Introduction

There is an inherent assumption in American environmental legislation that governmental agencies apply approximately uniform procedures and regulations over an entire jurisdiction (Gianessi, Peskin and Wolff, 1979). However, a number of recent studies reveal that pollution standards are not uniformly enforced in the United States (National Law Journal, 1992; Bryant, 1995). Decisions about what constitutes a pollution problem, what pollution needs to be controlled and what control measures to recommend are inherently political decisions. Pollution cannot be defined with precise scientific or mathematical finality; yet the definition of pollution is not an arbitrary construct. Pollutants are those substances which interfere with the use of air, water and soil for socially desired purposes. The definition of "pollution" and of what constitutes a "pollution problem" hinge on the concept of human use and are dependent upon the public's decision as to what use it wants to make of the environment. It is by linking scientific knowledge with the concept of public interest that one arrives at working definitions of pollution and what constitutes a pollution problem. These decisions are political decisions and definitions of what is pollution and what constitutes a pollution problem hinge on politics (Davies and Davies, 1973).

Pollution control is unavoidably the responsibility of government. The marketplace is not designed to control or regulate pollution. In fact, the effect of the marketplace is to encourage pollution, because air and water are free goods (Davies and Davies, 1973). Environmental regulations are expressions of government's recognitions and definitions of pollution problems. In an ideal context, government regulation is supposed to be an expression of 'public interest' and 'public good'. In practice, the politics of power and the politics of interest are directly expressed as government defines what it means by "public interest" and what it considers to be a "pollution problem."

Environmental regulatory staff are consistently making subjective judgments about where there is a problem and where to allocate agency resources. In their analysis of the Clean Air Act, Walker and Storper (1989) point out that regulatory personnel are influenced by two general forces. First, pressures which are exerted directly by lobbying threats and potential legal suits, political protests, voting blocks, etc. Second, individual judgments regarding the meaning of laws, beliefs about what is right and proper and understanding about what it is possible to do under prevailing social conditions. Internalized forces are conditioned by several mechanisms which include: pervasive ideologies which provide a definite view of how the world works and how it ought to work, by a previously established system of law, by the threat of external intervention if the wrong action is taken and pressures of market forces and interests in a capitalist system.

This article focuses on problems which emerge for residents who live in low-income communities impacted by small source polluters when environmental regulatory staff do not concur with their perception that there is a pollution problem in their community. The article discusses five main differences in perception between community residents and regulatory staff about the degree to which small source polluters constitute a "pollution "problem". First, differences in perception about the importance of looking at small source polluters vs. large source polluters as one defines what constitutes a "pollution problem." Second, differences in perception about the need to compare communities within the regulatory agency's jurisdiction to one another as one defines what constitutes a "pollution problem." Third, differences in perception about the need to take the resources of the regulatory agency into consideration as one defines what constitutes a "pollution problem." Fourth, differences in perception about the need to take the health of the business into consideration as one defines what constitutes a "pollution problem." Fifth, differences in perception about the need to take zoning regulations into consideration as one defines what constitutes a "pollution problem."

The article utilizes a case study to reveal how these five factors emerge and develop as community residents and regulatory staff independently define what constitutes a "pollution problem" in a local community. The article focuses specifically on the problems residents who live in low-income communities of color confront as they attempt to get environmental regulatory staff to recognize pollution problems resulting from toxic air emissions emitted into their community by small source polluters. Typically, small source polluters in low-income communities include: gas stations, dry cleaning stores, electronic assembly shops, remediation operations clean up, small furniture making shops and auto-repair and refinishing shops. The case study is a low-income, predominantly non-white working-class neighborhood impacted by small source toxic air emissions from paints, pigments and solvents used in auto-repair and refinishing shops located in their community. The case study is used to reveal and illustrate the problems residents who live in low-income communities confront as they attempt to work with regulatory agencies to address the problem of small source toxic air emissions into their immediate neighborhood.

Almost all of the research on community organizing around toxins focuses on communities exposed to toxins emitted from large-scale, typically industrial, sources. These include, for example, studies on chemical waste dumping at Love Canal (Levine, 1982), radiation emissions from a crippled power plant at Three Mile Island (Collins, Baum and Singer, 1983), groundwater contamination from an adjacent municipal landfill in Legler, New Jersey (Edelstein, 1988), carcinogens leached into the drinking water supply from industrial wastes in Woburn, Massachusetts (Brown and Mikkelsen, 1990), negative impacts related to the production and disposal of the industrial chemical creosote in Texarkana, Texas (Capek, 1993) plans to site a municipal landfill in Houston, Texas (Bullard, 1990), petrochemical facilities, such as those in Richmond, California (Belliveau, Kent and Rosenblum, 1989) and farmworker exposure to pesticides (Vaughn, 1990).

In contrast, this paper focuses on community organizing efforts to deal with small businesses who individually emit small amounts of toxins into the residential communities in which they are located on an almost daily basis in the course of their work. Because these businesses are small and because they emit much smaller amounts of toxins than large source emitters, such as a large industrial facility, public officials and regulatory staff are very reluctant to consider the communities in which these small businesses are located as having a "pollution problem". Typically, regulatory staff consider these shops to be "good neighbors" who simply need to make small adjustments to comply with existing environmental regulations. However, very often the decision of regulatory staff to not define toxic air emissions from small source polluters as posing a local "pollution problem" is in direct contrast to community perceptions about these facilities and, to community definitions of what constitutes a "pollution problem." I argue that resolving the very serious problem of conflicting perceptions between community residents and regulatory staff about what constitutes a pollution problem will only happen when we introduce a new approach to how we construct what we mean by a "pollution problem". I argue that this new approach must be "effects based analysis" rather than "source based analysis".

