Data & Methodology

Introduction

Full Circle Future’s Waste Impact Tracker is a powerful tool that equips people in all 50 states to explore data on landfill pollution, wasted food and hunger, community vulnerability, and who lives near these sites—helping people advance equitable, community-driven solutions.

In the United States, reported methane emissions from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in 2023 were equivalent to emissions from approximately 59 million gasoline-powered vehicles. In reality, the problem is much worse than these estimates suggest; studies of direct measurements of landfill emissions reveal that unchecked levels of methane are hiding in plain sight, odorless and invisible. 

Landfills aren’t only a major climate threat, but an urgent public health one. When landfills emit methane, they are also accompanied by air and water pollutants that are associated with serious health conditions, such as asthma, heart disease, and cancer. The Waste Impact Tracker exposes the reality of landfill pollution’s disproportionate burden on Black and Indigenous people, people of color, people with low incomes, people with existing health conditions, and other vulnerable communities who face systemic barriers to health and safety. 

Data utilized by the  Waste Impact Tracker was compiled and analyzed from a number of sources. Below, you can find additional information about our data sources, analytical methodology, and key terminology referenced throughout the tracker. Questions about the Waste Impact Tracker can be directed to Riikka Yliluoma. You can also learn how to use the tool here. 

Acknowledgements

Full Circle Future would like to thank the following partners for their valuable data, review, and insights:

• Global Methane Hub

• Rethink Food Waste Through Economics and Data (ReFED)

• Carbon Mapper

• Industrious Labs

Review does not imply an endorsement of the contents of this publication, and data accuracy is the responsibility of Full Circle Future.

Citation Guide

Full Circle Future, Waste Impact Tracker, 2025

Glossary/Definitions

Key Terminology

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill: Municipal solid waste landfills are a type of landfills that accept residential household waste and may accept commercial or industrial nonhazardous solid waste.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are atmospheric gases that absorb and emit radiant energy, trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. While most of these gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, anthropogenic GHGs are generated due to human activities, such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, agriculture, industrial processes, and waste management, and are considered the main drivers of the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change.

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e): Carbon dioxide equivalent is a standardized unit used to measure the global warming potential of different greenhouse gases, expressing them in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same warming effect. It allows for a single measure to compare the impact of various greenhouse gases, like methane, by converting their emissions to the equivalent amount of CO2.

Global Warming Potential (GWP): Different greenhouse gases have varying impacts on global warming, and they persist in the atmosphere for different durations. To compare these impacts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines a GWP for each GHG, which is the warming effect of one unit of that gas relative to one unit of carbon dioxide over a specific time period, typically 100 years.

Methane is a short-lived but highly potent greenhouse gas, with about 80 times the planet-warming power of carbon dioxide during the first twenty years of its lifetime. Therefore, methane reduction efforts are particularly urgent and have a high potential for global warming mitigation.

The Waste Impact Tracker uses a 20-year GWP for methane because it better reflects the immediate impact of methane emissions, which are particularly potent in the short term. The 100-year GWP, while useful for comparing different greenhouse gases on a long-term scale, tends to dilute methane’s short-term impact by averaging its effects over a century.

Methane, CH4: Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with about 80 times the potency of carbon dioxide in its first twenty years in the atmosphere. It is generated in anaerobic (oxygen-free) conditions, such as in landfills, as a byproduct of bacterial activity and the decomposition of organic waste, including food, paper, and yard waste.

Organic waste: Organic waste is biodegradable material derived from plants and animals that can be broken down by microorganisms. It includes items like food scraps, yard waste, and certain paper products. In contrast, inorganic waste is not biodegradable and includes materials like plastic and metal. 

Landfill Gas (LFG): Landfill gas (LFG) is a byproduct of the decomposition of organic waste in landfills, primarily composed of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) in varying ratios, typically considered 50:50. It can also include trace amounts of other gases like nitrogen oxides, sulfides, ammonia, and various non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), such as benzene, formaldehyde, and hydrofluorocarbons. These gases are produced by aerobic and anaerobic (with and without oxygen present) bacterial decomposition of organic materials or are released as contaminants of the waste.

Landfill Gas Collection System: Landfill gas collection systems, sometimes referred to as Gas Capture and Control Systems (GCCS), reduce the amount of gas building up in the landfill by using a network of underground pipes - sometimes with vacuum pressure - to pull gas out of the waste. The gas is then sent to equipment that burns off the methane (by flaring or combustion for energy production). Most landfills emit methane, but today, only landfills that meet poorly designed federal criteria are required to install gas collection systems to capture methane gas. These insufficient thresholds mean that many landfills do not have a gas collection system or do not have to follow basic operational regulatory standards.

