  |
|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oct. 19, 1995
95-160
CONTACT:
John Ridgway (360) 407-6713
Jerry Gilliland (360) 407-6149
LOW INCOME MORE LIKELY TO LIVE NEAR WASTE FACILITY
Washington communities with many low income residents are likely to have more facilities that manage and/or release hazardous wastes than communities with higher income residents, according to a study released today by the Washington Department of Ecology.
"Throughout the country, people have voiced concern over whether facilities that manage or release chemicals are being unfairly located near the homes of the poor and minorities,” said Dan Silver, Ecology assistant director for waste management. "Ecology has just completed a preliminary study evaluating the locations of these facilities in our state.”
"Our Environmental Equity Study concludes that low income communities in Washington have a higher proportion of these facilities than normal income communities,” Silver said.
The study examined the entire state, utilizing the 4,620 block groups ("communities”) identified in the 1990 U.S. Census. Nearly 900 facilities and contaminated sites were included, such as firms with permits to treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes, federal superfund sites and 400 other confirmed contaminated sites, companies releasing large amounts of hazardous waste into the air and water, solid waste landfills and incinerators, and facilities required to report annually on toxic chemical releases.
About 39 percent of the communities had higher-than-average numbers of low-income residents. These low income communities were hosts to 47 percent of the state’s hazardous waste and solid waste facilities and toxic waste cleanup sites.
"I want to caution that this study is just a very small beginning,” Silver said. "We had a very limited budget for this study. This was not a comprehensive study. If we are to understand the dimensions of this issue, we would need a much more in-depth assessment.” He noted that the study did not examine when the waste facilities were first created, as compared to when homes were built near them.
The study also looked at communities with higher-than-average numbers of minority residents. "Although low-income status was the strongest factor, communities of color also have a disproportionately higher number of these facilities in some counties,” Silver said.
Statewide, minority block groups represent 33 percent of the state’s total, but contain 36 percent of the facilities.
But individual counties had much more fluctuation in numbers. For instance, in Pierce, Spokane, Clark and Thurston counties, low income block groups had at least a 15 percent higher-than-average number of facilities located within their communities. In other counties, such as Benton, Cowlitz, Kitsap and Whatcom, the non minority, non-low income category of block groups host a greater number and proportion of facilities.
"It is far too early to say what the actual health effects upon communities are, in relation to neighboring facilities and sites, and toxic chemical releases,” he said. "The study did not address whether communities (regardless of income or minority status) have suffered health effects in relation to their proximity to these facilities and sites. We especially recommend that local areas which appear to have relatively high concentrations of facilities or sites be analyzed in more detail by the Departments of Health and Ecology.”
Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html.