Small Source Emitters in Low-Income Residential Communities: Auto Refinishing Shops

There are approximately 66,000 auto-refinishing shops operating in the United States. The majority are located in low-income communities and communities of color zoned for mixed residential-commercial use; about two percent are franchises, the remainder are classified as independents. In addition, an estimated 68 percent of the nation's automobile dealerships, approximately 17,000 shops, have auto-refinishing operations. These 83,000 shops range in size from small shops having less than 6 employees and sales volume under $150,000 (40 percent) to volume shops with over 10 employees conducting $750,000 or more in sales (10 percent). Combined, these shops perform over $10 billion in sales annually. The majority auto-refinishing shops in the United States are small businesses.

Like many small businesses which emit hazardous substances, auto-refinishing shops typically locate in low-income mixed residential/commercial zones where the rent is cheaper, other like (related) businesses are located, and local residents have limited political power to effectively oppose their settlement. Because the shops are relatively small, sometimes housed in a single garage, dozens of shops can be concentrated in a two or three block area. Although small, when located in large numbers, small source emitters like auto refinishing shops can have a significant impact on a community's public health and well-being.

Many auto-refinishing shops escape thorough regulatory review either because they have existed for decades before modern air pollution laws became effective and are exempt from new source controls or because they are so small and/or the turnover so great that they operate illegally without air permits or even business licenses. (Ramo, unpublished, 1995). In the 9 Bay Area county region in which this case study was conducted, the penalty for operating an auto-refinishing shop without a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is to simply pay a fee of approximately $368.00. However, if the business qualifies as a "small business" which most auto-finishing shops located in residential neighborhoods do, the fee is reduced by 50%, to a total of approximately $226.00, less than $20.00 per month. As a result, in many low-income residential communities there are auto-refinishing facilities currently operating with minimal, and sometimes without any, pollution controls or air pollution limits (Ramo, unpublished, 1995).

Contributing to the regulatory problem has been the reluctance of regulatory agencies to place these sources under strict regulatory control. While significant in number, individual sources are not viewed by regulatory staff as posing a significant pollution problem to a community because the odors and toxic impacts from one shop are seen as affecting a relatively small number of people. Precisely because each shop is evaluated independently, regulatory staff usually conclude that toxins being emitted from an individual shop do not pose a threat to the health and well being of the residents who live in the neighborhoods in which these shops are located.

Typically, regulatory staff rely on a scientific method called "comparative risk ranking" to make decisions about which polluting facilities pose the greatest risk to individuals and communities. This method motivates regulatory staff to make choices between risks, ranking some as more important than others, rather than addressing all existing risks. Comparative risk is used by agency staff to develop a ranking of the most serious environmental risks in their jurisdiction and inform strategic thinking about how to mitigate those risks. It is based on the presumption that resources are limited and, therefore, ranking is required to enable regulatory staff and policymakers to allocate funds for environmental management efficiently. Comparative risk inherently implies that agency staff must make choices about which risks to mitigate and which to ignore. Because it emphasizes ranking, it puts risks, like large and small source emissions, into competition with one another, forcing choices to be made between which risks should be managed. In the case of small source toxic air emissions from auto-refinishing shops this typically leads regulatory staff to focus on large sources and ignore problems associated with cumulative impacts from exposure to many small sources, despite the fact that cumulatively residents may be being exposed to dangerously high levels of toxins (California Environmental Protection Agency, Comparative Risk Project, 1994).

The regulatory problem is further compounded by the fact that low-income residents living near auto repair and refinishing facilities are rarely aware of their rights or how to make a complaint; nor are they informed about the nature of the emissions or potential health impacts from these shops. Additional complications arise because these small businesses are perceived to be important to the economic health of a local community, even when relatively few local residents are employed there, and, because small businesses are perceived as having very limited resources to invest in pollution control, waste minimization, and/or pollution prevention technologies (Ramo, unpublished, 1995).

The typical small business auto-refinishing shop employs 5 persons, conducts about $400,000 worth of business annually and performs an average of 13 jobs per week. Typically, automobile refinishing is performed in conjunction with other body repairs necessitated by a collision involving the vehicle. Most jobs involve the repair and repainting of only a small portion of the vehicle although some jobs involve the overall repainting of a vehicle. For a typical shop, approximately 90 percent of the work consists of spot and panel repainting. The entire vehicle is completely refinished only about 10 percent of the time. For franchises however, these percentages are reversed; franchises usually specialize in repainting entire vehicles (EPA Control Technology Center, 1988). The vast majority, about 90%, of the jobs done by small business auto-refinishing shops are paid for by insurance agencies (Pinderhughes and Silverman, unpublished, 1997).

The first step in the auto-refinishing process is to prepare the substrate surface of the vehicle for subsequent coating. Typically, operators use a solvent to remove wax, grease and other contaminants before priming. The second step involves applying primers to fill surface imperfections to provide corrosion protection and provide a bond for the topcoat. Three basic subcategories of primers are used: precoats, primer surfacers and primer sealers. The third step involves applying a series of topcoats over the primer which determine the final color. Topcoat resins include acrylic lacquers, acrylic enamels and polyurethanes. The final phase consists of cleaning spray gun and other equipment used. This typically consists of thoroughly rinsing the affected equipment with solvent to remove any paint particles present. Each of these steps results in the emission of toxins into the air. Almost all of the paints and solvents also emit noxious fumes which remain in the air anywhere from 5 to 45 minutes depending upon chemical composition, the size of the job performed and prevailing wind patterns.