Estimated methane emissions: Landfill facilities' annual estimated methane emissions derive from the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), which mandates self-reporting of estimated greenhouse gas emissions from point sources above an annual threshold of 25,000/80,000 metric tons of CO2e (100/20-year GWP).

These reported emissions are formula-based estimates of the annual methane generation that rely on standard values and assumptions and are unable to accurately account for the various elements that impact an individual landfill’s condition and thus emissions and pollutants generation and release.

Detected methane plumes: A methane plume refers to an excess mass or concentration of methane in the atmosphere, emitted from a specific source, such as a landfill. These plumes can be observed utilizing different technologies (see below, methane sensing technologies).

The Waste Impact Tracker utilizes public satellite and airborne remote sensing technology data of detected methane plumes from Carbon Mapper. Detected methane plumes exclude conducted observations without detection of plumes, and do not include surface emissions monitoring (SEM) data from the landfill operators.

Plume emissions rate: The plume emission rate is the mass of methane gas emitted per unit of time, presented as kilograms of methane per hour (kh CH4/h).

Methane sensing technologies: A vast variety of methodologies and technologies, from ground sensors and drones to aircraft and satellite-based methane sensing and monitoring systems, are available to accurately pinpoint and quickly address large methane emissions. 

Learn more about advanced methane monitoring technologies, their use cases, and limitations from the Carbon Mapper and RMI’s Methane Transparency visualization.

Environmental Justice (EJ): Environmental justice is defined utilizing the U.S. EPA definition:  fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, income, and educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of protective environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
– U.S. EPA, retrieved from a version dated January 19, 2021.

In the Waste Impact Tracker, the definition accounts for the existing disproportionate impact of waste, including significantly higher and more adverse health and environmental effects, on marginalized or vulnerable communities.

Impact: Impact refers to the environmental (climate and pollution), social (demographic and socioeconomic), and health impacts that landfills have on the populations located near landfills (census tracts intersecting within a 5-mile radius from landfills).

Food waste: In the Waste Impact Tracker, wasted food represents food that goes uneaten, is unsold or unused by businesses, or is uneaten at home, including inedible parts such as peels, bits, and bones, which are sent to waste destinations.

While some surplus food is inevitable, and some portion is considered inedible, it only accounts for a small percentage based on ReFED data; an estimated 75% of all surplus food could be considered edible. Thus, a significant portion of the wasted food could be consumed, repurposed, or diverted via composting or other, more sustainable alternatives to landfills or incinerators.

See ReFED's Insights Engine for more information about surplus food, food waste, and their societal impact.

Food insecurity: Food insecurity is defined as people having times of uncertainty  or being unable to acquire enough food because of insufficient money or other resources for food.

See Feed America’s Interactive Data page for more details and data about the causes and impact of food insecurity in the United States.

Data and Methodology

MSW landfill information

Information and analysis on existing landfills, their location, status, and operational details were compiled from the most recent publicly available versions as of January 2025 of the U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (primary) and Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) (secondary). Quantitative waste data is translated into metric tons where applicable.

This dataset is not a full list of all U.S. landfills - rather, it represents the only 50-state data set on MSW landfills. Some states may maintain more comprehensive lists of landfills within that state. The maps in the Waste Impact Tracker only include landfills where their location data was available. Landfills where the geolocation data is not reported are still included in state and county data summaries in the accompanying table. 

Estimated Methane Emissions

Annual reported methane emissions presented are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), which is a compulsory, self-reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting program for industrial and other large point-source GHG emitters. The GHGRP reporting threshold is 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, on a 100-year global warming potential* (AR4, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, 4th Annual Report), here 80,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (IPCC AR6, 20-year GWP).

These estimated emissions are formula-based estimates of the annual methane generation that rely on standard values and are unable to accurately account for the various elements that impact an individual landfill’s condition and thus emissions and pollutants generation and release. They are the only 50-state dataset on estimated methane emissions from MSW landfills. 

The Full Circle Future Waste Impact Tracker presents facility-level data and information from the GHGRP. For emissions information, the U.S. EPA publishes an annual GHG Inventory Report, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, which presents the total MSW landfills sector emissions, by accounting estimates for facilities that are below the reporting threshold for the GHGRP, and thus the total sector emissions may differ between publications.

