Environmental policies at the federal, state, and local levels shape how marginalized communities experience environmental burdens, particularly in relation to waste management and remediation. While federal laws provide a broad framework, state and local policies shape enforcement and effectiveness. However, inconsistent commitment across administrations and systemic barriers at the state and municipal levels have left many environmental justice issues unresolved.
At the federal level, the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights enforces environmental justice regulations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2022). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 was the first law to require federal agencies to assess environmental impacts, including disproportionate effects on vulnerable communities (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013b). Later, Executive Order 12898 (1994) mandated that federal agencies incorporate environmental justice considerations into decision-making, while Executive Order 14008 (2021) strengthened these efforts through the Justice40 Initiative, which directs 40% of federal climate and clean energy investments to disadvantaged communities (Federal Register, 1994; The White House, 2021). However, environmental justice remains politically vulnerable, as seen during the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks and budget cuts to the EPA (Buford, 2017).
In addition to national policies and regulations, the U.S. EPA prioritizes public participation in the hazardous waste permitting and corrective action processes to ensure community involvement in environmental decisions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2024b). Through public notices, comment periods, and hearings, the EPA provides opportunities for input during both the permitting and cleanup stages (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2024b). This approach promotes transparency, accountability, and environmental justice by incorporating local concerns into decision-making.
Connecticut has additional state-level environmental justice protections. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) developed an environmental equity policy to ensure that no population bears a disproportionate environmental burden. Additionally, Connecticut’s Environmental Justice Law requires increased oversight and public participation in permitting processes for industrial facilities in environmental justice communities, defined as distressed municipalities or areas where either 30% of residents live below 200% of the federal poverty level or 50% of the population identifies as a racial minority (Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 2025). In these communities, companies must engage in Community Environmental Benefit Agreements (CEBAs) to offset potential harms, and state agencies must assess cumulative environmental impacts when reviewing permits (Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 2025).
At the federal level, waste management policies are minimal, with only general EPA guidelines in place (Melosi, 1985). Instead, state and local governments largely control how waste is processed and where waste facilities are placed. The Connecticut DEEP has attempted to limit the expansion of polluting infrastructure, including waste management sites, in environmental justice communities (Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 2025). However, suburban towns have historically used zoning laws to block waste facilities, forcing urban communities, especially those with less political power, to bear the brunt of waste processing (Bullard, 2000). The lack of transparency in waste management further complicates this issue. The Connecticut DEEP website provides little public information on where the state’s waste goes or how it is processed, making it difficult to hold policymakers accountable (Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 2025). Since effective waste management requires coordination between federal, state, and local governments, many problems remain unresolved (Melosi, 1985).
While the MIRA incinerator’s closure is a victory for environmental justice, it highlights a larger issue: Connecticut lacks a long-term waste management solution. With the MIRA incinerator no longer operational, Connecticut municipalities must send their waste to out-of-state landfills, shifting environmental burdens to other disadvantaged communities (CT Waste DataViz, 2024). This underscores the need for a comprehensive, sustainable waste management strategy and remediation plan that prevents the displacement of environmental harms. Waste management remains opaque and highly localized, allowing wealthier communities to avoid environmental burdens at the expense of marginalized areas (Mitchell, 2020).
When hazardous waste sites such as the MIRA incinerator are shut down, remediation programs exist across federal, state, and local levels; yet their implementation is inconsistent due to political shifts and systemic barriers. Remediation refers to the process by which land is assessed for hazardous pollutants and particulates and cleaned to meet federal and state regulations so that it can be redeveloped and repurposed. Remediation follows facility closure and demolition, occasionally provoked by the implementation or enforcement of environmental legislation (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, n.d). In 2001, Congress passed the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act aiming to revitalize contaminated properties by directing funding and legislation to improve the land and greater communities. The act defines brownfields as properties for which the “expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant” (Freeland, 2004). The EPA designates especially pressing environmental hazards as “Superfund” sites, which receive investment for detoxification and redevelopment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2024a).
When plants like the MIRA incinerator completely cease operations, they are decommissioned and the owners are tasked with deciding the plant’s future, including removing any remaining toxic material. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), mandates environmental impact assessments to gauge the site’s pollution (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013b). Following a site inspection, remediation takes place, cleaning the property to meet federal and state regulations. Depending on the type of facility and pollution, various methods of remediation are employed, including removing asbestos, capping the soil, and revegetation. Soil and groundwater samples are collected to monitor the level of toxicity present throughout the process, and once the site has been successfully remediated it can undergo redevelopment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2016; Anguelovski, 2017).
Despite the amount of policy attention remediation has amassed, it is often underfunded and applied disproportionately. Redevelopment efforts frequently prioritize incoming affluent residents rather than improving the conditions for existing residents. Politicians use remediation and repurposing as a way to cater their platform to wealthier communities. Redevelopment can result in “environmental gentrification,” a phenomenon through which cleaning up environmental harms results in displacement of marginalized populations, disproportionately affecting communities of color (Anguelovski, 2017; Checker, 2011). Green infrastructure, park development, and rezoning can attract wealthier residents and raise rent rates, displacing local residents (Anguelovski, 2017; Checker, 2011). In cities like Flint, Michigan and post-Katrina New Orleans, slow or uneven government remediation responses disproportionately harmed communities of color, exposing systemic environmental racism and investment inequities (Pulido, 2016; Gotham, 2015). Alternatively, remediation efforts can be slow, leaving polluted land dormant and exacerbating economic disparities (Anguelovski, 2017).
While remediation of environmentally hazardous sites is essential, it often requires immense amounts of funding, time, and sustained government involvement, which are resources typically inaccessible to marginalized communities. Remediated sites such as the Pantex Plant in Texas and Poznań’s Old Waste Incinerator in Poland demonstrate how expensive cleanup efforts tend to favor industrial redevelopment or historical preservation which require less stringent detoxification standards than residential redevelopment (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.a; Marciniak, 2021; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.b). As Hartford considers repurposing the MIRA incinerator, it is critical to weigh the risks of repeating these patterns in the city’s South End.
While remediation plays a crucial role in cleaning up contaminated sites and repurposing land for redevelopment, it often fails to address the broader social and environmental injustices that accompany such efforts. Environmental gentrification resulting from redevelopment efforts further exacerbates social divides, displacing long-term, low-income residents, particularly in marginalized communities. These communities, already vulnerable due to historical environmental racism and lack of resources, often find themselves caught between the need for remediation and the negative consequences of revitalization projects. As seen in global examples like Barcelona, Spain and Harlem, New York, the pursuit of urban greening and environmental improvements can unintentionally lead to gentrification, stripping residents of affordable housing and community stability. Moving forward, it is critical that remediation efforts for the MIRA incinerator not only focus on environmental restoration, but also incorporate equitable policies that prioritize the well-being and sustainability of low-income, minority communities. Ensuring that these communities are actively involved in the planning and decision-making process can mitigate the risks of gentrification and displacement while promoting truly just and effective remediation.