Over the past few years, air pollution and toxic air emissions have figured prominently in the popular and academic literature as one of the major sources of environmental stress in modern urban society. Although air pollution is not seen as an exceptionally powerful stressor, as compared, for example, to exposure to hazardous waste, air pollution is considered to be a chronic, stable and daily hassle affecting large numbers of people in urban society (Zeidner and Shechter, 1988). Air borne emissions from auto-refinishing products can contain lead, cadmium and chromium and a number of solvents, such as toulene and methyl ethel ketone (MEK) that can cause significant health impacts to those exposed. All three metals are considered carcinogens by the State of California. MEK can cause reproductive effects, potentate peripheral neuropathy, chemical burns in the eyes, central nervous system depression, headache, nausea, dizziness and liver and kidney injury. Toulene may cause liver and kidney damage, heart palpitations, birth defects and reproductive problems (Gephart and Hicks, 1990; National Academy of Sciences, 1977; Evans and Jacobs, 1981; Higgens and Ferris, 1973).

Paints, pigments and solvents used in the auto-refinishing process contain airborne particles, called "particulates", and chemicals called "hydrocarbons". Particulates are finely dispersed materials which can be either liquid and solid. They enter the respiratory system as dusts, soot and mists. The size, shape and chemical components of a particulate determine where it will be deposited in the respiratory tract. The smaller the particle, the deeper it reaches into the respiratory tract, depositing itself in the trachea, the bronchus and/or the alveoli (smallest passageways in the lung, where oxygen exchange takes place) by processes called sedimentation and diffusion. Hydrocarbons are organic compounds containing carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons have been linked to eye and respiratory tract irritation, dizziness and loss of coordination. Exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons, such as toluene, has been linked to cancers and reproductive disorders (Gephart and Hicks, 1990).

Although far fewer studies have been devoted to an analysis of the psychological consequences of exposure to air pollutants, studies which exist show that exposure also has an effect on cognitive and emotional responses. Empirical investigations of cognitive and emotional responses have shown that exposure to air contaminants can result in feelings of discomfort, irritability, depression, anxiety, tension, nervousness and hopelessness (Evans and Jacobs, 1981; Evans and Campbell, 1983; Lebovits, Baum and Singer, 1986). Increased concentrations of air pollutants can affect the emotional state of exposed persons ranging from subclinical alterations of mood to pronounced psychopathological symptoms (Bullinger, 1989). Areas of psychological research include studies on the effects of air pollution on sensory processing, on attitudes, perceptions and activities and, on the identification of cognitive and emotional effects of pollution on individuals and communities. In addition, exposure to air pollutants has been shown to effect human behavior. In many communities residents are particularly disturbed by noxious odors and exposure can have a direct effect on decisions about recreation, physical activity, location and migration, task performance, and daily activities.

Site, Data Collection and Sample

1. Site

Between 1993 and 1995, the author interviewed residents who live in a low-income, predominantly non-white neighborhood located in an area zoned for both residential and commercial uses. The area in which these residents live is one of two predominantly non-white areas in the city in which it is located. Within the city overall, the white population has ranged from 74% in 1960 to 58% in 1990. In contrast, within the census tract area in which the case study was conducted, the White population has been much smaller-- 49% in 1960; 27% in 1970, 25% in 1980 and 26% in 1990. For the past three decades, the majority of the residents who live in the census tracts in which interviews were conducted have been non-white. The area has always had a large African American population, fluctuating from 46% in 1960, 67% in 1970, 54% in 1980 and to 45% in 1990. A small but growing immigrant Latino population, predominantly of Mexican origin, has been present in the area since at least the 1960s, increasing from 14% in 1960 to 22% in 1990. The Asian population has increased from 5% in 1970 to 8.5% in 1990.

The area has also had a consistently higher percentage of children compared to citywide levels and to other areas in the city. Rates for children under five have exceeded citywide levels since 1960 by +3.2% to +5.2% and the number of children under eighteen in the area has exceeded city wide totals by +12% to +47%. Most of the children in the area are African American or Latino. Percentages of non-white children under eighteen were 85% in 1970, 94% in 1980 and 84% in 1990. This contrasts with citywide totals of 52% in 1970, 47% in 1980 and 51% in 1990 (Bureau of the Census, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990).

The case study area is located in one of the city's poorest districts. In terms of both per capita and median family income, the case study area ranks among the lowest when compared to other census tract areas in the city. In 1990, per capita income in the case study area was $11,890 compared to the citywide figure of $18,720. Median family income in the case study area consistently fell below the citywide median from 1960 to 1990 by twenty percent. The number of families living below the poverty level also exceeded citywide percentages by +8% in 1970, +14% in 1980 and +11% in 1990. In 1990, the Census Bureau reported that twenty percent of families living in the case study area lived below the poverty line (Bureau of the Census, 1990). About half of the housing units in the case study area are renter occupied. This basically reflects citywide figures. However, in contrast to other areas of the city, many housing units in the case study area are occupied by tenants receiving public assistance and housing subsidies and the median housing unit value for the case study area is well below that of most other areas of the city.

Since the 1940s, the area has been zoned as the only district in the city for industrial use and just about any other uses as well. Since that time, the area has consistently been a mix of industrial, commercial and residential uses. City government understands that the area is its only industrial area and city officials have been continually frustrated by the regular flow of residential opposition to noise, odors and toxic emissions from industries into their communities. The neighborhood is bordered on the east, south and north by major traffic corridors, one of which is a state highway where the majority of the city's auto-refinishing shops are located. Its most western edge is two blocks from the railroad tracks.