*Methane’s Global Warming Impact

Methane is a short-lived but extremely powerful greenhouse gas. It is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide during its short lifetime of 12-20 years. This means that the inventory methodology of reporting GHGs as the mass equivalent of long-lived carbon dioxide dilutes the true climate impact of methane. Therefore, the methane emissions data are presented on a 20-year global warming potential time horizon, as a mass multiplier of 79.7 (AR6, IPCC 6th Annual Report, 2021; Chapter 7, Table 7.15).

Detected Methane Plumes

The Waste Impact Tracker utilizes Carbon Mapper's public satellite and airborne remote sensing technology data of detected methane plumes. This data enables large methane point-source detection and fast mitigation efforts, if utilized. However, due to outdated federal regulations, landfill operators are not required by federal regulation to respond to the airborne and satellite remote sensing plume data provided by these entities.

This data is provided for non-commercial use only. Downloading or accessing the data signifies agreement to the Terms of Use.

The plume data is updated in weekly intervals from the Carbon Mapper Data Portal with key filter conditions (table below). Each plume’s geospatial location (latitude and longitude) is matched with the landfills dataset utilizing a 3-mile maximum buffer for matching. The Waste Impact Tracker only includes detected methane plumes that are associated with an MSW landfill; plume observations without an emissions rate or visual plume image are excluded from this data. 

Not all landfill facilities have detected methane plumes or conducted observations. A lack of observations in a given region may be due to a variety of reasons. For example, difficult observing conditions like cloud cover may limit data collection in a region. Landfills may still be emitting methane even if no plumes are detected. The data presented in the Waste Impact Tracker is collected using instruments that are specifically designed to find the highest methane-emitting sources.

Environmental Justice and Impact Analysis

This section outlines the methodology for the Environmental Justice (EJ) and impact analysis. The goal of this analysis is to evaluate the extent of potential environmental and health impacts on communities surrounding landfills, using national-level and site-specific indicators. 

Data Sources 

This analysis draws on publicly available datasets and established tools for environmental and demographic data collection. The primary sources and use include:

1. EPA EJSCREEN Version 2.3 (2024)
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. 2023 Reporting Year.
   EPA EJSCREEN | Harvard Dataverse Copy
   Used to obtain and assess environmental and demographic indicators—including pollution exposure, income, education, and race/ethnicity—in census tracts intersecting within a 5-mile radius of the landfills' reported geospatial location.

2. EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP, 2024)
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Landfill Emissions Data. 2023 Reporting Year.
   GHGRP Landfill Emissions
   Used to identify operational and emissions characteristics of landfills, including the presence or absence of gas collection systems.

3. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP, 2024)
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. LMOP Database: Landfill Points and Characteristics. Latest version of September 2024, retrieved in January 2025.
   LMOP Database
   Used to determine geolocation and infrastructure data on landfills, enabling spatial analyses.

4. CDC PLACES (2024)
   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, 2023 Release.
   CDC PLACES
   Used to assess the prevalence of chronic health conditions such as asthma, heart disease, and COPD within nearby communities.

5. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Federal Reporting Services
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2024. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Federal Reporting Services. Last updated 27 February 2025.
   SDWIS Reports
   Used to aggregate arsenic violations in drinking water near landfills.

6. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2024. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model. Last updated 10 May 2024.
   RSEI Scores and Microdata Files
   Used to assess chronic human health risk from air toxics emitted near landfills and industrial facilities

Environmental Justice Impact Statement Methodology

Each landfill was analyzed using data from census tracts intersecting within a five-mile radius, a boundary chosen based on impacted community input to accurately capture local impacts. For every indicator, values from these tracts were aggregated to calculate averages, totals, and percentages around each landfill.

To streamline the data presented, only indicators exceeding relevant threshold values were retained. Indicators were flagged as significant if any tract within the radius exceeded state or national thresholds, specifically: 1)  state average or 2) 90th percentile nationally. Only the population of tracts exceeding these thresholds was counted.

Indicators were grouped into three categories:

• Socioeconomic

• Health

• Pollution burden

The indicators themselves are listed below, presented with definition, measurement method, and relevance to the analysis. We use these indicators exactly as they appear in their source datasets because they are tied to census tract numbers, allowing us to calculate totals, averages, and other summary metrics by location.

Environmental Indicators

Demographic and Socioeconomic Indicators

These indicators were sourced from the EPA EJScreen, which uses the Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) averages 2018-2022.

