than 5% 14.99% 24.99% more children (48). Mercury is so toxic that a lower-income communities are disproportion-Percentage of population that is non-White mere one third of a teaspoon is enough to ately burdened by the most polluting power B

render the fish of a 25-acre lake unsuitable plants. In terms of racial bias, only the Mount Mean emissions (lb) per square mile for children and pregnant women to eat. As Tom power plant is located in a high-minority 80,000 73,061 Table 14. Racial and class-based disparities in the location of power plants.

60,000 55,524 Number of DEP Number of DEP Number of active power proposed power 40,000 towns (% of plants (June 2000) plants (June 2000) 1990 U.S. Census category all towns) Count (%) Count (%)

20,000 Non-White population 10,937 12,502 Less than 5% (low) 299 (81.3) 38 (69.1) 10 (58.8) 0 5-14.99% (low-moderate) 49 (13.3) 7 (12.7) 3 (17.6)

$0 to $30,000 to $40,000 to $50,000 15-24.99% (moderate-high) 9 (2.4) 7 (12.7) 3 (17.6)

$29,999 $39,999 $49,999 or more 25% or more (high) 11 (3.0) 3 (5.5) 1 (5.9)

Median household income Totals 368 (100) 55 (100) 17 (100)

Figure 2. Unequal exposure to industrial pollution, Median household income compared with an average of 36,262 pounds of $0 to $29,999 (low) 50 (13.6) 14 (25.5) 2 (11.8) chemical emissions per square mile during $30,000 to $39,999 (medium-low) 137 (37.2) 22 (40.0) 7 (41.2) 1990-1998 for all 368 Massachusetts communi- $40,000 to $49,999 (medium-high) 114 (31.0) 16 (29.1) 7 (41.2) ties. (A) Exposure to chemical emissions by race. $50,000 and greater (high) 67 (18.2) 3 (5.5) 1 (5.9)

(B) Exposure to chemical emissions by class. Totals 368 (100) 55 (100) 17 (100) 284 VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002

• Environmental Health Perspectives

Environmental Justice

• Unequal exposure to ecological hazards community (Holyoke); the remaining four appear to be unequally exposed to environ- year. DEP testing of in-stack concentrations power plants are located in low-minority or mental hazards in Massachusetts. for mercury emissions from these facilities in moderately low-minority communities. 1994 detected averages twice the new U.S.

According to a 2000 report by the Unequal Exposure EPA limits (55). In addition to air emissions, Harvard School of Public Health (53), cur- to Incinerators mercury may also exit these facilities in the rent emissions from the 805 megawatt Salem Municipal solid waste combustors are facili- form of ash, especially fly ash. As much as Harbor (Salem) and 1,611 megawatt Brayton ties that combust solid waste derived in large another 6,000 pounds of mercury is captured Point (Somerset) coal-fired power plants part from household wastes. In 1999-2000, by the air pollution control devices installed at alone can be linked to 43,300 asthma attacks Massachusetts had nine municipal solid waste these facilities.

and nearly 300,000 daily incidents of upper combustors in operation, which burned As shown in Table 16, six of these nine respiratory symptoms per year among the 32 approximately 3.3 million tons of trash each incinerators are located in communities million people residing in New England, year. These incinerators contribute to massive where median household income is less than eastern New York, and New Jersey. An addi- water and air pollution and related public $40,000. Only one of the nine incinerators tional 159 premature deaths can be attrib- health problems. For instance, garbage incin- is located in a community where the average uted to this pollution each year. However, erators emit more mercury than any other median household income is $50,000 or the health risks are greatest for those living in source in the state (54). Mercury, which is more. Lower-income communities (less than communities adjacent to these plants. especially toxic to children and pregnant $40,000) have twice the number of incinera-Twenty percent of the total health impact women, has been linked to kidney and ner- tors as do higher-income communities occurs in the 8% of the population that lives vous system damage and developmental ($40,000 or more). Although class consider-within 30 miles of the facilities. The four defects. The U.S. EPA has identified these ations seem to be of some importance in the worst of these polluting power plants are all facilities as being a major source of mercury siting of these facilities, only one of the nine located in communities where the median emissions to the environment, and DEP esti- incinerators is located in a community where household income is less than $40,000. mates that these facilities emit approximately people of color compose 15% or more of the Thus, working-class communities once again 6,040 pounds of mercury into the air each population. In fact, this is one of the few types of environmentally hazardous facilities Table 15. Unequal exposure to the top five power plant (fossil fuel) polluters in Massachusetts. in Massachusetts for which there does not Income status Racial status SO2 rate in Jan-June appear to be a racial bias.

