Personal tools

Your Central Puget Sound Information Source for Making Sustainable Choices

 
You are here:   Home → Built Environment → Pollution in Neighborhoods
Document Actions

Indicator: Pollution in Neighborhoods

Data and Data Discussion provided by Communities Count

Figure 1: Hazardous Waste Facility Locations in King County

view full size
Upstream Indicators
  •   Air Quality --- The number of good and moderate air quality days has remained steady since 2001. Before then, the number of moderate days declined as good days increased. People most at risk to exposure to pollutants include children, the elderly, people with weakened immune systems and people with respiratory problems. Poor air quality can also impair scenic visibility, affect vegetation and cause damage to the built environment.   (view data graph)
  •   303d Listed Watercourses --- Although approximately 50% of watercourses included on the 1998 Washington State 303(d) list have been de-listed, the total number of listed water segments has increased in the past decade. The most significant increase in listings has occurred with regards to temperature.   (view data graph)
more info
Downstream Indicators
  •   Mortality Causes by Race/Ethnicity and Income --- Among the racial/ethnic groups, the total mortality rate between 1990 and 2003 in King County declined significantly for all but American Indian/Alaska Natives but disparities in the age-adjusted death rates between different racial/ethnic groups in King County remained the same.   (view data graph)
  •   Infant Mortality Rates --- Infant death rates continue to decline. Rates remain highest in high poverty areas and are lower in East Region than other regions in the County.  (view data graph)
more info
Related Goals

Sustainability Snapshot:

In King County, your chance of living next door to a toxic release industrial facility or toxic contaminated site is greater if you’re poor. There is an unjust relationship between polluting industries and poor/disadvantaged communities. Industries are attracted to areas with lower land value and will often depress the value of the land around them creating pockets of low-income housing.

Sustainability Trend:

It appears that some neighborhoods, particularly those with lower income levels and greater racial diveristy, are more at risk of pollution from Toxic Release Facilities, hazardous waste sites, and other sources.

Data Discussion

The Indicator Defined

Percent of Toxic Release Facilities Superfund and Hazardous Waste Sites Located in Particular Areas of King County

Data Interpretation/Evaluation

The amount of reportable toxic chemicals and reportable carcinogenic substances released to the air by major manufacturing facilities in King County has fluctuated over the last 6 years. Amounts vary by the region where the facilities are located. In 2006, 79% of all toxic release facilities were located in Seattle and South Region, which produced 90% of the total pounds released in King County. For comparison, the tables also show the relative size of the population in each region.

Overall, toxic air emissions have decreased substantially since the late 1980’s, particularly in South Region (data not shown). Since 2000, total toxic emissions have decreased by about half, from 1.6 million pounds in 2000 to 800,000 pounds in 2006. 5.8% of toxic emissions released in 2006 were potentially carcinogenic substances compared to 11.5% of all releases in 2000.

In King County, some communities are at greater risk of toxic exposures based on proximity to facilities monitored by the Evironmental Protection Agency as Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) sites. A vulnerability
analysis using 1989 income and nearness to 2002 TRI facilities found a statistical correlation between living near a TRI facility and having an income at or below the household median income. While not establishing such a correlation, Figure 1 demonstrates that the burden of potential for exposure is disproportionately borne by
those in low income areas and to a lesser extent, areas with greater racial diversity.

Between 2003 and 2007, 1 additional Superfund site was designated in King County. 50 new large-quantity hazardous waste generators were established. There were 9 fewer storage, treatment and disposal sites. Changes in locations and sites distributed the risk slightly differently from 2003. However, the percent of people living near hazardous waste storage treatment and disposal facilities increased for people living in areas with incomes below the County median household income and for those living in areas with abive average racial diversity.

Data Source and Limitations

Data related to Superfund and hazardous waste sites was contributed by Communities Count (www.communitiescount.org). Data on air releases of toxic chemicals are from the EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Manufacturing facilities that meet certain criteria must report chemical releases to the environment under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. The TRI is a public database containing this information. “Air releases” include both routine and accidental emissions. The EPA determines carcinogenicity of the chemicals. TRI information is limited for several reasons: 1) it relies on self reporting of estimated releases (not direct measurement) by the polluter, 2) only those substances which are on the TRI list of over 600 toxic chemicals must be reported, and 3) it doesn’t include toxic releases from smaller businesses (such as dry cleaners and gas stations) or mobile pollution sources, such as motor vehicle traffic.

Toxic releases to the air represent the majority of environmental releases in King County and are the most likely route of exposure for the surrounding communities. However, because the chemicals released are not uniformly distributed within the census block group or region in which they were released, not everyone living in proximity to the facility is exposed to the same degree. Furthermore, in calculating the total pounds released, we have made no  istinction between chemicals of varying toxicity. Some types of releases are more dangerous than others. Release estimates are only considered reliable to two significant digits, so all figures have been rounded. For this reason, region subtotals may not add up to the King County total.

No attempt has been made to link facility location with population density, so there is no way to estimate the level of exposure of people living in the different regions. These data are meant to be descriptive only. A more thorough geospatial analysis would be required to determine who is at greatest risk from exposure to toxic air pollution.

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 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, such as landfills, incinerators and storage yards, 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.

collapse all