RACE, CLASS, AND COMMUNITY:
THE POLITICS OF EPA SUPERFUND SITES
Cynthia Louise Singer
B.A., University of California, Los Angeles, 2001
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
SOCIOLOGY
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2010
RACE, CLASS, AND COMMUNITY:
THE POLITICS OF EPA SUPERFUND SITES
A Thesis
by
Cynthia Louise Singer
Approved by:
_______________________________________, Committee Chair
Jackie Carrigan, PhD.
_______________________________________, Second Reader
Ellen Berg, PhD.
__________________________________
Date
ii
Student:
Cynthia Louise Singer
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Amy Liu, PhD.
Department of Sociology
iii
__________________
Date
Abstract
of
RACE, CLASS, AND COMMUNITY:
THE POLITICS OF EPA SUPERFUND SITES
by
Cynthia Louise Singer
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to establish and
enforce environmental protection standards in accordance with national goals.
The EPA is also charged with gathering data on pollution and determining issues
of environmental justice. To deal with the problems associated with the most
hazardous sites, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as the Superfund Act, was passed by
Congress in 1980. While many environmental justice studies have focused on
whether minorities or lower socioeconomic status populations are
disproportionately affected by proximity to less hazardous sites such as facilities
for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes (TSDFs) and the
siting process for such sites, Superfund sites have largely been ignored. Yet,
these sites are the worst of the hazardous sites and present the greatest dangers to
the populations living in proximity to them. This study will focus on the
populations living near Superfund sites. Previous studies of less hazardous sites
have concluded that those affected by proximity to these sites have been either
iv
minorities, of lower socioeconomic status, or both. Using census tract data, this
study will examine whether race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status are factors in
determining which groups are disproportionately affected by living in proximity
to Superfund sites. The expectation is that minorities and persons of lower
socioeconomic status are significantly more likely to live near Superfund sites.
___________________________________________, Committee Chair
Jackie Carrigan, PhD.
__________________________________
Date
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter
1.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
2.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..............................................................................6
3.
METHODS .................................................................................................................21
Data ....................................................................................................................... 21
Variables ............................................................................................................... 24
Type of Analysis ................................................................................................... 27
4.
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION ...............................29
One-Mile Radius ................................................................................................... 31
Two-Mile Radius .................................................................................................. 33
5.
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................36
References ..........................................................................................................................43
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 California’s 2000 Population and Census Tracts ..........................................30
2.
Table 2 California’s Population and Housing by Selected Variables ........................31
3.
Table 3 Selected Variables of California’s Population and
Housing—within One-Mile Radius of Superfund Sites ........................................32
4.
Table 4 Logistic Regression Analysis of Affected
Tracts—within One-Mile Radius of Superfund Sites ............................................33
5.
Table 5 Selected Variables of California’s Population and
Housing—within Two-Mile Radius of Superfund Sites........................................34
6.
Table 6 Logistic Regression Analysis of Affected
Tracts—within Two-Mile Radius of Superfund Sites ...........................................35
vii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the socio-demographic characteristics of the populations
living in proximity to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund cleanup
sites in California versus the socio-demographics of those living beyond the area
immediately surrounding the sites. The expectation is that race/ethnicity1 and
socioeconomic status are salient factors pointing to disproportionate exposure to toxins.
Most studies of environmental hazards and the populations exposed to them have
focused on facilities for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes (TSDFs)
and the siting process for such facilities, and have for the most part ignored Superfund
sites. Yet, Superfund designated sites are the worst of the worst of polluted sites and, as
such, represent the greatest risks to people living in proximity to them. This study will
address the lack of research in this important area and will contribute to the already
existing literature regarding the race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status of the
populations living in proximity to hazardous sites.
The environmental justice movement began as a grassroots effort by citizens
living in proximity to polluted sites. Often they became concerned because of cancer
clusters, foul smells in their neighborhoods, the presence of toxic chemicals leaching into
their yards or basements, or they became sick with various ailments. These
neighborhoods often were disproportionately located where minorities or those of lower
1
For purposes of this paper, the terms for race and ethnicity used by the U.S. Census Bureau will be
employed. The Census Bureau does not consider Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano(a) to be a race but is instead
deemed an ethnicity. It should be noted, however, that this distinction is a political one.
2
socioeconomic status reside. Terms such as environmental racism and environmental
classism emerged along with environmental justice and injustice (Bullard, 1990).
The environmental movement began in the 1960s and 1970s, accelerating with the
energy crisis of the 1970s. Bullard (1990) has argued that the environmental movement
began with middle-class and upper-middle class white persons who were concerned with
preserving open space, protecting endangered species, and conservation of scarce
resources while minorities were for the most part marginalized from the mainstream
environmental movement (Bullard, 1990). However, a grassroots movement consisting
of minorities emerged with a different focus than the mainstream environmental
movement. Minorities were more concerned with the environmental hazards in their own
communities unlike the mainstream movement which they saw as primarily concerned
with protecting open space and recreational activities. For African Americans and
Hispanics, the environmental hazards were real and were affecting them and their
children. They were more interested in cleaning up the hazards in their communities
rather than preserving open space and endangered species. The inadequacy of existing
environmental protection laws and the inability of state and local governments to act
effectively to clean up toxic wastes were brought to national prominence when the health
commissioner of New York State declared a state of emergency at Love Canal in Niagara
Falls on August 2, 1978.
In response to events at Love Canal, Congress passed the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as
the Superfund Act in 1980. This act gives the federal government the authority to
3
respond to environmental threats and emergencies; to clean up polluted sites; and
addresses both short- and long-term threats. Administered through the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Superfund program locates and investigates the most
polluted sites as well as determines which cleanup action best addresses the toxic threats
of the site. The National Priorities List (NPL) ranks the most toxic sites in the country
with 96 sites located in California alone (www.epa.gov). As of December 23, 1996 there
were 1,259 current and proposed sites in the United States.
The act was based on two propositions—hazardous waste sites should be quickly
and thoroughly cleaned up and that polluters, not taxpayers, should pay for the cleanup.
To that end, Congress created a trust fund (or Superfund) that polluters as well as
industries that purchase and use petroleum and the toxic chemicals frequently found at
polluted sites, would pay into and that would be used to clean up the nation’s most
polluted sites. When a polluter can be identified, that person/persons or entity must pay
to clean up the pollution or the EPA has the authority to clean up the site and charge up to
three times the cost of the cleanup as well as imposing fines on the polluter. In the event
the polluter could not be positively identified, as is the case of approximately 30 percent
of toxic sites, the trust fund would be used for cleanup purposes. By the end of fiscal
year 1996 when the Superfund tax expired, there was about $3.7 billion in the fund.
Currently there is nothing in the trust fund and taxpayers must shoulder the burden of
cleanup (Sierra Club).
Although CERCLA was signed into law on December 11, 1980, the first sites
were not added to the National Priorities List (NPL) until July 14, 1992 (EPA). The
4
siting process is controversial and political. Based on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
as the primary mechanism for inclusion on the NPL, sites are first proposed, comments
are then accepted by the EPA regarding the site, the EPA responds to the comments, and
then places sites that meet the criteria on the NPL. According to the EPA’s “Introduction
to the HRS,” sites are rated based on three categories:



“the likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release
hazardous substances into the environment;
characteristics of the waste (for example toxicity and waste quantity); and
people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.”
