                 forthcoming 23 Vermont J. Envtl. L. __ (2022)
                                       
         Beyond Bake Sales: Community Cleanup Meets Superfund Removals
                                       
                              Clifford J. Villa*
                                       
                               I.  Introduction
      The Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC) is one of oldest and the largest conferences of its kind, held every March (at least pre-pandemic) on the lush green campus of the University of Oregon, in Eugene, Oregon.  It is an excellent place to reconnect with friends engaged in public interest law or to learn how to howl from a tree-top.  Many years ago, I sat through a panel at PIELC about "Brownfield sites" and how to clean them up.  The panelists included folks with some experience applying for Brownfields grants from the state.  There was also much discussion about the need for community organizations to raise money for site cleanup or cost-sharing requirements.  After an hour of chat about bake sales and other fundraising ideas, I stood up from the back row during Q&A and asked if anyone had ever considered engaging with the U.S. EPA and the Superfund removal program to get a contaminated site cleaned up?  Blank stares around the crowded room, I quietly sat back down.
      Years later, after leaving the EPA to join the legal academy, I continue to notice the same thing.  It's not just youthful activists, but also lawyers practicing in environmental law and even the law professors who teach them.  Nobody outside of EPA seems to be aware of the existence of the Superfund removals program, a program through which millions of dollars are allocated through EPA's ten regional offices each year for cleaning up contaminated sites that are not designated "Superfund" sites.
      This essay will provide a basic introduction to the Superfund removals program and particularly encourage consideration of Superfund removals to address growing concerns for environmental justice.  Part II examines the legal authorities and limitations of the Superfund removal program.  Part III provides examples of removal actions in environmental justice communities across the country.  Part IV considers the requirements of environmental justice and how those requirements may be addressed by the Superfund removal program.  Part V concludes the essay.  
                  II.  Superfund Removal Authority And Limitations
      The primary federal authority for addressing contaminated sites in the United States is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), known popularly as "Superfund."  Under Superfund, contaminated sites may be addressed through three major programs:  (1) Brownfields funding; (2) remedial action; and (3) removal action.  In general, the EPA Brownfields program provides states, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations with funding through grants and loans to assess and clean up contaminated sites within their areas of concerns.   Remedial actions are generally expensive, multi-year efforts to address large, complex contaminated sites.  By contrast, removal actions are generally quicker, less expensive actions to address smaller, less complex sites.  This part will first examine the legal framework establishing where and how removal authorities may be used to clean up contaminated sites.  We will then compare removal authorities to remedial authorities and brownfields funding to identify the relative advantages and disadvantages of each, particularly for underserved communities that may have concerns for environmental justice.  
      A.  Removal Framework.
      As the popular name of "Superfund" suggests, there is indeed a "fund" that EPA may use to investigate and clean up contaminated sites.  That fund, known officially as the "Hazardous Substance Superfund," allows the EPA to receive appropriated funds from Congress as well as recovered funds from judgments and settlements with responsible parties, for purposes specified in the statute.  Authorized uses of the Fund include "[p]ayment of governmental response costs incurred pursuant to" CERCLA Section 104.   
      CERCLA Section 104, in turn, provides the EPA with its primary authority for cleaning up contaminated sites.  Under this provision  - 
      Whenever (A) any hazardous substance is released or there is a substantial threat of such a release into the environment, or (B) there is a release or substantial threat of release into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant which may present any imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare, the President is authorized to act, consistent with the national contingency plan, to remove or arrange for the removal of, and provide for remedial action relating to such hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at any time....
      
      The authority of "the President" in Section 104 is largely delegated to the U.S. EPA, and redelegated from the EPA Administrator to EPA Regional Administrators and designated staff in the ten EPA regions.  The CERCLA statute defines the term "hazardous substance" to incorporate by reference hazardous materials regulated by other environmental statutes as well as by a long list of designated "hazardous substances" in the National Contingency Plan.  CERCLA defines the "term "pollutant or contaminant" more narrowly, to include just those substances that may pose certain threats, such as "death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations ... or physical deformities, in such organisms or their offspring...."  For both "hazardous substances" and "pollutants or contaminants," CERCLA Section 104 authorizes EPA to provide for cleanup actions.  For example, EPA used authority to address "pollutants or contaminants" to respond to the anthrax attacks on the U.S. Capitol complex in the October 2001.  
