Measuring Corporate Environmental Justice Performance (Notes) - Michael Ash

Introduction to Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice with RSEI The Data

2009-03-31 Environmental Justice with RSEI
Data Analysis
Michael Ash
mash@econs.umass.edu
Department of Economics and CPPA

University of Massachusetts Amherst
31 March 2009
Environmental Justice with RSEI
Michael Ash

31 March 2009
1 / 32
Introduction to Environmental Justice Bhopal, West Virginia, and the Right-to-Know
Environmental Justice with RSEI The Data The Corporate Toxics Information Project
2009-03-31 Introduction to Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice, Environmental Equity
Data Analysis Statistical and GIS Methods
Reasons for the Inequity: Move-In versus Siting

Race/Ethnicity and Poverty
Scope of Environmental Decisions
1. Defined in terms of a negative. Differential exposure to environmental hazards or access to environmental

amenities on the basis of race, ethnicity, residence, status, or class. Although I will focus primarily on the
analysis of environmental hazards, access to environmental amenities, e.g., green space, public parks, is
also worth considering, especially in a context of environmental improvement, and one could examine the Environmental Justice, Environmental Equity
extent to which, say, brownfield clean-up, low-emission buses are unequally allocated.
2. The reason for exposure is of substantial interest. In part, this reflects and acceptance of market as
opposed to political reasons for allocating environmental hazards. (Under-examined area of environmental
justice is the legal concept “Moving to the nuisance”). In both models, the polluting firm may be driven by
costs, but while in the market model, the firm considers land prices, potential liability, and transportation Race/Ethnicity and Poverty
access in the “political” model, the cost of overcoming local resistance to the LULU is part of the
accounting. Social Capital. The time line for the location of the people and the facility is typically the Scope of Environmental Decisions
basis for this type of analysis.
3. NOTES CONTINUE ON FOLLOWING PAGE!!!
2 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI The Data The Corporate Toxics Information Project
Environmental Justice, Environmental Equity

Race/Ethnicity and Poverty
1. – Common cause.
Low land prices. . . environmental dis-amenity sites and Environmental Justice, Environmental Equity
Low land prices. . . poor people move in.
– Reverse cause. Reasons for the Inequity: Move-In versus Siting
Environmental dis-amenity sites. . . land prices decline. . . Race/Ethnicity and Poverty
poor people move in.
– Environmental Injustice.
Poor people move in. . . environmental dis-amenity sites
2. Role of race and ethnicity after controlling for income is more suggestive of a role for political
considerations. (Otherwise would need to explain why minorities have lower dis-taste for pollution.) An
independent race effect could represent lower wealth of minorities, inadequately proxied by income.
3. Business decisions and regulatory decisions for many localized environmental hazards are local or regional
decisions. Location of production facilities and of waste disposal facilities often depends to some extent on
local conditions and needs.
3 / 32
1. Dumping in Dixie Beginning with a church-sponsored study in 1987, civil rights activists in the United
States have identified disproportionate exposure of poor people and people of color to environmental
hazards and disproportionate access to environmental goods. Here is a map from one of the early studies
by the General Accounting Office, the research arm of the U.S. Congress on the location of Toxic Storage
and Disposal Facilities in the U.S. South. The map and accompanying table indicate that TSDF’s, in this
case a facility for the containment of highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyls, are located in
disproportionately poor and black communities.
2. “The Warren County (NC) landfill was established to dispose of PCB’s that were illegally dumped during
1978 along 241 miles of North Carolina roads. The site is located in Shocco Township in Warren County,
N.C. In 1979 EPA approved a site for PCB disposal.
1. “Shocco Township and three of five areas that borders within 4 miles—Sandy Creek, Warrenton, and Fork
Townships—have a majority Black population and Blacks make up the majority of those below the poverty
level. The population of Judkins Townships 48 percent Black and Fishing Creek Township is 44 percent
Black and 47 percent American Indian. The American Indians make up 49 percent of those below the
poverty level.”
Environmental Justice with RSEI Regulation by Right-to-Know
The Data The Corporate Toxics Information Project
2009-03-31 Introduction to Environmental Justice Data Analysis Statistical and GIS Methods
Bhopal, West Virginia, and the Right-to-Know

