Sign-On!
Endorsers
Back
Home Page

Citizens' Platform on Superfund

Communities at Risk is a network of Superfund communities and other toxic communities across the United States, from Alaska to Florida. This network is currently coordinated by Penny Newman and Florence Robinson. Some members of this group met in July of 1993, in Keystone, CO., where they forged a "People's Agenda on Superfund." This current version of the People’s Agenda is the updated version produced by an assembly of communities at the Communities At Risk Superfund Summit in Washington, DC., September 30, 1995.

Cartoon

COMMUNITIES AT RISK:
A Citizens' Platform For
Superfund Reauthorization

Clean air, water, and land are inherent human rights. The Superfund Process must follow its mandate to protect human health and environment at every step of the process. Citizens must have meaningful involvement throughout the process, and all sites must be cleaned up in a timely, equitable and just manner.

The six areas of concern are: Funding and Liability, Cleanup Standards, Citizen Involvement,

Health, Hazard Ranking System and Site Prioritization, and the Role of Tribal and State

Governments. Environmental Justice is not dealt with as a separate topic because these concerns are integral to each section.


PART I : FUNDING AND LIABILITY

There are currently more than 32,000 recognized CERCLIS sites and 1,300 Superfund sites. Many of the sites are in communities that are impacted by more than CERCLIS or Superfund site, and/or numerous RCRA facilities. We residents of the Superfund Communities have two major concerns: (1) That the existing sites be cleaned up speedily and effectively, which demands the availability of adequate funds, and (2) That NO MORE SUPERFUND SITES BE CREATED IN OUR COMMUNITIES. We recognize that strong liability laws must be retained as a deterrent to corporate irresponsibility. Consequently, we strongly advocate:

  1. The "SITE-SPECIFIC POLLUTER PAYS" principle must be preserved, and the existing Superfund Law of "STRICT, JOINT AND SEVERAL, AND RETROACTIVE LIABILITY" must be retained.
  2. Apply big hammers to provide an incentive for recalcitrant PRPs to assume responsibility and reduce litigation. For example, adopt Pennsylvania’s immediately effective enforcement order, withdrawal of existing government contracts and the ruling as ineligible for government contracts to companies in litigation with the federal government, count unpaid Superfund costs as profit and force income tax to be paid on these costs.
  3. Monies for the "Superfund" trust account should continue to be derived from the dedicated tax on petroleum and chemical feedstocks, the corporate environmental tax, and general appropriations. All of these funds should be used for the Superfund process. Most should be used for cleaning up "orphan sites" and providing special emergency needs such as relocation for citizens. All Superfund costs such as relocations, should be recovered from PRPs where they exist.
  4. Citizens have a right to speedy and effective cleanups of contaminated sites. Therefore, litigation by Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) as to their liability status, or disagreement with the Record of Decision (ROD) or any other reason that slows up the cleanup process is to be viewed as a deliberate attempt to delay or circumvent the cleanup process/justice.
  5. a) Any exposures to the public from a site while a potential PRP is litigating and not cleaning up should be classified as a criminal assault.
  6. b) Treble costs/damages must be applied for the time that cleanup does not take place due to litigation.
  7. The costs of natural resources restoration, and reparations to communities for the loss of health, life, property, opportunity (property development and business), and religious and cultural heritage should be a part of the site by site cleanup expenses. Punitive damages should be dedicated to a fund for that community for restoration of damage.
  8. All RCRA facilities and industries that store, treat or dispose of hazardous materials on site, must be required to post a closure/ post-closure bond equal to the average cost of cleaning up such a facility. This bond must be posted at the next permit renewal or within 5 years, which ever comes first.


