Superfund as an Indicator of Environmental Justice
In the Metro Area of Minnesota It has been suggested by many that sites of intense industrial pollution have been disporportionately located close to poor minority populations. Environmental justice issues have taken on many forms, from a hydroelectric dam’s effect on an Indian reservation and its environment in Manitoba, to the chosen placement of Waste Management’s toxic waste landfill near farms and the affect on migrant worker in Southern California, to the route of a gas pipeline through a minority neighborhood in North Carolina. All these examples have forced America to ask whether minority and poor populations are unjustly exposed to dangerous chemicals and environmentally degrading industry while white populations benefic economically. This has caused many to rally to the battle cry of environmental racism. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) was signed into law as one of President Jimmy Carter’s last acts in office. The law allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to level taxes on polluting industries in order to create a fund with which to clean up chemical waste sights when a responsible party could not be located. “Superfund” was an attempt to hold polluting industries accountable for the environmental and health hazards that are left after intensive industrial use. Although some in both the environmental and industrial sector call Superfund a failure, it has been an active program for over twenty years. In this paper I will briefly discuss the Minnesota metro area’s Superfund sites, proposed Superfund sites, and delisted Superfund sites as a potential indicator of environmental injustice. It is difficult to reach conclusions concerning the listing of sites as Superfund, and then viewing them as an indicator of environmental injustice. Assuming chemical waste sites get equal attention from the EPA no matter where they are located, it seems that Superfund would then be an excellent indicator of irresponsible industry. If one found a disporportionately high ratio between poor minority populations and the location of Superfund sites then the logical conclusion would be that industries located within poor minority populations have not been as responsible with their pollution as those located closer to richer, whiter populations. These industries have chosen locations near poor minority populations because poor minorities are less likely than whites to have the resources and political representation to aid them in combating the polluting industry; environmental racism! However, this conclusion cannot be so easily reached. When examining 2000 census data on minority population (fig.1) and median family income (fig.2) in relation to the placement of Superfund sites in the 7 county metro area, one can see a clear disparity. In examining figure 3 one can analyze the buffered area surrounding superfund sites and the population contained within these buffers. The 2 kilometer buffer was decided on based on an earlier University of Minnesota Study. In the seven county metro area 16.78% is considered non-white. However, within the buffers 24.7% of the population is non-white whereas outside the buffer 11.3% is non-white. When considering income, 8% of the metro area population is living at or below the official poverty line. Within the buffer 11.1% of the population lives at or below the poverty line, whereas outside the buffer only 5% of the population lives in poverty. In addition, within the 2 kilometer buffers median family incomes were 18% lower than those outside of the buffer. The implications of this evidence are clear. Minorities and the poor are more likely to live within close proximity to areas that have been heavily contaminated. There are several complications that I came up against when considering the placement of Superfund sites as an indicator of environmental injustice. First, typically sites that are placed on the national Superfund list have had a permanent industrial location for many years. The socioeconomic status of the surrounding populations can change within the time of active industry. This can make it appear that the industries have been specifically placed near poor minority populations when in fact the populations that initially surrounded those industries were white. However, according to the Minneapolis Public Library’s “History of Minnesota” it appears the location of minority populations within the city has not changed significantly since the 1930’s (fig. 4-5). Hennepin and Ramsey counties have also remained the two most populated by nonwhites since the turn of the century. (MN Planning) Is it just a coincidence that minorities are more likely to live adjacent to these sites than whites or have these minority populations been singled out as an easy pushover for intensively polluting industry? My second stumbling block is a question raised by Robert Bullard in his book Unequal Protection, Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. Bullard asks “is the EPA impartial in its investigation of potential Superfund sites?” According to a 1992 study by the National Law Journal “Under the giant Superfund cleanup program, abandoned hazardous waste sites in minority areas take 20 percent longer to be placed on the national priority list than those in white areas. Action on cleanup at superfund sites begins 12 percent to 42 percent later at minority sites than at white sites.” Taking this information into account one could speculate that within the predominately non-white parts of the metro area even more contaminated sites should be listed as Superfund sites. The site location data on the metro area maps (fig. 1 and 2) shows delisted, or adequately cleaned sites as blue dots. Many of these delisted sites are located outside of the city center and in predominately white, wealthier areas. What remains unclear is whether the size and technical aspects of cleanup allowed the sites in these outlying areas to be cleaned more quickly or if they took higher priority because of some other factor. Taking into account the maps that I’ve included in this paper, it seems that there is a disproportionate number of superfund site locations among predominately non-white, poor populations in the metro area. This evidence can be analyzed in several ways. First, the recognition and cleanup of chemical waste sites is important. That there exists so many cleanup sites within the minority population centers points perhaps to a strong shift from the unjust exposure to pollutants minorities experienced in the past to a recognition of these injustices and an attempt at reconciliation. However, the locations of many delisted sites appear to be within populations less apt to be poor or non-white. This may be an indicator of ongoing systematic racism within the EPA itself. A further study including dates of listing as Superfund sites, analysis of the dates of cleanup, and solutions relative to sites delisted within minority populations could shed more light on whether some injustice is present. In addition, analysis and comparison of current cleanup projects, their threat to surrounding populations, and the funds available for cleanup relative to non-white and poor populations will further shed light on the issue. figures Bibliography Braun, Dennis Duane. “A Socioeconomic Profile of Minnesota Non-Whites”. Department of Sociology, Mankato State University. 1976 Bullard, Robert D. Unequal Protection Environmental Justice and People of Color, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco,1994 Moon, Linda. State Program Administrator, Program Support and Operations Section Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Personal Communication Dec 5th-11th Umbanhower, Charles Jr. Personal Resource. US Census Data. Environmental Protection Agency. Elctronic Resource. http://www.epa.gov Minneapolis Public Library. Electronic Resource. http://www.mplib.org/history Minnesota Planning State Demographic Center “Turn of the Century, Minnesota’a Population 1900 to Today” November 1999 |
