Recent research reveals alarming disparities in the exposure of historically underserved communities to hazardous Superfund sites across the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to assess risks from these sites. This cost-benefit assessment is a fundamental tool in protecting the public health of families living near operations. This systematic review highlights the urgent need for equitable funding and cleanup operations in areas disproportionately affected by environmental hazards.
Superfund sites are given a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score from 0 to 100. If a site scores greater than 28.5, it qualifies to be placed on the National Priority List. This prioritization ensures that these sites get the financial resources and attention needed to expedite remediation. The data paint a frightening picture. Environmental justice is of great concern since minority populations—including Black, Asian and marginalized communities—often reside closer to contaminated sites.
Disproportionate Impact on Minority Communities
The evidence shows that Black populations are overrepresented in areas surrounding Superfund sites, with a staggering 100% increase compared to communities not exposed to such hazards. In the same way, Asian populations face a larger disparity, with a 200% overrepresentation in host areas.
In New England in particular, the numbers are especially jarring. The Black population living near Superfund sites is 13.7 times larger than in unexposed communities. The trend is similar for our Hispanic population, who are 9.6 times as likely to live in these dangerous neighborhoods. Asian communities experience some of the highest pollution exposures. In Massachusetts, they suffer at levels 11 times higher right beside Superfund sites. In New Jersey it’s 10 times greater, and in New York, 8 times greater compared to unexposed areas.
These numbers paint a devastating picture of environmental injustice. America’s minority populations are bearing the brunt of toxic hazards due to historic, systemic inequities embedded in the fabric of American society.
The Need for Systematic Change
Combatting these inequities is about more than saying the right thing, it’s about doing the right thing. Farshid Vahedifard, environmental justice specialist. But real change will only happen, he says, once we develop systematic ways to recognize and address these inequities. He states,
“While we are presenting a systematic approach to screen and identify disparities, we also wanted to inform decision-making for more equitable funding allocation for cleanups.”
Vahedifard continues to explain why the Action Priority Matrix (APM) is so important.
“That’s why we developed the idea of an Action Priority Matrix.”
This tool gives practitioners a simple but robust rubric for prioritizing sites that require urgent action. Instead, it prioritizes the demographics of impacted communities to identify areas where funding is needed the most.
The ramifications of these sorts of frameworks go far beyond Superfund sites. Vahedifard notes that
“Beyond their immediate application to Superfund prioritizing, APMs can have broader implications for addressing systemic environmental justice issues in other areas, such as developing equitable climate adaptation strategies for critical infrastructure systems.”
By applying these principles more broadly, there is potential for significant improvements in public health and community resilience against environmental hazards.
A Call for Equitable Cleanup Efforts
The current state of Superfund site management reveals that approximately 80% of the U.S. population lives within 6.2 miles of at least one Superfund site. Alarmingly, close to 60% live in communities where remediation work – if any at all – has been woefully inadequate. This reality highlights a critical opportunity for policy change and improved funding formulae to address the burdens of this historical injustice.
Mohammed Azhar, a second proponent of environmental equity who would critique the current HRS score. He points out that
“The way that the Superfund HRS scoring is designed, it does not consider the makeup of communities that are impacted, and the fact that the location of the sites was already heavily skewed to areas with vulnerable, minority, and low-income populations.”
As this critique outlines, it is important to reconsider how HRS scores are determined and how they impact funding decisions.