      Notice that nothing in CERCLA Section 104 requires designation of a "Superfund site" before the EPA may respond to a release of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants.  Without designation of a Superfund site, the EPA may exercise its authority under Section 104 to clean up contaminated sites, up to a statutory cap of $2 million, unless exemptions are invoked.  One exemption allows for expenditures above $2 million in order to "prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency."  The emergency exemption was invoked, for example, to allow EPA to exceed $2 million for response to the blowout of the Gold King Mine in August 2015, which sent an infamous plume of bright orange mine water down the Animas River in southwestern Colorado.
      B.  Superfund Removals vs. Remedial Action.
      Another exemption to the $2 million cap is spending for remedial actions at a designated "Superfund site." The potential for expenditures from the Fund above $2 million is the primary benefit of designated a Superfund site.  Superfund sites often require cleanup on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars and take decades to complete.  Superfund remedial funding can potentially bring substantial resources to underserved communities, providing job training and employment for local residents.  However, community leaders and private parties have often opposed Superfund designation, fearing the liability or stigma that such designation might entail.  Superfund designation also requires an often lengthy and rulemaking process to formally place a site on the National Priorities List (NPL), frequently inviting both political opposition and legal challenges.  Given the length and uncertainty of the NPL listing process, underserved communities may find the Superfund removal program a much faster and more viable alternative for addressing urgent concerns for contaminated sites in their local areas.   	Besides the lengthy NPL listing process, another concern with remedial action is a need for matching funds.  Under CERCLA, remedial funding generally requires a ten percent match from an affected state.  This matching requirement may pose particular challenges for poor states or states with particularly stingy legislatures.  The match requirement also means that a state can effectively veto any remedial action by refusing to provide the matching funds, injecting even greater uncertainty into the remedial cleanup process.
      Given all the challenges with remedial actions, it should be no surprise that removal actions are far more common.  In fiscal year 2020, for example, while only 14 NPL sites reached full completion of cleanup, 197 removal actions were completed:  a factor of 14 removal actions for every one NPL site.  While NPL sites, such as the infamous Love Canal in New York,  often command all the attention, removal actions remain far more numerous and available to concerned communities across the country.
      C.  Superfund Removals vs. Brownfields Funding.
      Given the fact that removal actions can provide for cleanups of up to $2 million, and are far more numerous than remedial actions at NPL sites, why is anyone concerned about brownfields or bake sales or other ways that communities might raise money for cleanup?  For one thing, there are a lot of brownfields, by one early estimate, perhaps 450,000 of them in the United States, far exceeding the 200 or so removal actions that may be completed in any one year.  For another thing, there are some important legal limitations on removal actions.  
      One of the most important limitations is the CERCLA "petroleum exclusion," which excludes from the definitions of "hazardous substance" and "pollutant or contaminant" any form of "petroleum, including crude oil or any faction thereof" as well as "natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, , or synthetic gas usable for fuel...."  By contrast, "brownfields" under CERCLA explicitly may include sites "contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum product" excluded by the "petroleum exclusion."  As such, brownfields funding may be available for cleaning up old gas stations, used car lots, residential properties with heating oil leaks, and other sites potentially contaminated by fuel spills.
      Another advantage of the Brownfields program over CERCLA removals is local control.  Under EPA's Brownfields program, local governments and community organizations may identify their own concerns and priorities for contaminated sites in their areas and then apply for a variety of grants to address these concerns.  Brownfields grants are available from EPA for purposes including site assessment, cleanup activities, job training, and state and tribal revolving loan programs.  As many commentators have observed, the local decision-making and action inherent in the Brownfields program provides significant opportunities for communities with concerns for environmental justice.   Through Brownfields, community members themselves may identify their cleanup priorities and then pursue funding to address these priorities.
      The pursuit of Brownfields funding, however, may present many challenges for communities and community members who already struggle with a lack of resources.  For example, applicants for Brownfields grants may be limited to certain units of governments, including states, municipalities, and federally recognized tribes, and to certain nonprofit organizations.  Brownfields funding may involve a lengthy and uncertain application process.  Work carried out under a Brownfields grant may trigger many technical requirements such as development of a quality assurance system.  Brownfields cleanup work may further trigger many legal requirements, such as compliance with the EPA's All Appropriate Inquiries rule and compliance with other federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.  Brownfields funding is also limited by dollar amounts, with cleanup grants ordinarily capped at $500,000.   Finally, as indicated in the Introduction, Brownfields grants and revolving loans often require funding recipients to provide a 20 percent match, perhaps a significant barrier for poor states and low-income communities. 
