Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The scientifi c literature is rich with studies that have
reported on disproportionate placing of old, polluting
(and mercury-releasing) coal-fi red power plants and other
industries, including refi neries, chemical plants, hazard-
ous-waste dumps and processing sites, and incinerators
in economically depressed neighborhoods (Bullard et al.,
2007; Mohai and Saha, 2006). The 1994 and 2007 United
Church of Christ studies on toxic waste and race in the
United States highlighted the following inequalities in the
location of environmental hazards:
2. Waterfront South in Camden County, New Jersey,
which contains the largest minority percentage in
the county also houses the St. Lawrence Cement
Company, which emits signifi cant particulate matter,
mercury, lead, manganese, and other air pollutants.
3. Macon, Georgia, where more than 60% of African-
American residents live within 30 miles of a coal-
fi red power plant.
Although not generally realized, natural gas and crude
oil also contain mercury in trace amounts, which can read-
ily build up in the local environment when huge quanti-
ties are processed (USEPA, 2001). For example, minority
children in Texas are being disproportionately endangered
given the location of over 100 refi neries and chemical
plants located within 2 miles of 216 schools located in just
eight counties (Bullard et al., 2007). Within these counties,
the school population is predominantly minority—over
70% African American and Hispanic, as compared with
47% statewide. Mercury was not considered as one of the
air toxins of concern in the study, however.
It is impossible to establish direct causal relationships
between mercury emission and health effects in disparate
communities. Population groups differ in health outcomes
because of greater exposure to environmental risk factors
according to where they live, work, or play (Sexton et al.,
1993; Bullard, 1994; Mohai and Saha, 2006). For example,
people of color are more likely to live in high-poverty
neighborhoods and be employed in more hazardous occu-
pations than the general population (Bullard, 1994, 2007;
Saha and Mohai, 2006) and disparities in industrial expo-
sure often translate into increased risk for illness. Sexton
et al. (1993), Brooks and Sethi (1997), among others, have
shown that non-Hispanic blacks were more likely to reside
in census tracts with higher total air toxin concentra-
tions. The United Church of Christ used a meta-analysis of
64 studies in the United States to provide an overwhelm-
ing body of empirical evidence that people of color and
low incomes face disproportionate environmental impacts.
This report eloquently noted that “Because people of color
and the poor are highly concentration in neighborhoods
with multiple facilities, they continue to be particularly
vulnerable to the various negative impacts of hazardous
waste facilities” (Bullard et al., 2007).
1. Race was the single most important factor in the
location of hazardous-waste treatment facilities after
accounting for urbanization and regional differ-
ences. Race was a stronger predictor of the location of
hazardous-waste facilities than income, education, or
socioeconomic status.
2. Penalties were higher for polluters when pollution
occurred in predominantly white areas as compared
with minority areas. “Vulnerable communities,
populations and individuals often fell between the
regulatory cracks.”
3. Inequalities existed in the chosen option of waste
treatment where permanent treatment of hazardous
versus containment was available (Bullard et al., 2007).
It is estimated that 68% of all African Americans live within
30 miles of a coal-fi red power plant, as compared with 56%
of whites (Bullard, 1994). The rates of poverty are 1.5 times
higher in communities hosting hazardous-waste facilities as
compared with non-host areas (Bullard et al., 2007). There
are many studies showing that power plants and incinerators
are disproportionately located and concentrated in commu-
nities of color and the working class (Bullard, 1994; Mohai
and Saha, 2006). Anderton et al. (1994, 1997) and Davidson
and Anderton (2000) also conducted studies in low-income
areas with disproportionate numbers of hazardous waste or
toxic-type facilities; minorities and poor whites tend to dom-
inate the low-income profi le in these studies.
Disparities between neighborhoods hosting hazardous
waste facilities and those not hosting such facilities were
reported throughout the EPA Regions: Region 1 (36% vs.
15%), Region 4 (54% vs. 30%), Region 5 (53% vs. 19%), and
Region 6 (63% vs. 42%). On the state level, examples of sig-
nifi cant disparities between host and non-host neighbor-
hoods include Michigan (66% vs. 19%), Nevada (79% vs.
33%), and Kentucky (51% vs. 10%). Well-known examples
of environmental justice communities where dispropor-
tionately large numbers of industries known to release
mercury into the local environment are located in relation
compared to neighboring Caucasian communities include:
Brownfi eld Development
Brownfi elds, an important derivative of the environmental
justice program under the USEPA, are hotspots of pollution
that often include mercury. Although brownfi elds can be
found in neighborhoods that range from affl uent suburban
communities to some of the poorest urban ghettos, most are
located in blighted neighborhoods. They are located next
to abandoned residential and commercial properties, near
infrastructure and public facilities in poor or dilapidated
condition, and neighborhoods that are experiencing major
1. “Chicagoland,” Illinois, whose minority communities
represent 50% or more of the area, are dispropor-
tionately cluttered with coal-fi red power plants, steel
plants, and oil refi neries.