Scores are calculated based on four possible pathways under the HRS:




“ground water migration (drinking water);
surface water migration (drinking water, human food chain, sensitive
environments);
soil exposure (resident population, nearby population sensitive
environments); and
air migration (population, sensitive environments).”
Sites toxic enough for inclusion on the NPL are the worst of the worst and present
the most hazardous conditions to human health. Yet, people still live in proximity to
these sites, many having never even heard of Superfund and unaware of the dangers to
themselves and their families. It would seem that people would investigate toxic dangers
in or near their living environment just as stringently as they would want to know about
light or noise pollution or if an industrial complex will be built on adjacent undeveloped
property and yet many people live near these dangerous sites. Is it because the pollution
occurred in the past and therefore becomes out of sight, out of mind, or is it that the
people living near these sites have no other housing options whether because of lack of
5
financial resources or because of lack of mobility due to institutional barriers such as
racism or classism? The literature on this subject is mixed and inconclusive.
6
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Environmental sociology is a relatively new addition to mainstream sociological
studies because modern sociology developed along an anthropocentric paradigm in large
part due to the economic and technological advances made possible through the industrial
revolution according to Foster (1999), with little consideration of society’s relationship to
nature or the environment. The classical theorists—particularly Marx, and to a lesser
extent Weber and Durkheim—were seen to have divided society from nature and this
separation has hindered the development of environmental sociology and its acceptance
and incorporation into mainstream sociological tradition. Being anchored in an
anthropocentric tradition precluded consideration of ecological issues and society’s
relationship to the environment in both its effect on the environment and the effect of the
environment on society. Even with the development of environmental sociology within
the discipline and the growing environmental movement in society as a whole,
sociologists continued to marginalize a more ecocentric paradigm in part because of the
way sociological theory developed along anthropocentric lines and also the tendency to
limit environmental sociology to the deep environmental perspective (368). In recent
years, however, the environmental justice movement has found the most acceptance
within the sociological discipline through social movement theory because of the effects
on traditional sociological groupings, such as race, class, and gender, according to Foster
(369). In keeping with this new acceptance, this study will examine which groups are
most affected by proximity to environmental hazards.
7
A closer examination of the classical theorists, however, reveals that they were
deeply concerned with the environment and the development of the problems that
capitalism and large-scale agricultural practices produced. Foster contends that Marx and
the other classical theorists were very concerned with the problem of soil fertility and
sustainability as well as the disconnect between humans and the environment (373.)
According to Foster, Marx’s later writings placed emphasis on the questions of
sustainability in capitalist agriculture (375). Foster writes that many sociologists are
unfamiliar with volume three of Capital where Marx more fully developed his critique of
capitalist agriculture. Because of this problem, there appears to be no connection
between society and the environment in sociological tradition (395). Other classical
theorists also wrote of ecological issues although these have also been largely ignored.
One of Weber’s important ecological essays has not yet been translated into English
(395). Foster quotes Durkheim: “The organic world does not abolish the physical world
and the social world has not been formed in contradistinction to the organic world, but
together with it” (396). This points not to an anthropocentric view of society by the
classical theorists but to a recognition of the coevolution of society and the environment
and to a concern of the alienation of human society to nature.
Although the classical theorists, particularly Marx, have primarily been regarded
by mainstream sociological thought to preclude environmental sociology, Foster’s
examination of Marx’s writings reveals deep ecological concerns particularly with regard
to the link between humans and nature as well as sustainability and soil depletion (370).
Foster describes Marx’s concerns as a “metabolic rift between human production and its
8
natural conditions” (370) in his discussion of large-scale capitalist industrial agriculture.
Metabolism is the “basis on which life is sustained and growth and reproduction become
possible” (383) and is the relationship and interaction between organisms and their
environment, in this case referring to the complex interaction between human society and
nature and of the relationship between city and country (382). According to Foster, “the
central theoretical construct is that of a ‘rift’ in the ‘metabolic interaction between man
and the earth,’ or in the ‘social metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life,’
through the removal from the soil of its constituent elements, requiring its’ systematic
restoration’” (380). The simultaneous development of capitalism’s large-scale industry
and industrialized agriculture, provided what Marx described as an ‘irreparable rift’ (380)
between humans and the production of food. For Marx, the interaction between humans
and the soil in the production of food was the definition of the labor process and the
metabolic rift that large-scale agricultural practices produced between human society and
food production was permanent. According to Foster, Marx’s concept of metabolism
inextricably linked human society to nature in that physical and mental life are part of
nature and that this linked nature to itself because “man is part of nature” (381). The
metabolic rift then represents the disconnect of capitalist human society and the natural
environment which this study will address.
While Marx’s metabolic rift concept captured the alienation of humans under
capitalism from the “natural conditions of their existence” (383) sustainability was also
an area that according to Foster, there is “overwhelming evidence” that Marx was very
concerned with the environment and issues of sustainability (386). One criticism of Marx
9
is that his theories on the creation of wealth developed a labor theory of value that
ignored the role of nature in the development of capital and that nature lacks any intrinsic
value of its own (387). However, according to Foster, Marx regarded nature as in
integral part of the creation of wealth in capitalist societies (387). Marx further regarded
himself in opposition to those who regarded nature as a gift to man and who thought that
nature played no role in the creation of wealth (388). Analysis of Marx and Engels points
to the interaction between nature and society and a coevolution of the two. Technology
was the key to the “metabolic relation of human beings to nature” conditioned by “both
social relations and natural conditions” (390). Further, this interaction and metabolic
relation is necessary for the sustainability of future generations.
For Marx, the metabolic rift was not theoretical but concrete and the agricultural
revolution was an important mechanism in producing the rift between capitalist human
societies and the environment. While most historians refer to a single agricultural
revolution, agricultural historians refer to a second and sometimes to a third agricultural
revolution. The first occurred over several centuries and was a natural outgrowth of
enclosures and markets while the second occurred over a much shorter period from 1830
to 1880 and featured the growth in the fertilizer industry. The third occurred during the
20th century and was characterized by the replacement of animals with machines and with
animals eventually being concentrated in feedlots and to the more extensive use of
chemicals and fertilizers (373-4). While all three agricultural revolutions worked to
alienate humans from the production of their food and from the land, the second and third
further separated humans from the metabolic cycle and resulted in a break in the return of
10
nutrients to the soil. Because of this break in the metabolic cycle that had sustained
humans throughout history, dependence developed on chemical fertilizers and pesticides
rather than on the natural processes resulting in environmental crises such as lakes and
water supplies being poisoned by runoff, problems still existing today and reflected in the
necessity for programs such as the Superfund. At the same time, the environmental
problems of the cities—air pollution, sewage, and industrial pollutants—continued to
grow resulting in a further rift between humans and the environment. According to
Foster, the metabolic rift that began with the second agricultural revolution and
intensified with the third was predicted by Marx, and Foster believes that Weber’s and
Durkheim’s writings also have much to teach environmental sociologists once they are
examined in greater detail (400).