Regulation by Right-to-Know
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA 1986)
Toxics Release Inventory
Alternatives to Right-to-Know
Regulation by Right-to-Know
1. The US depends heavily on right-to-know legislation, rather than direct regulation, to protect citizens
against industrial toxic pollution. The right-to-know approach means that corporations are under mandate
to publicly report their pollution, but after the reports are filed and published, citizens, employees,
consumers, shareholders and managers are left to respond as they see fit. For the right-to-know approach
to improving corporate environmental performance to have any chance of success, you need to have
stakeholders with access to the information, the ability to interpret the information, and the capacity and
incentive to respond to the information.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
2. Environmental right-to-know legislation in the U.S. emerged from the 1984 Union Carbide disaster in (EPCRA 1986)
Bhopal, India. When the public learned that Union Carbide had an essentially identical plant in West
Virginia, it demanded and got action from Congress. As an aside, it’s worth noting that EPCRA applies Toxics Release Inventory
only to facilities in the United States and would do nothing to better prepare the residents of, say Bhopal,
for toxic releases. Alternatives to Right-to-Know
6 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Goals of the Project
Mediate complicated technical information for public use
The Corporate Toxics Information Project

Goals of the Project
Help people translate the right to know into the right to clean
air and clean water
Audience
Goals of the Project Residents of affected communities

Socially responsible investors
Corporate management
Regulators
1. After I describe the data I’ll say more about the specific activities of the CTIP.
2. The CTIP is intended to increase the effectiveness of the right-to-know approach to corporate pollution–by
bolstering the ability of stakeholders to interpret information on toxic releases and by increasing the
incentive for shareholders and managers of polluting industries to clean up their act.
Mediate complicated technical information for public use
3. One function of the Corporate Toxics Information Project is simply to spread the word about the TRI and
RSEI. CTIP adds further value to the RSEI data by matching polluting facilities to their parent Help people translate the right to know into the right to clean
corporations.
air and clean water
Audience
Residents of affected communities
Socially responsible investors
Corporate management
Regulators
7 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Some Methodological Questions
2009-03-31 Introduction to Environmental Justice Data Analysis Statistical and GIS Methods
Spatial correlation
Statistical and GIS Methods
Some Methodological Questions
Environmental dis-amenity and population of interest
Who is potentially at-risk?
How close is exposed?
What are confounding factors
Some Methodological Questions
(and what is simply part of the problem)?
1. The basic method in environmental justice research is to establish, either visually or quantitatively, a
correlation between hazard and exposed populations of interest.
2. What is the right comparison group? First, environmental hazards are regionally distributed; so very
long-distance comparisons are probably not relevant. The dump facility is not choosing between Chicago Spatial correlation
and Cleveland; it’s choosing between Waukegan, IL, and Robbins, IL. Probably want to compare exposure
within a region. Second and related, environmental hazards are concentrated in urban areas; the difference Environmental dis-amenity and population of interest
in exposure between city and countryside is interesting and real but probably doesn’t reflect social
dumping. Probably want to compare exposure within similarly urbanized or suburbanized areas. Show next
slide on national distribution of hazard. Who is potentially at-risk?
3. Different sources and pollutants have different effective ranges. For spatial analysis, arbitrary map areas
can determine measured proximity, and it would be better to have a good measure of actual hazard at the How close is exposed?
receptor. Anderton et al. (1994) for example found diametrically opposed EJ results depending on whether
Census Tracts (small) or larger 2.5-mile radii are used.
4. Old industrial areas may attract new industry. Regions that are zoned for waste disposal may have been
What are confounding factors
discriminatorily zoned; so “controlling” for zoning may be over-controlling. (and what is simply part of the problem)?
8 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI RSEI Data
Hazard and Score The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
2009-03-31
Hazard ≡ [Conc] × [Toxicity] ∝ individual health risk
The Data Score ≡ [Conc] × [Toxicity] × [Pop] ∝ total health risk Data Analysis
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators RSEI takes the toxic air release from each industrial source and uses wind and other information to
RSEI Data
determine where the releases go within a grid around each facility. RSEI attributes higher health
impacts to grid cells exposed to higher-toxicity chemicals.
Where the grids intersect,

toxicities can be added up
RSEI Data from multiple sources to

determine an overall
101 km neighborhood health impact.
Hazard and Score

1 km
To determine who is
affected in each
Hazard ≡ [Conc] × [Toxicity]

