Not in My Backyard: Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI as Tools for Achieving Environmental Justice
What Is Environmental Justice?
Environmental justice is the “fair treatment of people of all races, income, and cultures with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies, and their meaningful involvement in the decision-making processes of the government.” The first environmental justice cases were brought in 1979 in Texas and in 1982 in North Carolina. In 1979, residents of Northwood Manor in East Houston alleged that the decision to place a garbage dump in their neighborhood was racially motivated in violation of their civil rights under § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. The district court in Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Corporation found that the placement of the dump would irreparably harm the community. The court specifically found that the landfill would “affect the entire nature of the community, its land values, its tax base, its aesthetics, the health and safety of its inhabitants, and the operation of Smiley High School, located only 1700 feet from the site.” Unable to establish intentional discrimination with sufficiently particularized statistical data showing a pattern or practice of placing waste facilities in communities of color, and unable to provide the court sufficiently detailed factual information on the siting decision, the residents were not granted relief and the plant was built. The case, however, launched the use of the courts as a tool for the new movement and highlighted the need for data collection and access to information by communities challenging environmental decisions.
In 1982, African Americans in Afton, Warren County, North Carolina, protested a decision to place a highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) landfill in their community and captured national attention. Those protesting the landfill argued that the mostly African American community was selected because it was minority and poor. At the time, Afton was 84 percent African American and Warren County was one of the poorest in North Carolina. In fact, as reported by Dr. Robert Bullard in Dumping in Dixie, the Afton PCB landfill site was not “scientifically the most suitable” site, because the water table was a mere 5–10 feet below the surface and the risk of groundwater contamination was high.
It was during this time in the late 1970s and early 1980s that many low-income communities and communities of color across the country, including Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans, concluded that unequal social, economic, and political power relationships made them more vulnerable to health and environmental threats than the society at large. More than 10 years after these early efforts in Texas and North Carolina, race continues to play a significant role in decisions concerning the location of polluting facilities such as landfills and toxic dumps. EPA points to at least “76–80 studies that have consistently said that minorities and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks.” A 1983 General Accounting Office (GAO) study, Siting Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities, was one of the first studies to focus on the distribution of environmental risks. This study confirmed what environmental justice advocates believed, that racial minorities are burdened with a disproportionate amount of environmental risks. The report also confirmed that income was a factor in siting hazardous and toxic facilities. In other studies exploring the roles of both race and income, race was determined to be the stronger predictor of exposure to environmental hazards.
Four years after the GAO report, a more comprehensive national study by the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites, confirmed that race and ethnicity were the most significant factors in deciding where to place waste facilities, landfills, and other environmental hazards. In 1994, the follow-up report, Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited, found that the disproportionate environmental burden placed on communities of color had, in fact, grown since the 1987 report. The 1994 report found that “people of color were 47 percent more likely than whites to live near a commercial hazardous waste facility” and that between 1980 and 1993 the concentration of people of color living in areas with commercial hazardous waste facilities increased 6 percent, from 25 to 31 percent. A study by Evan Ringquist, Equity and Distribution of Environmental Risk: The Case of TRI Facilities, concluded that racial bias exists in the distribution and density of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) facilities, with African Americans and Hispanics exposed to the highest levels of risk. In 2001, Manuel Pastor, Jr., and Jim Sadd concluded that “the bulk of the research does seem to point to disproportionate exposure to hazards in minority communities.”
Housing segregation, the influence of race in local zoning practices, and infrastructure development all contribute to this disparity. Federal agencies, notably the Federal Housing Authority and the Veterans Administration, had practices that supported or fostered housing segregation. These practices included subsidizing suburban growth at the expense of urban areas, supporting racial covenants by denying African Americans mortgage insurance in integrated communities, providing mortgage insurance in segregated residential areas, and redlining.
Zoning practices and decisions that, on their face are race neutral, routinely allow communities of color and poor communities to be zoned “industrial” and significantly contribute to the disproportionate placement of hazardous and toxic industries in these neighborhoods. It has been established that areas zoned industrial have greater environmental burdens and health risks than areas only zoned for residential use. Therefore, zoning practices allowing heavy industry in minority and low-income communities contribute to the overall decline of these communities. As the presence of industry increases, property values decrease, community members are slowly displaced, and these areas become increasingly undesirable. The spiraling decline in property values makes locating industry in these areas increasingly attractive. The remaining residents, usually the poor and people of color, have no other housing alternatives and little political clout. Without political influence, these communities are not able to prevent siting and permitting decisions that have adverse environmental and health consequences. In short, these communities are not able to mount the “NIMBY” or “not in my backyard” defense.
A July 2003 report by the National Academy of Public Administration, Addressing Community Concerns: How Environmental Justice Relates to Land Use Planning and Zoning, citing the work of Juliana Maantay, reported that historical and current local land-use and zoning policies are “a root enabling cause of disproportionate burdens [and] environmental injustice.” The NAPA report also concurred with the conclusion put forth by Yale Rabin, that zoning and land-use decisions are often based on considerations of race and are powerful legal weapons “deployed in the cause of racism” by allowing certain undesirables to be excluded from areas. As a result, immigrant groups, the poor, African Americans and other people of color, and industry are often excluded from white and affluent communities. Local zoning and land-use decisions, however, need not only be a tool for racism or the creation of disparate impact. An awareness and careful consideration of the distributional issues, or disparities in the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, during the local zoning and land-use process would help address the disparate environmental and health impact on minority and low-income communities. Including representatives from affected communities on local planning and zoning boards and commissions may facilitate this awareness. NAPA reported that the most recent survey on the composition of planning commissions found that:
Most planning and zoning board members are men.