It is, however, Marx’s writings about the metabolic rift between humans and the
environment that is much in evidence in today’s world. This rift between humans and
their environment, between the city and the country, has allowed some of the worst
pollution to occur in proximity to humans. The relevancy of Marx’s writings on the
environment are perhaps most evident in the numbers of people living so closely to sites
where the worst of industrial and environmental pollution has occurred and, in many
cases, still remains. However, due to larger societal processes such as institutionalized
racism and poverty, environmental problems focus not only on Marx’s metabolic rift
between humans and their environment but also on the problems of the racial and
economic divides in capitalist society. Much of the empirical literature focuses on
whether race/ethnicity or income are better predictors of who is most likely to live closest
11
to environmental hazards. This study differs from those in that it examines whether these
variables are predictors of which groups are disproportionately affected by living in
proximity to the worst of environmentally hazardous sites.
Before examining the effects of Marx’s metabolic rift between human society and
the environment on the different groups in society, the terms used by the environmental
movement must be defined. According to Bullard (1996), this is the first step in
determining whether a race/ethnicity or class of people are disproportionately affected by
environmental hazards. The terms environmental justice, environmental equity, and
environmental racism have emerged and, for the most part, have been used
interchangeably although there are distinct definitions for the different terms. The EPA
defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.” According to Bullard (1996), “Environmental justice embraces the principle
that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection of environmental and
public health laws and regulations” (493). Environmental equity refers to “the
distribution of environmental hazards, examining whether these hazards
disproportionately burden the poor and communities of color” (2) according to Ringquist
and Clark (1999).
Bullard defines environmental racism as “any policy, practice, or directive that
differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals,
groups, or communities based on race or color” (1996). Ringquist and Clark (1999) cite
12
Benjamin Chavis, former president of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), in defining environmental racism. Chavis’ definition is:
“Environmental racism is racial discrimination in environmental policymaking. It
is racial discrimination in the enforcement of regulations and laws. It is racial
discrimination in the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste
disposal and the siting of polluting industries. It is racial discrimination in the
official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in
communities of color. And, it is racial discrimination in the history of excluding
people of color from the mainstream environmental groups, decision-making
boards, commissions, and regulatory bodies” (2).
The environmental justice literature has primarily looked at whether race/ethnicity
is a factor in determining disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards but has
also examined concern over issues of environmental quality (Mohai and Kershner 2002;
Mohai and Bryant 1998), the siting of environmentally polluting industries (Yandle and
Burton 1996; Bullard 1990), and socioeconomic status factors such as income and
employment patterns (Mohai and Bryant 1998). Race has been a focus in the
environmental justice literature with mixed results (Mohai and Kershner 2002; Davidson
and Anderton 2000; Pulido 2000; Downey 1998; Maher 1998; Mohai and Bryant 1998;
Boer et al. 1997; Yandle and Burton 1996; Pollack and Vittas 1995; Anderton et al. 1994;
Bullard 1990). Race/ethnicity has been found to be a statistically significant factor by
Pulido (2000); Downey (1998); Mohai and Bryant (1998); George et al. (1997); Pollock
and Vittas (1995); and Bullard (1990) but not by Davidson and Anderton (2000) and
Yandle and Burton (1996). Examining concern over environmental quality, studies done
by Mohai and Bryant (1998) and Mohai and Kershner (2002) found that blacks were
more concerned about environmental quality than were whites, presumably, according to
13
the authors, because the toxic hazards were more likely to be located in primarily black
neighborhoods than in predominately white areas.
While some studies found race/ethnicity to be a significant factor in who is
disproportionately affected by pollutants, several studies showed mixed results with
race/ethnicity a factor when controlling for some variables but not a factor when
considered with different variables. For instance, Pollack and Vittas (1995) argue that
“environmental inequity may be directly measured by the degree of difference in
pollution exposure between social groups” (307) and found that blacks and Hispanics
live closer to environmental hazards and, because of this, are inequitably burdened by
pollution (307). However, when considering employment differences, employment in
manufacturing industries meant that workers were inequitably exposed to pollutants and
health hazards because of their jobs. There is an implication of choice in that people
choose to live close to their jobs and that race/ethnicity then is not a factor. But, because
of social processes such as institutional racism, people of color have fewer residential
housing and employment options and therefore race/ethnicity must be seen as an
“endogenous” or internal to definitions of environmental equity and must be viewed as
“geographic and social manifestations of an enduring legacy of racial inequality” (308).
Maher’s 1998 study of the populations surrounding Superfund sites, major toxic
waste sites, and toxic polluters such as power plants in Indiana, found that when
considering acid rain, blacks and Hispanics were not statistically significantly more likely
to be exposed to acid rain. Maher argues that this may be because the effects of acid-rain
producing industries are not localized but rather are dispersed for many miles. However,
14
when considering pollutants that are localized in a community, the locations of black and
Hispanic populations were highly correlated with pollution rates. Maher concluded that
there is a consistent relationship between exposure to toxic industries in Indiana and
being black and Hispanic (363). Maher also found that low-income whites who live in
proximity to polluted sites are victims of environmental inequity just as are blacks and
Hispanics. Overall, even with these mixed results, Maher concluded that race/ethnicity
was strongly correlated with exposure to environmental pollutants in Indiana (364).
Other studies also show mixed results for environmental racism. The bivariate
analysis done by Boer et al. (1997) of one hazard (TSDFs) between tracts with and
without hazardous sites found that race, income, land use patterns, employment patterns,
political participation, and population density were significant factors with Hispanics
more affected by exposure to pollution than blacks. However, in a multivariate model
race was still a factor but lower income and manufacturing employment were stronger
factors. Mohai and Bryant (1998) found no race effect on overall concerns about
environmental quality although in concerns about neighborhood environmental quality,
blacks were significantly more concerned than were whites presumably because blacks
were more likely to live in neighborhoods disproportionately affected by environmental
hazards. They found that race and general pollution concern were significantly
associated primarily due to exposure to adverse environmental conditions but that racial
differences were not significant when taking socioeconomic factors into consideration.
Anderton et al. (1994) found that institutional racism factors that inhibit residential
mobility options results in inequities of housing patterns for blacks and Hispanics who
15
were more likely to live in less desirable neighborhoods. However, the proportion of
blacks living in proximity to facilities for the treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous wastes (TSDFs) was lower—especially in the 25 largest standard metropolitan
statistical areas (SMSAs)—than the proportion of whites. However, since they only
studied operating, commercial TSDFs in SMSAs and had no data on illegal dumping,
these results may not be completely accurate.
Class is another variable discussed in studies of environmental justice. Davidson
and Anderton (2000) found that “hazardous materials handlers” (461) under the purview
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) were disproportionately located
in working class neighborhoods. Boer et al. (1997) examined race in combination with
variables typically associated with class such as employment patterns and income.
Anderton et al. (1994) found that manufacturing occupations were significantly higher for
those living in proximity to TSDFs.
Pulido’s (2000) argument is slightly different from much of the environmental
racism literature in that she argues that stratification and institutional racism have
determined who lives in proximity to environmentally hazardous sites unlike other
research that has emphasized race and socioeconomic status but not necessarily from an
institutional racism perspective but rather from a perspective of individual acts or events.
