Community innovation in hazardous materials management: progress in implementing SARA Title III in the United States

Abstract

Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III) established a new federal approach to managing toxic chemical hazards. This legislation required industry to disclose the type and quantity of such chemicals and also required the establishment of state and local government organizations to receive those data, evaluate community vulnerability, develop local emergency response plans, and communicate with the public. This paper reviews the law's historical context and empirical studies of its implementation. The available evidence suggests that significant progress has been made in reducing chemical hazards but there is considerable variation across jurisdictions in the effectiveness of the law's implementation. The research results reviewed here suggest a variety of ways in which SARA Title III implementation can be improved.

The evolution of the natural disaster management system in Taiwan

“…The local DPRCMs have the same problem as the central government. This phenomenon is very similar to the findings of Lindell et al (1996) and Lindell and Perry (2001) that lacking full time staff support had significant impact on the effectiveness of the Local Emergency Planning committees in the US.…”

“…Many supporting agencies don't even know what their roles in the disaster management mechanism are. Lindell et al (1996) and Lindell and Perry (2001) had similar findings on this issue in the US.…”

Social and political amplification of technological hazardsThe case of the PEPCON explosion

“…Also, the state government did not make any specific statements regarding the full implementation of SARA Title III. However, in contrast to federal risk assessment programs regarding nuclear power plants and natural hazards, the risk assessment under SARA Title III is devolved to state and local governments and as unfunded mandates [8]. In the aftermath of the explosion, the lack of adequate funding and institutional capacity may have hampered the establishment of both SERC and LEPC in Nevada.…”

“…While highly publicized disasters such as Love Canal, Bhopal, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the Three Mile Island incident serve as focusing events for substantive national policies [8][9][10], little is known about the impact of technological hazards in spurring substantive state and local policy initiatives. This dearth of information is unfortunate because the cost of technological hazards is immense, and the placement of industries and the subsequent potential public exposure to toxic hazards is based on land-use planning and local safety regulations that are usually the prerogatives of state and local governments.…”

“…As an example, the 1984 chemical plant leak that killed more than 2000 people in Bhopal, India, spurred the enactment of a community-right-to-know law as part of Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act [9]. Also, the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 served as a strong focusing event for nuclear safety initiatives [8]. Different types of disasters, however, generate different levels of public interest and therefore have different amount of impact on the institutional agenda.…”