      By contrast, Superfund removal actions have a presumptive cap four times higher, $2,000,000, with zero matching requirements imposed upon states, tribes, local governments, or nonprofit organizations, perhaps making CERCLA removals a more attractive option for low-income communities.  CERCLA removal actions are also carried out by authorized federal, state, and tribal agencies, imposing no technical or legal requirements upon community members.  Perhaps most importantly, CERCLA removal actions can be carried out fast, potentially initiated (and even completed) within hours of discovering a problem site.    
      Instead of preparing an application for a Brownfields grant (and waiting on the reply), community members concerned about a contaminated site in their area may dial this phone number:  1-800-424-8802.  This is the phone number of the National Response Center in Washington, D.C., staffed around the clock by the U.S. Coast Guard.  Within minutes, a call to this number will be routed to the appropriate EPA Regional office, which could choose to respond directly or notify other appropriate response authorities. 
      Under CERCLA, removal actions may take many forms.  Removal assessments under CERCLA may include "such actions as may be necessary to assess [or] evaluate" a release of hazardous substances.  Under CERCLA, EPA may conduct emergency responses when urgent response is required "to prevent, minimize, or mitigate to the public health or welfare or to the environment."  "Time-critical" removal actions may be carried out when response must begin quickly in order to protect human health or the environment and "non-time critical" removal actions may be carried out "whenever a planning period of at least six months exists before on-site activities must be initiated...."  Removal actions may include temporary relocation of households and businesses.  Removal actions may be carried out directly by the EPA or carried out by a "Potentially Responsible Party" (PRPs) with EPA oversight.  
         If the EPA chooses to respond to notice of a release, it may deploy an "On-Scene Coordinator" (OSC) to investigate and potentially oversee a cleanup.  OSCs work for EPA Regional offices, other Federal agencies, as well as state and tribal agencies.   OSCs, together with their support teams and contractors, train for cleanup actions.  They carry credentials, stockpile supplies, and maintain response vehicles in warehouses across the United States.  They have specific statutory authorities to support cleanup and they have delegated authorities to incur costs. OSCs want to clean up contaminated sites and for every removal action they complete, their supervisors collect "beans" when it comes time for reporting at the end of the fiscal year.  Dialing the National Response Center will not guarantee that a contaminated site gets cleaned up, of course, but it costs nothing to try.  And it may in the end get the job, with or without bake sales.
                 III.  Superfund Removals and Environmental Justice
      Superfund removal actions are happening all the time.  For a quick view of this constant removal activity, visit this public website:  https://response.epa.gov. Through this website, you can sort by removal actions in your state and you can reach back in time almost 20 years.  At the same time, you can also examine demographics and environmental indicators for any location in the United States through EPA's Geographic Information System tool known as EJSCREEN, available through this public website: https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.  Through a combination of EJSCREEN and the removal website, you can see that removal actions are occurring in EJ communities all across the country.  A sampling of EPA removal actions in EJ communities appears below to illustrate the range of environmental concerns that Superfund removal actions may address and the diverse communities that such actions may assist.
      Vo-Toys Site, Harrison, New Jersey.  The Vo-Toys site in Harrison, New Jersey, is an industrial property covering a full city block and including three unoccupied buildings.  Beginning in 1882, the property was used for manufacturing of light bulbs and later radio and television tubes by companies including General Electric and Radio Corporation of America (RCA).  In 2015, the property was purchased for redevelopment into residential use.  However, redevelopment was halted by the discovery of extensive contamination with elemental mercury on the property.  Investigations revealed mercury contamination in all three vacant buildings, with beads and puddles of mercury observed in at least two of the three buildings.  The neighborhood surrounding the property is densely populated, with over 5,000 people living within a half-mile of the site.  According to EJSCREEN, this same community ranks nationally in the 94[th] percentile for Linguistic Isolation and 78[th] percentile for People of Color.
      Even though the buildings remained unoccupied, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection considered the site a threat to the surrounding neighborhood in the event of a fire and the state agency therefore requested removal assistance from EPA.  Responding to this request, EPA Region 2 worked with GE and other parties to provide for a time-critical response to the site.  On December 21, 2020, EPA and GE signed an administrative agreement requiring GE to removal elemental mercury and asbestos from the buildings and eventually demolish all three buildings on the property.  Demolition work will be carried out with continuous air monitoring to ensure protection of the surrounding community.  All demolition at this site is expected to be completed by early 2022.