More than nine out of 10 members are white.
Most members are 40 years old or older.
Boards contain mostly professionals and few, if any, nonprofessional or community representatives.
While zoning and planning are state and local concerns, federal agencies could assist in reducing the disparities resulting from zoning and land-use policies by requiring local land-use authorities to incorporate and implement the concept of environmental justice in the zoning and land-use policies as a prerequisite for receiving federal funding. NAPA supports this approach.
While many point to racial segregation in housing and race-conscious land-use and zoning policies as factors contributing to disparities in the distribution of environmental burdens, others explain the disparities by examining market forces. A “market dynamics” interpretation seeks to account for the disproportionate number of hazardous and toxic facilities in communities of color and poor communities by establishing that these communities developed after the hazardous and toxic industrial facilities were established. According to the theory, these populations intentionally decide to live near hazardous and toxic sites as a result of market forces, specifically, cheap housing and the possibility of jobs. A study by Manuel Pastor on disproportionate siting versus “minority move-in” in Los Angles County, however, linked siting dates with addresses of toxic storage and disposal facilities to a database tracking changes in socioeconomic variables from 1970 to 1990. The study determined that areas scheduled to receive these facilities were mostly low-income, minority, and disproportionately composed of renters; after the facilities arrived, there was no significant increase in the minority population. It appears, therefore, that minorities attract toxic storage and disposal facilities, but these facilities do not attract minorities.
Luke Cole and Shelia Foster, in From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement, found “inconclusive empirical support to date for the ‘market dynamics’ explanation for racial or economic disparities in the distribution of hazardous facilities.” As also noted by Cole, proponents of the market dynamics explanation acknowledge that racial discrimination influences market forces by limiting housing options for African Americans and other people of color through discrimination in renting, redlining, zoning practices, and the discriminatory enforcement of environmental laws and regulations.
Communities Affected by Environmental Decision-Making
Whether based solely on race or on market dynamics influenced by race, minority communities in Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Jefferson County, Texas; Chester, Pennsylvania; and Macon, Bibb County, Georgia, live in some of the most polluted communities in the United States. In Ohio, for example, the top four polluters in Cleveland are all located in or adjacent to minority communities. Cleveland Laminating Corporation is located in a predominately minority community in Cuyahoga County; within one mile of the plant 90 percent of the population is minority. This plant is the third worst air polluter in the county and is in the top 10 percent in the country for releasing carcinogens into the air.
Jefferson County, Texas, ranks in the top 10 percent for the worst air quality in the country. The 240,000 people in Jefferson County face a cancer risk more than 100 times the goal set by the Clean Air Act. Seventy-two percent of the air cancer risk is from mobile sources such as cars and other vehicles, and 24 percent is from major industrial facilities such as chemical plants, steel mills, oil refineries, power plants, and hazardous waste incinerators.
In 2000, based on toxic chemical releases from manufacturing facilities, this county ranked among the “dirtiest/worst 10% of all counties in the U.S. in terms of air releases of recognized reproductive toxicants.” Chemicals with “reproductive toxicity” are chemicals resulting in adverse effects on the male or female reproductive systems. Reproductive toxicity may include changes in sexual behavior, decreased fertility, or increased miscarriages. Potential sources of land contamination in the county include three Superfund sites, and in 2000, this county ranked among the “dirtiest/worst 20%” of all counties in the United States in underground injection. Underground injection is a method of land disposal in which liquid wastes are injected into known geological formations. The two major cities in Jefferson County, Beaumont and Port Arthur, are predominately minority and suffer most from these hazardous exposures. Beaumont, with a population of slightly more than 113,000, is 45.8 percent African American and 7.9 percent Hispanic; while Port Arthur, with 57,755 residents, is 43.7 percent African American and 17.5 percent Hispanic. Clark Refining and Marketing, Inc., in Port Arthur, and Mobile Oil Corporation, in Beaumont, each ranked in the worst 10 percent in the country for criteria air pollutant emissions in 1999. In addition to these two facilities, 19 other chemical plants and refineries and related industries operate in just these two cities. In the two mostly white communities in the same area of Jefferson County, Port Neches and Winnie, there are only three facilities.
Chester, in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, is home to approximately 36,000 residents and one of the largest collections of waste facilities in the country. Seventy-five percent of Chester residents are African American as are 95 percent of residents in neighborhoods closest to the facilities. The poverty rate is 27.2 percent, three times the national average.
Bibb County, Georgia, has a population of 153,887; 47.3 percent of the population is African American, 50.1 percent white, 1.1 percent Asian, 1.3 percent Hispanic, and 0.2 percent Native American. The city of Macon in Bibb County, however, has a population that is 62 percent African American. Only 32 percent of the city’s residents have a high school diploma or GED, and 25 percent live below the poverty level. Air quality problems are related to the operation of two Georgia Power Company coal-fired power plants, Plant Scherer and Plant Bowen, near Macon. Another plant, Plant Arkwright, in Macon, contributes to the poor air quality. In 2000, it ranked in the worst 20 percent in the country for total environmental releases of major chemicals and wastes. In 1999, the Arkwright plant was among the worst 10 percent in the country for nitrogen oxide emissions and in the worst 20 percent for sulfur dioxide emissions.
Also in Macon are Riverwood International and Brown & Williamson Tobacco. A 1999 criteria air pollutant emissions report of Riverwood International found that the plant was among the worst 10 percent in the country for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Volatile organic compounds are defined as chemicals that participate in the formation of ground ozone; ozone is a respiratory toxicant and a significant contributor to smog. The 2000 rankings of major chemical releases or wastes placed Riverwood International in the worst 10 percent in the country in total environmental releases and in air releases of recognized carcinogens.