PART II: CLEAN UP STANDARDS AND REMEDY SELECTION

The ultimate goal for any cleanup should be to restore the environment to the way it was prior to the contamination, while continuing to protect the community from further exposure. Many communities with contaminated sites are concerned that their communities will continue to be national sacrifice zones that are either not cleaned up at all or not thoroughly cleaned up. There also is considerable justified concern that inequities exist between poor and People of Color communities and wealthier White communities, relative to the speed, effectiveness, and choice of permanence of clean up. Also, the cleanup process itself has the potential to be hazardous to the community. Therefore, we advocate:

  1. A national standard for all Superfund site cleanups should be set, and that standard should be background, as defined by the Communities At Risk handbook. State of the Art methods should be employed.
  2. The community is not to be sacrificed by remediation. During the process, from emergency removals, through remediation and/or containment, the community is not to be further exposed. This may call for relocations which may be temporary or permanent.
  3. Federal and State Regulations must apply to cleanup wastes from Superfund and CERCLIS sites.
  4. States may impose more stringent cleanup levels and the cost of such cleanup will be borne by the responsible parties.
  5. Polluters must be liable for natural resource damage including lost use, replacement and non use values for the extent of time the contamination impacts the natural resources.
  6. When technology does not exist to meet background, cleanup should proceed to the cleanest level technology will allow. Then the site will go into interim containment until adequate technology is developed to clean the site to background. Sites in interim containment must pay into a special "containment fund" which will be used to develop new efficient technologies and to provide services for that community that continues to be threatened from the site. The interim containment must be monitored while new technologies are developed.
  7. In order to insure equity amongst NPL sites, EPA must collect data about all sites including demographic characteristics of the surrounding community, the phase of the process the site is in, whether or not Technical Assistance Grants funding has been awarded the length of time for the cleanup, the remedy selected and the amount of money spent on the site. This data is to be made readily accessible to the public annually in English, and other languages commonly spoken in Superfund communities, such as Spanish.
  8. In the case of very old industrial sites which may have predated residencies, background levels may be very difficult to establish. The establishment of the cleanup goal and the remedy selection process, must not inhibit the revitalization of the community. The community must be allowed to participate fully in the decisions about cleanup goals, remedy, and future land uses. However, the site must reach certain minimum standards that that are truly protective of human health and the environment.
  9. Local residents should be hired and trained preferentially for jobs in all phases of the remediation process, such as concessions for workers lunches, and other services to the site cleanup. In the case of a site consisting of a recently closed facility, the former workers of that facility should be hired preferentially. These residents and workers must be adequately trained for the jobs and be given adequate protection while doing the work. The community will have oversight of workers, their training, and protection and will have shut-down authority if these workers are not adequately protected.


PART III: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

The major stakeholder in the Superfund process has been denied meaningful participation and input in the decision making process of Superfund. This stakeholder is the resident who lives or works near the Superfund site, is impacted by it, and must live with the results of the process. Human life and dignity have been devalued. This problem of the lack of participation by the affected community must be corrected. Public participation needs to come earlier, resources need to be provided to the community to effectively participate and communities need to be given access to

and decision making power regarding their sites. THE ENTIRE PROCESS, FROM BEGINNING TO END, MUST INCLUDE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. One of the clearest challenges has been getting information out to communities about contaminated sites in their area and devising a meaningful role for and involvement of communities in the decision making process. We therefore advocate:

  1. Residents must be given the legally enforceable right, from beginning to end, to participate and to intervene in the decision making of the Superfund site in their area, including the right to block settlement between EPA and PRPs and the Record of Decision (ROD). Residents must be allowed to participate in all meetings between EPA and PRPs from defining the site which may include expanding site borders to include all contamination, to delisting. Whereas residents may play a crucial role in naming PRPs because of their familiarity with the history of the site, and want to know who all the listed PRPs will be, residents are not necessarily interested in allocation of responsibility. Enough time must be given to alert communities about meetings or other requests. Failure to include residents in any meetings between EPA and PRPs, or attempts to deny residents input or participation in decision making may result in civil and criminal penalties against any guilty governmental agency, corporation or individual.
  2. Site specific advisory boards (Citizen Working Groups) composed of affected people that live or work in the zone of highest exposure should be established. The members of this board will be elected by the citizens in the zone of highest exposure by the democratic process. Such boards will create the opportunity for communities to have and play an active role in decisions made about the site, be kept fully informed and understand the process. Therefore information can be readily exchanged, ideas incorporated, sound decision made and trust built in such a way as to speed effective and efficient cleanups.
  3. The Technical Assistance Grants (TAG's) grant writing process should be streamlined, and made more understandable and easier to execute. TAG's should become available as soon as a site makes the CERCLIS list. Smaller grants (Pre-TAG's) should be made available to get Technical Advisors to assist in the Site Investigation and Preliminary Assessment phases. Regular TAG's should be made available to the community until the site is cleaned and delisted.
    1. The matching funds provision must be removed.
    2. Once a grant is issued, the funds are to be deposited in the community organization’s account (at least on an annual basis), rather than the community having to spend it’s money up front with later reimbursements by EPA. The community may be expected to make financial statements on the account on an annual basis.
    3. The scope of the TAG must be expanded to be used not just to provide scientific expertise, but also may be used to increase the communities meaningful participation in the Superfund process, such as, hiring an organizer or provide for testing of split samples.
    4. The additional monies needed to finance this expanded TAG program should be considered as part of the site costs and allocated to the PRPs.
  1. EPA and all of its subsidiary agencies should reflect the ethnic and socio-economic makeup of the people they are serving to promote better cooperation and understanding of key issues. All agencies involved must be sensitive to the community’s concerns, and must not approach the community with preconceived ideas of that community. EPA representatives should maintain non-biased relationships with both community and PRP's.
    1. A mechanism to remove EPA staff who are uncooperative or obstructive must exist.
    2. If the Regional Administrator or staff is recused for a "conflict of interest", someone in a higher position (not lower) is to be assigned.
    3. Documents and discussions aimed at citizens should be in clear, non-technical language, and must be culturally appropriate for the people, eg. Available in other languages or oral form.
  1. When citizens must be permanently relocated, they should receive replacement value for their homes and costs of relocation, rather than just the "fair market value". The funds for relocation should be taken from the Superfund, to be reimbursed by the PRP’s.
  2. EPA must establish a Citizens Access Unit (CAU) in each state. The function of this unit would be to educate residents about environmental hazards, the Superfund process, citizens rights, and how to access government. The Citizens Access Unit would also help residents have meaningful participation throughout the Superfund process.


PART IV: HEALTH

The paramount goal and overarching concern of the entire Superfund process is the protection of Human health and environment. We, the citizens, who live near Superfund sites, also feel that health is the most often neglected or ignored goal of Superfund. "Cost-effectiveness", and technologically feasible" seem to take precedence over health. Decisions (risk assessments) are made about potential health effects in the absence of adequate data. The health agency, ATSDR, created to examine the issues of toxic poisoning of communities from Superfund sites, has been insensitive to the concerns of the communities and has not met their needs. Citizens continue to pay the cost of Superfund with loss of beloved friends, neighbors, and family members. Further, in many of the communities most affected by Superfund sites, there is inadequate, or no access to, proper medical attention, proper housing, good nutrition, and other social and educational factors, all of which exacerbate the exposure to toxic chemicals. Consequently, we advocate the following::