Power plant Town of town of town 1999 (lb/mmBTU)

Unequal Community Salem Harbor Salem Medium-low Moderately low minority 1.20 Mount Tom Holyoke Low High minority 1.20 Exposure to Cumulative Brayton Point Somerset Medium-low Low minority 1.10 Environmental Hazards Mystic Charlestown Medium-low Moderately low minority 1.03 Many past studies on the disproportionate Canal Sandwich Medium-high Low minority 0.87 exposure of low-income communities and communities of color have focused on single Table 16. Unequal exposure to municipal solid waste combustors (MSWCs). indicators of environmental hazards. This Mercury in-stack Average annual study provides a composite measure to assess Income status Racial status U.S. EPA limit 80 amount of mercury community exposure rates that includes all Town of town of town (µg) (dscm) emitted (tons/year) hazardous facilities and sites. We have devel-N. Andover High Low minority 297.0 1.11 oped a point system that weighs the average Lawrence Low High minority 276.0 0.41 risks of each type of hazardous facility/site to Millbury Medium low Low minority 183.0 0.52 Haverhill Medium low Moderate- 163.0 0.35 arrive at a cumulative measure of commu-low minority nity exposure to all potential hazards, shown Agawam Medium low Low-minority 153.1 0.08 in Table 17.

Pittsfield Low Low minority 61.4 0.01 We recognize the potential threats to the Rochester Medium high Low minority 61.0 0.11 validity of such a point system. One threat lies Fall River Low income Low minority 25.6 N/A Saugus Medium high Low minority 17.0 0.4 in variations in the severity of similar hazard Total 6 of 9 towns 1 of 9 towns is 160.0 3.02 (6,040 lb) types. For example, we assigned each are lower income higher minority Superfund site 25 points, yet the risks posed dscm, dry standard cubic meter. Some 117 medical waste incinerators are also listed in the DEP Division of Air Quality by these sites are likely to vary depending on Control Stationary Source Enforcement Inventory System (56). types of materials they contain, environmen-tal medium through which exposure occurs, Table 17. Unequal exposure to all types of hazardous facilities/sites combined.

size and proximity of nearby populations, and Number of towns Average number of so forth. Second, the relative weights we 1990 U.S. Census category (% of all towns) points per square mile assigned to different types of hazards may be Non-White population problematic. For example, one Superfund site Less than 5% (low) 299 (81.3) 6.4 5-14.99% (low-moderate) 49 (13.3) 18.7 may not be equivalent to 25 DEP sites. To 15-24.99% (moderate-high) 9 (2.4) 42.7 assess how well our point system represents 25% or more (high) 11 (3.0) 57.0 current opionion in the field, we distributed Totals 368 (100) the point system to a number of authorities Median household income

$0 to $29,999 (low) 50 (13.6) 27.9 including scholars and professionals at the

$30,000 to $39,999 (medium-low) 137 (37.2) 8.9 Massachusetts DEP, who responded that the

$40,000 to $49,999 (medium-high) 114 (31.0) 7.0 point system seemed valid to them.

