Environmental Equity

Linda-Jo Schierow
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Division
August 14, 1992

SUMMARY

More than 20 years of Federal pollution control programs notwithstanding, growing perception that minority and low-income communities remain at disproportionately high risk of exposure to toxic pollutants is focusing attention on "environmental equity" issues. Federal legislation has been introduced to ensure equal protection of environmental quality and public health. Equity legislation is opposed by people who are skeptical of its long-term prospects and believe that there is insufficient evidence of discrimination and that some inequities are inevitable in a free-market economy. Both sides agree there is a need to collect and analyze data on public health and exposure to environmental hazards and to compare health risks among racial and socio-economic groups. Some EPA programs are responsively targeted.

BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE

The phrases "environmental justice (or injustice)" and "environmental equity (or inequity) may be interpreted broadly to describe the perceived fairness in the distribution of environmental quality across groups of people with different characteristics. In this sense, the environmental impact of any human activity might be evaluated to determine the distribution of environmental amenities and risks among people categorized according to any population characteristic, including gender, age, race, place of residence, occupation, income class, or language. In the current political context, however, the phrases refer more specifically to the distribution of health risks resulting from exposure to toxic substances in the residential or occupational environments of different racial, ethnic, or socio-economic groups. environmental justices is most actively advocated today on behalf of native Americans, Hispanics and black Americans. Relevant research has focused mainly on land disposal of hazardous waste or air pollution and the anticipated impacts on urban; black Americans.

The first studies documenting the relationship between the geographic distribution of environmental pollution and minority populations were published during the 1970s. As early as 1971 in its second annual report to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality acknowledged that racial discrimination adversely affected the ability of the urban poor to control the quality of their environments.(l) Environmental equity did not become a national issue, however, until 1982 when national attention was focused by a protest against the proposed siting of a landfill for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in a predominantly black county in North Carolina. It was then that the phrase "environmental racism" was coined to refer to those polities and activities which, whether intentional or unintentional, result in the disproportionate exposure of racial minorities to environmental hazards. The general observation that racial and ethnic minorities in the United States might be disproportionately exposed to toxic substances in their residential environments prompted congressional study of the issue.(2) The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that, in the southeastern United States, three of the four commercial hazardous waste landfills were in communities with more blacks than whites.

The United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice expanded the study to the national level.(3) Their findings were released in 1987 and were congruent with those of GAO. Further, the Commission determined that race, as opposed to socio-economic status, was the factor more strongly related to residence near a hazardous waste site.

Another study of the relationship between race and hazardous waste sites was conducted in the area surrounding Detroit, Michigan, by investigators affiliated with the University of Michigan.(4) This study assessed the relative influence of income and race on the distribution of waste management facilities. It found that minority residents were four times more liked than white residents to live within one mile of a commercial hazardous waste facility, and that race was a better predictor of resident proximity than income. The Michigan researchers convened a conference in January 1990 to share their data, to encourage other researchers to present their work, and to call attention to the issue of environmental inequity.(5) Federal and State agencies were invited as "participant observers", and many sent representatives to the conference.

After the conference, the scholar-activists carried their message to Washington where a memorandum was distributed calling for increased Environmental Protection Agency (EPIC) involvement in research, projects, and discussions with minority community residents. The Agency's Administrator, William Reilly, met with the activists and responded to their concerns for organizing an internal workgroup to focus directly on these issues.