A 1999 criteria air pollutant emissions report ranked Brown & Williamson better than Riverwood International and Plant Arkwright in air pollutant emissions in Macon for the same period. Brown & Williamson, however, did have higher than average carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions. The 2000 rankings for major chemical releases or waste at this facility placed it in the worst 20 percent in the country for total environmental releases and air releases of recognized developmental toxicants.
There are other examples. In 2002, it was disclosed that for nearly 40 years, in the rural, poor, and minority community of Anniston, Alabama, the Monsanto Corporation, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills. EPA and the World Health Organization classify PCBs as “probable carcinogens.” It was reported that “thousands of pages of Monsanto documents—many emblazoned with warnings such as ‘Confidential: Read and Destroy’”—proved that the company intentionally concealed what it was doing and what it knew about the illegal dumping.
Increasingly throughout the nation, low-income residents and people of color are disproportionately exposed to a variety of environmental toxins in their respective neighborhoods, schools, homes, or workplaces. For example, a 1995 Washington State health survey indicated that in South Seattle, communities of color and those neighborhoods with a significant number of low-income residents house more industrial and waste facilities than other parts of the state. The report found that in several South Seattle neighborhoods, industrial facilities are next door to homes. In South Park, one Seattle neighborhood, “more than 40 industrial and waste facilities are situated within a one to five-mile radius of residential homes.”
Native American reservations have been consistently exposed to hazardous chemicals. Reservations have also become prime locations for solid waste landfills, military weapons testing, and nuclear storage facilities. In fact, “more than 35 Indian reservations were targeted for landfills, incinerators and radioactive waste facilities in the early 1990s.”
This may explain why Native Americans experience some of the worst pollution in the United States. Exposure to the waste facilities, landfills, lead-based paint, and other pollutants has an adverse impact on human health. Communities housing these facilities report increased rates of asthma, cancer, delayed cognitive development, and other illnesses.
Adverse Health Impact
Due in significant part to substandard air quality, asthma is emerging as an epidemic among people of color in the United States. A Centers for Disease Control report on asthma rates in 2000–2001 found that African Americans were 4 percent more likely to have been diagnosed with asthma than whites and that African Americans have an asthma death rate 200 percent higher that whites. The CDC reports in its National Asthma Control Program: Improving Quality of Life and Reducing Costs 2003 that “rates of severe asthma continue to disproportionately affect poor, minority, inner-city populations.”
Lead-based paint exposure and poisoning is a particular problem for poor children and families. For example, 35 percent of families with incomes of less than $30,000 live in housing with lead hazards. Compare this figure to that for families with incomes above $30,000; only 19 percent of these families live in housing with lead hazards. According to the CDC:
Childhood lead poisoning remains a major preventable environmental health problem in the United States. About half a million children younger than 6 years of age in the United States have blood lead levels of at least 10 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL), a level high enough to adversely affect their intelligence, behavior and development. Minority and poor children are disproportionately affected.
African American children suffer from lead poisoning at rates twice that of white children at every income level, but for low-income African American children the rate is 28.4 percent compared with 9.8 percent for low-income whites. According to researchers, this disparity is directly related to African Americans’ disproportionately residing in older homes because of racial segregation in housing.
The lead abatement programs of EPA and HUD are central to combating lead poisoning, which is often found in older housing and low-income housing units. Housing built before 1960 is five to eight times more likely to have lead hazards than housing built between 1960 and 1978. Lead is also found in soil and is related to the deterioration of exterior paints containing lead. The economic and age factors discussed in relation to lead-based paint prevalence in housing also hold true for bare soil lead hazards. The CDC supports consideration of health issues in decisions about housing and the environment. Such considerations are imperative if severe adverse health issues related to excessive lead-based paint exposure are to be eliminated. As noted previously, reduced intelligence, impaired hearing, reduced stature, and many other adverse health effects are linked to lead exposure.
Many communities are exposed to multiple pollutants and toxins. Federal agencies, however, have not adopted formal cumulative impact standards to assess the risk to human health from exposures to multiple chemicals from multiple sources, even though Executive Order 12,898 requires consideration of multiple and cumulative exposures. Additionally, there is no presumption that multiple exposures, in any amount, constitute an adverse health impact. EPA released its Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment in May 2003, calling it a “basis for future guidance” on cumulative risk assessments. The report does not create a protocol for assessing the health impact of multiple exposures. This “piling-on” of exposures should be given great weight when assessing the health risk associated with placing yet another facility in a neighborhood. Also a concern is the absence of a methodology or formal framework for conducting a cumulative risk assessment that considers social, economic, cultural, and behavioral factors that increase health risks.
The Executive Order requires that “human health research, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall include diverse segments of the population in epidemiological and clinical studies, including segments at high risk from environmental hazards, such as minority populations [and] low-income populations.” According to community groups and advocates, agencies have been slow in incorporating these groups into studies and research.
Finally, § 3-302 of the order requires federal agencies to collect, analyze, and maintain data assessing whether programs and activities have resulted in a disproportionately high and adverse health impact on minority and low-income communities. This requires agencies to collect data on environmental and human health risks borne by populations identified by race, national origin, and income.
Environmental Justice and Economic Opportunity
Despite the demonstrated health risks, locating waste and toxic facilities in minority and low-income neighborhoods is viewed, by some, as a welcome means of providing these communities economic opportunities. Supporters of the economic benefit theory point to the experiences of Select Steel and Shintech, Inc., as examples. Both facilities relocated from minority communities after environmental justice challenges were raised.