She argues that the reason blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately affected by
environmental hazards is that whites, because of their privileged status as members of the
dominant class of society, traditionally have had the option and means of moving away
from areas considered less than desirable and that blacks and Hispanics have then moved
16
into areas vacated by working-class whites. Blacks historically have had fewer mobility
options and thus have suffered from “severe spatial containment” (31) aggravated by the
siting of TSDFs in black neighborhoods. Hispanics as immigrants have traditionally
migrated to industrial areas where low-wage jobs are located. Thus, for Hispanics
exposure to environmental hazards is a function of their immigrant status, lack of
residential mobility, and their status as low-wage earners (32). Pulido argues that whites
have exploited their position of privilege through contemporary urban, spatial
development policies and through white flight and other means of protecting themselves
from poor environments whether intentional or not. She describes neighborhoods as
“constellations of opportunities” (30) in her descriptions of white privilege in which
institutional factors guarantee that whites will have the opportunities that black and
Hispanics lack to escape environmental hazards.
Downey’s (1998) argument is also slightly different from the bulk of the
literature. Downey, while finding that people of color have been disproportionately
affected by environmental hazards, argues that race and income should not be seen as
competing factors but rather should be investigated together. He sees the environmental
justice research as examining two different models: 1) a simple cause and effect
argument that the race/ethnicity of the population determines whether environmental
hazards exist in a community, and 2) environmental racism means that only a
disproportionate number of people of color have to be affected by environmental hazards
for a finding of environmental racism to be valid even if income is a better predictor of
17
exposure to environmental hazards in some communities (774). The second incorporates
race/ethnicity and income as co-factors rather than competing variables.
One study of note, primarily because of the negative critiques of the methodology
and findings (Boer et al. 1997; Anderton 1996; Barkenbus et al. 1996; Bullard 1996;
Mohai 1996), was done by Yandle and Burton (1996) who found that environmental
racism was not a factor in the siting process for the treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) in metropolitan Texas since low-income whites were
disproportionately affected in the siting process. Although Yandle and Burton purported
to study tracts with TSDFs and the immediately surrounding area, they never defined
what the immediately surrounding area was. They implied that because those primarily
affected by environmental hazards were white, this negated the environmental justice
effect on the siting process (Bullard 1996). Among problems of statistical and
mathematical methods applied and the use of statistical areas by Yandle and Burton that
were not comparable as well as claims that other studies used inappropriate statistical
tests, Mohai called their review of the environmental justice literature “careless and
inaccurate to the extreme” (500) in that Yandle and Burton state that the existing
environmental justice literature primarily finds discrimination in the siting process when
very few studies have looked at the siting process. Anderton (1996) stated that Yandle
and Burton’s results do not appear to be generalizable to other areas (509) and that they
neglected changes to MAs and tracts over time (511) as well as excluding sparsely
populated areas where higher proportions of minorities may be disproportionately
affected (512-3). Bullard found fault with Yandle and Burton’s claim that excluding non-
18
metropolitan areas and some facilities would not affect results and that census tracts are
homogeneous with regard to population density and proximity to facilities (494-5) and
that they never distinguished between environmental justice and environmental racism
even though the two concepts are not the same (497).
Much of the environmental justice literature has focused on the siting of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal facilities (TSDFs), and toxic releases
(Yandle and Burton, 1996; Mohai, 1996; Bullard, 1990). Although the Superfund sites
are the worst of the environmentally toxic sites and potentially represent the greatest
health risks to those living in proximity to the sites, the toxicity is often the result of
many decades of polluting from various sources and often the companies involved have
merged, gone out of business, or sold their operations making it virtually impossible to
determine which entity contributed the most to the pollution. Since the military is
exempt from most federal and local environmental regulations, military installations
frequently are polluted enough to land on the National Priority List (NPL).
Because of the problems of knowing who is responsible for the pollution, when
the pollution occurred, and the length of time involved during which the pollution
occurred, it is very difficult to determine the demographics of the populations living in
proximity to the Superfund sites at the time of siting of the facility. This is a limitation in
studying Superfund sites—it is not usually possible to determine with a degree of
certainty that the sites were situated in areas where minorities and lower income
populations resided. The best source for demographic data is the Census Bureau.
However, with every census the boundaries of the enumeration areas have changed
19
making comparisons over time difficult. It then becomes a chicken-and-egg problem—
were the sites located in neighborhoods inhabited by minorities or lower income
populations or, as the areas became less desirable to live in, did whites and those of
higher socioeconomic status and the means to move relocate allowing others to take their
places. Another limitation to studying the populations in proximity to Superfund sites is
that, while these sites certainly are the most polluted and presumably the most hazardous,
they represent only a small proportion of the environmental hazards nationwide
(Davidson and Anderton 2000).
One advantage to studying Superfund sites is that the exact location of the sites
are known unlike brownfields and other polluted sites such as landfills that often use the
location of company headquarters rather than the location of the actual site (Boer, et al.,
793). Knowing the exact location of the site makes comparisons possible to determine if
there are disproportionate differences between the race/ethnicity and socioeconomic
status of the populations living in proximity to Superfund sites and those living at a
greater distance from the site. Although studies have been conducted using a radius as
great as 2.5 miles (Anderton, et al, 1994), this study will follow Boer et al (1997) and will
use a radius of two miles to address the issue of who is directly affected by living in
proximity to these sites. A study done by Yandle and Burton (1996) analyzed tract level
data to determine if race was a salient factor in the siting process of hazardous waste
landfills in metropolitan Texas by looking at the tracts “near” and “immediately
surrounding” the sites but failed to define either term.
20
Whether race/ethnicity, class, socioeconomic status or other variables examined
in these studies alone or in combination are significant factors in determining who lives
in proximity to environmentally hazardous sites, it is the disconnect between human
society and the environment that allows humans to live close to such sites. Nowhere is
Marx’s “metabolic rift” more evident than in the knowledge that humans live in
proximity to Superfund sites so hazardous that in some cases residents must be relocated,
as happened with Love Canal in Niagara, New York in the 1970s, with the sites
themselves covered over and blocked off because the remediation of the site is either too
hazardous, not cost effective, or not possible with current technology. It is because
capitalist human societies are so distanced from the natural environment and the
metabolic cycle, that people can live so close to the hazards of these sites often without
even being aware of how dangerous their neighborhoods are. While other factors, such
as institutionalized racism and classism, mean that some groups are disproportionately
affected by toxic hazards, the rift between humans and the environment has contributed
to the existence of these sites. Through this understanding, it is possible to examine
which groups are affected most by their proximity to Superfund (and other) toxic sites.
21
Chapter 3
METHODS
Using census tract data, this study will examine the demographics of the
populations living in proximity to Superfund sites in California that are on the National
Priorities List (NPL). The hypothesis advanced here is that minorities and those of lower
socioeconomic status are more likely than are whites or those of higher socioeconomic
status to live in proximity to Superfund sites listed on the NPL. To test this hypothesis
the variables for race/ethnicity, educational attainment, persons in the civilian labor force
who were unemployed, and housing units that were specified as owner occupied were
selected. Although the data are described at the census tract level, the data actually
measure the individuals and housing units within the census tract.
DATA
According to Article 1, Section 2 of the United States constitution, an actual
enumeration of the population must be conducted every ten years (decennially) for the
purpose of apportioning seats for the House of Representatives. Over the decades, the
census has evolved and now enumerates not only the population for apportionment, but
also the individuals and households in the country and also gathers demographic and
socioeconomic data as well and is one of the largest and best sources of these data.