      Waymire Drum Site, Los Angeles, California.  The Waymire Drum site is located in a mixed residential and commercial/industrial neighborhood of Los Angeles, California.  According to EPA, the surrounding neighborhood within a half-mile of the site is highly diverse, with a minority group population of 99 percent and a Spanish-speaking population of 89 percent.  EJSCREEN also clearly indicates that this diverse neighborhood is overburdened with environmental stressors, ranking nationally in the 98[th] percentile for "Particulate Matter," in the 96[th] percentile for "Traffic Proximity," and in the 87[th] percentile for "Lead Paint Indicator." 
      The Waymire Drum site has a long history of industrial use, including the use of caustic solutions for cleaning and reconditioning industrial steel drums.  In 2019, EPA Region 9 conducted sampling of soils, soil gas, and groundwater at the site and discovered extremely high concentrations of contaminants including Trichloroethylene (TCE), Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and Vinyl Chloride (VC).  In one instance, TCE exceeded the residential screening level by 256,250 times.
      In response to this identified threat to human health, EPA Region 9 began a time-critical removal action in 2019 that later required invoking an emergency exemption to allow for funding beyond the presumptive 12-month and $2 million spending caps on removal actions.  The exemption authorized EPA to spend up to $2.7 million for immediate and continuing removal actions to include installation and maintenance of vapor mitigation systems in more than a dozen residential homes and commercial spaces as well as construction of a pilot system for in-situ treatment of contaminated soils at the site. 
      Balsam Road Abandoned Drums, Lac du Flambeau Reservation.  On August 14, 2020, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians reported the discovery of 14 abandoned drums on tribal property in a remote area near Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin.  The drums, originally reported by a nearby resident, were all described as rusty, with several apparently bulging.  The Tribe contacted EPA Region 5, which responded two days later, on August 16, 2020, with a crew of EPA contractors.  The EPA contractors safely opened the drums, sampled the contents, secured with drums in new containers, and removed the drums from the site. 
      35[th] Avenue Site, Birmingham, Alabama.  The 35[th] Avenue Site is located in Birmingham, Alabama, and includes residential communities in North Birmingham contaminated by a legacy of heavy industrial activity.  In addition to this industrial legacy, Birmingham also has a long history of racial discrimination and racial violence, as well as a more recent history as one of the centers of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.  Today, EPA expressly describes North Birmingham as "an environmental justice community," identifying the community as 78 percent Black, and with an unemployment rate of 52 percent.  
      Time-critical removal actions began at the 35[th] Avenue site after a referral to EPA Region 4's Emergency Response program by another EPA Region 4 office.  In 2011, the Region 4 Emergency Response program collected soil samples from approximately 1,100 parcels in the area.  The EPA program also collected samples from garden produce and partnered with health agencies to collect data from blood screening events.  High concentrations of toxic metals including arsenic and lead were detected in many areas.  The highest concentrations of these contaminants were identified in approximately 50 parcels that were originally targeted for time-critical removal.  In 2013, EPA Region 4 invoked CERCLA's emergency exemption on funding limitations to approve spending of $3,180,000 for the first phase of time-critical removal actions at the 35[th] Avenue site.  After additional sampling and site characterization, the scope of EPA's removal actions at the 35[th] Avenue site expanded significantly.  In 2019, EPA Region 4 approved a funding increase that would allow for cleanup of a total of some 670 properties, for a total site cost of approximately $83,919,990. 
      Medford Housing Authority, Medford, Massachusetts.  In April 2014, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection requested that EPA Region 1 evaluate a public housing complex known as the Willis Avenue Apartments, run by the Medford Housing Authority (MHA) in Medford, Massachusetts.  MHA contractors had identified high concentrations of lead in surface soils on the property that could present significant health threats particularly to young residents.  In the summer of 2014, EPA conducted soil sampling throughout the housing complex, including five playgrounds.  In October 2015, EPA began excavating contaminated soil and backfilling with clean soils, with this removal work continuing into 2016 and concluding with landscaping and a new watering program. 