RECENT EVENTS

The EPA Environmental Equity Workgroup gathered and reviewed existing evidence and released their findings in a draft report on February 24, 1992. The next day, a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held hearings on the report and the equity issue. Testimony highlighted EPA's past and current policies and action taken in response to evidence of an unequal distribution of risks. The EPA draft was criticized by some Subcommittee Members and some witnesses for failing to provide any new information and for acknowledging the equity problem only for lead. EPA's overall efforts in the area were characterized as meager. Evidence to support charges of insensitivity to minority concerns was provided in the form of copies of internal EPA memoranda and a dissenting opinion with reference to the EPA draft report submitted by the National Federation of Federal Employees on behalf of some members of the Environmental Equity Workgroup to the EPA Chief of Staff. Hearing testimony alleged a number of examples of past failures of EPA policies and programs to adequately assess and respond to questions concerning the distribution of risk. EPA itself attributed any past failures or appearance of bias to its traditional focus on environmental media and associated risks to the general population, as opposed to differentiated social groups or individuals, and to routine techniques of data collection which do not include documentation of the racial or socio-economic characteristics of populations exposed to pollution. In other testimony, Agency representatives described on-going programs and planned initiatives that should improve EPA's ability to respond to minority concerns. They emphasized that the report was not meant to be EPA's final word on the issue of environmental equity. Rather, it was the first step of what was expected to be a long process of reevaluation and reorientation.

The EPA Workgroup issued its final report July 22, 1992. (6) It concluded:

• There are clear differences between racial groups in terms of disease and death rates. There are also limited data to explain the environmental contribution to these differences significantly higher percentage of black children compared to white children have unacceptably high blood-lead levels.
• Racial minority and low-income populations experience higher than average exposures to sheeted air pollutants, hazardous waste facilities, contaminated fish and agricultural pesticides in the workplace...
• Environmental and health data are not routinely collected and analyzed by income and race. Nor are data routinely collected on health risks posed by multiple industrial facilities, cumulative and synergistic effects, or multiple and different pathways of exposure. Risk assessment and risk management procedures are not in themselves biased against certain income or racial groups. However, risk assessment and risk management procedures can be improved to better take into account equity considerations.
• Great opportunities exist...to improve communication...with members of low-income and racial minority groups...In addition, EPA can broaden the spectrum of groups with which it interacts.
• ....EPA's program and regional offices are well suited to address equity concerns...These offices currently vary considerably in terms of how they address environmental equity issues...there is a need for environmental equity awareness training.
• Native American Indians are a unique racial group that has...distinct environmental problems. Indian Tribes often lack the physical infrastructure, institutions, trained personnel and resources necessary to protect their members.

The report recommends that EPA: increase the priority given to issues of environmental equity; establish and maintain information which provides an objective basis for assessment of risks by income and race; expand and improve the level and forms with which it communicates with racial minority and low-income communities; target activities to reduce high concentrations of risk; and incorporate equity considerations into planning ant implementation of all relevant programs EPA has established an Environmental Equity Office which will oversee and coordinate implementation of the recommendations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Although the relatively recent emergence of equity as a national concern means that interested parties may not have fully formulated and expressed their positions, the range of opinion on a flew key issues is clear. Environmental equity advocates generally believe that racial and ethnic minorities bear a disproportionately large share of environmental risk due at least in part to racial discrimination. Although the level of exposure to toxic substances also is related to income level, they point out that income alone cannot account for the uneven distribution of some environmental hazards. For example, in families with annual incomes of less than $6,000, 68% of African-American children suffer high blood-lead levels, but only 36% of white children are similarly afflicted.(7) Within the group of equity advocates, opinions differ. Some believe that discrimination is intentional and results in significant health effects. Others believe it is "de facto", resulting from Government neglect or indifference, unreined market forces, historical patterns of housing, choice of occupation, lack of political and economic power, and differences in education or acculturation, and more an issue of civil rights than one of public health significance.

Others deny, or at least doubt, the existence of discernable racial patterns in the distribution of environmental risks. They attribute higher disease rates among minorities to other factors, such as problems in health care delivery or lifestyle. People reside in the vicinity of waste treatment facilities and other potential pollution sources, these people believe, because they are attracted by employment opportunities, favorable prices for real estate, and the relatively high standard of living (compared to other affordable areas) provided by a facility's contribution to the tax base of the area.

There is a third view that overlaps with the first two. Its proponents may be characterized as open-minded or skeptical, depending on one's sympathy for their position. These individuals, who are often academically trained scientists neither believe nor disbelieve that inequities occur, arguing that carefully controlled research is needed to investigate the issue because evidence accumulated to date is inconclusive. Some who work for EPA probably fall into this category. All groups agree that any effects of racial discrimination are likely to tide intertwined with the effects of poverty, but the third group is more likely to argue that the complexity of the problem defies solution.

