Figure 1: Race, Income, and Toxics in King County

Figure 3: Widespread Cancer Risk in South Seattle

Figure 2: Percent of Superfund and Hazardous Waste Sites Located in Areas of Lower Incomes and Higher Concentration of People of Color

Figures:  
• Figure 1: Race, Income, and Toxics in King County  – 
• Figure 3: Widespread Cancer Risk in South Seattle  – 
• Figure 2: Percent of Superfund and Hazardous Waste Sites Located in Areas of Lower Incomes and Higher Concentration of People of Color

Data Discussion

The Indicator Defined

Percent of Superfund and Hazardous Waste Sites Located in Particular Areas of King County and Cancer Risk as Related to Neighborhood

Data Interpretation/Evaluation

In King County, some communities bear a greater burden of potential exposure based on simple proximity to facilities that release toxic chemicals. A vulnerability analysis was carried out to determine if a statistical correlation existed between 1989 income and nearness to 2002 TRI facilities (2000 census data on 1999 income were not yet available). A statistically significant correlation was found: People living in census blocks where a TRI facility is located, were more likely to have an income level at or below the mean median household income. This analysis has not been updated based on more current income data.

A similar picture can be seen in Figures 1 and 2. In 2003, 77% of all toxic release facilities were located in Seattle and South Region and 85% of the total pounds released were released in Seattle and South Region. (Figure 1)
In 2003, 75% of total pounds of toxics released in King County were from facilities in South Region, up from 55% in 2000.

While not based on a statistical correlation, the map and table illustrates the disproportionate burden of potential exposure to hazardous waste for people living in census block groups that have incomes below the King County median income. The numbers for race show a disproportionate burden on people of color, although not as marked as for people of lower income.

The map in Figure 2 presents the locations of various facilities that generate large quantities of hazardous waste, sites that store, treat or dispose of hazardous waste, and Superfund cleanup sites, as well as income and race information. It shows the locations in King County where the disproportionate burden of potential exposure to lower income people and people of color is experienced.

A new study by the Health Department and U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, to be released soon, indicates that air pollution may be even worse in some areas than current measurements indicate. Residents of a broad swath of South Seattle from Seward Park to West Seattle face elevated cancer risks because of air pollution from nearby industry and the highway. The harm from air pollution isn't limited to cancer. On a day-in, day-out basis, many people's routines are thrown out of whack by pollution-caused outbreaks of asthma, bronchitis and other lung diseases. Air pollution also contributes to heart attacks and strokes. And it irritates some peoples' eyes, nose, throat or lungs.

The risks are significantly elevated in pockets of industrial pollution – and skyrocket within about 200 yards of highways.

Federal officials traditionally have aimed to reduce risks for people exposed to toxic-waste sites to one case of cancer per 1 million people exposed.

The risk is far higher than that in South Seattle areas next to highways, the study found. Those places can be expected to produce as many as 3,600 cancer cases per million people exposed over a 70-year lifetime. The same risk factor applies to an industrial area where chromium is in the air around north Boeing Field. About 365,000 people live in the area studied – more than half the city's population – according to 2000 Census records. The rest of the city was left out because the study was requested by South Seattle environmental activists, and because of the concentration of industry along the banks of the Duwamish River.

Data Source and Limitations

Data related to Superfund and hazardous waste sites was contributed by Communities Count (www.communitiescount.org). The toxics information in the map is taken from EPA tables. EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database is EPA’s computerized listing/inventory of potential hazardous waste sites. Superfund data are from EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL) include those sites identified by EPA that warrant further investigation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and, if necessary, need remedial action.

Large Quantity Generators generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste, or more than 1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste. Sites that store, treat or dispose of hazardous waste provide temporary storage and final treatment or disposal for hazardous wastes. Since they manage large volumes of waste and conduct activities that may present a higher degree of risk they are regulated more stringently than generators. Examples are landfills, incinerators, and storage yards.

Date related to the discussion about elevated cancer risk in South Seattle comes from the Washington Department of Health and US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, as reported in the Seattle Post Intelligencer  on August 8, 2008. The study itself is to be released in summer or fall 2008. The study cites various limits and scientists say that estimates presented in the study, which centered on the Duwamish Valley, may underplay the actual risk. First diesel emissions from ships, railroads and other heavy machinery operating around the Port of Seattle, as well as pollution from planes using Boeing Field and Sea-Tac Airport, are not included. Also, when technicians compared the rates predicted by the computer model behind the study with actual measurements of air pollution, they found the computer underestimated pollution levels for most contaminants. Finally, routine measurement of air pollution is so spotty "there may be 'hot spots' located in residential areas where monitoring is not occurring," says the study by the Health Department and U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

 

collapse all