In Census 2000, the entire population received the short form questionnaire
asking questions about the number of persons in the household, as well as the sex, age,
and the race/ethnicity of each person. Approximately one in six households received
additional questions in the long form questionnaire where additional data on marital
22
status, nativity, total household income from all sources (for example: employment,
retirement, social security, interest, rents, self-employment, dividends, and miscellaneous
income) for the year prior to the census, educational attainment, employment, and their
housing five years prior to the census is gathered. Because the census is an enumeration
of the entire population, the data that are gathered provide a decennial snapshot of the
population as of April 1st, the official census day, and is an excellent source of
demographic and socioeconomic data.
To accomplish the census, counties or their equivalents (such as parishes in
Louisiana) are broken down into smaller geographic units with a block being the smallest
geographic area. Blocks are grouped together to form block groups which are in turn
grouped together to form census tracts. Tracts are defined by the Census Bureau as small
geographic subdivisions designed to be relatively stable over several decades and this is
why they were chosen as the geographic unit to test the hypothesis for this study. Tracts
generally contain between 1,000 and 8,000 persons and the boundaries are determined by
the Census Bureau and local officials. Tracts do not cross state or county boundaries.
While most of the state of California was divided into tracts by the 1980 census, the 1990
census was the first census where the entire state was divided into tracts. Although tracts
are designed to remain stable over more than one census, in California the population
growth in the decade between censuses has not allowed this to happen. With each census
tracts are split making comparisons between censuses difficult. This is a weakness in
using census tract data for this study and others such as this one where the pollution has
occurred over many years. Not having data that is comparable over many decades so that
23
temporal comparisons of the demographic and socioeconomic changes can be analyzed
makes it difficult to draw causal conclusions.
The “1990 and 2000 Tract-to-Tract Comparability File” dataset from the
California Department of Finance (DOF) where 1990 census tracts have been normalized
to 2000 census tracts is used for this study. This dataset was chosen because it has many
variables available, particularly those dealing with socioeconomic data such as income,
poverty, education, and housing. The dataset represents responses to the long-form
census questionnaire sent to approximately 1 in 6 households in both the 1990 and 2000
censuses. The sample data collected during the census from the long-form questionnaire
are weighted using an iterative ratio estimation procedure (iterative proportional fitting)
that results in the assignment of a weight to each person or household record. For this
study, only data from the 2000 census were used. However, for future studies it would be
possible to use this dataset for temporal comparisons of how the populations changed
during the timeframe when the EPA’s National Priority List was being established and
sights were being considered for inclusion. The list was finalized in 1992 so having a
dataset where the data were normalized to the 2000 census tracts would make
comparisons between the 1990 and 2000 censuses possible.
24
VARIABLES
Although the geographic level of analysis is the census tract, it is the persons
within each tract that are used for the analysis. To determine whether minorities or
persons of lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately more likely to live in
proximity to Superfund sites, the variables race/ethnicity, education, employment status,
and home ownership were chosen for the analysis from the dataset.
Construction of the race variable involves the answers to two questions. Persons
of Hispanic or Latino descendants are considered to be of Hispanic ethnicity, it is not
considered to be a racial designation by the Census Bureau. Because of this, each person
was asked to answer yes or no to a question of whether or not the person is of Hispanic
descent and, if yes, to specify which country the person is from. Each person was then
also asked to choose a racial designation whether they answered yes or no to the Hispanic
ethnicity question. For this dataset, Hispanic ethnicity took precedence over the race
variable to construct the non-Hispanic categories of white, black, American Indian and
Alaska Native, Asian and Other Pacific Islander, and Some Other Race. A separate
Hispanic variable was constructed from those respondents who answered yes to the
Hispanic ethnicity question regardless of which racial category they chose essentially
treating Hispanic ethnicity the same as the other racial categories. To determine if
minorities were more likely than were whites to live in proximity to Superfund sites, all
non-white racial/ethnicity variables were combined leaving the dummy variable nonHispanic white to be used in the logistic regression.
25
Like the race/ethnicity variable, there are several different categories from which
respondents may choose the educational attainment level that most closely matches theirs
such as no schooling; nursery to 4th grade; 7th and 8th grade; 10th grade; 11th grade; 12th
grade, no diploma; High School Graduate; Associate Degree; through Doctorate Degree.
While data on educational attainment are collected for all respondents, they are tabulated
for the population age 25 and older as this is the age at which most people have
completed their education. This study combines the data for persons who have a high
school diploma or higher to create the educational variable. Persons who do not have at
least a high school diploma in today’s society are at a disadvantage with limited job
opportunities and therefore, for purposes of this study and the logistic regression analysis,
would be considered of lower socioeconomic status.
The Census Bureau collects employment data from persons age 16 and over.
Although there is no top coding of the age of the labor force, in the past it has generally
been considered to be persons age 16 to 64 even though many people work well beyond
age 64. This is particularly true now since the age of retirement, which traditionally was
65, is rising to compensate for the large numbers of baby boomers and their impact on the
Social Security system. There are, however, many persons between the ages of 16 and 64
who are not considered part of the labor force—persons who do not work for pay;
persons who were part of the labor force but have given up looking for work; persons
who do not work outside the home but instead work at home caring for children, aging
parents or other relatives; and students. These people are excluded from calculations of
the labor force regardless of their age. Persons under the age of 16 are excluded from
26
labor force calculations regardless of whether they work or not and regardless of whether
they work in the paid labor force. The labor force is then divided further into civilian and
armed forces categories. From there, the civilian labor force is divided into employed
and unemployed categories. For this study, a dummy variable measuring the unemployed
civilian labor force data are also used to represent persons of lower socioeconomic status.
For most people, one of the best ways to accumulate wealth in this country is
through home ownership, so home ownership is also included as a measure of
socioeconomic status in this analysis. The Census Bureau long-form questionnaire also
collects data on home ownership. Homes may fall into one of three categories—owneroccupied, renter-occupied, and vacant. This study will include a dummy variable for
owner-occupied households.
27
TYPE OF ANALYSIS
A logistic regression predicting which populations live in proximity to a
Superfund site were used for the analysis. The variables for the analysis were nonHispanic white for race/ethnicity, persons who had attained a high school education or
higher for educational attainment, persons in the civilian labor force who were
unemployed at census time, and households that were specified as owner occupied used
to determine the socioeconomic status of the populations living in proximity to Superfund
sites. These variables were used to determine whether minorities or those of lower
socioeconomic status are disproportionately more likely to live in proximity to Superfund
sites than are whites or those of higher socioeconomic status.
Census tract data from the dataset described were used for the statistical testing of
whether significant differences exist in the race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status of the
populations living in proximity to Superfund sites. The census tracts in which Superfund
sites on the NPL are located in California were determined from the addresses and the
longitude and latitude available on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website
listing for NPL sites. Once the census tracts containing Superfund sites are located, the
tracts located within a radius of approximately one mile, and also of two miles, of the
sites were determined using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and ESRI’s ArcView
mapping software. Using ArcGIS software, radii of one and two miles were constructed
around each Superfund site with tracts that were either wholly or partially contained
within this boundary identified as affected tracts. No distinction was made regarding the
area of the tract contained within the boundary so that tracts where only a small portion
28
was within the radius were included as affected tracts and their entire population was
included in the analysis as being within the affected area.