Select Steel promised to provide jobs in the economically disadvantaged community of Genesee County, Michigan. Community members, however, were concerned about the adverse health effects created by the Select Steel facility. Their protests, and challenges to the granting of a permit to Select Steel, forced the facility to relocate.
Similar events occurred in Louisiana involving Shintech’s proposal to locate a plastics plant near Convent. Company officials estimated that the facility would generate 2,000 temporary construction jobs and 165 permanent jobs in the predominately African American community with high unemployment. Convent is heavily industrial and located in a part of Louisiana referred to as “Cancer Alley,” an 80-mile area along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans with a heavy concentration of oil refineries and petrochemical plants. This area accounts for approximately one-fourth of the country’s petrochemical pollution. Because of health concerns, the community protested the presence of the Shintech plant and, eventually, the plant located elsewhere.
Many community and environmental advocates disagree that jobs are being created for the communities exposed to the greatest health risks. Chemical plants and other facilities, they note, do not hire local residents. The St. Lawrence Cement Plant, in South Camden, New Jersey, occupied 12 acres of waterfront property and cost $50 million to build. However, it created only 16 jobs, eight for the nearby neighborhood. Of the 1,878 permanent jobs created by the 10 chemical plants in St. Gabriel, Iberville Parish, Louisiana, only 6.7 percent, or 164 jobs, went to local residents, and these chemical plants employed only 20 African Americans from the local area.
Additionally, the data reflects that when better paying, skilled jobs are created they often require skills not present in the workers from the immediate community. St. James Parish, where Shintech sought to locate its Convent plant, has an African American population of approximately 10,300 or half of the total population of the Parish. Of this population there were only 17 qualified engineering technicians, 19 science technicians, and 20 qualified computer equipment operators. Chemical plants that located in St. James Parish did not have access to local workers with the skills they required. In the Convent area, only 58 percent of the population completed high school, and the Louisiana Chemical Association reported that the low educational level in the area impeded Shintech from hiring local residents. As a result of the lack of skilled workers, skilled and higher paying jobs are filled by commuters living in the surrounding suburbs.
For the jobs that are created, local residents are not given the right of first refusal or guaranteed access to training to prepare them for available jobs. In fact, EPA lacks legal authority to ensure that members of affected communities qualify for jobs created by a siting or permitting decision, and does not have authority to condition approval of state programs on their hiring practices. EPA does not maintain records of which state regulatory bodies condition permits on specific hiring practices, or the reasons for such conditions if they are imposed by the states.
Communities are concerned that they are being forced to choose between their health and the hope of economic opportunity. According to Dr. Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center, these families are not able to relocate to escape the hazards because racism, housing discrimination, and residential segregation “force many people of color to have to live next door to facilities. Racism has made it very difficult for many communities and many residents to exit environmentally threatening conditions.” There appears to be governmental support for policies that would continue to disproportionately place polluting industries in minority and poor communities to stimulate development. According to Michael Steinberg, an attorney with the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and head of the Environmental Practice Group, the emphasis should not be on “distributional issues,” but on using Brownfields redevelopment programs to clean up after facilities have shutdown:
And I would say not only do we not want to prohibit it. We have on the books, and indeed, the President is signing today a new law designed to encourage, to attract, to induce jobs, businesses, and industry into communities that are economically blighted, that are in need of redevelopment. Often environmental cleanup is the first step on the path to redevelopment, but federal and state governments around the country are pushing to bring jobs to these communities. And so to say that we’re going to shut the door because of concerns about distributional issues I think is really totally contrary to that policy.
The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, signed by President George W. Bush in January 2002, is laudable in that it seeks to bring economic development to areas by cleaning up abandoned, contaminated sites and redeveloping them for commercial or residential use. A 1992 evaluation by the National Law Journal, however, found glaring inequities in EPA’s cleanup enforcement efforts. According to the authors, “there is a racial divide in the way the U.S. government cleans up toxic waste sites and punishes polluters. White communities see faster action, better results and stiffer penalties than communities where blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities live. These conditions exist whether the community is wealthy or poor.” The same problems exist 10 years after this report.
In addition to uneven cleanup, Brownfields programs do not always result in beneficial reuse of properties in minority and poor communities due to lax enforcement of existing regulations, as described in the National Law Journal report and noted by environmental advocates. For example, the opening of a Home Depot as part of a Brownfields project in Harlem created 400 part-time jobs. Unfortunately, in addition to the jobs, the community experienced a significant increase in truck traffic and related emissions in an area with one of the highest asthma rates in the country. Some cities with Brownfields redevelopment projects seek to use the reclaimed properties for industrial purposes, potentially increasing pollution and exposure to environmental hazards. Other cities, however, seek mixed-use activity and non-polluting businesses. Community advocates support and encourage “clean” industry such as schools, colleges and universities, and financial institutions.
Even with these concerns about its fair enforcement and implementation, Brownfields redevelopment remains an important and necessary environmental and economic tool as noted by some advocates and in a December 2001 report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The report credits Brownfields redevelopment projects with revitalizing neighborhoods, increasing city tax bases, and improving the environment. Brownfields cannot, however, fully address the health and quality of life issues in the environmental justice context. Assisting local governments in identifying and attracting “clean” industry, instead of industrial plants or certain types of commercial activity, would be a significant step toward improving the usefulness of the Brownfields program. Ensuring equal enforcement and implementation of environmental regulations, including Brownfields and Superfund, as well as providing sufficient funding so that the progress of the cleanup efforts is not slowed, would aid in restoration of these communities.