neighborhood we use
census information to
determine the race,
age, and income of
residents. We can use
this to look at both
overall impact and impact for sub-groups.
∝ individual health risk
Score ≡ [Conc] × [Toxicity] × [Pop] ∝ total health risk
1. Combining the estimated concentration data with the toxicity data creates the estimate of hazard in the
vocabulary of RSEI. Hazard is a measure of increased individual exposure to industrial airborne toxics. For
thinking about whether a neighborhood or a household is in danger from a release, hazard is the right
concept.
2. Multiplying hazard by the exposed population gives the score, which is an aggregate measure of the RSEI takes the toxic air release from each industrial source and uses wind and other information to
damage done by a release. For thinking about the damage from a particular release, facility, or corporation, determine where the releases go within a grid around each facility. RSEI attributes higher health
impacts to grid cells exposed to higher-toxicity chemicals.
score is probably the right concept.
Where the grids intersect,

toxicities can be added up
from multiple sources to
determine an overall
101 km neighborhood health impact.
1 km
To determine who is
affected in each
neighborhood we use
census information to
determine the race,
age, and income of
residents. We can use
this to look at both 9 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry
U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
2009-03-31 The Data Submission Release/Transfer Totals
Fugitive Air Releases 216
Data Analysis
Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry
Stack Air Releases
Water Releases
Underground Releases
Land Releases
1,997
0
0
0
Total Releases
POTW Transfers
Off-site Transfers
2,213
7,405
0 U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Releases Plus Transfers 9,618
1. The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Project of the U.S. EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics is an attempt to “add value” to information on toxic releases. The starting point for the project is Submission Release/Transfer Totals
the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, which is the U.S. EPA’s Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry.
2. The RSEI makes three important contributions that increase the value the TRI data. First, RSEI uses a Fugitive Air Releases 216
peer-reviewed system of toxicity weights that express how dangerous each chemical is on a per-pound
basis; the toxicity weights make it possible for citizens to understand the importance of obscurely-named Stack Air Releases 1,997
chemicals for actual human health risk. Second, the RSEI describes ”fate and transport,” or how each
chemical spreads from the point of release to the surrounding area. Finally, the RSEI shows the affected Water Releases 0
population, by using Census data to examine the number of people in the most affected and significantly
affected areas around the releasing facility. Underground Releases 0
1 of 1
Land Releases 0
Total Releases 2,213
POTW Transfers 0
Off-site Transfers 7,405
10 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Pollutant Release and Transfer Registry
U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
2009-03-31 The Data Submission Release/Transfer Totals
Fugitive Air Releases 216
Data Analysis

Stack Air Releases
Water Releases
Underground Releases
Land Releases
1,997
0
0
0
Total Releases
POTW Transfers
Off-site Transfers
2,213
7,405
0 U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
1. Approximately 24,000 industrial facilities reporting the quantities released of up to 600 chemicals in 2002.
Reporting sectors are manufacturing, toxic storage and disposal, mining, electrical power generation. The Submission Release/Transfer Totals
TRI reports air releases, releases into surface water, releases into the ground as well as transfers to off-site
storage and disposal facilities. Fugitive Air Releases 216
2. Our focus is on air releases although there has also been progress on measuring the risk of surface-water
releases. Air releases include both stack releases and fugitive release. The latter include both incidental Stack Air Releases 1,997
spills and “normal” ground-level releases such as volatilization from open tanks.
3. Here is the TRI reporting of 2005 releases of toluene from Dielectric Polymer Division of Holyoke, Water Releases 0
Massachusetts, reprinted from RTKNet.org, a private not-for-profit website that makes TRI data available
to the public in digestible formats. Dielectric Polymer is in the Coated and Laminated Paper business, and Underground Releases 0
also released n-Hexane and xylene in 2005.
1 of 1
Land Releases 0
Total Releases 2,213
POTW Transfers 0
Off-site Transfers 7,405
11 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Toxicity
Peer-reviewed toxicity weights The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
2009-03-31 Data Analysis
Toxicity Weights
The Data Chemical

Asbestos (friable)
Category
Carcinogen
Inhalation Oral ingestion Maximum
1000000 0 1000000
Thorium dioxide Mixed 1800 1000000 1000000
Benzidine Carcinogen 480000 460000 480000