$50,000 or more (high) 67 (18.2) 6.9 To determine the cumulative exposure to Totals 368 (100) environmentally hazardous facilities and sites, Environmental Health Perspectives

• VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002 285

Environmental Justice

• Faber and Krieg we totaled the points for each hazardous facil- an exposure rate of 27.9 points per square among the 25 most environmentally over-ity and site in each community. Because geo- mile, which dramatically contrasts with the burdened towns. In fact, citizens residing in a graphically larger communities could have exposure rates for communities where median community of color in Massachusetts are 19 more facilities and sites, we controlled for the household income is $30,000 or greater, times more likely to live in one of these 25 geographic size of each community by calcu- which ranges from 6.9 to 8.9 points per square most overburdened communities.

lating the average number of hazard points mile. As a result, low-income communities The conclusion to be drawn from this per square mile, a more valid measure of face a cumulative exposure rate to environ- preliminary analysis is that the communities exposure rate. We found gross imbalances in mentally hazardous facilities and sites that is most heavily burdened with environmentally average point totals for lower-income com- 3.13-4.04 times greater than that for all other hazardous industrial facilities and sites are munities and communities of color based on communities in the state. As is the case with overwhelmingly low-income towns and/or points per square mile. As shown in Table 17, communities of color, low-income communi- communities of color. Clearly, not all communities where people of color compose ties are disproportionately exposed to environ- Massachusetts residents are polluted equally less than 5% of the population average only mental hazards of all kinds. Ecological racism working class and people of color popula-6.4 points per square mile, compared to 57 and class-based environmental injustices tions are disproportionately impacted points per square mile for communities where appear to be widespread in Massachusetts. (Figure 3).

people of color compose 25% of the popula- Table 1 confirms this claim, showing the tion or more. In other words, high-minority communities that have the greatest densities of What Can Be Done?

communities face a cumulative exposure rate environmentally hazardous industrial facilities Addressing Problems of to environmentally hazardous facilities and and sites. We have constructed an exposure Environmental Injustice in sites that is nearly nine times greater than that rate using the method described above Massachusetts for low-minority communities. In fact, there (whereby the point totals for all hazards pre-is a consistently sharp increase in the cumula- sent in the community are added together and Massachusetts should be accountable to all of tive exposure rates to these hazardous facili- then divided by the total area). As shown in its residents and strive for equal protection ties/sites that directly corresponds to increases Table 1, 14 of the 15 most intensively over- from pollution and other environmental in the size of the minority population in all burdened towns in Massachusetts have threats. When any citizen is unwillingly communities. Without question, communi- median household incomes of less than harmed by exposure to industrial toxic pollu-ties of color appear to be greatly overbur- $40,000. In fact, 9 of the 15 towns have tants found in the environment, an injustice dened in comparison with low-minority median household incomes less than $30,000. is being perpetrated. So that no citizen of any communities and are unequally exposed to Likewise, 9 of the 15 most environmentally community be put at risk, government agen-environmental hazards of almost every kind. overburdened towns in the state have popula- cies on all levels must deepen efforts to reduce Likewise, communities where median tions comprising 15% or more people of the overall level of dangerous pollutants cur-household income is less than $30,000 average color. And 6 of the 15 towns have populations rently found in the environment, as well as in comprising 25% or more people of color. This our schools, homes, and workplaces. In this A is significant in light of the fact that only 20 regard, TURA is a model program that Mean total points per square mile 60 communities in the entire state have popula- should be expanded. Likewise, DEP should 55 tions comprising 15% or more people of take additional steps to reduce the overall 50 colorand nearly half are among the 15 most waste stream, increase recycling, and continue 40 43 intensively overburdened communities. a moratorium on new landfills and incinera-30 In Table 2, we analyze the 20 communi- tors. Similarly, capping the cumulative emis-ties with the greatest number of environmen- sions of power plants will reduce emissions in 20 19 tally hazardous industrial facilities and sites. Massachusetts by tens of thousands of tons. It 10 Using the same method described for Table would also ensure that newer, cleaner plants 6 1(except that we do not control for size of the benefit from a level playing field by removing 0 community or density of hazardous facili- the pollution subsidy old plants currently Less 5 to 15 to 25% or than 5% 14.99% 24.99% more ties/sites), Table 2 reveals that 16 of the 20 enjoy. Major cleanups of these plants can take Percentage of population that is non-White most extensively overburdened towns in place without major implications for jobs or B Massachusetts have median household energy reliability.