Logistic regression analyses were used to determine whether a significant
difference exists in the race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status of the populations living
in the affected census tracts. The dependent variable for testing is the census tract where
the Superfund site is located with race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status as the
independent variables in a multivariate analysis with a .05 level of significance. The null
hypothesis is that there is no difference between the race/ethnic groups and
socioeconomic status of the populations living in census tracts in proximity to Superfund
sites and those living in tracts beyond either the one-mile or the two-mile radius of these
sites. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between these two groups
with minorities and those of lower socioeconomic status disproportionately affected by
proximity to Superfund sites.
29
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION
Many people lack housing options due to institutionalized forces, such as racism,
and find themselves living in heavily polluted areas or other less than desirable areas.
Although it may seem to be a matter of choice, it really is not—it is simply the only
option open to them. Because of this, it is expected that the analysis of the data will show
that minorities and persons of lower socioeconomic status who lack the resources to live
in more desirable, less polluted, and presumably healthier places will live near Superfund
sites and that whites and persons with the resources to leave these less desirable areas
will have done so already. From a sociological perspective, there is little doubt that these
institutional forces exist and work to maintain this status quo and it is expected that this
study will follow this pattern.
The variables from the “1990 and 2000 Tract-to-Tract Comparability File” used
in the logistic regression analysis were persons in the population who were non-Hispanic
white; persons who had attained a high school diploma or higher; persons who were in
the civilian labor force but unemployed at census time; and housing units specified as
owner occupied. These variables were used to determine if there was a disparity in the
populations living in the affected tracts and those living outside the tracts in proximity to
the Superfund sites based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic class. At the time of the
census in 2000 the population of California had grown to 33,871,648 and there were
7,049 tracts in California as shown in Table 1. The total number of whole or partial
30
census tracts contained in the one-mile radius was 393 with 6,656 tracts unaffected; the
number of tracts inside the two-mile radius was 862 leaving 6,187 tracts completely
outside the radius. This amounts to 5.6 percent of tracts in California within the one-mile
radius and 12.2 percent within the two-mile radius. Of the total population, 5.9 percent
lived within the one-mile radius and 12.6 percent lived in the tracts in the two-mile
radius.
Table 1. California’s 2000 Population and Census Tracts
Population
Census Tracts
Total
33,871,648
7,049
1-Mile Radius
Affected
Non-Affected
Number
2,008,820
31,862,828
Percent
5.9%
94.1%
Number
393
6,656
Percent
5.6%
94.4%
2-Mile Radius
Affected
Non-Affected
4,277,936
29,593,712
12.6%
87.4%
862
6,187
12.2%
87.8%
Using the dataset described earlier and the variables selected to determine if
minorities and persons of lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately more likely
to be affected by living in proximity to EPA Superfund sites, the percentages of each
variable in California at the time of the census in 2000 are shown in Table 2. Of
California’s total population of 33,871,648, the percentage of non-Hispanic whites was
46.7 percent in 2000 making this the first census in California’s history where there was
no racial majority. Approximately one-third of the population at census time was of
Hispanic ethnicity. Table 2 also shows each race/ethnicity category individually even
though for this study the non-white categories have been combined to form the dummy
variable non-Hispanic white. According to the census data, over three-quarters of
31
California’s population age 25 and over had obtained at least a high school education.
Unemployed persons in the civilian labor force represented 7.5 percent of that population.
Of the over 12 million households in California at the time of the census, 45.3 percent
were specified as owner occupied.
Table 2. California’s Population and Housing by Selected Variables
Variable
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic:
White
Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian & Other Pacific Islander
Two or More Races & Some Other Race
Hispanic
High School Education and Above
Unemployed Civilian
Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Number
Percent
15,816,790
2,181,926
178,984
3,752,596
974,796
10,966,556
16,356,157
1,110,274
5,527,618
46.7%
6.4%
0.5%
11.1%
2.9%
32.4%
76.8%
7.5%
45.3%
ONE-MILE RADIUS
This study expected to find that minorities and those of lower socioeconomic
status are more likely to live in proximity to Superfund sites than are non-Hispanic whites
and persons of higher socioeconomic status. In order to determine if there is a disparity
between census tracts in the affected areas and the non-affected tracts based on
race/ethnicity and socioeconomic characteristics, the variables non-Hispanic white,
persons who had achieved the educational level of a high school diploma or higher,
persons in the civilian labor force who were unemployed, and housing units that were
specified as owner occupied were used for comparison. Table 3 shows the percentages of
each variable for the entire state for both the affected and non-affected tracts. Non-
32
Hispanic whites represented 40.2 percent of the population in the affected tracts
compared to 47.1 percent in the non-affected tracts. Approximately three-quarters of the
population age 25 years and older had attained a high school education or higher in both
the affected and non-affected tracts with slightly less living in affected tracts (74.8
percent) than in non-affected tracts (76.9 percent). The percentage of persons who were
unemployed in the civilian labor force was 7.5 percent in the affected tracts and 7 percent
in the non-affected tracts. In the affected tracts, the percentage of housing units that were
specified as owner-occupied was 43.6 percent versus 45.4 percent in the non-affected
tracts.
Table 3. Selected Variables of California’s Population and
Housing—within One-Mile Radius of Superfund Sites
Variable
Non-Hispanic White
High School Education and Above
Unemployed Civilian
Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit
Affected Tracts
40.2%
74.8%
7.5%
43.6%
Non-Affected Tracts
47.1%
76.9%
7.0%
45.4%
For the first logistic regression analysis, census tracts that were either partially or
wholly within a one-mile radius of Superfund sites were used as the dependent variable.
The results showed that the variables unemployed civilians and housing units specified as
owner occupied were not significant predictors of living in proximity to Superfund sites
(Table 4). However, the variables for non-Hispanic whites and for persons with a high
school education or higher were significant. Non-Hispanic whites (regression
coefficient=-1.818) were less likely to live in affected tracts while persons with a high
33
school education or higher were more likely (regression coefficient=1.846) to live in
proximity to the sites. This can also be expressed as an odds ratio. The odds that nonHispanic whites were living in proximity to a Superfund site decreased by 84 percent
(odds ratio=0.162) the further the distance from an affected tract while for persons whose
educational attainment was at the level of a high school diploma or higher the odds
increased by 533 percent (odds ration=6.332) making them more likely to have lived
closer to a Superfund site.
Table 4. Logistic Regression Analysis of Affected
Tracts—within One-Mile Radius of Superfund Sites
Variable
Non-Hispanic White
High School Diploma and Above
Unemployed Civilian
B
-1.818
1.846
0.014
Sig
0.000
0.000
0.118
Odds Ratio
0.162
6.332
1.015
Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit
-0.137
0.562
0.872
TWO-MILE RADIUS
While the percentages for all four variables were very similar in the non-affected
tracts in both the two-mile radius and the one-mile radius, the percentages in the affected
tracts were different. There were fewer non-Hispanic whites, 38.1 percent versus 40.2
percent, living in the affected tracts in the two-mile radius compared to the one-mile
radius respectively (Table 5). There were also fewer persons with at least a high school
education in the affected tracts in the two-mile radius (72.9 percent) than in the one-mile
radius (74.8 percent). The percentage of unemployed civilians was slightly higher in the
affected tracts in the two-mile radius than in the one-mile radius (7.7 percent versus 7.5
34
percent) as were housing units specified as owner occupied, 45 percent compared to 43.6
percent. Based on these percentages, it would be expected that those adversely affected
by proximity to Superfund sites would be minorities and persons with less than a high
school education.