Auto-repair and refinishing shops began to move into the area in the 1950s. At that time, the area had already been zoned for mixed residential/industrial use. However, as a direct consequence of zoning restrictions and residential opposition to auto-refinishing businesses in other areas of the city, the area gradually became the location for almost all of the city's auto-repair and refinishing shops. At the same time, zoning restrictions in other areas of the city confined all of the city's industrial facilities, almost all of which emit toxins into the local air, soil and water, to this area exclusively. This resulted in the case study area being disproportionately bearing the burden of the city's polluting industries, both large and small. By 1960 the area had become identified as the city and local region's "auto repair and refinishing strip". Permits were easy to obtain, zoning regulations remained favorable to auto-related businesses, and related businesses located in the same area. The city identifies auto-repair and refinishing businesses as "good businesses" because they generate revenue through taxes and through the fees that they paid the city for emitting toxins, because they provide employment, although there is no evidence that they employ residents who live in surrounding neighborhoods and, because they are not seen as posing a pollution problem. By 1997, all other areas of the city had successfully used the zoning process to prohibit all new auto-repair and refinishing businesses from locating in their communities. Importantly, the case study area was the last district in the city to pass an updated plan which would have resulted in changes in zoning. As a result, when residents organized to restrict auto-related businesses over time, city planners informed residents that any attempt to restrict auto uses when they had "nowhere else to go" was "unfair and discriminatory" (authors field notes, 1997).

In 1993, when fieldwork began, there were 34 auto-refinishing shops located in a 10 block area located along the state highway where the majority of the auto-repair and refinishing shops are located. By 1997, when field work ended, the number had increased to 36 shops. This 10 block area also contained two large gas stations, several furniture making shops, two industrial carpet cleaning businesses, three large car lots, one oil changing shop, a large car washing facility, one large franchise muffler shop, and a large tire repair facility. In one three block residential area, more than 35% of the businesses were auto related businesses. Most of the housing in this area shared part of its property with an auto-repair or refinishing shop.

Prevailing wind patterns blow the odors and particulate matter emitted from these small businesses into the case study neighborhood. The odor emanating from the auto-refinishing businesses can be quite noxious. Interviews reveal that residents report that the odor from the shops "smells like turpentine or lacquer", "that it smells sour", "that it smells like chemicals" (author fieldnotes, 1993). They also report that smelling the odor makes them "nauseous", "gives me a pain in my throat", "makes me dizzy", "makes me want to run inside" (author fieldnotes, 1993, 1994).

The odor from the shops can remain in the local air anywhere from a few minutes to many hours depending upon the number of cars being worked on in a given day, the extent of the paint jobs and prevailing wind patterns. The particulates, which look like tiny specks of paint in varying colors, drift with the wind and eventually settle on people's cars, on their houses, on their sidewalks, on their trees, on their lawns and vegetable gardens and on their children playing outside.

2. Data Collection

The main data collection technique was the structured interview format. Questions were open-ended using an inverted funnel sequence design (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996). The interview questions were designed to obtain in-depth information in three areas: (1) how residents defined something in their neighborhood as posing a "pollution problem"; (2) the resident's perspectives about the actual impact (conditions) of the sources they defined as a "pollution problem"; (3) the history of neighborhood community organizing efforts to decrease noxious odors and toxic air emissions from auto-refinishing shops located in their neighborhood. Interviews were conducted between 1993 and 1995.

The sample was a purposive sample. A total of 25 households were included in the study. In all but three households, all of the adults in the household were interviewed; this included parents, any children over age 18 and any other adults living in the households. A total of 41 adults were interviewed. Everyone in the sample met three criteria. First, they lived within a 13 block area adjacent to the auto-repair and refinishing strip. Second, they lived within 2 blocks of an auto-refinishing shop which they had previously identified as "posing a problem to themselves, members of their family and/or their neighborhood." About 80% of the sample lived in a home which was located either next door or behind an auto-refinishing shop, sharing their sideyard or backyard property with an auto-refinishing shop. About 20% of the sample lived across the street from an auto-refinishing shop. Third, everyone in the sample reported being impacted by noxious air emissions. About half of the residents interviewed had been or were currently active in community organizing efforts to decrease air pollution in their neighborhood.

3. Sample

The sample included both long and short term residents. Long-term residents were defined as "residing in the neighborhood for 15 or more years." Short-term residents were defined as "residing in the neighborhood for no more than 5 years" at the time the interview took place. The majority of the sample (90%) were long-term community residents. The sample included both home-owners (55%) and renters (45%). The average income of the residents interviewed was $17,000/year.

The sample was 37% percent White, 34% African American, 12% Latino and 17% Philippino. The average age was 45 years old; 85% of the sample was between the ages of 30 and 65; 15% were over age 65. The sample included more women than men, this is because about 40% of the households sampled were headed by single women with children.

Findings

1. The Pollution Problem: Toxic Air Emissions from Small Sources

The data reveal that both long- and short-term residents are effected almost daily by noxious fumes associated with toxic air emissions from auto-refinishing shops. Interviews with long-term community residents reveal that long-term residents recognized that there was a problem very shortly after an auto-refinishing shop opened for business near their home. All of the long-term residents, with the exception of two renters, reported that they would "not have moved into the neighborhood if they knew they would have to deal with odors from an auto-refinishing shops."

Ninety percent of long-term residents report that a shop was located near their home for at least 15 or more years. However, the data reveals that, until the early 1980s, with the exception of two residents, residents recognition of a problem was linked only to the noxious odor that they identified as coming from the shops; they were not concerned about possible negative health impacts of toxic air emissions. However, all of the residents report that they remember getting dry throats and/or coughing when they were outside working and the smell was strong as soon as the shop(s) opened for business; for some residents this was as early as 27 years previous to being interviewed. Yet, despite these symptoms, their concern about the shops was limited to concern about "the smell." One female resident, who had lived in the neighborhood for 15 years at the time she was interviewed, stated:

"Effecting my health? Oh sure. I remember my throat would get all itchy and I'd start to kind of cough or make throaty sounds, little throaty coughs like, and I'd realize it was time to go inside. But it was the smell I was thinking about, dreaming about really. I couldn't stand it and that's what I wanted to get rid of. Now, looking back, I realize I was just plain stupid not to realize it was more than the smell I should have been worried about. Hell, I should have been thinking about my lungs, my chest, my brain even, but who knew."