  1. Clinics, or specially designated medical units must be provided for each Superfund community (An existing facility easily accessible to the community may be the designated "clinic," or in some communities, a mobile clinic or other facility may be provided). The purpose of these clinics will be to provide site specific education on health effects and diseases, medical diagnosis, treatment , and monitoring of environmentally induced health disorders, training of primary health providers and staff of training hospitals and medical schools in the recognition and treatment of environmental health effects. Community residents will be provided with a health card that will give them access to the clinic. The traditional doctor-patient privacy must be maintained.
  2. A coordinated interagency offensive against ancillary factors must be launched in Superfund Communities that will mitigate the effects of the contamination on the community. This offensive must include local, state, tribal and federal health agencies, and must give the community access to better nutrition, housing, sanitation, and a safe water supply. It also must include special educational services for the children of the community who are suffering damage to the central nervous system or illness which results in impaired learning.
  3. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) should be replaced with a new agency that is more sensitive and responsive to the community's needs. Such an agency should be housed in the Department of Health and Hospitals, should receive its funding through special appropriation from Congress, and should be independent of both EPA and the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Further, this organization should have an oversight board composed of health professionals and representatives of Superfund communities elected by those communities.
  4. The National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) should set aside a significant portion of its budget to study environmental health problems associated with toxic chemicals in an effort to close the data gaps concerning chronic exposure, chronic exposure to low concentrations of chemicals, multiple exposures, exposures to complex mixtures of chemicals or exposures to multiple chemicals and including exposure pathways that exist from subsistence and/or cultural traditions. A formal mechanism must be established by which NIEHS would get input from communities to help set research priorities.
  5. Because of huge data gaps and the lack of science in risk assessments and risk management, comparative risk studies and risk assessments are to be eliminated.


PART V: HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM AND SITE PRIORITIZATION

All sites that endanger present or future public health and the environment must be cleaned up. To understand the full impact of pollution on people, their communities, and their environment, we must address the ecological integrity of ecosystems. By this process we advance the issues of Environmental Justice in national strategies. Many sites should be on the National Priorities List (NPL) but are not. Some factors responsible for this are lack of federal and state resources, unresponsiveness of agencies to citizens’ complaints, inadequate testing of the site to actually determine the extent of the contamination and racism and classism. While the majority of contaminated sites are located in communities of color, these are not the sites which appear on the NPL for cleanup. The current structure of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) does not take into account the true exposure of the community or the potential health effects and allows for a level of discretion which privileges sites with forceful and enfranchised communities. Furthermore, once sites get on the NPL, the sites in communities of color are not the sites which actually get the services they need or get cleaned up.

The current hazard ranking system does not account for either the variety of contaminants to which people in the community are being exposed nor does it account for the history of their exposure or the factors that exacerbate their exposure. Therefore, we advocate:

  1. All sites that impact the same population will have their individual scores added together for a ranking for the entire area.
  2. All pathways of exposure and factors that exacerbate those exposures must be considered in the ranking process. The following sources must be considered, but are not all inclusive:
    1. RCRA facilities
    2. Socio-economic characteristics such as poor nutrition, housing, insufficient access to medical care
    3. Reliance on the land for subsistence, for example, bioaccumulation through, hunting, fishing, gardening
    4. Cultural and religious significance of the land (area)
  1. The threat of exposure and potential negative health and environmental effects should be the primary factor in determining the rank for a site, not the number of people that comprise the affected community nor the lack of PRPs. There must be no more "NATIONAL SACRIFICE ZONES."
  2. Sites place on the CERCLIS list must be presented for public review within the first quarter of placement on the CERCLIS list. During this review the public may contest the definition of a site and the final scoring resulting in the sites rejection. In addition, the citizens or the CAU can petition for the site to be rescored and redefined based on the above criteria.
  3. All sites must be addressed in an equitable manner with each site receiving sufficient funds and oversight to address the threats to human health and the environment, including emergency removals or relocations for people within the affected community.
  4. The majority of NPL sites are in White communities. The majority of CERCLIS sites are in People of Color communities. To counter the racist bias evident in cleanups so far, racial and socio-economic characteristics of the community on the CERCLIS list should be identified and recorded. The progress of on-site cleanup must be tracked and accounted for by a system that would issue reports on a quarterly basis.
  5. There must be NO maximum cap on number of sites to be listed on the NPL. As long as waste sites exist, there must be a program to address them.