Mean total points per square mile 30 incomes of less than $40,000. In fact, 11 of In addition to working for an overall 27 the worst 15 towns have median household reduction in the amount of pollution, incomes less than $30,000. In terms of race, Massachusetts needs to undertake a series of 20 we similarly find that 9 of the 15 most exten- special initiatives to address the environ-sively overburdened towns in the state are of mental injustices that exist in the state. As higher-minority status, where people of color suggested by the evidence presented in this 10 compose 15% or more of the population. report, all people are not polluted equally in 9

7 7 Again, this is significant in light of the fact Massachusetts. Ecologically hazardous that only 20 communities in the entire state industrial facilities and waste sites are instead 0

$0 to $30,000 to $40,000 to $50,000 have 15% or more racial minorities. In fact, disproportionately located in communities of

$29,999 $39,999 $49,999 or more when we combine Tables 1 and 2 and elimi- color and lower-income communities. As a Median household income nate overlapping towns, we find that 13 of result, citizens do not share the same access to Figure 3. Unequal exposure to all hazardous facili- the 25 most environmentally overburdened a healthy environment. Massachusetts needs ties and sites combined, compared with an aver- towns in the state are communities of color to develop and implement a plan to reduce age of 10.4 points per square mile cumulative exposure rate for all 368 Massachusetts communi- (where people of color compose 15% or these disparities for ecologically overburdened ties. (A) Exposure to cumulative hazards by race. more of population). As a result, two of every communities, beginning with public hearings (B) Exposure to cumulative hazards by class. three communities of color in the state are on environmental injustices so that those who 286 VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002

• Environmental Health Perspectives

Environmental Justice

• Unequal exposure to ecological hazards are affected can voice their concerns. As part of state agencies without the necessary funding communities. The precautionary principle these efforts, the state must also begin to more to successfully perform the work. says that if there is a strong possibility of systematically address the environmental injus- c) DEP should also maintain its morato- harm (instead of a scientifically proven cer-tices documented in this report. This includes rium on new landfills and incinerators. tainty of harm) to human health or the envi-the establishment of local, state, and federal Incinerators and many landfills pose unaccept- ronment from a substance or activity, government programs and policies that ensure able health risks to local residents and nearby precautionary measures should be taken.

environmental equity; avoid the siting of communities and should be eliminated. The Under current approaches to risk assessment future hazardous facilities/sites in already over- state should furthermore incorporate environ- in the state, environmental policy is oriented burdened lower-income communities and mental justice into all existing regulations, to promoting the dispersion of pollution to communities of color; provide resources to which need to be enforced everywhere, espe- what are considered safe levels of public these overburdened communities to create cially in lower-income communities and com- exposure. However, if pollution is instead environmental amenities that can partly offset munities of color. In particular, the following highly concentrated in certain communities, other environmental risks; and promote policies and regulations need to integrate an as we have shown, then this approach is inad-greater citizen participation in the problem- environmental justice orientation: equate. Overburdened communities must be solving and decision-making processes that

• Environmental reviews under the granted additional protections as offered by affect those communities. Elected officials, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act the precautionary principle, which includes policymakers, government agency staff, com- (MEPA) should include explicit considera- promoting additional study of activities of munity activists, and ordinary citizens must tion of disproportionate impact on low- concern, shifting the burden of proof so that work together to overcome the environmental income communities and communities a chemical/activity is proven safe, and provid-injustices that exist in Massachusetts. of color. ing incentives for preventive behavior, and/or Furthermore, it is important that any strategies

• There should be strong oversight and measures such as bans or phase-outs of sub-simultaneously address environmental injus- enforcement of regulations for hazardous stances suspected of causing harm. The time tices in both the racial and class contexts. waste site cleanup (Massachusetts has come for the legislature and state officials Otherwise, efforts to redress one type of Contingency Plan 21E). More resources to work hand in hand with the environmen-inequity over others could serve to foster con- should be granted to the DEP to ensure tal justice movement and community repre-tinued inequity in other groups. rapid and thorough cleanups, especially in sentatives to end environmental racism and Additional recommendations that the state overburdened areas. promote new models of clean production could adopt for ensuring environmental jus- d) Massachusetts should review and, and sustainable economic development.

tice in Massachusetts include the following: when necessary, halt the provision of eco-a) Massachusetts should pass an environ- nomic development incentives for projects REFERENCES AND NOTES mental justice law that will ensure equal pro- that will contribute more pollution to 1. Goldman B, Fitton L. Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited tection and additional resources for already overburdened areas. Development Washington, DC:United Church of Christ Commission for overburdened areas. Such a new environ- incentives such as tax credits and low-cost Racial Justice, 1994.

