Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental Justice: Should the Government Prohibit the Siting of Hazardous Waste Sites in Low Income Communities?
Alesha Cooke
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Pro Argument

2
Source

Premise 1
The presence of toxic waste sites in low income communities exacerbates health disparities by
creating health inequities.
people of color, tribal, and low-income communities often suffer adverse and disproportionate exposure to environmental and
occupational toxinsemerging literature on this subject has begun to conclusively document serious environmental inequities in the
areas of lead poisoning; air pollution and ambient air quality; groundwater contamination and drinking water safety; proximity to
noxious facilities, mining waste and nuclear plants; location of municipal landfills, incinerators, and abandoned toxic waste sites;
placement of transportation thoroughfare (Lee, 2002)
There is an abundance of evidence which documents that, lower income persons and working class persons are subjected to a
disproportionately large amount of pollution and other environmental stressors (Sicotte, 2010)
these populations tend to be more susceptible and vulnerable by virtue of the social environment. Factors such as economic
distress and low socioeconomic status (SES) contribute to the impact of these exposures ( Lee, 2002)
Premise 2
Exposure to environmental toxins can cause serious health concerns
the most serious environmental impact associated with landfills is their potential for polluting nearby surfacestreams or underlying
aquifers with leachates. (Nadakavukaren, 2011)
Mismanagement of hazardous wastes can adversely affect human health and environmental quality in a number of ways.
(Nadakavukaren, 2011)
Biomagnification of toxic wastes discharged into the environment can result in the poisoning of animals or humans who consume the
toxin indirectly. (Nadakavukaren, 2011)
Premise 3

Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

It is the responsibility of federal and local government to ensure unbiased placement

of waste disposal sites and facilities.
whether some communities bear an unfair share of industrial plants, power generating stations, and waste facilities is an important
policy consideration for local authorities, city planners and regulatory officials. (Sicotte, 2010)
municipal officials bear the ultimate responsibility for seeing that waste management services are provided to the satisfaction of
their constituents and in compliance with increasingly stringent state and federal environmental regulations. (Nadakavukaren, 2011)
waste facilities are publicly owned and operated by local governments, reflecting the 20th century practice of managing solid
waste as a public good. (Norton et al., 2007)
Con Argument
Premise 1: Including the public in the landfill siting process decreases bias and injustice
To address perceived inequities in siting locally undesirable land uses, policymakers began to consider offering communities
compensation packages to make up for the disproportionate share of the risk that they would bear. (Miranda, Miller, & Jacobs, 2000)
Involving the public in a landfill siting process is critical to a successful outcome and has become the norm across the United States.
(Miranda, Miller, & Jacobs, 2000)
Social and economic issues are not evaluated during the RCRA permitting process, but this does not diminish the legitimacy of the
communitys concerns and the need to address them promptly, honestly, and thoroughly when siting a facility. (Miranda, Miller, &
Jacobs, 2000)

Premise 2: Hazardous waste sites can be treated using various options

Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Leachate recirculation increased the moisture content in a controlled reactor system and provided the distribution of nutrients and
enzymes between methanogens and solid/liquids. Significant lowering in methane production and COD was observed when the
recirculated leachate volume was 30% of the initial waste bed volume. (Renoua, Givaudan, Poulain, Dirassouyan, & Moulin, 2008)
Recycling leachate back through the tip has been largely used in the past decade because it was one of the least expensive options
available. (Renoua, Givaudan, Poulain, Dirassouyan, & Moulin, 2008)
Due to its reliability, simplicity and high cost-effectiveness, biological treatment (suspended/attached growth) is commonly used for
the removal of the bulk of leachate containing high concentrations of BOD. (Renoua, Givaudan, Poulain, Dirassouyan, & Moulin,
2008)
Premise 3: Equality during the landfill siting process is a collaborative effort and is not the sole responsibility of the
government
Responsible leadership requires that policy makers, health professionals, industry representatives, and the general public all carry an
expanded and enhanced vision of environmental health forward into the 21st century. (Lee, 2002)
The physical and economic criteria considered in landfill siting processes derive from federal and state law, as well as local
preferences. ( Miranda, Miller &Jacobs, 2000)

Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In 1972 an unlined landfill was built in a small historically African American community in the town of Chapel Hill, NC. The
Rogers Road community accepted the presence of the landfill on a premise of economic and social promise. The landfill which caused
foul odors, poor water quality, chronic exposure to toxic chemicals and pests remained unwanted for over forty years and was
officially closed on June 30, 2013.
This land is your land, this land is our landThis land was made for you and me. When Mr. Woody Guthrie sang of the
freedom of land he had not met the burgeoning of justice in the environmental sense. However, his words depict the true essence of
the fight against environmental injustice, such as that encountered by Rogers Road community residents for over four decades. Risen
out of the early civil rights movement of the 1960s environmental justice became a real issue when in 1990 the Environmental
Protection Agency created a workgroup tasked with reducing environmental risk in all communities. While environmental justice
covers a wide range of factors, this paper will focus on the controversial siting process of hazardous waste sites in the US
Perhaps the strongest case against the inequitable siting of landfills is the impact on the health of communities. The presence of
hazardous waste sites in low income communities exacerbates health disparities by creating health inequities. Individuals in low
income communities are plagued with health concerns related to poverty, lack of access to healthy foods and lead poisoning to name a
few. Poverty is often associated with crime and poor health. There are pre existing health concerns in low income communities across
the nation and introducing a hazardous waste site will create another source of health concern. Adding a new health concern into these
areas creates a multiple stressor condition. When multiple stressors are present in an environment, especially in areas that do not have
the resources to alleviate health burdens alone, health inequities are created. Health inequities are health issues that are completely
controllable and avoidable. (Lee, 2002)
In addition to the creation of health inequities, landfills release environmental toxins that can cause serious health concerns.
Some of these include increased risk of cancer, asthma and in some cases dysentery. Landfills were originally designed as open
dumps. Now, sanitary landfills are the norm. Sanitary landfills should provide less of a risk to surrounding communities due to the
compacting of waste followed by a covering of soil. However, toxins and leachates still manage to escape. These leachates enter
groundwater impacting the purity of drinking water. Also, leachates are released into the air contributing to upper respiratory
infections.
Many believe it is the responsibility of federal and local government to ensure unbiased placement of waste disposal sites and
facilities. Policymakers enact laws and policies and local officials enforce them. There are holes and cracks in the policies surrounding
waste disposal. For example, in cities such as St Louis majority of waste sites are in poverty stricken communities. Events such as
Love Canal during which the health of several families living in Western New York were at risk as a result of a contaminated chemical
dump site. Also, Times Beach . Waste facilities are owned and operated by local government.
Prior to the historic Love Canal and Times Beach incidents the general public held a large amount of trust in the government.
Including the public in decision making of any sort specifically landfill siting was not warranted. Any decision made using the decide,
announce defend (DAD) strategy was acceptable. Using this strategy, government officials could make a decision, announce the
decision and defend the logic of the decision without actually making changes to the decision. However, after several mistakes

Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

publicizing error on the governments behalf trust was lost. Individuals and communities became invested in decisions being made
they could potentially impact them including environmental concerns such as the placement of landfills near their homes. However,
while this is becoming common practice it is not a requirement. There is currently not a policy in place to mandate the inclusion of a
community in a decision to site a landfill near a community; however, there is a recommendation from the Environmental Protection
Agency to include the public in siting processes. Including the public in the landfill siting process could potentially decrease bias and
injustice by giving communities such as those in low income areas that do not have access to education and advocacy resources an
opportunity to voice concerns and opinions.
Instead of no longer siting landfills in low income communities more stringent care can be taken to reduce the landfill as a
source of health concern. Hazardous waste sites can be treated using various options including leachate transfer, biological, physical
and chemical treatments. Leachate transfer involves recycling leachates by removing and returning the leachate back into the waste
site. Biological treatment is carried out through the process of biodegradation. Biological treatment is most commonly used due to its
success rate of removing a large amount of leachates with nitrogenous properties. Lastly physical and chemical treatments are often
used to treat a particular toxin. Some the most common processes include, but are not limited to coagulation-flocculation and air
stripping. Coagulation-flocculation lowers humic acid and helps to identify which coagulant is most useful. Air stripping is commonly
used to eliminate elevated amounts of ammonium nitrogen, as this chemical is most commonly found in landfills and landfill
leachates.
Yes, the government should prohibit the siting of hazardous waste sites in low income communities until strides are made to
reduce the health impact of landfills in these communities. There already exists a large amount of health inequalities and concerns in
low income communities as a result of poverty and income. Compounding this with the presence of a hazardous waste landfill that
could potentially contaminate drinking water and decrease air quality is inequitable. However, if placing hazardous waste sites in low
income communities is not acceptable, then where? This is the question that often plagues any discussion of waste disposal placement,
specifically disposal of hazardous waste. No one wants to bear the burden of possible long term exposure to hazardous waste.
Therefore, while creating a new source of hazardous exposure in communities already at great risk of environmental toxin
exposure is immoral, how much more justified would it be to place it anywhere else. There is no clear answer; however,
improvements can be made in the strategic placing of landfills in communities. For example, the trade off of recreation facilities and
community structures for the brief presence of a landfill was sufficient for the residents of the Rogers Road community, had the
promises been fulfilled. There is a rise in public inclusion in the toxic waste siting process, yet today there remains no policy or law
requiring the public involvement in the siting process. The fight against environmental injustice such as that seen for many decades in
the placement of hazardous waste in low income communities is promising. Strives are being made to combat the inequities and
improve quality of life for all American citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, and class.