Long-term residents report that throughout the 1960s and 1980s individual residents spoke with individual shop managers and owners about the odor problem. Some residents who shared their backyards with the shops report that they also spoke with shop owners about problems with workers dumping parts into their backyards, painting cars to near to their fences, working on cars late at night and parking cars in the street area in front of their homes. However, until the early 1980s, there was no formal community based effort to deal with these problems in any formal way. Although many of the residents (60%) were members of a block association, residents who were active in a block association during this period report that did not deal with the "pollution problem" in the association. They report that they did not bring it to the attention of the association for two main reasons. First, they were preoccupied with dealing with what they then defined as "more serious" community problems, particularly drug dealing, crime and prostitution. Second, until the 1980s, they did not recognize that their health was being negatively effected by toxic emissions.

All of the long term residents, with the exception of two people, report that it took many years, almost two decades, before they began to suspect that there was a relationship between products used in the auto shops and emerging health problems in their community. Their suspicion was aroused in the mid and late 1980s when three adult residents, none of whom smoked, died of lung cancer. Following these deaths, younger family members of the deceased began talking about the connection between public health and the bad smell from the auto-refinishing shops. After sharing information more formally, they learned that many of the residents had respiratory problems. According to one of the residents,

"We started talking and we found out that about nine people had bronchial coughs, the kind that keep you coughing all the time; about six people had asthma and all the parents either had or knew of young children in the neighborhood who had asthma. We found that out and we started to get worried... this was not an accident".

Interviews with short-term residents reveal that they recognized that there was an odor problem coming from the auto-refinishing shops near their homes shortly after they moved into the neighborhood. All of the short-term residents reported that they had not been aware of this particular problem before they moved into the neighborhood. However, in sharp contrast to long-term residents, all the short-term residents report that as soon as they became aware of the problem, they started thinking and worrying about possible negative health impacts from the noxious smell. Perhaps this is because, with the exception of one resident, the short-term residents are younger (on average 10 to 20 years younger) than long-term residents and the younger generation has been more sensitized to environmental issues in the post 1970 period. Perhaps it is because the majority of the short-term residents were more educated than the long-term residents and their education provided them with more access to information about environmental hazards. Perhaps it is because almost all except one of the short-term residents were parenting young children under 11 years of age and/ or pregnant at the time they moved into the neighborhood.

A second significant difference between short-term and long-term residents was that the newer (short-term) residents were determined to resolve the situation. It was the newer residents who formally brought the matter to the attention of the block association, before they knew anything about associated respiratory problems and lung cancer deaths. It was the newer residents who contacted the regulatory agencies, wrote a petition about the problem and worked with long-term residents to take it around the neighborhood for others to sign, who got the number of the air district complaint line and sought other means of alleviating the problem.

Both long-term and short-term residents report that their quality of life and decisions about how to spend their time were significantly effected by the odor problem. They report that when the smell was bad, they were not able to work in their gardens or spend time in their backyards, including on weekends. They report having to run inside the house in the middle of a conversation with a neighbor on the street in the front of their home; demanding that their children stop playing in the yard and come inside; feeling embarrassed when visitors ask them about "that terrible smell" and not opening their windows, despite the warm weather, for fear of the odor or particulate matter entering their homes.

Both long-term and short-term residents report that they had "thought about selling their home or renting another home at least once due to the smell and/or possible health problems from the toxins." All of the homeowners in the sample report that they thought about selling their home in order to escape the odor and possible health impacts of exposure. All of the homeowners report being concerned about how the odor problem effected the value of their home. With the exception of one household, all of the homeowners reported that they would not tell potential buyers about the odor because it would prevent someone from buying their home. This is interesting because all of the recent homeowners, and a few of the homeowners who purchased property in the last 15 years, reported that they were frustrated that the previous owners of their homes had not told them about the smell because if they knew about it they would have purchased a home farther away from the shops.

2. Community Organizing:Who Decides What Constitutes a Pollution Problem?

In 1991, a group of residents whose property was located on a block adjacent to a part of the strip which contained 12 auto repair and refinishing shops, one of which was the biggest auto-paint shop on the strip, began to register almost daily complaints about the odor with the air districts complaint line. After about two-three months, they report realizing that the air board inspectors who came into the neighborhood to verify the odor complaint did not appear to agree that there was a "pollution problem" in their community. They report that it became very clear to them after frequent (often daily) conversations with the same agency inspectors, that these officials did not identify their community as having a "pollution problem" or as being negatively impacted by emissions from these shops. After about 4-5 months, most of the residents report that the inspectors began to appear more and more frustrated by, and even hostile to, their calls. Several residents report that inspectors told them they "were lucky they didn't live near the "C" facility", a very large industrial polluter located about 10 miles away in an adjacent county within the inspectors jurisdiction. Others report being told that "the real problem in this neighborhood comes from the traffic, not from the shops." Several residents report being told that "it was not in their (the residents) interest to complain because neighborhoods like this one, (meaning low-income neighborhoods) need small businesses because that's the only source of employment for local residents (implying that local residents could not get work elsewhere) and that making it hard for them (small businesses) to operate by 'harassing them' would force them to move elsewhere." Several also reported being told that "if they didn't like it here they should not have bought a house in an industrial zone." One resident reported being told by an inspector "I'd never buy a house in an industrial zone." Another resident reported being told by an inspector "I made the mistake of buying a house near an auto-body shop, now my wife's pregnant and I'm trying like hell to sell it."