• Educational Attainment: Percentage of adults with a high school diploma or higher.

• Linguistic Isolation: Households where no one over age 14 speaks English well.

• Poverty: Percentage of the population living below the federal poverty line.

• Race and Ethnicity: Breakdown of community racial and ethnic demographics.

• Unemployment: Percentage of individuals actively seeking but unable to find employment.

In addition to the above list of indicators, from the EPA’s EJSCREEN and CDC health indicators, we developed two new indicators to support a comprehensive analysis of vulnerability. Recognizing the significant health risks associated with contaminated drinking water and toxic air emissions, a drinking water arsenic indicator and an air toxics indicator focused on chemicals commonly associated with landfills and heavy industrial operations were created. The following section outlines the methodology used to derive these two indicators from raw datasets and how they were integrated into this analysis.

1. Arsenic in Drinking Water

Arsenic contamination in drinking water refers to the presence of arsenic, a toxic substance with significant health implications, including increased risks of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. This indicator reflects the frequency with which arsenic violations are reported in public water systems for the year 2022.

Measurement: This indicator reflects the frequency of arsenic drinking water violations reported annually by public water systems. A violation is recorded when arsenic levels exceed the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.010 mg/L. Data are drawn from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), with violations summarized per Public Water System ID (PWS ID) and linked to census tracts for further aggregation.

Relevance to analysis: Proximity to nearby industrial facilities may contribute to elevated arsenic levels in public water systems, further highlighting the cumulative environmental and public health risks. Arsenic contamination may also result from waste materials disposed of in landfills, which can leach into groundwater or surface water systems.

Methodology for deriving Arsenic in Drinking Water Indicator 

Data Acquisition

To develop the arsenic in drinking water indicator, the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) through the CIDWIS Fed Reporting Services System was used, which provides detailed records of public water systems and their violations. Reports for arsenic contamination were generated using the SDWIS water system search engine. Due to system constraints, data could only be retrieved on a quarterly basis. Consequently, four separate reports were created, one for each quarter of 2022. These quarterly reports were then aggregated into a single comprehensive dataset, summarizing all arsenic-related violations across every Public Drinking Water ID (PWS ID) for the year. This consolidated report served as the foundation for further analysis.

• SDWIS Federal Reports Search 

Geographical Analysis

The geographical analysis to assign arsenic violations to census tracts was conducted in ArcGIS. A spatial join operation was used to link each PWS ID to the census tracts it overlapped. This was implemented as a "many-to-one" join, with census tracts as the singular feature to which one or more PWS IDs could be associated. This approach ensured that arsenic contamination events were accurately mapped to their respective census tracts, creating a geospatial dataset that localized arsenic violations.

Data Summarization

Once census tracts were linked to PWS IDs, the total number of arsenic violations per PWS ID for 2022 was summarized. This count reflects the frequency with which arsenic contamination was flagged in each public water system. It is important to note that the analysis did not differentiate between types of violations or their severity; instead, it provided a straightforward metric for arsenic presence within the public water systems.

Aggregation to Landfill Level

The arsenic violation data was subsequently aggregated to represent the census tracts around the landfill. If a landfill overlapped with multiple census tracts, the total count of arsenic violations from all associated tracts was assigned to that landfill. Additionally, violations were categorized based on whether they occurred in surface water or groundwater systems, offering further insight into the potential contamination pathways.

2. Toxic Releases from Facilities

Toxic releases from facilities refer to the emissions of hazardous substances from industrial facilities reported under the EPA’s Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model. These releases are assessed for their potential chronic human health impacts, considering factors such as chemical toxicity, exposure pathways, and affected population size. The RSEI model builds on data from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program, enhancing it with additional context and risk evaluation.

Quantification: National percentile rankings of RSEI outputs are calculated for each census tract. These rankings reflect the relative risk posed by toxic releases based on their magnitude, health impact potential, and spatial distribution. The percentile values allow for comparisons across regions and help identify high-risk areas. The raw RSEI data is aggregated by census tract, summarizing pollutants of particular concern for landfill operations.

Relevance to analysis: Landfills are frequently co-located with industrial facilities, creating cumulative exposure risks for surrounding communities. These facilities may contribute to a heightened toxic burden in the area, particularly for chemicals associated with landfill operations, such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The integration of RSEI outputs into the analysis highlights areas where industrial emissions amplify potential landfill-related impacts.

