Final Report (all chapters)

vicinity of black residential areas. 88 The preparation of the clean-up plan, a key element of the
statute, quickly became a major source of concern for the affected populations and the focal
point of the confrontation between the EPA and local environmental groups. One EPA official
reportedly characterized the relationship between the agency and minority populations as one in
which the EPA initiates remediation action with “negative trust.”
The Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 partly remedied this
disastrous situation. 89 Under SARA, the EPA must notify the affected populations of its plans to
remove hazardous wastes or remediate a site. SARA gives the EPA the authority to call public
hearings as a means to inform the public about the proposed clean-up plan. The plan must
describe the clean-up alternatives considered, identify the preferred option, and provide a
rationale for the agency’s choice. The EPA also must provide extensive information about the
plan itself; in other words, it must attach a description of the plan in non-technical language. The
public has 30 days (extensible to 60 days) to submit written comments. The EPA must respond
to any “significant comment” through a “responsiveness summary” and take into account any
new information it receives. The agency must then notify the public of any changes made to the
original clean-up plan. The responsiveness summary becomes part of the administrative record
and must also be made available to the public. To assist and facilitate the participatory process,
technical assistance grants (TAGs) are available. TAGs are meant to help local organizations to
educate themselves in highly complex technical matters such as analyzing technical reports and
clean-up plans. The public also has the right to judicial review of any regulation promulgated
under the statute. Finally, SARA authorizes citizen suits against the EPA for failure to perform
nondiscretionary duties. 90
The EPA did not wait for the Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986 to
implement its own outreach measures. Its community relations program, adopted in 1981, was
designed to improve communication with the affected populations. Among the activities
included are the early-stage involvement of local community members in characterizing the site,
the identification of key community leaders and interested parties, the establishment of a location
for information depositories and public hearings, and the appointment of an EPA community
coordinator. The most recent description of the EPA’s approach to community involvement is
contained in two documents, the Superfund Community Involvement Handbook 91
and the
88
89
90
91
Vicki Been, "What's Fairness Got to Do with It? Environmental Justice and the Siting of Locally Undesirable
Land Uses," Cornell Law Review 78 (1993); United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, Toxic
Waste and Race in the United States: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of
Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites (New York: Public Access, 1987).
See Pub. Law. No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986).
Bram, "Public Participation Provisions Need Not Contribute to Environmental Injustice."; Ellison Folk, "Public
Participation in the Superfund Cleanup Process," Ecology Law Quarterly 18 (1991), p.193-95; Perkins Spyke,
"Public Participation in Environmental Decisionmaking at the New Millenium: Structuring New Spheres of
Public Influence," p.284-85.
See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/tools/cag/ci_handbook.pdf.
282