Superfund, another hazardous waste site cleanup program, requires the responsible polluting parties to assume responsibility for cleaning up contaminated areas. Where the responsible parties cannot be located, or where a company no longer exists, the site is placed on a national Superfund list called the National Priorities List where EPA Superfund trust funds are used to pay for site cleanup. This program targets some of the worst hazard sites in the country for environmental cleanup, many in communities of color and low-income communities. If Superfund is to continue to be a useful tool, contributing to the cleanup of sites in many areas, it will require Congress to reinstate the “polluter pays” tax. The Superfund Trust Fund, established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to fund the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program, was supported by taxes until its authorization expired in 1995. The Hazardous Substance Superfund Tax, an excise tax on petroleum and other specified chemicals paid by the petroleum and oil industries, and the Corporate Environmental Tax were collected from companies and provided revenue for the Superfund Trust Fund. The trust fund used this money to complete cleanup at sites where the responsible party could not be located. The Bush administration opposes renewing the taxes supporting the trust fund; the funding for Superfund cleanup would, instead, come from the federal government’s general fund. As a result, the amount of money available for hazardous waste cleanup of some of the most hazardous waste sites in the country is declining. Before the taxes expired, the Superfund Trust Fund accounted for 83 percent of Superfund program funds and the general treasury provided 17 percent. In FY 2002, however, the Superfund program received $1.270 billion; only half of this amount came from the trust fund. The FY 2003 appropriation for the Superfund program is $1.265 billion; $700 million is from the trust fund and the balance from the general fund. The FY 2004 Superfund appropriation requested by the administration is $1.390 billion; $1.1 billion may come from the general fund and $290 million from the trust fund. The Congressional Research Service reported in May 2003 that by the end of FY 2003, the trust fund would contain only $159 million. Without the Superfund taxes, the contribution from the general fund must continue to increase if the Superfund program is to be effective.
Defenders of decreased Superfund funding argue that the program has accomplished its mission of cleaning up the most hazardous sites and that increased funding is not required. This view, however, was contradicted in a study commissioned by Congress to determine the need and required funding levels for Superfund. The report, completed by Resources for the Future, found that between FY 2000 and FY 2009 more than $15 billion is needed to operate the program and clean up nonfederal sites on the National Priorities List. For FY 2009 alone, the cost would be $1.61 billion, more than the Superfund appropriation for FY 2002, FY 2003, and the requested appropriation for FY 2004.
Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced an amendment to the budget bill seeking to reinstate the tax that was defeated in March 2003. An effort by Senator Lautenberg to amend the FY 2003 continuing resolution to increase Superfund program funding by $100 million also failed when the proposed amendment was tabled.
In January 2003, Senator Barbara Boxer introduced Senate bill 173 to extend the Superfund tax until 2014. This bill, called the “Toxic Clean-up Polluter Pays Renewal Act,” with 24 co-sponsors, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by reinstating the Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate and the Corporate Environmental Income Tax.
Clearly, race and class play significant roles in environmental decision-making; moreover, communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately affected by siting decisions and the permitting of facilities. Siting and permitting decisions are not, however, the sole sources of environmental concerns in these communities. Exposure to lead-based paint, diesel emissions, noise, odor, and other pollutants also diminishes the health of these communities.
Minority and low-income communities are most often exposed to multiple pollutants from multiple sources; however, there has been insufficient data collection and scientific research identifying the health risks created by these multiple exposures. Additionally, there is no presumption of adverse health risk from multiple exposures, and no policy on cumulative risk assessment that considers the roles of social, economic, and behavioral factors when assessing risk.
The Commission is also concerned that there may not be sufficient funding for long-term operation of the Superfund program. This is of special concern because a significant number of these sites are in minority and low-income communities. A review of the funds available through the Superfund Trust Fund and the general treasury fund may be needed based on the elimination of the “polluter pays” tax. Even when sufficient funding is in place for the long-term operation of Superfund, there should be a review of the administration of the Superfund program to ensure that all communities receive prompt attention and that sites in communities of color receive the same level and quality of decontamination as cleanup sites in white and affluent communities.
Therefore, the Commission recommends the following:
A renewed effort by federal agencies to collect, analyze, and maintain data on risks and exposures be undertaken.
Formal guidance on assessing cumulative risk should be created by federal agencies that considers the roles of social, economic, and behavioral factors when assessing risk.
Guidance should include a presumption of adverse health risks when populations are exposed to multiple hazards from multiple sources.
Federal agencies should disaggregate data on risks and exposures by race, ethnicity, gender, age, income, and geographic location if communities are to have the tools they need to defend environmental and human health and if agencies are to fulfill their obligations under Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI.
Federal agencies should require state and local zoning and land-use authorities, as a condition for receiving and continuing to receive federal funding, to incorporate and implement the principles of environmental justice into their zoning and land-use policies.
The funding scheme for the Superfund program should be reviewed by Congress to ensure that the program is effectively funded and administered.
 Christine Todd Whitman, administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, memorandum to Assistant Administrators et al., “EPA’s Commitment to Environmental Justice,” Aug. 9, 2001. See also Linda J. Fisher, deputy administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Washington, DC, Feb. 8, 2002, official transcript, p. 46 (hereafter cited as February Hearing Transcript) (environmental justice goes beyond Title VI and includes how agencies interact with all communities to ensure that no community becomes an “environmental dumping ground” due to lack of resources to defend its environmental health); Barry Hill, director, Office of Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, pp. 54–55 (involves ensuring the fair treatment of all people, including minority populations and low-income populations); National Environmental Policy Commission, Report to the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Environmental Braintrust, Sept. 28, 2001, p. 11; Louisiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Battle for Environmental Justice in Louisiana: Government, Industry, and the People, September 1993, pp. 1, 3 (environmental justice is the “attainment of environmental rights for all and the end of environmental racism” or racial discrimination in environmental policy-making and unequal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations).