Methodology for Toxic Releases from Facilities Indicator

Data Acquisition

To evaluate the potential impact of toxic releases from facilities near landfills, the Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model was used. The RSEI model provides a screening-level analysis of factors contributing to chronic human health risks associated with environmental releases of toxic chemicals. Its outputs account for chemical toxicity, environmental fate and transport, exposure pathways, and the size of exposed populations.

• Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model | US EPA 

Selection of Pollutants

A subset of pollutants was selected based on their relevance to landfill emissions and potential public health concerns. These were:

• Benzene 

• Chromium 

• Formaldehyde

• Lead

• Lead compounds

• Mercury

• Mercury compounds

• Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds

• Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid

• Perfluorooctanoic acid

• Potassium perfluorooctanesulfonate

Several pieces of research link these chemicals to landfills and the waste they contain:

Benzene:

• Durmuşoğlu, E., Taspinar, F. and Karademir, A., 2010. Health risk assessment of BTEX emissions in the landfill environment. Environment International, 36(4), pp.321–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.01.004

  Cimrin, M., Cerrahoglu, G. and Akkaya, Y., 2024. Assessment of odorous compounds and BTEX health risk in the vicinity of a mixed waste landfill. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 15(2), 101792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2024.1017

Chromium, Lead, Mercury:

• El Gamal, M.I., Khalifa, M.E. and El Araby, M., 2021. Groundwater quality assessment around landfills using heavy metals and organic indicators: a review. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration, 6, 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-021-00247-4

• El Alfy, M., 2021. Impact of municipal solid waste landfills on groundwater and soil contamination: an overview. Eurasian Journal of GeoSciences, 2(3), pp.20–27. Available at: https://ej-geo.org/index.php/ejgeo/article/view/284 [Accessed 21 Jul. 2025].

Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds:

• Chintalapati, S., Boddu, S. and Chavali, M., 2024. A systematic review on the ecotoxicological impacts of landfill leachate on aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Science of The Total Environment, 912, 168998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.168998

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), Potassium perfluorooctanesulfonate

• Silva, M.R., Mejia-Avendaño, S., Plassmann, M. and Dauchy, X., 2024. Evaluation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in leachate, gas condensate, stormwater, and groundwater at landfills. Science of The Total Environment, 907, 168168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168168

• Chen Y, Zhang H, Liu Y, Bowden J, Townsend T, Solo-Gabriele H. Evaluation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) released from two Florida landfills based on mass balance analyses https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X2300795X?via%3Dihub 

• Hernandez, M.A., 2020. PFAS in landfill leachate: Sources, distribution, and treatment options. University of Miami, Hydrologic Modeling and Systems Lab. Available at: https://hmsolo.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1_PFAS_Landfill_Leachate_final2.pdf [Accessed 21 Jul. 2025].
  

Data Summarization

The RSEI outputs were summarized at the census tract level for each selected pollutant. This involved aggregating release data and calculating key indicators for each tract. The focus was on metrics that reflect both the magnitude of releases and their associated public health risks. The summarized data represents a comprehensive view of toxic releases relevant to landfill operations across all tracts.

• Link to the aggregated RSEI data source

Calculation of National Percentiles

To contextualize the impact of toxic releases, we calculated national percentiles for each RSEI output value within the census tracts. This involved ranking the values on a national scale, allowing us to identify census tracts with higher relative risks. The national percentiles were then integrated into the final dataset, providing a standardized measure of risk for each census tract.

Wasted Food

ReFED Insights Engine (2023). Surplus Food, State-level estimates. ReFED’s state-level surplus food estimates are based on several data sources that are nationally compiled and allocated for each state. This is the most comprehensive, all-states accounting state-level data source for food waste, though more accurate food waste data may exist for some states with more precise methodologies.

In the Waste Impact Tracker, wasted food represents food that goes uneaten; is unsold or unused by businesses or uneaten at home, including inedible parts, e.g. peels, bits, and bones, going to waste destinations: composting, anaerobic digestion, landfill, combustion, sewer, dumping, spread onto land, or not harvested. While some surplus food* is inevitable, and some portion is considered inedible, it only accounts for a small percentage based on ReFED data; an estimated 75% of all surplus food could be considered edible. Thus, a significant portion of the wasted food could be consumed, repurposed, or diverted via composting or other, more sustainable alternatives to landfills or incinerators.

See ReFED's Insights Engine for more information about surplus food, food waste, and their societal impacts.

*ReFED’s surplus food definition accounts for food waste as described, and food that is donated, fed to livestock animals, or repurposed to produce other products.

Health Indicators