Table 5. Selected Variables of California’s Population and
Housing—within Two-Mile Radius of Superfund Sites
Variable
Non-Hispanic White
High School Education and Above
Unemployed Civilian
Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit
Affected Tracts
38.1%
72.9%
7.7%
45.0%
Non-Affected Tracts
47.9%
77.3%
6.9%
45.3%
As with the data for the one-mile radius, the variables unemployed civilians and
housing units that were specified as owner occupied were not significant predictors of
class disparities in the populations living in proximity to Superfund sites (Table 6) while
the variables for non-Hispanic whites and persons with a high school diploma or higher
were significant in the logistic regression. The likelihood of living in an affected tract
goes down for non-Hispanic whites (regression coefficient=-2.045) while for persons
with at least a high school education (regression coefficient=1.202) the likelihood of
living in proximity to a Superfund site goes up. The odds that non-Hispanic whites lived
in proximity to Superfund sites decreased by 87 percent (odds ratio=0.129) the greater the
distance from the site while for persons whose educational attainment was at the level of
high school diploma or higher, the odds increased by 233 percent (odds ratio=3.326)
making more educated persons more likely to have lived closer to a Superfund site.
35
Table 6. Logistic Regression Analysis of Affected
Tracts—within Two-Mile Radius of Superfund Sites
Variable
Non-Hispanic White
High School Diploma and Above
Unemployed Civilian
Specified Owner-Occupied Housing Unit
B
-2.045
1.202
0.003
0.098
Sig
0.000
0.000
0.647
0.562
Odds Ratio
0.129
3.326
1.003
1.103
36
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to determine if minorities or persons of lower
socioeconomic status were disproportionately more likely to live in proximity to
Superfund sites in California, defined in this study as any part of a census tract within a
one or two-mile radius of a site. The results were mixed. The logistic regression analysis
showed that socioeconomic status was not an indicator of who lives in proximity to
Superfund sites in California. It was expected that unemployed civilians, lacking the
resources to move to more desirable, less polluted areas, would be more likely to live in
census tracts that were within either the one- or two-mile radius to Superfund sites. It was
also expected that housing units that were specified as owner occupied were not as likely
to be in the affected census tracts but this was not the case for either of these variables.
The analysis showed that both of these variables were not significant predictors of who
lives in proximity to Superfund sites and who, therefore, would be more likely to be
affected by the pollution that proximity to the site would entail. The third variable
chosen to test for socioeconomic status was educational attainment and the analysis
showed that persons with a high school education or higher were more likely to live in
census tracts within the one- or two-mile radius. In this study, the variables chosen for
socioeconomic status either were not significant predictors or predicted the opposite of
what was expected.
Like the educational attainment variable, the race/ethnicity variable was also
significant in the analysis. In this instance, however, the results were as expected.
37
Race/ethnicity did prove to be significant and the results showed that the likelihood of
living in an affected tract decreased for non-Hispanic whites. Studies by Bullard (1990);
Mohai and Bryant (1998); George et al (1997); Downey (1998); Pulido (2000); and
Maher (1998) all found race/ethnicity to be a factor in determining disproportionate
exposure to environmental hazards. Rather than a class issue, living in proximity to the
most polluted sites in the country is a race/ethnicity issue as these researchers who
studied the populations living in proximity to facilities for the treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes (TSDFs) found. Institutionalized racism and limited
employment options have long contributed to the lack of mobility capabilities for
minorities and has been a significant factor in their inability to leave undesirable areas,
including those with significant pollution such as Superfund sites. While non-Hispanic
whites have had the opportunity to move to more desirable areas away from affected
sites, this has left blacks and Hispanics to move into the areas vacated by whites. While
there were studies that did not find race/ethnicity to be a factor (Davidson and Anderton,
2000; Mohai and Bryant (1998); and Yandle and Burton, 1996), those studies dealt with
environmental justice problems rather than Superfund sites in particular but did suggest
studying race in combination with employment patterns and income rather than
considering race by itself.
Environmental sociology is still relatively new to sociological theory. Because it
is still relatively new to sociological theory it was difficult to find studies examining the
populations surrounding Superfund sites. This is in part because classic sociological
theory developed along an anthropocentric paradigm rather than an ecocentric one.
38
Ecocentric writings of the classical theorists—Marx, Weber, and Durkheim—were
largely either ignored or marginalized as mainstream sociological studies continued
during the industrial revolution along anthropocentric lines. Marx, in particular, was
concerned about the problems of the alienation of human society to nature, the disconnect
between food production and society as well as the problems of sustainability and soil
depletion of capitalist agriculture. For Marx, this disconnect, or metabolic rift, between
human society and food production was concrete and not theoretical. This metabolic rift
is very much in evidence in industrial, capitalist societies just as Marx and other theorists
predicted. Rather than the smaller family farms evident in most states until as late as the
mid-20th century where one could find fresh produce, eggs, and other foods at roadside
stands providing at least some connection to food production, large corporate farms have
replaced these small farms resulting in an alienation of society from its food production.
The push toward organic foods and sustainable farming are steps toward reversing
Marx’s metabolic rift. However, even organic food is, in many instances, being produced
using the same industrial model as the large, corporate farms very much in evidence
today that further alienates society from food production and the environment. Recent Ecoli outbreaks blamed on organic foods point to the dangers inherent in the large,
corporate farm model where oversight seems limited at best. Even for families who may
have had a small vegetable garden in the backyard every year and who produced organic
foods for themselves, now find themselves in the position of needing two incomes
leaving little time for gardening thus eliminating all contact with food production for
most people. This small backyard garden often allowed the family to maintain contact
39
with the environment and helped children develop respect for the environment. The
rigors of a society where two incomes are often necessary to survive and families are too
busy to maintain a backyard garden and the large, corporate model for food production
have, for the most part, completed Marx and the other classical theorists disconnect with
the environment allowing for the alienation of capitalist societies from the environment.
A major difficulty with this study, besides the lack of environmental sociological
theory applicable to Superfund sites, was that the available literature focused on
environmental justice as it relates primarily to TSDF sites which differ from Superfund
sites in several important ways. The industries or manufacturers that caused the pollution
for Superfund sites located in an area that either was populated with the necessary
workforce and infrastructure or workers and their families followed for employment and
the infrastructure also followed. Because the pollution often occurred decades ago, the
surrounding neighborhoods have undergone many transformations. Once desirable
neighborhoods became undesirable, those who could move away, did so often leaving
minorities to fill in the area and who, lacking the resources for many reasons, including
institutional racism, were unable to relocate and therefore, as this study shows, are
disproportionately more likely than are whites to live in proximity to Superfund sites.
TSDF industrial sites, on the other hand, are being located in already populated areas and
are contributing additional pollution to those areas. These sites, according to the
environmental justice movement and the studies cited earlier, are disproportionately
being located in areas populated by minorities and those with a lower socioeconomic
status.