Toxicity
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
Propyleneimine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
Diisocyanates
Carcinogen
Carcinogen
Carcinogen
Carcinogen
Non-carcinogen
440000
310000
300000
280000
180000
440000
300000
300000
280000
180000
440000
310000
300000
280000
180000
Toxicity
1,2-Dibromoethane
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Acrolein
Cadmium
Mixed
Carcinogen
Non-carcinogen
Non-carcinogen
2300
100000
90000
90000
170000
100000
1000
1000
170000
100000
90000
90000
Peer-reviewed toxicity weights
Cadmium compounds Non-carcinogen 90000 1000 90000
Toxicity Weights
Chemical Category Inhalation Oral ingestion Maximum
1. All of the 600 chemicals and chemical groups are recognized as toxic, but toxicities vary widely—by up to 7 Asbestos (friable) Carcinogen 1000000 0 1000000
orders of magnitude. So pound to pound comparisons are not sensible, although such comparisons often
appear in popular press coverage of the Toxics Release Inventory’s annual Public Data Release. EPA has Thorium dioxide Mixed 1800 1000000 1000000
developed a peer-reviewed system of toxicity weights, relative to methanol, wood alcohol, with a toxicity Benzidine Carcinogen 480000 460000 480000
weight of 1.
2. RELATIVE TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS LISTED IN THE EPA’S TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY Toxicity Bis(chloromethyl)ether Carcinogen 440000 440000 440000
rankings used in the EPA’s Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) database (Version 2.1.2)
Notes: Toxicity sources include EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), U.S. Agency for Toxic N-Nitrosodiethylamine Carcinogen 310000 300000 310000
Substances and Disease Registry, California Environmental Protection Agency, EPA’s Office of Pesticide Propyleneimine Carcinogen 300000 300000 300000
Programs Toxicity Tracking Reports, and EPA’s Health Assessment Summary Tables. TRI chemicals and
groups not listed below do not yet have RSEI relative toxicity rankings. N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea Carcinogen 280000 280000 280000
3. Some of the most toxic chemicals are Diisocyanates, with a toxicity weight of 180,000, Benzidine, with a Diisocyanates Non-carcinogen 180000 180000 180000
toxicity weight of 480,000, and Asbestos with a toxicity weight of 1,000,000.
1,2-Dibromoethane Mixed 2300 170000 170000
Page 1 of 1
N-Nitrosodimethylamine Carcinogen 100000 100000 100000
Acrolein Non-carcinogen 90000 1000 90000
Cadmium Non-carcinogen 90000 1000 90000
Cadmium compounds Non-carcinogen 90000 1000 90000
12 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Toxicity
Peer-reviewed toxicity weights The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
2009-03-31 The Data Data Analysis

Toxicity
Toxicity
Peer-reviewed toxicity weights
1. All of the 600 chemicals and chemical groups are recognized as toxic, but toxicities vary widely—by up to 7
orders of magnitude. So pound to pound comparisons are not sensible, although such comparisons often
appear in popular press coverage of the Toxics Release Inventory’s annual Public Data Release. EPA has
developed a peer-reviewed system of toxicity weights, relative to methanol, wood alcohol, with a toxicity
weight of 1.
2. RELATIVE TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS LISTED IN THE EPA’S TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY Toxicity
rankings used in the EPA’s Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) database (Version 2.1.2)
Notes: Toxicity sources include EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), U.S. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, California Environmental Protection Agency, EPA’s Office of Pesticide
Programs Toxicity Tracking Reports, and EPA’s Health Assessment Summary Tables. TRI chemicals and
groups not listed below do not yet have RSEI relative toxicity rankings.
3. Some of the most toxic chemicals are Diisocyanates, with a toxicity weight of 180,000, Benzidine, with a
toxicity weight of 480,000, and Asbestos with a toxicity weight of 1,000,000.
13 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Fate and Transport
What’s at stake? The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Fate and Transport
Fate and Transport
What’s at stake?
1. Here are three alternative approaches to whether a facility (represented by the solid black circle) affects
each of three receptors, represented by unfilled black squared. The first approach uses official boundaries,
e.g., Census Tract, represented by the hexagons. Under this approach, the two left-hand squares are “in”
or affected, and the right-hand square is “out.” In the second approach, we use a distance model and find
that the square across the tract boundary is indeed affected, while the more distant receptor within the
same census tract is less affected. In the third approach, a plume model refines the analysis still further,
using prevailing winds and other information about the release to find that the square in the second tract is
actually disproportionately affected.
14 / 32

Fate and Transport
Fate and Transport
What’s at stake?
15 / 32

Fate and Transport
Fate and Transport
What’s at stake?
16 / 32
Grid to neighborhood (Census block group) merge
X
ConcentrationB = Area(B ∩C)/Area(B)×ConcentrationC