2. The following definition of environmental justice is taken mental justice law, currently under consider- loans should not be offered to projects that from Bryant B (ed). Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, ation by the Massachusetts legislature, increase pollution in areas already overbur- and Solutions Washington, DC:Island Press, 1995;6.

should do the following: dened with pollution sources. To assist in Environmental Justice: Environmental justice (EJ) is broader in scope that environmental equity. It refers to

• Make environmental protection a civil this process, the state should track and mon- those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations, right protected under law. itor environmental disparities: behaviors, policies, and decisions to support sustainable communities, where people can interact with confidence

• Create regulations for Areas of Critical

• A number of factors, such as housing dis- that their environment is safe, nurturing, and productive.

Environmental Justice Concern (ACEJC) crimination, bank lending policies, local Environmental justice is served when people can realize their highest potential, without experiencing the isms.

that would qualify areas overburdened by planning and zoning practices, licensing Environmental justice is supported by decent paying and pollution, hazardous facilities, and sites and permitting processes, and the geo- safe jobs; quality schools and recreation; decent housing and adequate health care; democratic decision-making and/or suffering from poor health for graphic distribution of public services, and personal empowerment; and communities of vio-higher scrutiny in environmental permit- transportation networks, industries, and lence, drugs, and poverty. These are communities where ting and greater levels of resources for so forth, play some role in creating envi- both cultural and biological diversity and respected and highly revered and where distributed justice prevails.

cleanup and remediation. Such an act could ronmental injustices. The state should 3. National Research Council, Environmental Epidemiology:

amend the duties and responsibilities of the undertake and/or sponsor additional Public Health and Hazardous Wastes. Washington, DC:

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs investigations to better understand the National Academy Press, 1991.

4. Environmental Research Foundation. Rachels (chapter 21A, section 2) and call for the sources of environmental injustice. Hazardous Waste News, No. 332. 8 April 1993;1-2.

development of statewide policies regarding

• DEP does an excellent job of making its 5. U.S. EPA. Superfund Remedial Sites, National Priorities the protection and use of areas of critical databases available to the public. These List. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 11 April 2000.

environmental concern to Massachusetts. efforts can be further enhanced by keeping 6. Numerous other studies have documented similar health

• Establish toxic-free buffer zones around track of its progress on reducing environ- impacts as the NRC report. [For example, see Goldberg sensitive receptors such as schools and day- mental disparities. This information should S. An association of human congenital cardiac malfor-mations and drinking water contaminants. J Am Coll care and healthcare facilities. be accessible to the public over the internet. Cardiol 16(1):155-164 (1990).]

b) Massachusetts should increase the level Additionally, more health and environmen- 7. Hoover R, Fraumeni R. Cancer mortality in U.S. counties of resources for the DEP and the Executive tal monitoring needs to be implemented in with chemical industries. Environ Res 9:196-207 (1975).

8. Andelman J, Underhill D, eds. Health Effects from Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). areas of high concerns. The state should Hazardous Waste Sites. Chelsea, MI:Lewis, 1987.

The capacity of the DEP and EOEA to suc- ensure that the DEP receives adequate 9. For a discussion of the environmental impacts on cancer cessfully address issues of environmental resources to perform these functions. rates, see Krieg, E. Toxic Wastes, Race, and Class: A Historical Interpretation of Greater Boston [PhD Thesis].

injustice would require the provision of addi- e) Finally, Massachusetts should adopt Boston:Northeastern University, 1995.

tional funding, staff, and other resources to the precautionary principle over standard 10. Steingraber S. Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at adequate levels. Additional responsibilities risk-assessment procedures when addressing Cancer and the Environment. New York:Addison-Wesley, should not placed on already overburdened environmental issues in overburdened 1997.