      According to EPA, almost 80 percent of the housing complex population were "classified as minority (Black, Asian, or American Indian)."  Of approximately 470 individual residents, the majority were specifically described as "being of Haitian-Creole descent."  Residents were also qualified for public housing based upon income levels.  Removal actions conducted by EPA at the MHA site directly contributed to protecting the health of minority and low-income residents and to providing residents, including children, with safe places to live and play, consistent with principles of environmental justice for fair treatment of all people.   
      Figure 1:  My Garden - West Eugene.  Oct. 19, 2014.  
Photo by the author.
My Garden  -  West Eugene, Eugene, Oregon.  The West Eugene neighborhood of Eugene, Oregon, stands in juxtaposition with the lush green campus of the University of Oregon on the other side of the tracks, a diverse residential community surrounded by heavy industry including railyard operations and wood treatment plants.  Given the plethora of sources of environmental contamination in this community, residents expressed many concerns, including whether it was safe to grow and consume produce from their own gardens.  To answer this question, EPA Region 10 exercised its Superfund authority for removal assessment, working with local partners to plan a community event called "My Garden  -  West Eugene."  Ahead of the event, 250 citizen sampling kits were distributed throughout the community, together with illustrated sampling instructions in English and Spanish.  On Sunday, October 19, 2014, EPA Region 10 set up a mobile laboratory in the community that was equipped to provide instant analysis of soil samples.  Throughout the day, community members brought their soil samples to the mobile laboratory and received free, real-time results  -  none of which, fortunately, indicated any concerns for growing and consuming produce from their own gardens.      Northeast Church Rock Mine, Navajo Nation.  The Northeast Church Rock Mine is one of many former uranium mines in New Mexico located on or near the Navajo Nation and lands of other federally recognized tribes.  During the 2000s, the Navajo Nation requested EPA to take the lead for cleanup of the Northeast Church Rock Mine, located approximately 17 miles northeast of Gallup, New Mexico.  In 2009, under an administrative agreement with EPA, PRPs began conducting a removal action to excavate contaminated soils from the Northeast Church Rock Mine and consolidate the contaminated soils in a waste repository constructed on the mine property.  The removal action resulted in the excavation of more than 109,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and required relocating three Navajo households for approximately five months during construction activities.  The removal action also required careful attention to avoid disturbing two traditional cultural properties identified in or around the construction area.  The total cost for this removal work funded by the PRPs was estimated at $4.2 million.  Further work on the Northeast Church Rock Mine is anticipated in conjunction with remedial action for the nearby United Nuclear Corporation Superfund Site, where one million cubic yards of contaminated soil from the Northeast Church Rock Mine may ultimately be disposed on privately owned property.   
      Yakima Mercury Release, Yakima, Washington.   In this case, EPA Region10 received notification on April 15, 2007, about a residential property in Yakima, Washington, where two youths, ages 12 and 16, had acquired a one-liter bottle of mercury.  For several months, the two youths and at least two other children in the neighborhood had played with the mercury.  As a result of this exposure, the 16-year-old had been hospitalized and diagnosed with mercury poisoning.  After initial response by the Yakima Fire Department and other agencies, the EPA was called to assist with the investigation and cleanup.  The EPA deployed an OSC to the scene the next day, eventually supported by a response team of at least ten EPA staff and contractors.  The EPA found high mercury vapors outside and inside of the residential home.  Over a period of months, the EPA expended at least $400,000 to clean up the residential property, which required demolition, disposal, and replacement of many contaminated house structures, to include flooring, plumbing, kitchen cabinets, and countertops.  Decontamination and reconstruction of the house structure also required temporary relocation of the family living in the home.
      The residential property in the Yakima Mercury case was located in a largely Spanish-speaking, low-income community.  14 years later, the property had a market value substantially less than half the cost to clean it up.  However, had EPA failed to exercise its removal authority to clean up the property, the property would likely still be contaminated and uninhabitable, an "attractive nuisance" for crime and neighborhood kids.  It would be a classic "brownfield," but not the kind likely to rally community spirit and energy to address through tools such as EPA's Brownfields grants or revolving loans.  
         IV.  Environmental Justice in the Superfund Removal Process.
      Following the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the Environmental Movement of the 1970s, the Environmental Justice Movement emerged as a national concern in the 1980s and early 1990s.  Since then, attention to environmental justice has waxed and waned on the national level with changes in administrations.  After years of neglect under the Trump Administration, environmental justice returned with the Biden administration to the top of the national agenda.  On state and local levels, environmental justice also remains a growing concern, with many states taking the lead with recently enacted legislation promoting environmental justice.