What is important to note about these statements, is that regulatory staff communicated to the residents that they understood that local auto-refinishing shops emitted noxious odors and toxins, but that they did define these emissions as posing a "pollution problem" for local residents. Interviews reveal that the residents concluded that the reason inspectors decided that there was no problem in their neighborhood was because, "there are no chimney stacks with black smoke looming over our homes"; because, "the odor comes and goes"; because, "no cancer cluster had been discovered", of course, as this resident also explained "no studies have ever been done either so how would they know"; because relative to large source polluters, individual emissions in their community were quite low-- "they think 'cause we don't live near C , (the large industrial facility) we're doing just fine" and because, "these shops are not considered to be in violation of air district regulations"

After about six months of regularly complaining to the air board, three residents had a formal meeting with members of the air district. At this meeting they learned that, despite the noxious odor, the shops were considered to be in compliance with district regulations. They also learned, to their shock and dismay, that this did not mean that the owners of these shops were conforming to air district regulations but rather, that an auto-refinishing shop was considered to be in compliance if it had been cited for a violation but had paid the fine associated with the violation or would pay that fine before a specified date. As long as fines were paid the agency considered the facilities to be in compliance. This held true even if the facility was operating without a permit.

After learning this, residents requested information on how they could pressure the agency to take action against facilities considered in compliance with district regulations but which were clearly emitting noxious odors and toxins, resulting in potential health problems. They learned that in order to establish that there was an odor problem, the agency had to have evidence of a "public nuisance." Public nuisance could only be established when the agency received "confirmed" complaints from five different households in one day. Confirmation was established when an inspector responded to an individual complaint by coming to the door, smelling the air and confirming that in fact there was an odor problem. Inspectors needed to show up within 3 hours of a resident's call to the agency's complaint line. Although residents spent over a year and a half attempting to document a public nuisance problem in their community their efforts were futile. They discovered that it could take an inspector anywhere from one to three hours to answer their complaint, during which time the odor had dissipated completely due to the fact that the paint job had been completed long ago. They also discovered that it was extremely difficult for them to get five residents to call the district about odors from a particular shop on the same day. People's schedules varied; many people were working, others were inside, others were out shopping or taking the children to school; others could not wait at home for an inspector to arrive.

These experiences, with the inspectors and with trying to establish public nuisance, gradually led the residents to feel that government strategies for dealing with local air pollution problems from small sources were not designed to solve their problem but rather to help agency staff figure out which local problems they could ignore. They also came to feel that the officials who were supposed to be enforcing air pollution regulations in their community had devised ways to get around them and found reasons not to enforce them. The responses they got from staff at other agencies confirmed this impression. They were told by staff members from the Department of Toxins that, although there might be a problem, they had no time to inspect the facilities in question because they had too many cases. They were told by OSHA staff that they could not get involved until the workers complained, although OSHA regulations do allow for citizen complaints against a facility on behalf of exposed workers. They were told by zoning staff that they lived in a community zoned for residential and business uses and that they should have thought about these problems before deciding to move into a mixed residential/industrial district.

According to one resident:

"Our problem stems from three issues. First, the agency staff doesn't view small source emissions as a problem. They compare our little odor problem with petrochemical emissions from the "C" plant and tell us how lucky we are to be living here and not there. Second, these businesses are seen as being quote unquote, as in compliance, with agency regulations. It doesn't matter if they're cited for painting outside the spray booth or using the wrong spray guns, as long as they pay they fine they're in compliance. And the way those people think, as long as there's compliance, it's impossible that a business could pose a health problem to a community. Third, the agency doesn't believe that there's a public nuisance problem because by the time they get out here to confirm an odor it's gone; so as far as they're concerned the issue of the odor problem is not seen as a problem either. And another thing, they keep telling us we chose to live in a mixed residential/commercial district and that if we didn't want to live near businesses we shouldn't moved here. They know something's happening here but they don't give a damn about us!"

Despite three years of intensive, directed community organizing, residents were unsuccessful in getting the air district to agree that there was a "pollution problem" emanating from the shops in their community. From the air boards perspective, the shops were in compliance and, based on this fact, there was nothing that could or should be done-- there was no problem. If in the course of doing business, toxic emissions and odors were released, neighbors would have to live with it.

In 1994 the residents organized a campaign to put direct pressure on individual businesses to change their hours of operation and introduce a series of minor pollution control measures (raising the stacks and taking off the cap) to reduce the impact of the odor into their neighborhood from a large auto-paint shop. Their main two tactics were for individual residents to call the businesses directly everytime there was a problem and to assign two residents to meet with the owners or managers of individual shops to pressure them on behalf of the community. The residents were assisted in their efforts to negotiate with individual businesses by students from a law school environmental clinic who provided them with much needed professional clout and helped them to draft a model good neighbor agreement which reflected their concerns and addressed them to a limited degree.

In one three block area, heavily impacted by auto-repair and refinishing shops, residents were successful in getting one large shop to relocate when its lease came up for renewal and, they were then able to negotiate, with the help of law school students, a good neighbor agreement with the shop that moved into this space. The result was that the community achieved some improvement (decreased odor and shorter hours of operation) in the aesthetic environmental quality of their neighborhood. Residents in this block area were thrilled with this change and considered it quite a victory. However, the more serious problem of the cumulative negative impact of toxic air emissions on public health from auto-refinishing shops on the strip was not addressed and the residents knew this to be the case. When field work ended in 1997, residents were still engaged in the struggle to find ways to effectively deal with the problem of toxic air emissions from auto-refinishing shops into local neighborhoods. The interviews reveal their intense frustration with the fact that their efforts were crippled by the air district's and city officials contradictory dual position. On the one hand, the shops were considered to be "in compliance" with existing regulations and, therefore, it was assumed that there was no "pollution problem" or threat to the public interest. On the other hand, any possible problems that the shops might pose were viewed by these same regulatory staff and public officials as negligible compared to problems caused by large sources.