Fate and Transport
Fate and Transport
What’s at stake?
Grid to neighborhood (Census block group) merge

1. Census block groups are the smallest area for which full social and economic data are reported.
X
2. To compute the toxicity concentration for block groups, illustrated by blue hexagons, from the toxicity ConcentrationB = Area(B ∩C)/Area(B)×ConcentrationC
concentrations for grid cells, we take an area-share weighted average of the constituent grid cells.
3. The median block group in Massachusetts is 0.8 square km and the 1st and 3rd quartiles are 0.25 and 3
square km, which suggests that the merge is reasonable.
17 / 32

Fate and Transport
Fate and Transport
What’s at stake?
18 / 32

Fate and Transport
Fate and Transport
What’s at stake?
19 / 32
Industrial Source Complex Long Term (ISCLT3) The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
2009-03-31 The Data Gaussian plume model
Facility properties: stack height and diameter; exit velocity
Data Analysis
Chemical properties: mass; deposition; decomposition
Fate and Transport
Weather: temperature, Stability Array (StAr) prevailing winds
Fate and Transport
Industrial Source Complex Long Term (ISCLT3)
Gaussian plume model

1. Fate and transport addresses how the pollutant disperse through the atmosphere.
2. The Industrial Source Complex Long Term model is currently used by the RSEI project, but the RSEI Facility properties: stack height and diameter; exit velocity
project is switching to the Aermod model.
3. A standard “plume” model that employs data on prevailing wind direction, temperature, stack height, and
gas exit velocity is used to model the concentration of the chemical on a 1 square-kilometer basis in a 101
Chemical properties: mass; deposition; decomposition
km by 101 km grid around the facility. Advantage of the fate and transport model is that hazard is
measured at the receptor site. Disagreement about what constitutes “close” to the source is sidestepped. Weather: temperature, Stability Array (StAr) prevailing winds
4. Concentrations are computed on for a receptor in each square kilometer on a 101 by 101 km grid centered
on the facility.
5. The next slide shows the estimated concentration for an actual release in Massachusetts.
20 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
−2
−4
−6
log(Conc)
−8
Latitude
43.2
43.0
−10
42.8
42.6
−12
42.4
42.2
−14
42.0
−72.8 −72.6 −72.4 −72.2 −72.0 −71.8 −71.6 −71.4 −71.2
Longitude
1. This graphic shows the concentration of the chemical (Diisocyanates in this case) in the 101 km by 101 km
area around the facility on a 1 square-kilometer basis. That is, there are 10,201 estimated concentrations.
The axes are marked in longitude and latitude using an unprojected plane. Note that the concentration is
not radially symmetric around the facility, which represents the role of prevailing winds in diffusing the
chemical release.
2. After tracking the dispersion of the releases with the Fate and Transport, the RSEI then determines the
−2
size and demographic composition of the exposed population using data from the U.S. Census.
3. The population data are adjusted with age and sex specific Inhalation Exposure Factors, which reflect
−4
different uptake rates for eight age and sex categories.
4. Here is the score for the same release. The substantial difference reflects differences in population density
in areas around the facility.
−6
log(Conc)
−8
Latitude
43.2
43.0
−10
42.8
42.6
−12
42.4
42.2
−14
42.0
−72.8 −72.6 −72.4 −72.2 −72.0 −71.8 −71.6 −71.4 −71.2
Longitude
21 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI RSEI Data
The Data Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Facility-Level Data
RSEI Data
Scorefacility =
Geographic Microdata
X X
releases cells
Scoref rc
RSEI Data
Scoref rc
1. EPA does not publicly release the data used to produce the maps that I have shown. The intended purpose
of the RSEI is to identify high-priority facilities for action or enforcement. Hence, RSEI public releases
facility-level information, which aggregates to a single facility score the score of each cell in the grid.
2. Also of interest, however, are the geographic microdata, the concentration and score data at the grid-cell
level which underly the facility-level score. A consortium of universities including UMass, the University of
Facility-Level Data
Michigan, and the University of Southern California has agreed with EPA to purchase from EPA’s
contractor the full set of geographic microdata, all cells affected by all releases from all facilities, 1988-2005. X X
3. The current version of this database is 1.5 Terabytes. It includes 18 years of releases with some 25,000 Scorefacility = Scoref rc
facilities releasing roughly 120,000 air releases each year.
releases cells
Geographic Microdata
Scoref rc
22 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI CTIP Value Added
The Data
Work In Progress
Data Analysis
Corporate scores
CTIP Value Added