Environmental Health Perspectives

• VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002 287

Environmental Justice

• Faber and Krieg

11. Clapp R. The decline in U.S. cancer mortality from 1991- in the state. Area sources, which are smaller air sources base year of 1987 to 1997. From 1990, the first reporting 1995: whats behind the numbers? New Solutions: Am J that release less than 10 tons per year of any individual year, to 1998, adjusted by-product production dropped Environ Occup Health Policy 7 (4):30-34 (1997). HAP and less than 24 tons per year of combined HAPs, 48%. Using the same adjustment method, TURA filers

12. Cutler J, Parker G, Rosen S, Prenney B, Healey R, emit 51% of all HAPs in the state. Examples include gas have been equally successful in reducing their releases Caldwell G. Childhood leukemia in Woburn, stations, dry cleaners, and small print shops. Point of TRI reported on-site chemicals by 83% since 1990.

Massachusetts. Public Health Rep 101(2):201-205 (1986). sources are stationary facilities that emit (or have the 43. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

13. Lagakos S, Wessen B, Zelen M. An analysis of contami- potential to emit) 10 tons or more per year of any one of 1998 Toxics Use Reduction Information Release. Lowell, nated well water and health effects in Woburn, the listed HAPs, or 25 tons or more per year of combined MA: A Report Developed in Conjunction with the Office Massachussets. J Am Stat Assoc 81:583-614 (1986). HAPs. Point sources emit 7% of the total HAPs in the of Technical Assistance for Toxics Use Reduction, the

14. Aschengrau A, Ozonoff D, Paulu C, Coogan P, Vezina R, state. Examples of point sources include chemical Toxics Use Reduction Institute, and the Executive Office Heeren T, Zhang Y. Cancer risk and tetrachloroethylene- plants, paper mills, power plants, and waste incinera- of Environmental Affair. Boston:Massachusetts contaminated drinking water in Massachusetts. Arch tors. Available: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/daqc/ Department of Environmental Protection, Spring 2000.

Environ Health 48(5):284-292 (1993). files/airtox.htm [accessed 15 March 2001]. 44. For the first time, electric utilities and mining facilities

15. The Silent Spring Institute is conducting an extensive 30. Toering M, Sargent R. Every Breath We Take: How were included in the Environmental Protection Agencys investigation of the possible environmental causes of the Motor Vehicles Contribute to High Levels of Toxic Air annual toxic inventory 2000 report, which reviewed breast cancer epidemic on Cape Cod. See Silent Spring Pollution in Massachusetts. Boston:MASSPIRG seven industrial sectors.

Institute. The Cape Code Breast Cancer and Environment Education Fund, 8 July 1999;1-32. 45. Natural Resources Defense Council. Breathtaking:

Study: Results of the First Three Years of Study. Newton, 31. Wiles R, Savitz J, Cohen B. Particulate Air Pollution in Premature Mortality Due to Particulate Air Pollution in MA:Silent Spring Institute, 1998. Boston: Human Mortality, Pollution Sources and the 239 American Cities. Washington, DC:Natural Resources

16. For studies that examine the inequitable distribution of Case for Tougher Clean Air Standards. Washington, Defense Council, May 1996.

hazardous waste facilities in specific regions of the DC:Environmental Working Group, 1997. 46. Wiles R, Savitz J, Cohen BA. Particulate Air Pollution in country, see Bullard R. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, 32. For a concise summary of these studies, see Mohai P, Boston: Human Mortality, Pollution Sources and the and Environmental Quality. Boulder, CO:Westview, 1990. Bryant B. Demographic studies reveal a pattern of envi- Case for Tougher Clean Air Standards. Washington,

17. Bullard R, ed. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice ronmental injustice. In: Environmental Justice (Petrikin J, DC:Environmental Working Group.

and Communities of Color. San Francisco:Sierra Club, 1994. ed). San Diego, CA:Greenhaven, 1995;10-24. 47. Stanfield B, Farleigh A, Porreco G. Danger in the Air:

18. Bryant B, Mohai P, eds. Race and the Incidence of 33. Gelobter M. Toward a model of environmental discrimi- Unhealthy Smog Days in 1999. Washington, DC:Clean Air Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Boulder, nation. In: Race and the Incidence of Environmental Network and U.S. Public Interest Research Group CO:Westview, 1992. Hazards: A Time for Discourse (Mohai P, Bryant B, eds). Education Fund, January 2000;2.