 See Bean v. Southwestern Waste Mgmt. Corp., 482 F. Supp. 673 (S.D. Tex. 1979), aff’d, 782 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1986).
 482 F. Supp. at 677.
 Id. The court noted that census tract information, historical information on the placement of facilities, the number of permits granted and denied, the reasons for granting or denying permits, demographics shifts, and other information are important in establishing environmental justice violations. Much of this information was unavailable to the residents in Bean. Id. at 680.
 Robert D. Bullard, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality (Westview Press, 1990), pp. 35–38.
 Ibid., p. 36.
 Ibid., pp. 36–37 (citing Ken Geiser and Gerry Waneck, “PCBs and Warren County,” Science for the People, July/August 1983, p. 15).
 Barry Hill, director, Office of Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, p. 48.
 U.S. General Accounting Office, Siting Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status of Surrounding Communities, June 1983.
 Luke Cole, director, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, p. 16; Luke W. Cole and Shelia R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement (New York University Press, 2001), pp. 54–55, 167–83 (hereafter cited as Cole and Foster, From the Ground Up).
 United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites, 1987, pp. xiii, xiv, 13–21.
 Benjamin A. Goldman and Laura Fitton, Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited: An Update of the 1987 Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites (Center for Policy Alternatives and the United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice, 1994), pp. 2–4.
 Under § 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, industrial facilities in specific sectors are required to report their environmental releases and waste management practices annually to EPA. 42 U.S.C. § 11023 (1994). Beginning in 1988, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) collected information on releases of nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories from industries, including manufacturing, metal and coal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste treatment, among others. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Community Right to Know,” fact sheet, <http://www.epa.gov/tri/tri_program_fact_sheet.htm> (last accessed June 29, 2003).
 Evan J. Ringquist, “Equity and the Distribution of Environmental Risk: The Case of TRI Facilities,” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 78, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 811–29. See also J. Tom Boer et al., “Is There Environmental Racism? The Demographics of Hazardous Waste in Los Angeles County,” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 78, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 793–810.
 Manuel Pastor, Jr., Jim Sadd, and John Hipp, “Which Came First? Toxic Facilities, Minority Move-In, and Environmental Justice,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 23, no. 1, 2001, p. 3 (hereafter cited as Pastor et al., “Which Came First?”). See also Daniel R. Faber and Eric J. Krieg, Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards: Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the Philanthropy and Environmental Justice Research Project, Northeastern University, Jan. 9, 2001).
 National Academy of Public Administration, Addressing Community Concerns: How Environmental Justice Relates to Land Use Planning and Zoning, 2003, p. 26 (hereafter cited as NAPA, Addressing Community Concerns).
 Cole and Foster, From the Ground Up, pp. 69–73; Dr. Robert Bullard, director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, hearing, Washington, DC, Jan. 11, 2002, official transcript, pp. 43–44 (hereafter cited as January Hearing Transcript) (siting decisions are not race neutral).
 Juliana Maantay, “Zoning Law, Health, and Environmental Justice: What’s the Connection?” The Journal of Law and Ethics, vol. 30, no. 4, Winter 2002, p. 573 (hereafter cited as Maantay, “Zoning Law, Health, and Environmental Justice”).
 Ibid., pp. 577–78.
 See, e.g., Dr. Robert Bullard, director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, “Testimony of Robert D. Bullard, Ph.D.,” written statement delivered to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, Jan. 11, 2002, pp. 3–4 (hereafter cited as Bullard, written statement).
 Maantay, “Zoning Law, Health, and Environmental Justice,” p. 572; NAPA, Addressing Community Concerns, p. 25.
 Charles M. Haar and Jerold S. Kayden, eds., Zoning and the American Dream: Promises Still to Keep, “Expulsive Zoning: The Inequitable Legacy of Euclid,” by Yale Rabin (Chicago: APA Press, 1999), p. 107 (hereafter cited as Rabin, “Expulsive Zoning”); NAPA, Addressing Community Concerns, p. 25.
 Rabin, “Expulsive Zoning,” pp. 106–08. Zoning laws are ideally suited for racial segregation and black disenfranchisement. “Expulsive zoning” occurs when areas in residential use are zoned to allow industrial or commercial uses to encourage the displacement of the existing residents. Ibid., pp. 107–08. NAPA, Addressing Community Concerns, p. 27.
 NAPA, Addressing Community Concerns, pp. 27–30.
 Ibid., p. 50.
 Ibid., p. 52; Michael H. Gerrard, Esq., Arnold & Porter, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 73 (state laws lack environmental justice requirements).
 Cole and Foster, From the Ground Up, pp. 60–61.
 Pastor et al., “Which Came First?” pp. 1–21.
 Ibid., p. 18.
 Cole and Foster, From the Ground Up, pp. 60–61. See Vicki Been, Locally Undesirable Land Uses in Minority Neighborhoods: Disproportionate Siting or Market Dynamics? 103 Yale L.J. 1383, 1389 (1994).
 Cole and Foster, From the Ground Up, pp. 61–63.
 Deanne M. Ottaviano et al., “Environmental Justice: New Clean Air Act Regulations & The Anticipated Impact on Minority Communities” (paper delivered at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Conference, Washington, DC, June 2003), pp. 6–19 (hereafter cited as Ottaviano et al., “Environmental Justice: New Clean Air Act Regulations”).
 Ibid., p. 7.
 Ibid., p. 9.
 Scorecard, <http://www.scorecard.org> (last accessed June 23, 2003).
 Ottaviano et al., “Environmental Justice: New Clean Air Act Regulations,” p. 8.