Facility environmental equity
Determinants of neighborhood exposure
Effects of exposure
CTIP Value Added
Public access to community-level exposure
In-house air modeling capacity
1. Research assistants used Dun and Bradstreet, Hoover’s, Google, and telephone calls to match each facility
to its corporate owner. We then use a sophisticated mathematical technique called “addition” to compute
the corporate score. Although the approach is straightforward, the facility-corporation matches were Work In Progress
challenging, and the information was new.
2. We focused on large U.S.-owned corporations that appear on the Forbes 500, Fortune 500, or S&P 500.
We computed corporate scores for each of these roughly 700 companies and then ranked them. Here are
Corporate scores
the top seven, and the top 100 are reported on the PERI website. Note that Score and pounds released do
not closely coincide. Facility environmental equity
3. Something interesting thing we learned is that in some cases, the corporate headquarters do not see these
data. They are reported by individual facilities directly to the EPA. It was only when we made information Determinants of neighborhood exposure
on corporate rankings available to the public that the folks at headquarters took notice. We’re talking here
about some of the biggest companies in the United States. After talking to my colleague Jim Boyce on the
phone for an hour or so, the top environmental officer of one of these companies said, “You know, I think
Effects of exposure
I’m going to institute a new policy—I’m going to have our plant managers fax me a copy of their TRI
reports when they send them to the EPA.” Public access to community-level exposure
4. To compute the black or poor score for a facility, it’s necessary to convert Census data to the grid basis.
This is carried out through an area-weighted merge. Alternative populations can then be used for the In-house air modeling capacity
population-weighting component of the facility score. It is then possible to compute the black, or poor,
score and to compare this to the facility’s overall score. We are stil thinking about the appropriate
comparison, a facility in Detroit is likely going to have a higher ratio of the black score to the total score
than a facility in Seattle. We are considering the share black of the county, metropolitan area, or the 101
by 101 km grid as potential comparison areas.
23 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Determinants of Neighborhood Exposure
The Data
2009-03-31 Data Analysis Data Analysis
Determinants of Neighborhood Exposure

Multivariate modeling of exposure
yij = αj + Xij β + race/ethnicij γ + f ( incomeij ) + ij
Longitudinal analysis, Regional analysis, Race-class interaction

Determinants of Neighborhood Exposure
1. In a 2004 paper co-authored with Rob Fetter, we found that
– African Americans live both in cities with above average

pollution and in the more polluted neighborhoods of most Multivariate modeling of exposure
cities.
– Hispanics live in cities with below average pollution, for yij = αj + Xij β + race/ethnicij γ + f ( incomeij ) + ij
example because the Southwest is less industrialized but, as
with African Americans, in the more polluted neighborhoods of
Longitudinal analysis, Regional analysis, Race-class interaction
cities.
– Cities with more poor people have higher than average
pollution, and poor people live in more polluted neighborhoods
of cities.
24 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Airborne Industrial Toxics
Massachusetts, 1998 The Data
Airborne Industrial Toxics Airborne Industrial Toxics

Massachusetts, 1998
1. Now let me show you a couple of actual pollution maps.

2. The 1998 map of Massachusetts shows hot-spots around the state.
3. Why 1998? I noticed that 2003, the most recent year for which data are available has a likely error in one
release.
25 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Airborne Industrial Toxics
Massachusetts, 2003 The Data
Airborne Industrial Toxics Airborne Industrial Toxics

Massachusetts, 2003
26 / 32
1. The map of Boston demonstrates the fine detail and resolution that the RSEI model achieves. It’s possible
to discern different neighborhoods and their exposure to airborne industrial pollution.
Environmental Justice with RSEI Next steps
The Data
Next steps
Web-based residential exposure look-up
Longitudinal analysis: move-in vs. siting
Health and economic effects of exposure
Next steps
1. Next steps include
– a web-based look-up that will allow users to enter an address

and receive a report on the facilities and chemicals creating the
highest risk to human health. The look-up will use TIGER/Line Web-based residential exposure look-up
files to match addresses to the RSEI geographic microdata; Longitudinal analysis: move-in vs. siting
– longitudinal analysis of exposure data to tease out the problem
of move-in versus siting; Health and economic effects of exposure
– effects of exposure, including economic and health effects; and
– in-house development of air-modeling capacity to save the
expense and delay in the RSEI data (although this really
should be EPA’s responsibility).
28 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Median exposure, by state
The Data
Median exposure, by state Median exposure, by state
Map 1
29 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Racial/ethnic disparity, by state
The Data
Racial/ethnic disparity, by state Racial/ethnic disparity, by state
Map 2
30 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Poverty disparity, by state
The Data
Poverty disparity, by state Poverty disparity, by state
Map 3
31 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI Sectoral results
The Data
Table 3
Data Analysis
Sectoral results
Top Ten Sectors by Toxic Score
Toxic Minority Low-income