19. Faber D, ed. The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Boulder, CO:Westview, 1992;64-81. 48. Sargent R, Toering M. Dirty Power in the Northeast: A Environmental Justice Movements in the United States. 34. Gianessi L, Peskin H, Wolff E. The distributional effects of Report on the 1998 Emissions of the Northeasts Dirtiest New York:Guilford, 1998. uniform air pollution policy in the U.S. Q J Econom Power Plants. Boston:Campaign to Clean Up Polluting

20. Chavis B, Lee C. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United (May):281-301 (1979). Power Plants, 1999.

States: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic 35. Wernete D, Nieves L. Breathing polluted air: minorities are 49. Older fossil-fuel power plants built during the 1940s Characteristics of Communities Surrounding Hazardous disproportionately exposed. EPA J(March/April):16 (1992). through the 1960s create the vast majority of power plant Waste Sites. New York:United Church of Christ Commission 36. Mann E. L.A.s Lethal Air: New Strategies for Policy, air pollution. In rewriting the 1970 Clean Air Act, for Racial Justice, 1987. This study analyzed data on the Organizing, and Action. Los Angeles:Labor/Community amended in 1977 and 1990, electric industry lobbyists number and type of hazardous waste facilities in the Strategy Center, 1991. successfully persuaded Congress that older plants approximately 35,5000 residential zip codes of the United 37. Demographic data came from the U.S. Census; land use would soon be retired and therefore should be exempt States, along with data on percent minority population, data are from a series of statewide aerial surveys, sup- from strict, new emission standards. Instead, this loop-mean household income, mean home value, number of plemented by U.S. and Massachusetts Census of hole has allowed owners of older, more polluting plants uncontrolled toxic waste sites per 1,000 persons, and Manufactures data on manufacturing industry. Cancer exempted from the modern standards to make bigger pounds of hazardous waste generated per person. incidence data from 1982-1990 came from the profits and stay in operation longer compared with the

21. Goldman B, Fitton L. Toxic Waste and Race Revisited: An Massachusetts Cancer Registry. The cancers of con- more expensive, cleaner, and newer power plants.

Update of the 1987 Report on the Racial and cern, selected on the basis of confirmed or tentative 50. Data for the first half of 1999 show significant increases in Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with links to agricultural or industrial chemicals, are non- nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide and slight decreases for Hazardous Waste Sites. Washington, DC:Center for Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, soft sulfur dioxide (with the exception of the Brayton Point and Alternatives, the National Association for the tissue sarcoma, and cancers of the brain, stomach, Canal plants, which showed considerable gains). However, Advancement of Colored People, and the United Church prostate, bladder, kidney, lung, and breast. it should be noted that the overall reductions in sulfur diox-of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, 1994. 38. Maxwell N. Land Use, Demographics, and Cancer ide recorded during that time frame stemmed from the fact

22. Spence L. Race, Class, and Environmental Hazards: A Incidence in Massachusetts Communities [PhD Thesis]. that many units were shut down for repairs or mainte-Study of Socio-economic Association with Hazardous Boston:Boston University, 1996. nanceand not from improvement in air pollution control Waste Generators and Treatment/Storage/Disposal 39. The incidence of lung cancer was associated with technologies. Reports show that the Salem Harbor Plant in Facilities in Massachusetts [Masters Thesis]. Medford, industrial/commercial land use but only in specific years, Salem was in fact shut down for good amount of time due MA:Tufts University, 1995. which suggests that the high-tech industries dispropor- to a fire at the plant, thus resulting in lower emission out-

23. Roque J. Review of EPA report: environmental equity: tionately hosted by well-to-do suburbs do not cause the puts. Even taking this into account, the emission rate of sul-reducing risk for all communities. Environment same increase in lung cancer risk as does traditional, fur dioxide at Salem was still 4 times the emission rate of 35(5):25-28 (1993). high-air-pollution manufacturing. new coal-fire plants. The average emission rate of sulfur

24. Lavelle M, Coyle M. Unequal protection: the racial divide 40. One can argue that towns are too large for detailed stud- dioxide for all of Massachusetts was 1.04 lb/mmBTU, 3.46 in environmental law. Natl Law J (September):2-12 (1992). ies of environmental injustice. The size of a town can times the 0.3 lb/mmBTU rate for newer, cleaner coal plants.

