Latinos, Poor Live Closer to Sources of Air Pollution

Low-income neighborhoods, many of them predominantly Latino, are more likely to be home to major sources of toxic air pollution than other communities in Los Angeles County, according to a UCLA study released today.

Communities surrounding the 100 largest industrial toxic emitters tend to be nonwhite and poorer than the rest of the county. People living nearby are exposed to greater concentrations of chemicals that can cause cancer, respiratory disease and reproductive harm.

Latinos are three times more likely than whites to live near one of those plants. Six in 10 of the facilities are surrounded by neighborhoods that contain a higher proportion of racial minorities than the countywide average, the study shows.

The report does not identify the neighborhoods that are most affected. In general, however, those areas are predominantly Latino communities south and east of Los Angeles.

Latinos make up 44% of Los Angeles County’s population, yet they comprise 60% of the residents living next to the biggest toxic emitters. In contrast, 31% of the county’s population is white, but just 18% of those who live near a toxic polluter are white, according to the study.

But the report warns against attributing the findings to “environmental racism,” the practice of intentionally siting industrial hazards near minority neighborhoods. The two UCLA law professors who wrote the report found that the proportion of African Americans--9.5%--living near the facilities is the same as the percentage found in the county as a whole. Moreover, Asian Americans are underrepresented in neighborhoods around toxic-emitting plants.

“We find that Southern California has a considerable problem in that low-income people are substantially more affected by air toxics than the rest of the population,” the report says. “We cannot confidently state that Southern California has a problem with ‘environmental racism,’ but ‘environmental classism’ appears to be alive and well.”

The findings are contained in an environmental report card for Southern California that UCLA professors prepare each year. Ann E. Carlson and Jonathan Zasloff wrote the chapter on neighborhoods closest to toxic polluting facilities.

A chorus of lawmakers, activists and academics in recent years has claimed that corporations tend to concentrate polluting plants in poor and minority communities, a charge that industry leaders dispute. Though numerous studies have identified a correlation, there is debate over the causes.

Carlos Porras, executive director of Communities for a Better Environment, said the UCLA report is the latest to show a link between exposure to toxic pollution and ethnicity. The Huntington Park-based environmental justice advocacy group works to reduce chemical exposures for residents in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

“Southern California has a persistent problem with disproportionate environmental burden on low-income people and people of color,” Porras said. “Studies have shown that even as people climb the economic ladder, these exposures to hazard remain constant.”

Release of Toxic Substances Is Legal

The UCLA study shows that though air pollution in general has declined sharply across the Southland in recent years, toxic emissions released from chemical plants, manufacturers and oil refineries persist in some communities more than others. Despite the health concerns, the chemical releases are legal; companies are required to report them to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Among the county’s biggest toxic emitters are the Mobil Oil refinery in Torrance, which released 1,166,779 pounds of chemicals in 1998; Chevron USA, 673,961 pounds; and Dow Chemical, 495,620 pounds. The chemicals include ammonia, benzene, ethers and butadiene.

Comparing the pollutants with surrounding communities, investigators found that 60 of 100 plants were surrounded by neighborhoods that contain a greater percentage of racial and ethnic minorities than countywide averages. Only 21 facilities are next to neighborhoods with a higher percentage of whites than the countywide average.

Neighborhoods around the plants were also poorer. Rents averaged $39 less per month, and house values were about $196,583, 20% less than the median price, the study shows.

“If you’re poor, no matter what ethnic group you are, you get a lack of environmental justice,” said William Burke, chairman of the South Coast Air Quality Management District board.

However, the study does not attempt to assess whether people in the communities are exposed to the chemicals. Many of the substances are released in small amounts over the course of a year.

Debating How the Situation Developed

In the largest survey of urban toxic air pollution in the nation, the AQMD reported that it failed to identify any toxic “hot spots” in more than a dozen communities tested from Costa Mesa to San Pedro to Riverside last year, including low-income neighborhoods. A hot spot is a neighborhood where people are exposed to chronic high levels of pollutants.

How communities of color and toxic polluters come to inhabit the same neighborhoods is the subject of considerable debate. Sometimes market forces drive a company to buy cheap land on the outskirts of town, and low-income residential neighborhoods then grow up around them.

Sometimes the neighborhoods are not disproportionately poor or ethnic when a plant opens. Sometimes a company, with the assistance of local government officials, finds an underutilized parcel in a neighborhood where residents have little political clout and don’t make a fuss.

“A lot of this may not be intentional, but a combination of zoning laws and market decisions and a lack of political involvement in these communities leads to a pattern where low-income communities house these big toxic emitters,” said Carlson, co-director of UCLA’s Environmental Law Center.

Laws and regulations, too, sometimes contain loopholes that allow companies that release toxic chemicals to locate or expand in minority communities, the report says. For example, regional air quality officials are not required to consider the effect of emissions from a new plant in combination with other plants already there.

New Plants Face Tougher Standards

Since the environmental justice movement began in the late 1980s, many laws have been enacted to require government agencies to identify and correct environmental hazards that disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities.

Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar) secured $10 million this year to ensure that zero-emission postal trucks are used in low-income communities. The California Air Resources Board, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles Unified School District and AQMD have taken steps to replace diesel vehicles or use cleaner alternatives.

The AQMD recently tightened controls on toxic emitters, requiring new plants to meet more restrictive controls before they receive a permit.

The agency also developed a blueprint for controlling toxic air pollution in the region, including more stringent controls on spray-painting and a controversial measure to phase out perchloroethylene from dry cleaners, which the agency’s governing board is expected to consider early next year.

“This is not going to be solved overnight, but environmental justice is a focus we are trying to make sure all the boards and departments under our umbrella deal with,” said William Rukeyser, a spokesman for the California Environmental Protection Agency.