PART VI: THE ROLE OF TRIBAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS

Some states have their own Superfund programs, however, only five have adequate funding to cleanup one Superfund site. Very real concerns exist for turning over Superfund to the states. Concerns are not only economic, but technical, the "revolving door practice" and the vested business and political interests that are in conflict, thus citizens do not trust states to handle cleanups. Many of these sites would not exist if states had done their job. As always, it is the citizens who end up bearing the burden of the "botched" clean ups. Frequently citizens are kept ignorant of activities and progress, and are exposed to a degree worse than when the site was active.

Tribal governments have all of the problems of lack of resources and lack of trained personnel that states may have. Additionally, tribal governments suffer from the historic deprivations of their experiences of stolen lands, broken treaties, disruptions of native culture and self-government, and exploited people. Their lands have been polluted by exploiters, and they are left with this bitter legacy. It is outrageous that Native Americans and their tribal government have been excluded from the Superfund process. EPA must stop treating governments like second class states. We therefore advocate:

  1. States may be allowed to takeover the Superfund process only when they have the resources and skills to carry out all of the programs of Superfund as has already been outlined in this platform. When states takeover Superfund programs there can be no weakening of national standards or lessening of public participation.
  2. The sovereignty of the tribal nations must be respected and obligations flowing from government’s trust responsibility to tribal nations must be fulfilled including but not limited to the following points.
  3. Tribal governments must be helped to develop Superfund programs with resources from the Federal Government. Within six months of the reauthorization of Superfund, EPA should meet with the tribes and commit to funds for the development of Superfund programs.
  4. The federal government should enter into cooperative agreements with the tribal governments on the development and operation of a superfund process. For example, the Federal government might help pursue recalcitrant PRPs off the Reservations, or provide a Citizens Access Unit when it is petitioned for and there are no problems with sovereignty.


VII : GREENFIELDS

Citizens strongly feel that their communities should not be made permanent sacrifice zones by the cleanup of Superfund sites to a lesser standard, and their redevelopment to industrial sites. We therefore insist that all sites be cleaned up to background 1evel, thus increasing that community's options for land use. Any decision to redevelop a Superfund site to an industrial site must have the full consensus of the community.


VIII : FEDERAL FACILITIES

All of the above provisions shall apply to Federal Facilities.

Top

Sign-On!

Yes, Please Add me.