Conclusion

Although this case study is illustrative of many issues, its purpose in this article is to illustrate the barriers residents who live in low-income communities plagued by small source polluters confront when regulatory staff do not define an environmental problem which they have identified in their community as a "pollution problem". It is also illustrative of the subjective nature of governmental regulation and enforcement. Further, it illustrates some of the conflicts which can emerge over conflicting perceptions about what constitutes a "pollution problem." In the case of government vs. residents perspectives, differences in perception frequently stem from very different ideas about what use to make of a local environment. This is particularly true in areas which are zoned for mixed residential/industrial and/or commercial use. When government does not concur that there is a "pollution problem", the initial, and often the most difficult, problem confronting residents is to get agency staff and public officials to recognize that there is, in fact, a pollution problem in their community. Only then will regulators and planners consider allocating resources and devoting time to resolving it. Public officials use regulatory staff decisions to provide the foundation for zoning and development decisions. The case reveals that this difference in residents vs. regulatory perception stems from five factors, each of which is summarized in some detail below.

First, residents define a source as a "pollution problem" if the emissions from that source directly effect their well-being and their health. The size of the source or the volume of its emissions is completely irrelevant to their identifying a problem.

In contrast, regulators see small source polluters as posing no problem because, from their perspective, no single shop is emitting sufficient amount of pollutants to pose a problem to human health. They can conclude this because they blatantly disregard the cumulative impacts of these shops.

Second, residents define a source as a "pollution problem" if the emissions from that source directly effect their well being and health independent of the fact that other polluters in other neighborhoods are emitting larger amounts of toxins into these other neighborhoods and that these other communities may, consequently, face larger problems. These references are not relevant to a communities defining a "pollution problem" in their locale as a problem. In contrast, regulators do compare small source polluters to large source polluters, frequently concluding that many small source problems are almost insignificant compared to large source problems and, further, that residents impacted by small source polluters should be happy and appreciative that they do not live in a community plagued by a larger polluter who poses "real" pollution problems.

Third, as residents are defining a source as a "pollution problem" they do not take the resources of regulatory agencies into consideration. From the residents perspective, if a pollution problem exists, environmental regulatory agencies are the institutions authorized to alleviate it and it is the institutions challenge to find the resources to do so effectively and in a timely manner. From a regulatory perspective, agency staff are already too overwhelmed, and given limited resources and comparative risk analysis, are justified in focusing on the "really serious" problems stemming from large sources rather than the relatively small ("not really serious") problems posed by individual small sources.

Fourth, residents define a source as a "pollution problem" in relation to how it effects them, not in relation to how much money it will take the polluter to alleviate the problem. From the residents perspective, if a pollution problem exists, it is the responsibility of the polluter to resolve it. This is especially true if the pollution problem is negatively effecting public health. Homeowners feel especially strong about this since they are more locked into a neighborhood than renters and their property values are negatively effected by existing pollution problems. However, it should be noted, that many low-income residents are also locked into neighborhoods as a direct result of their lack of income. This is especially the case for poor residents living in housing projects or Section 8 housing such as is the case for many of the residents living in the community described in this article.

In contrast, regulators are formally charged with taking the resources of polluters (businesses) into account as they define what constitutes a "pollution problem" and as they make decisions about how to regulate polluters. From a regulatory perspective, small businesses have limited resources to invest in pollution control technologies, many of which are quite costly. Many regulators are concerned about the health of business and are convinced that, if pressured by a strict regulatory environment, small businesses will simply leave an area and locate elsewhere and that their relocation would threaten the economic well being of the whole city and/or region. This is also the case for public officials whose localities receive a significant amount of money in the form of taxes, permitting fees, and fines for violations of existing environmental regulations from small source polluters. In this case, a related consequence can be a reluctance on the part of local government to the idea of strengthening environmental regulations or changing existing zoning regulations because they want these businesses to stay in their jurisdiction. However, the whole question of the viability and utility of environmental regulations is challenged when regulators lead residents to believe that they must live with a pollution problem because small source polluters simply cannot be expected to survive in a climate of strict environmental regulation because stringent environmental enforcement would be too costly and result in their relocation which might put local folks out of work.

Fifth, residents define a source as a "pollution problem" in relation to how it effects them, not in relation to the zoning regulations in their locality. Residents are not willing to accept a "pollution problem" or pretend that the problem does not exist just because the neighborhood they moved into has been zoned as a mixed residential/industrial or commercial district. Many residents do not know anything about these zoning classifications; they buy property were they can afford it and in an area they think they will like. In contrast, regulators are highly aware of zoning regulations and, from a regulatory perspective, residents who move into mixed residential/industrial or commercial zones have tacitly accepted living with local polluters and, to a lesser degree, have tacitly accepted being negatively impacted by these polluters when they chose to move into or buy property in mixed zones.

Overall, the case reveals that a viable solution to the problem of conflicting perceptions between residents and regulators about what constitutes a pollution problem will only emerge from a new approach by regulatory agencies towards the issue of what constitutes a "pollution problem." This approach must be "effects based analysis" rather than "source based analysis".

It is by linking scientific knowledge about overall environmental impacts in a community with an assessment of actual conditions in a community and with community input that one must arrive at a working definition of what constitutes a pollution problem. The regulatory approach, which measures volume and type of emissions from individual sources, then matches these statistics with epidemiologically defined measures of public health outcomes at particular rates per population and then takes the health of business into consideration to define a pollution problem and prioritizes businesses must be replaced with a community-based approach, which measures actual conditions in a neighborhood, the sources of those actual conditions and focuses on residential (human rather than business) health and well being and prioritizes residents.