 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Data, <http://factfinder.census.gov> (last accessed June 25, 2003).
 Scorecard, <http://www.scorecard.org> (last accessed June 30, 2003). See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “What Are the Six Common Air Pollutants?” <http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/6poll.html> (last accessed June 30, 2003) (six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide; EPA uses National Ambient Air Quality Standards for each criteria pollutant that define maximum legal allowable levels for each pollutant); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, “Draft Report on the Environment Technical Documents,” EPA 600-R-03-050, June 2003, Appendix D, p. D-4.
 Port Neches is 94.8 percent white, 0.9 percent African American, and 1.6 percent Asian; Winnie is 87.3 percent white and 5.3 percent African American. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Census Data, <http://www.factfinder.census.gov> (last accessed June 30, 2003). Huntsman Corporation, Duke Energy, and Ameripol Synpol Corporation operate in Port Neches and Winnie. See <http://www.scorecard.org> (last accessed June 30, 2003).
 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Census Data, <http://factfinder.census.gov> (last accessed June 25, 2003); see Cole and Foster, From the Ground Up, pp. 34–35.
 Cole and Foster, From the Ground Up, pp. 34–35.
 U.S. Census Bureau, <http://factfinder.census.gov> (last accessed June 25, 2003).
 U.S. Census Bureau, <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (last accessed June 30, 2003) (based on 2000 census data).
 U.S. Census Bureau, <http://factfinder.census.gov> (last accessed June 29, 2003) (poverty percentages based on 1999 income for all ages).
 Scorecard, <http://scorecard.org> (last accessed June 29, 2003).
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Report on the Environment 2003, pp. 1-5, D-15, <http://www.epa. gov/indicators> (last accessed July 12, 2003) (ozone formed when VOCs and other chemical compounds react to heat and sunlight).
 Ibid., pp. 1–8 (ozone associated with respiratory-related problems such as asthma). Ozone is a “very reactive form of oxygen” that forms through a chemical reaction in the atmosphere. In the lower atmosphere, ozone is considered an air pollutant. Ibid., p. D-10.
 Scorecard, <http://scorecard.org> (last accessed June 29, 2003).
 Michael Grunwald, “Monsanto Hid Decades of Pollution: PCBs Drenched Alabama Town, But No One Was Ever Told,” Washington Post, Jan. 1, 2002.
 See generally Gary Polakovic, “Poor and Minority Enclaves Are Cutting Through the Haze,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 11, 2001, p. 2 (hereafter cited as Polakovic, “Poor and Minority Enclaves”).
 Larry Lange, “Environmental Justice Sought As Part of State’s Pollution Rules,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 14, 2001, p. B-5.
 Ibid. See also Denis Cuff, “Pollution Suspected in Ailments,” Contra Costa Times, Dec. 3, 2001, p. A-3 (stating that “at least one child has asthma or allergies in half of the families in the Bayo Vista housing project south of the Phillips 66 refinery recently acquired from Tosco Refining, according to the survey overseen by Communities for a Better Environment, a pollution watchdog group”). An October 2001 study by the University of California at Los Angeles found that Latino communities are primarily affected by toxic industrial facilities, since they are three times more likely to live near a toxic industrial facility. In fact, six in 10 toxic industrial facilities are surrounded by neighborhoods with high minority populations. Polakovic, “Poor and Minority Enclaves,” p. 1.
 Dr. Robert Bullard, “It’s Not Just Pollution,” Our Plant, vol. 12, no. 2, 2001.
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Asthma Prevalence, Health Care Use and Mortality 2000–2001,” <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/asthma/asthma.htm> (last accessed July 16, 2003).
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “National Asthma Control Program: Improving Quality of Life and Reducing Costs 2003,” June 2003, p. 2, <http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/asthma/ataglance/asthmaAAG.pdf> (last accessed July 16, 2003).
 Institute of Medicine, Improving Health in the Community: Role of Performance Monitoring (National Academies Press, 1997), pp. 242–44.
 David E. Jacobs, Dr. Robert P. Clickner, et al., “The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 110, no. 10, October 2002, pp. A599–A606 (hereafter cited as Jacobs et al., “Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing”).
 Ibid., p. A599.
 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Lead Fact Sheet,” <http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/about.htm> (last accessed July 16, 2003) (hereafter cited as CDC, “Lead Fact Sheet”).
 Bullard, written statement, p. 2.
 H. Patricia Hynes, professor, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, pp. 77–79 (housing segregation caused African Americans to live in older housing, which increased lead exposure); Dr. Robert P. Clickner et al., National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing: Final Report, Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Apr. 18, 2001), p. 4-1 (older housing more likely to have lead-based paint); Dr. Robert Bullard, director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, pp. 31–32.
 Jacobs et al., “Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing,” pp. A599, A601–02.
 Ibid., p. A603.
 CDC, “Lead Fact Sheet.”
 Jacobs et al., “Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing,” pp. A599–A606.
 Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 123.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Response to the Commission’s Interrogatory Question 38, April 2002 (hereafter cited as EPA, Response to Interrogatory Question); Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Exec. Order No. 12,898, 3 C.F.R. 859 (1995), reprinted as amended in 42 U.S.C. § 4321 at 73, § 3-301(b) (1994 & Supp. VI 1998) (“whenever practicable and appropriate, shall identify multiple and cumulative exposures”) (hereafter cited as Exec. Order No. 12,898).
 EPA, Response to Interrogatory Question 39.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, EPA/630/P-02/001F, May 2003, p. xvii (hereafter cited as EPA, Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment) (defines cumulative risks assessment as “an analysis, characterization, and possible quantification of the combined risks to human health or the environment from multiple agents or stressors”).