40
Another aspect affecting the study of Superfund sites is that the EPA has four
different classifications of the sites with very different types of pollution. The four
different classification types are: 1) ground water migration; 2) surface water
contamination; 3) soil exposure; and 4) air migration. In the case of ground water
migration, which only affects water from wells drilled for drinking water and household
uses, the pollutants are many feet (sometimes hundreds of feet) below the surface and
never adversely affect the people living directly above the water source unless it
contaminates the household water supply. According to the EPA’s website listing the
various sites and the different chemicals pollutants, the contaminated site may be an
underground aquifer polluted by many chemicals and may be spread out over a large area
so that many thousands of people are affected who may not even know that they live
directly above such severe contamination. Los Angeles County is a perfect example of
this type of Superfund site. It has several ground water migration Superfund sites with,
because of the density of the population, many thousands of people living in affected
tracts. With surface water contamination, soil exposure, or air migration there is a much
greater risk that the populations living in proximity to one of those particular types of
Superfund sites would be exposed to dangerous pollution making living close to one of
these sites more relevant to a person’s or their children’s health than the risk of living in
proximity to a polluted aquifer many feet below the ground that poses no immediate risk
as long as the water is not part of the household’s water supply. By separating the sites
the EPA classifies as ground water migration sites from other types of Superfund sites
that directly affect people or studying each of the four types of contaminated sites and the
41
populations living in proximity to that particular type of site individually could provide
very different results than those of this study.
Another factor that makes studying Superfund sites very different from other
types of environmental justice sites is the time factor. The industries that caused the
pollution often located in an area many years ago and continued to pollute the site for a
long period of time, often decades. Although the real damage that some of the chemicals
used in manufacturing and industry was not known for that long, it has been anecdotally
known for decades. According to the EPA, Love Canal in New York State was originally
begun by William T. Love in the 1890s as a failed hydroelectric power project. Over the
years the canal had many uses, one of which was when it would fill with water and was
used for swimming, until its final use as a dumpsite for toxic chemicals by the Hooker
Chemicals and Plastics Corp (now Occidental Chemical Corp). However, it was not until
Love Canal made headlines in the 1970s that the health consequences of the chemicals
(including dioxin and pesticides) that were dumped at the site in the 1940s were known.
Because of Love Canal, the affects that pollution had on the populations surrounding a
site by a variety of chemicals began to be acted on and taken seriously by the
government. The EPA cites Love Canal as the catalyst for Congress to pass the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA—
which came to be known as Superfund since it created the fund that polluters paid into to
finance clean up of the most polluted sites in the country), to deal with the effects of
toxins on populations and the environment no matter when the pollution occurred. Love
Canal’s time frame of about a century illustrates how the lack of comparable data to
42
study the populations over time hampers the ability to truly understand how populations
surrounding Superfund sites have changed over time—in this case there is no way to
clearly understand, compare, and study how the demographics have changed over the
years. Without a data source that is comparable over time at a small enough geographic
level (such as the census tract level used in this study), any comparison would be
meaningless.
This study does, however, add to the literature regarding Superfund sites which,
like the funding to clean up the contamination of these sites, is limited. Although there is
only a very limited amount of research that has been done about the demographics of the
populations that live in proximity to and are affected by Superfund sites, it is still an
important subject to study. Because inclusion on the National Priorities List means that
Superfund sites contain the worst of the worst pollution, it is important to study which
populations are affected by living in proximity to these sites. Institutional racism and
classism in our society has long meant that minorities and persons of lower socioeconomic
status shoulder a far greater burden of inequitable exposure to pollution and its harmful
effects. The current environmental justice movement seeks to remedy past injustices by
making sure that new facilities are not disproportionately located in predominately poor or
minority neighborhoods but that still leaves us with past societal processes that have
worked to ensure the need for an environmental justice movement today. By studying
what happened in the past and how those past mistakes are still being played out today, we
have a clearer idea of what needs to be done to remedy past mistakes and prevent them
from occurring in the future. Hopefully, this study will contribute to that.
43
REFERENCES
Anderson, Douglas L. 1996. “Methodological Issues in the Spatiotemporal Analysis of
Environmental Equity.” Social Science Quarterly 77:508-515.
Anderton, Douglas L.; Andy B. Anderson; John Michael Oakes; Michael R. Fraser.
1994. “Environmental Equity: The Demographics of Dumping.” Demography
31(2):229-248.
Barkenbus, Jack N.; Jean H. Peretz; Jonathan D. Rubin. 1996. “More on the Agenda.”
Social Science Quarterly 77:516-519.
Boer, J. Tom; Manuel Pastor Jr.; James L. Sadd. 1997. “Is There Environmental
Racism? The Demographics of Hazardous Waste in Los Angeles County.” Social
Science Quarterly 78(4):793-810.
Bullard, Robert D. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
-------. 1996. “Environmental Justice: It’s More Than Waste Facility Siting.” Social
Science Quarterly 77:493-499.
Bureau of the Census. http://www.census.gov
Collin, Robert W.; Timothy Beatley; William Harris. 1995. “Environmental Racism: A
Challenge to Community Development.” Journal of Black Studies 25(3):354-376.
Davidson, Pamela, and Douglas L. Anderton. 2000. “Demographics of Dumping II: A
National Environmental Equity Survey and the Distribution of Hazardous
Materials Handlers.” Demography 37(4):461-466.
Downey, Liam. 1998. “Environmental Injustice: Is Race or Income a Better Predictor?’
Social Science Quarterly 79(4):766-778.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/envienvironmentaljustice.html
Faber, Daniel R., and Eric J. Krieg. 2002. “Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards:
Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements 110(2):277-299.
Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations
for Environmental Sociology.” The American Journal of Sociology 105(2):366405.
44
Krieg, Eric J. 1998. “Methodological Considerations in the Study of Toxic Waste
Hazards.” Social Science Journal 35(2);191-202.
Maher, Timothy. 1998. “Environmental Oppression: Who Is Targeted for Toxic
Exposure.” Journal of Black Studies 28(3):357-367.
Mohai, Paul. 1996. “Environmental Justice or Analytic Justice? Reexamining Historical
Hazardous Waste Landfill Siting Patterns in Metropolitan Texas.” Social Science
Quarterly 77:500-507.
Mohai, Paul, and Bunyan Bryant. 1998. “Is There a ‘Race’ Effect on Concern for
Environmental Quality.” Public Opinion Quarterly 62(4):475-505.
Mohai, Paul, and David Kershner. 2002. “Race and Environmental Voting in the U.S.
Congress.” Social Science Quarterly 83(1):167-189.
Pollock, Philip H. III, and M. Elliot Vittas. 1995. “Who Bears the Burdens of
Environmental Pollution? Race, Ethnicity, and Environmental Equity in Florida.”
Social Science Quarterly 76(2):294-310.
.
Pulido, Laura. 2000. “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban
Development in Southern California.” Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 90(1):12-40.
Ringquist, Evan J, and David H. Clark. 1999. “Local Risks, States’ Rights, and Federal
Mandates: Remedying Environmental Inequities in the U.S. Federal System.”
Publius 29(2):79-93.
Sierra Club. 2004. “The Truth about Toxic Waste Cleanups.” http://www.sierraclub.org
Yandle, Tracy, and Dudley, Burton. 1996. “Methodological Approaches to
Environmental Justice: A Rejoinder.” Social Science Quarterly 77:520-527.
Yandle, Tracy, and Dudley, Burton. 1996. “Reexamining Environmental Justice: A
Statistical Analysis of Historical Hazardous Waste Landfill Siting Patterns in
Metropolitan Texas.” Social Science Quarterly 77:477-492.