The case also reveals that, under current conditions, the key to confronting residential problems caused by toxic emissions from small source emitters are empowered communities who know their rights, have the resources to assert them, and are successfully able to organize residents to continually pressure regulatory agencies to one, assist them in implementing these rights and two, introduce regulations which will encourage effective pollution prevention and waste reduction techniques.

In the case of the auto-refinishing industry in California, due to a settlement under California's Proposition 65, paint manufacturers will be producing paints without lead, cadmium and chromium. Under these settlements, paint manufacturers are given incentives or have already committed to reducing toxins in their paints sold in California. Communities must insist that these new paints be used and become required by relevant regulatory agencies. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control has already identified a number of waste reduction techniques for auto-paint shops. Residents can also insist that these techniques be employed and required by regulatory policy. The California Air Resources Board will soon be issuing guidelines for how auto-paint shops can do risk reduction audits to further prevent pollution. A task force is developing these guidelines now to implement state law requiring significant risk creators to perform risk reduction audits. These guidelines can be insisted upon by local residents and incorporated into local regulatory policy. Further, local residents have the right to insist that they should not be disproportionately impacted by their city's polluting facilities. This is especially true in the case of residents who live in low-income areas which have historically been zoned for mixed residential and industrial or commercial use. To do so, residents must (1) know their rights; (2) be organized to fight for these rights, (3) be informed about pollution prevention programs and; (4) learn how to work with regulators and small businesses to assure compliance in their communities.

Bibliography

Baum, A. and Singer, J.E. Advances in Environmental Psychology (Vol 4). Hillsdale, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982.
Belliveau, M., Kent, M. and Rosenblum, G. Richmond At Risk: Community Demographics and Toxic Hazards from Industrial Polluters. Citizens for a Better Environment, Vol 1, Feb 1989.
Brown, P. and Mikkelson, E. No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia and Community Action. University of California Press, 1990.
Bryant, B. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1995.
Bullard, R. Dumping in Dixie:Race, Class and Environmental Quality. Westview Press, 1990.
Bullenger, M. Psychological Effects of Air Pollution on Healthy Residents. Environmental Psychology, Vol 9(n2):103-118, June 1989.
Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1960.
Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970.
Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1980.
Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1990.
California Environmental Protection Agency. Department of Toxic Substances, 1993.
California Environmental Protection Agency. Comparative Risks in the State of California, California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL/EPA), 1994.
Capek, S. M. The Environmental Justice Frame: A Conceptual Discussion and an Application, Social Problems 40(1):5-24.
Cavalini, P.M., Koeter-Kemmerling, L.G. and Pulles, M.P. J. Coping with Odour Annoyance and Odour Concentrations: Three Field Studies. Journal of Enviromental Psychology (1991) 11, 123-142.
Center for A Better Environment. Richmond at Risk: Community Demographics and Toxic Hazards from Industrial Polluters. Center for a Better Environment, San Francisco, 1989.
Cutter, S. Community Concern for Pollution: Social and Environmental Influences. Environment and Behavior, 1981 (Jan.) v13:105-124.
Davies, C. and Davies, B. The Politics of Pollution, Second Edition. Pegasus, Indianopolis, 1973.
Edelstein, M. Contaminated Communities:The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1988.
Environmental Protection Agency. Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions in Auto Refinishing. Control Technology Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 450/3-88-009, 1988.
Evans, G. and Jacobs, S. Air Pollution and Human Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37:No 1:95-125, 1981.
Evans, G. and Campbell, J. Psychological Perspectives of Air Pollution and Health. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(2):`37-`69, 1983.
Gephart, L. and Hicks, J. Health and Safety Beyond the Workplace. Air Pollution Vol1:202-229,1990.
Gianessi, L., Peskin, H., and Wolff, E. The Distributionial Effects of Uniform Air Pollution Policy in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics; May:281-301, 1979.
Higgens, I. and Ferris, B. Epidemiology of Sulphur Oxides and Particles. Conference on the Health Effects of Air Pollution; Proceedings on the Conference on Health Effects of Air Pollutants, National Academy of Sciences:National Research Council, 1973.
Lavelle, M. and Coyle, M. Unequal Protection. National Law Journal, Spetember 21, 1992.
Lebovits, A., Baum, A. and Singer, J. Exposure to Hazardous Substances. Eribaum Associates In., Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1986.
Levine, A. Love Canal: Science, Politics and People. Lexington Books, Boston, MA. 1982.
Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. St. Martins Press, 1996.
Pinderhughes, R. The Impact of Race on Enviromental Quality: An Empirical and Theoretical Discussion. Sociological Perspectives, Vol 39 (No 2):231-248, 1996.
Pinderhughes, R. and Sliverman, M. Barriers to Introducing Pollution Prevention Technology into Auto Refinishing Shops in San Francisco, California. Unpublished paper, 1997.
Ramo, A. Grant Proposal, Golden Gate Law School Environmental and Social Justice Law Clinic, San Francisco unpublished, 1995.
Steinheider, B. and Winneke, G. Industrial Odours as Environmental Stressors: Exposure-Annoyance Associations and Their Modification By Coping: Age and Perceived Health. Journal of Environmental Psychology. (1993) 13, 353-363.
Vaughn, E. Factors Influencing Nonexperts Perception of Environmental Risks. Garland Publishing, N.Y., 1990.
Vyner, H. Invisible Trauma: The Psychosocial Effects of Invisible Environmental Contaminants, Lexington Books, 1988.
Walker, R. and Storper, M. Erosion of the Clean Air Act of 1970: A Study of the Failure of Government Regulation and Planning. Environmental Affairs, Vol7:189-257, 1978.
Zeidner, M. and Shechter, M. Psychological Responses to Air Pollution: Some Personality and Demographic Correlates. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, Vol 8 1988:191-208.

top