Name
Organization
Address
City State Zip
Phone Fax
E-Mail
Web Site http://

Questions or Comments

Top
 


List of Endorsers

Amigos Bravos, Taos, NM  (Brian Shields)
 Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition, Joppa, MD (Helen Ridick)
 CCHW/Center for Health, Environment and Justice (Lois Gibbs)
 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (Penny Newman)
 Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE), Pensacola, FL (Margaret Williams/Frances Dunham)
 Citizens Environmental Coalition, New York (Ann Rabe)
 Citizens for a Clean Environment, Sherveport, LA (Jeannette Tate)
 CLOUT, Athens, GA (Jennie Alvernaz)
 Coalition for health Concerns, Benton, KY (Corinne Whitehead)
 Columbia River United, Washington/Oregon (Greg DeBruler)
 Communities at Risk Network (Penny Newman)
 Concerned Citizens Against Toxic Waste, Loyall, KY (Joan Robinett)
 Concerned Citizens of the Inland Empire, San Bernardino, CA
 Concerned Citizens of Lake Township, North Canton, OH (Christine Borello)
 Concerned Citizens of Tillery, Tillery, NC (Gary Grant)
 Concerned Neigbhors in Action (Stringfellow Acid Pits), Riverside, CA (Sally Merha)
 Cross Community Coalition, Denver, CO (Lorraine Granado)
 CRY, West Newton, PA (Ed Collins)
 Dine CARE, Bi'Keyah, AZ (Earl Tulley)
 Del Amo Action Committee, Torrance, CA (Guillermo Aguirre)
 Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego, CA (Diane Takvorian)
 Environmental Health Network, VA (Linda Price-King)
 Environmental Negligence Under Fire (ENUF), Dallas, TX (BJ Moore)
 Fernald Residents for the Environment (Elisa Crawford)
 FRESH, Harrison, OH (Pam Dunn)
 Glen Avon Residents' Technical Assitance Committee, Glen Avon, CA
 Grand Cal Task Force, Whiting, IN (Helen Cusic)
 Green Peace - Alaska, (Jean Gamache/Pam Miller)
 Hanford Education Action League, Spokane, WA (Todd Martin)
 Homeowners of 204th Street, Torrence, CA (Dunia Ponce)
 Indigenous Environmental Network, (Tom Goldtooth)
 Ironbound Community Against Toxic Waste, Newark, NJ (Tiwana Steward)
 Jesus People Against Pollution, Columbia, MS (Charley Fairley/Charlotte Keyes)
 JSI Center for Environmental Health Studies, Boston, MA (Gretchen Latowsky)
 Justice For All, Columbia, MS (Ida L. Johnson-Butler)
 Literacy for Environmental Justice, San Francisco, CA (Sherlina Nageer)
 Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), Baton Rouge, LA (Mary Lee Orr)
 Louisiana Coalition for Tax Justice, Baton Rouge, LA (Richelle Banford)
 McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation (MESS), Sacramento, CA (Chuck Yarborough)
 Military Toxics Project, Sabattus, ME (Kathy Hinds)
 Military Production Network, (Maureen Eldridge)
 Mendocino Environmental Center, Ukiah, CA (Gay & Betty Ball)
 Missouri Coalition for the Environment, St. Louis, MO (Danny Heim)
 Newtown Florist Club, Gainesville, GA (Faye Bush)
 New Waverly Baptist Church, Dallas, TX (Rev. R.T. Conley)
 North Baton Rouge Environmental Assoc., Alsen, LA (Florence Robinson)
 North West Radiation Health Alliance, Oregon (Greg DeBruler)
 Organisacion de la Communidad de Alviso, Alviso, CA (SAvas Alvarez)
 Oak Ridge Health Liaison, Oak Ridge, TN (Sandra Reid)
 Pacific Studies Center, Mountain View, CA (Lenny Siegel)
 PACE, Grants Pass, OR (Pat Garoute)
 PAHLS, IN (Sue Greer Lynch)
 Paug-Vik, Naknek, alaska (Cecil Depedro, Jr.)
 Parents of Jurupa, Riverside/San Bernardino, CA  (Mary Burns)
 Peoples Action Committee, Kellogg, ID (Barbarta Miller)
 People for Community Recovery, Chicago, ILL (Hazel Johnson)
 People for Alternatives to Toxics, San Fafael, CA (Patty Thayer)
 Pigeon River/Douglas Lake Action, Dandridge, TN (Belinda West)
 Residents for a More Beautiful Port Whasington
 San Jose Community Awareness Council, Albuquerque, NM (Dolores Herrera)
 Saratoga Springs Hazardous Waste Coalition, Saratoga Springs, NY (Marion Trieste)
 Silicon Valley Toxics Coaltion, San Jose, CA (Ted Smith)
 Sierra Club- Mississippi River Basin, Madison, WI (Bill Redding)
 STOP, Chattagnooga, TN (Milton Jackson)
 Stop Polluting Indiana Today (SPIT), Bloomington, IN (Greg Moore)
 St. John's Church,  Elizabeth, NJ (Rev. Joseph Parrish, Jr.)
 Subra Company, Inc., New Iberia, LA (Wilma Subra)
 Tennessee Grassroots Environmental Network, Cleatt, TN (Marilyn Williams)
 TK Neighbors in Action, Fresno, CA (Cindy Hoopes)
 Tri Valley CARES, Livermore, CA (Marylia Kelly)
 Tucsonians for a Clean Environment (TCE), Tucson, AZ (KathyLanier)
 Yellow Creek Concerned Citizens, Middlesboro, KY (Larry & Sheila Wilson)

Top



Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ)
PO Box 33124 * Riverside, CA 92519
Phone (951) 360-8451 * Fax (951) 360-5950
Website: http://www.ccaej.org
E-Mail: admin@ccaej.org