ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY AND THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL BY ANNA K. HARDING
I-rl
e concept of environmen-
tal equity will become inreasingly familiar to those
of us associated with the generation, storage, disposal, or cleanup of hazardous materials. Also called environ-
mental justice, environmental equity
GEORGE R . HOLDREN, JR. has become important as more and more research demonstrates that environmental risks are not distributed evenly across population groups. Minority and lowincome communities are exposed to a disproportionate number of environmental hazards, including multiple sources of air pollution, waste treatment and disposal facilities, and the residuals of past practices such as the use of lead-based paint or lead plumbing in residences ( I ) . Because problems associated with nutrition and health care also disproportionately affect these communities, the health risks posed by exposure to environmental contaminants are magnified in low-income and minority communities relative to the general population (1-3). Until recently, managing risks associated with hazardous waste operations has been presumed to be pri-
I
lSs0 Envimn. Sd.Technol., Vol. 27,No. IO. 1SB3
W13-936W93n927-1990604.00/0@ 1993 American Chemical Society
marily a scientific and engineering challenge: operators and potentially responsible parties have not had to deal with social and political dimensions in performing risk assessments. Now it appears that consideration of value-laden environmental equity issues may soon become a required part of an overall impact and risk assessment (2).This development should be viewed as a message from the regulators that environmental problem solving must become a collaborative effort, not only by scientists and engineers, but also by public health specialists, social scientists, politicians, and community members [4,5). Environmental equity is a new issue; initially, dealing with it will not be natural or easy for many of us. As scientists and engineers we are far more comfortable tackling overtly technological problems than those with social overtones. A case in point: The US. Department of Energy (DOE) is now undertaking a massive effort to remediate active and former nuclear defense production facilities. These cleanup activities offer tremendous technological challenges, and the final cost will be in the tens of billions of dollars. Although the public has expressed some skepticism about the agency’s ability to achieve its goals, the program does enjoy reasonably strong public support. Unfortunately, we have potential public health time bombs within our minority communities that, short of a catastrophic accident at a DOE facility, may pose far greater risks to the public than do any of the DOE sites. Much less is being done in the minority communities than at DOE sites, however. Redressing the problems caused by past waste-handling practices in communities will require addressing difficult socioeconomic and political issues. This contrasts with the DOE efforts, which are not causing any major social disruptions. Evolution of environmental equity The politics of waste disposal have given rise to the environmental equity issue. NIMBY [“not-inmy-back-yard”) concerns have controlled the placement of hazardous waste-handling facilities as much as other economic considerations (6, 7).White neighborhoods, including a few poor white ones, have had the clout to prevent the local siting of such facilities, which has led to the historical practice of locating hazardous waste-handling and disposal
ks posed by expc
to
iental
in low4 communities. facilities i n predominantly lowincome African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods (6-10). Although there are laws to guard against discrimination in employment and housing, there is no similar protection against preferential exposure to hazardous wastes. In fact, the issue bas had such a low profile that concrete data regarding the extent and severity of the problem are only now being gathered. The first inkling of a problem appeared in a 1979 report describing the historical and current distributions of private and municipal landfills and incinerators in Houston (cited in Reference 11). Twentyeight percent of the population in that community (African-Americans) bore the burden of 82% of the . 1987,the solid waste sites ( 9 , l l ) In United Church of Christ Commission on Racial Justice published a nationwide study suggesting that race, more than income level, was the shared characteristic of communities where hazardous waste facilities were located ( 6 ) . By January 1990,sufficient additional information had been garnered to convince EPA to convene an internal work group that would study the relationship between racial minority, lowincome populations, and any extraordinary health risks borne as a result of elevated environmental exposures (3, 12). Environmental equity and risk The EPA work group found that there were sufficient data to document only that a significantly higher percentage of black children compared to white children have unacceptably high levels of lead in their blood. However, they also noted that racial minority and lowincome populations experience disproportionate exposures to selected
air pollutants, hazardous waste facilities, contaminated fish, and agricultural pesticides in the workplace (2).The work group called for the collection of additional data and assessments of risks by race and income, recommended that high-risk populations he identified and targeted for expedited risk reduction activities, and advised that environmental equity considerations be suecificallv include&in risk assessment processes (2). On the basis of the findines of this work group, then-EPA A&inistrator William Reilly directed each EPA region to initiate steps to integrate environmental equity considerations into their various activities. Although the breadth and scope of these activities have been left largely to the discretion of the individual regions, the newly formed EPA Office of EnvironmentalEquity provides policy directives, technical assistance, and overall coordination of state and local efforts (10). One response to the increased awareness of this issue has been to include environmental equity considerations as part of state-administered comparative risk projects. Comparative risk studies have been built on a foundation of quantitative assessments of risk and (usually) involve the public as an integral part of the process. EPA, in its efforts to produce comparative risk assessments, has argued that there are sometimes major disparities between public perceptions of risk associated with specific environmental problems and EPA’s assessment based on traditional risk analysis ( 1 3 ) .One reason differences arise is the public’s broader view that the importance of an environmental problem depends not only on measures of human health risk but also on measures of economic and social