      While "environmental justice" remains open to many understandings, the definition used most commonly is the one established and maintained by the U.S. EPA.  According to EPA, "environmental justice" means  - 
      the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

For purposes of this definition, "fair treatment" and "meaningful involvement" form two pillars of environmental justice.  Superfund removal actions can serve the pillar of fair treatment in many ways.  For example, Superfund removal actions can help provide relief to low-income communities unable to meet Brownfields match requirements.  Superfund removals can also provide timely response to diverse communities in states unable or unwilling to meet state match requirements for remedial funding at NPL sites.  For the pillar of "meaningful involvement," however, Superfund removal actions present greater challenges.
	In general, according to the EPA regulations, the greater the need for urgent action at a site, the less the requirements for community involvement.  Consider the following:  
      40 C.F.R. § 300.415(n): Community relations in removal actions. 
      (1) In the case of all CERCLA removal actions ..., a spokesperson shall be designated by the lead agency. The spokesperson shall inform the community of actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide information concerning the release. 
      (2) For CERCLA actions where ... the lead agency determines that a removal is appropriate, and that less than six months exists before on-site removal activity must begin, the lead agency shall:
      (i) Publish a notice of availability of the administrative record file ... in a major local newspaper of general circulation or use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community within 60 days of initiation of on-site removal activity;
      (ii) Provide a public comment period, as appropriate, of not less than 30 days from the time the administrative record file is made available for public inspection...
      (iii) Prepare a written response to significant comments....
      (3) For CERCLA removal actions where on-site action is expected to extend beyond 120 days from the initiation of on-site removal activities, the lead agency shall ... 
      (i) Conduct interviews with local officials, community residents, public interest groups, or other interested or affected parties, as appropriate, to solicit their concerns, information needs, and how or when citizens would like to be involved in the Superfund process.
      (ii) Prepare a formal community relations plan (CRP) based on the community interviews and other relevant information, specifying the community relations activities that the lead agency expects to undertake during the response; and
      (iii) Establish at least one local information repository.... 
      (4) Where ... the lead agency determines that a CERCLA removal action is appropriate and that a planning period of at least six months exists prior to initiation of the on-site removal activities, the lead agency shall at a minimum:
      (i) Comply with the [above] requirements
      (ii) Publish a notice of availability and brief description of the [Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA)] in a major local newspaper of general circulation or use one or more other mechanisms to give adequate notice to a community....
      (iii) Provide a reasonable opportunity, not less than 30 calendar days, for submission of written and oral comments after completion of the EE/CA....; and
      (iv) Prepare a written response to significant comments....
      As indicated above, for time-critical removal actions completed within 120 days, there is no requirement for any public comment period, except as the agency deems "appropriate."  But especially where a removal action may continue for longer than 120 days, the Superfund removal regulations do establish specific requirements for community involvement.  For example, EPA Regions must conduct interviews with community members and produce a community relations plan.  Community relations plans, in many cases, have improved over time and may now even be available in multiple languages.  And, of course, EPA On-Scene Coordinators and other removal officials can and often do more than the regulatory minimums. For example, even for time-critical responses, EPA OSCs can and often do hold public meetings in communities to allow for useful exchanges of information and concerns.  In some cases, EPA removal actions may respond directly to community concerns, such as the specific concerns expressed by residents of West Eugene, Oregon, over safety in consuming produce from their gardens.  
                                    V. Conclusion
      For many, if not most, students, lawyers, law professors, and other community advocates, "Superfund" means only designated "Superfund sites," and cleanup of contaminated sites that are not designated Superfund sites depends entirely on other resources such as Brownfields.  If you have read this far, however, you now know there is another funding alternative, one that often supports assessment and cleanup of smaller sites, every day, in communities across the country.  Tapping into these resources is not easy for most community advocates, but it may begin with a simple phone call.  Removal actions may also begin with referrals from other parties including state or tribal agencies, as illustrated in the case studies in this essay.  However this work begins, Superfund removal authority can provide substantial resources for addressing environmental and public health concerns particularly for environmental justice communities, where resources may otherwise be the least and where needs for cleanup may be greatest.  Hang onto the carwashes and bake sales for other community needs.  For contaminated sites, you might first try calling the EPA.
      