Sector (3-digit SIC code in parentheses) score share Share
Sectoral results Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, Rolling and Finishing Mills (331)
Iron and Steel Foundries (332)
Electric Services (491)
Industrial Organic Chemicals (286)
1,054
939
736
615
24.1
41.3
40.3
39.1
17.2
16.6
17.9
14.2
Plastics and Synthetic Materials (282) 437 30.0 15.5
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment (371) 416 25.2 12.0
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals (281) 401 33.1 15.8
Fabricated Structural Metal Products (344) 393 33.7 15.3
Petroleum Refining (291) 381 51.3 19.0
Fabricated Metal Products (349) 371 54.4 16.3
Top ten total 5,741 37.3 16.0
Total (all sectors) 10,000 34.8 15.3
** formerly Table 4
Table 3
Top Ten Sectors by Toxic Score
Toxic Minority Low-income

Sector (3-digit SIC code in parentheses) score share Share
Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, Rolling and Finishing Mills (331) 1,054 24.1 17.2
Iron and Steel Foundries (332) 939 41.3 16.6
Electric Services (491) 736 40.3 17.9
Industrial Organic Chemicals (286) 615 39.1 14.2
Plastics and Synthetic Materials (282) 437 30.0 15.5
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment (371) 416 25.2 12.0
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals (281) 401 33.1 15.8
Fabricated Structural Metal Products (344) 393 33.7 15.3
Petroleum Refining (291) 381 51.3 19.0
Fabricated Metal Products (349) 371 54.4 16.3
Top ten total 5,741 37.3 16.0
Total (all sectors) 10,000 34.8 15.3
** formerly Table 4
32 / 32
Environmental Justice with RSEI The Data
2009-03-31 Data Analysis Environmental Justice with RSEI
Data Analysis
Michael Ash

31 March 2009
Michael Ash

31 March 2009
33 / 32

Measuring Corporate Environmental Justice Performance (Notes) - Michael Ash

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring Corporate Environmental Justice Performance (Notes) - Michael Ash

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice with RSEI The Data

Department of Economics and CPPA

Environmental Justice with RSEI

Department of Economics and CPPA

Reasons for the Inequity: Move-In versus Siting

1. Defined in terms of a negative. Differential exposure to environmental hazards or access to environmental

Reasons for the Inequity: Move-In versus Siting

Bhopal, West Virginia, and the Right-to-Know

The Corporate Toxics Information Project

Goals of the Project Residents of affected communities

Where the grids intersect,

RSEI Data from multiple sources to

Hazard and Score

Hazard ≡ [Conc] × [Toxicity]

Where the grids intersect,

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

The Data Chemical

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Grid to neighborhood (Census block group) merge

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

Gaussian plume model

Risk Screening Environmental Indicators

CTIP Value Added

Determinants of Neighborhood Exposure

yij = αj + Xij β + race/ethnicij γ + f ( incomeij ) + ij

Longitudinal analysis, Regional analysis, Race-class interaction

1. In a 2004 paper co-authored with Rob Fetter, we found that

– African Americans live both in cities with above average

Airborne Industrial Toxics Airborne Industrial Toxics

1. Now let me show you a couple of actual pollution maps.

Airborne Industrial Toxics Airborne Industrial Toxics

1. Next steps include

– a web-based look-up that will allow users to enter an address

Median exposure, by state Median exposure, by state

Racial/ethnic disparity, by state Racial/ethnic disparity, by state

Poverty disparity, by state Poverty disparity, by state

Toxic Minority Low-income

Top Ten Sectors by Toxic Score

Toxic Minority Low-income

Department of Economics and CPPA

Environmental Justice with RSEI

Department of Economics and CPPA

You might also like

yij = αj + Xij β + race/ethnicij γ + f ( incomeij ) + ij