Environ. Sci. Technoi., Vol. 27. No. 10, 1993 1981
e
(pity e a
- - -impact and risk assessment. 1993 (S.110) would bolster EPA’s use of risk assessment and comparative risk rankings in setting priorities; it requires an evaluation of “social, economic and such other related concerns” and involvement by the public in the risk-ranking process (19). It is hoped that the bill will do for the nation what most comparative risk projects are attempting to accomplish at the state level (19). Perhaps the most significant language about equity in pending legislation is contained in Senate Bill 171 (and its more comprehensive version in the House), which establishes the An eye toward the future Office of Environmental Justice Although the U S . government within the proposed cabinet-level has recognized equity as an issue Department of Environmental Profor the past decade (1 61, Congress is tection (201.Included in these bills only now formulating legislation to are strategic plans to ensure equalforce the citizenry and federal agen- ity in environmental protection cies to deal with the issue in a more through the development of policy, structured manner. For example, provision of technical assistance Senate Bill 2806 (H.R. 53261,known and training to community groups, as the Environmental Justice Act, environmental justice research, and requires EPA to undertake a com- promotion of pollution prevention. prehensive study to collect data by These pieces of legislation will ethnicity, race, and income to iden- likely sharpen public debate about tify areas that are subjected to the risk, help us identify unequal distrihighest loadings of toxic chemicals butions of risk, and provide leaderand to assess the health effects that ship in achieving goals of environmay be caused by any discharges mental fairness. (1 7).If an area is designated an “EnAn awareness of environmental vironmental High-Impact Area” equity will ultimately lead to reducing or preventing harmful expo(171, EPA must enforce toxic emission regulations and impose a mor- sures to hazardous wastes at the atorium on new pollution sources community level. We suspect that locating in the area. Pushing this the mechanism for reducing expoconcept further, the Environmental sures from future industrial pracEqual Rights Act of 1993 (H.R. tices will come primarily via 1924) amends the Solid Waste Dis- increased efforts at pollution preposal Act to minimize the ability of vention (21). In effect, this reprecorporations to construct hazardous sents a paradigm shift from our past facilities in communities already practices of end-of-pipe pollution overburdened with environmental control; pollution can be elimihazards (10.18). nated, reduced, or controlled at Senator Moynihan’s proposed En- many individual steps in the provironmental Risk Reduction Act of duction-usage cycle (21,22).
impact, ecosystem impact, fairness, and long-term consequences (14, 15). As such it is not surprising that public involvement frequently pushes the process to address issues not readily amenable to quantitative assessment. Even though the inclusion of public values in risk studies may appear to “soften” the quantitative approach to risk-based priority setting, comparative risk assessments being conducted at state and local levels have been characterized as models for how to integrate science and public values in environmental policy making (15).
lSS2 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27, No. 10, 1993
In a similar way, environmental equity activities-such as urban comparative risk projects in Seattle, WA, and Atlanta, GA; the characterization of high-risk communities using Geographic Information Systems, Toxic Release Inventory, and census tract databases; the provision of multilingual access to environmental information (as covered under the Community Right-ToKnow Act of 1986): and organizaon of environmental equity conferences and clearinghouses (23!although currently focused on populationenvironmental oortionate groups facing risks. disprowill htimately drive the process’ that seeks to protect all communities from environmental insults. Although it is true that the assessment of risk requires environmental pmfessionals to maintain a strong technical foundation, technical capabili t y p e r s e w i l l n o longer b e sufficient to address the diversity of needs and concerns that communities have regarding responsible waste management practices. Environmental equity will become one of many criteria that scientists and the public will be asked to use in assessing, preventing, and remediating environmental hazards. Anna K. Hading is
an assistant pmfessor of envimnmental health in the Department of Public Health at Oregon State University. She has a Ph.D. in health fMm Oregon S f ate University. Her research interests include water quality issues and public h d t h dimensions associated with hazardous waste. She is cumntly investigating envimnmental equity concerns in Oregon.
George R. Holdren,
Jr., is on the research staff in the Earth and Envimnmental Sciences Center at Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories i n Richland, WA. His Ph.D. in geochemisP Hopkins UniversitF his m k r c h interests are in ldnetics and contaminant hnnsporl issues.
References (1) Wernette, D. R.;Nieves, L. A. EPA I. 1992,lS(l), 16-17.