25. For current data and definitions, see Massachusetts potentially mask racial or economic heterogeneity within 51. Toering M, Sargent R, Luppi C. Pollution Rising: New Department of Environmental Protection website. the town area. For instance, a town may have a 10% England Power Plants Emissions Trends 1st Half 1998 vs.

Available: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwsc/sites/report minority population concentrated in a particular portion 1st Half 1999. Boston:A Report for the Campaign to Clean

26. Of these on-site releases, 62.8% were to land, 29.9% were of the townpossibly the same section of town where Up Polluting Power Plants. Massachusetts Public to air, 3.9% were to underground injection, and 3.4% were polluting industries and facilities are concentrated. Interest Research Group, 1999.

to surface water. There are now nearly 650 toxic chemi- Analysis at the town level could mask the concentration 52. Although they do not typically produce dangerous air cals and chemical compounds on the list of chemicals of hazards in minority neighborhoods. pollution, the states nuclear power plants continue to that must be reported to the U.S. EPA and the states 41. Some 520 large quantity toxics users reported to TURA dur- pose a threat of accidental radiation releases and are under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- ing the 1998 calendar year (the latest year such data is cur- responsible for 99% of the high-level radioactive waste.

Know Act of 1986, which established the TRI program. rently available). These companies reported using over 53. Levy J, Spengler J, Hlinka D, Sullivan D. Estimated Public

27. The 1998 TRI data and background information on the 1.184 billion pounds of chemicals (not including trade secret Health Impacts of Criteria Pollutant Air Emissions from TRI program are available at http://www.epa.gov/tiinter/ chemicals), of which over 132.6 million pounds were gener- the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point Power Plants.

tridata/index.htm [accessed 15 March 2000]. ated as waste by-product. Of this by-product, some 50.5 mil- Cambridge, MA:Harvard School of Public Health and

28. A study conducted by researchers at the Harvard School lion pounds of toxic chemicals were transferred off-site (for Sullivant Environmental Consulting, May 2000.

of Public Health, Brigham Young University, and the recycling, recovery, treatment, or disposal), while another 54. MASSPIRG urges cut in solid waste. MASSPIRG 17 American Cancer Society, which was released on 10 12 million pounds were released on-site directly into the (4):1-3 (Winter 2000).

March 1995 and appeared in the American Journal of environment (discharged into the air, ground, underground 55. The DEP estimate is based on 1991-1994 stack test data.

Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, estimated some areas, or adjacent bodies of water). When we incorporate Available: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/files/mercury/

60,000 annual air pollution deaths [Pope CA III, Thun MJ, trade secret data into the 1998 TURA aggregate quantities, hgch3b.htm#table3x7 [accessed 15 March 2000].

Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer FE, we find that 1.380 billion pounds of chemicals were used by 56. For additional mercury data, see Massachusetts Heath CW Jr. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of state industry, 137 million pounds were generated as by- Department of Environmental Protection. Mercury in mortality in ta prospective study of U.S. adults. Am J product; and 64 million pounds of this by-product was either Massachusetts: An Evaluation of Sources, Emissions, Respir Crit Care Med151:(3):669-674 (1995)]. released on-site into the environment or transferred off-site. Impacts and Controls. Boston, MA, June 1996. Available:

29. In Massachusetts, mobile sources (primarily motor vehi- 42. TURA was enacted in 1989 and had a stated 10-year goal http://www.state.ma.us/dep/files/mercury/

cles) are responsible for 42% of the total HAP emissions of reducing the generation of toxic waste by 50% from the hgch3b.htm#table3x8 [accessed 15 March 2000].

288 VOLUME 110 l SUPPLEMENT 2 l April 2002

• Environmental Health Perspectives