Assuming that inequities exist, whether racial or socio-economic, there is the critical question: What should be done about it, and who should do it? Equity advocates have argued that all levels of government are responsible for allowing discrimination to occur. They believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to provide guidelines and enforce laws to ensure equal protection of public health and nondiscriminatory compliance. They want EPA to take the lead in gathering data, identifying the most polluted (or potentially exposed) communities, and targeting Agency resources for risk prevention, management, and reduction to high-risk areas. Some stress the importance of community empowerment to influence public policy.

Those who believe that environmental risks are unrelated to race do not want the Federal Government to intervene on behalf of equity concerns which they believe are unfounded. They are willing to support studies in order to demonstrate the correctness of their position, but they favor no additional legislative initiatives.

EPA and other parties asserting neutrality also support the need for research, but as the recommendations of the Workgroup demonstrate, EPA is willing to go further. EPA has other programs that may even further the goals of equity advocates. For example, EPA plans to link its various databases, to expand data collection through the Toxic Release Inventory, to integrate environmental data using Geographic Information System techniques, and to conduct a national exposure study. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether EPA's plans, in the absence of a statutory mandate or targeted funding authority, will be sufficient to satisfy interest groups and a number of Members of Congress that issues of environmental equity are receiving due emphasis

LEGISLATION IN THE 102d CONGRESS

The Environmental Justice Act (H.R. 5326/S. 2806) would establish an EPA program to ensure nondiscriminatory compliance with all environmental health and safety laws and to assure equal protection of the public health. The Act mandates data collection to identify counties in the United States where populations are exposed to excessive discharges of toxic substances, and resource allocation to target risk-reduction activities to "high-impact" areas. Other relevant pieces of legislation that have been proposed include: H.R. 2880, The Community Right to Know More Act of 199l, introduced by Mr. Sikorski, which would expand the list of toxic chemicals for which chemical releases to the environment must be reported and would require additional industries to report under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of l986; appropriations bills for EPA (VA, HUD and Related Agencies Appropriations) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Health and Human Services Appropriations) which provide funding for authorized data collection and analysis; and H.R. 3865 and S. 976 which reauthorize and amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act and increase opportunities for citizens to influence permitting decisions for solid waste management and disposal facilities. H.R. 3865 also requires permit decisions to consider demographic characteristics of the host community and the cumulative effect on the host community of existing and proposed facilities and sites. Lead poisoning of children is the focus of comprehensive lead bills, S. 391 and H.R. 5730, which direct EPA to monitor new and existing uses of lead and to identify and control major sources of lead exposure. Lead-based paint in existing housing also is targeted by both bills, as well as by H.R. 2922. Drinking water regulations would be established for lead by S. 1445 and H.R. 2840.

ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Environmental equity is addressed in the CRS Issue Brief "Black Americans: Selected Issues in the 102d Congress" (IB 92070). Exposures to lead-based paint and contaminated urban soil is discussed in "Lead: Issues, Concerns, and Controls" (IB 92015).

EPA Journal. March/April, 1992. Entire issue.

Endnotes

1. Council on Environmental Quality. Second Annual Report to the President. 1971. p. l90.

2. U.S. General Accounting Office. Siting of Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities; Letter of June 1, 1983. RCED-83-168. Washington, 1983. 13 p.

3. Commission for Racial Justice United Church of Christ. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States; A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites. New York, Public Data Access, Inc., 1987. 69 p.

4. Mohai,, Paul, and Bunyan Bryant (eds.) Proceedings of the Michigan Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards. 1990.

5. Bryant, Bunyan, and Paul Mohai The Michigan Conference: A Turning Point. EPA Journal, March/April 1992. p 9-10.

6. US. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Equity Reducing Risk for All Communities. Volume I: Workgroup Report to the Administrator. EPA230-R-92-008, June 1992. Washington DC, 1992. 43 p.

7. U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The Nature and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States: A Report to Congress. Washington, DC, U.S Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, 1988.