 Richard Lazarus, “Environmental Justice and Law: An Environmental Law Professor’s Perspective,” written statement delivered to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Feb. 8, 2002, Washington, DC, p. 17.
 EPA, Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, pp. 67–69. See National Academy of Public Administration, Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting: Reducing Pollution in High-Risk Communities Is Integral to Agency’s Mission, December 2001, p. 46 (hereafter cited as NAPA, Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting); Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 123 (environmental justice communities lack adequate information on environmental risks).
 Exec. Order No. 12,898, § 3-301(a).
 Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 123 (environmental justice communities lack adequate information on environmental risks).
 Exec. Order No. 12,898, § 3-302.
 John K. Carlisle, Economic Opportunity and Social Issues Trump Environment as Top Concerns for Poor and Minorities (National Center for Public Policy Research, September 2000); Edmund Peterson, What Earth Day Means to Minority Citizens (National Center for Public Policy Research, April 1998).
 See Monique Harden, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, pp. 36; Damu Smith, campaigner, Greenpeace Toxic Campaign, Greenpeace, USA, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 115; Luke Cole, director, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, p. 29.
 Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 149 (“communities that bear the brunt of these facilities are not getting the jobs” and continue to experience high unemployment rates); Luke Cole, director, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, pp. 29–31 (a $280 million incinerator facility created 12 jobs for the community in South Central Los Angeles, mostly janitorial jobs).
 Luke Cole, director, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, p. 30.
 Elizabeth Teel, deputy director, Environmental Law Clinic, Tulane Law School, “Environmental Justice in Louisiana,” written statement delivered to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, Jan. 11, 2002, p. 13 (hereafter cited as Teel, written statement).
 See U.S. Census Bureau, <http://factfinder.census.gov> (last accessed June 25, 2003) (no significant change in African American population based on 2000 census; African Americans equal 10,606, or 50 percent, of the population in St. James Parish).
 Teel, written statement, p. 15.
 Ibid. Luke Cole, director, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Testimony, February Hearing Transcript, p. 31 (incentives such as tax breaks offered to attract industry undermine the ability of local residents to take advantage of higher paying, skilled jobs that are created because education institutions receive decreased funding to compensate for the tax incentives).
 Dr. Robert Bullard, director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 48.
 Elizabeth Teel Testimony, deputy director, Environmental Law Clinic, Tulane Law School, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 118 (people in these communities do not have the skill levels required to work in the facilities).
 EPA, Response to Interrogatory Question 43. See also Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 149 (companies do not ensure local residents employment at neighboring plants or facilities).
 EPA, Response to Interrogatory Question 43.
 Dr. Robert Bullard, director, Environmental Justice Resource Center, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, pp. 48–49.
 Ibid., p. 49.
 Michael Steinberg, counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 51.
 Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-118, Sec. 1, tit. II, § 211, 115 Stat. 2356, 2360–61 (codified at 42 U.S.C.S. § 9601(39) (2003)).
 Marianne Lavelle and Marcia Coyle, “Unequal Protection: The Racial Divide in Environmental Law,” National Law Journal, September 1992, pp. S1, S2.
 Ibid. See also Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 125.
 Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 130.
 U.S. Conference of Mayors, Clean Air/Brownfields Report, December 2001, p. 19 (hereafter cited as Conference of Mayors, Clean Air/Brownfields Report). The pilot projects in Baltimore and Dallas were considered “neutral” on the placement of industrial plants in redeveloped areas; however, these cities generally prefer “mixed-use activity and non-polluting businesses” in developed areas. Chicago, on the other hand, seeks to attract industrial land uses to its Brownfields redeveloped areas. Ibid.
 Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing, p. 131.
 Conference of Mayors, Clean Air/Brownfields Report, pp. 11–14; Peggy Shepard, executive director, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Testimony, January Hearing Transcript, p. 125 (Brownfields development has a nexus to economic development, environmental protection, and public health).
 Conference of Mayors, Clean Air/Brownfields Report, p. 11.
 See, e.g., ibid., pp. 43–45 (manufacturing facilities locating to Brownfields sites seek fewer air quality restrictions and potentially expose populations to increased health risks).
 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601–9675 (1994).
 “Nationally, three out of five African Americans live in communities with abandoned toxic waste sites; sixty percent of African Americans live in communities with one or more waste sites.” Bullard, written statement, p. 4.
 Katherine N. Probst and David M. Konisky, Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? (Resources for the Future, 2001), p. 2 (hereafter cited as Probst and Konisky, Superfund’s Future) (petrochemical tax, chemical stocks tax, and corporate environmental income tax fund the Superfund Trust Fund).
 Robert Perks and Gregory Wetstone, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rewriting the Rules, Year-End Report 2002, January 2003, p. 20; Congressional Research Service, Brownfields and Superfund Issues in the 108th Congress, the Library of Congress, IB10114, May 22, 2003, pp. 7–8, <http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/03Jun/IB10114.pdf> (last accessed July 14, 2003) (hereafter cited as CRS, Brownfields and Superfund Issues).
 CRS, Brownfields and Superfund Issues, p. 7.
 Ibid., pp. 4, 7.
 Ibid., p. 7.
 Ibid., p. 5; Probst and Konisky, Superfund’s Future, pp. xxiii, 156–59.
 Probst and Konisky, Superfund’s Future, pp. xxi, 159; CRS, Brownfields and Superfund Issues, p. 7.
 S.A. 408, 108th Cong. (2003) (amending S. Con. Res. 23, 108th Cong. (2003)).
 H.R.J. 2, 108th Cong. (2003).
 S.A. 192, 108th Cong. (2003).
 S. 173, 108th Cong. (2003).