EPA/540/8-91/002
Control #9375.6-08A
September 1990
AN ANALYSIS OF STATE
SUPERFUND PROGRAMS:
50-State Study, 1990 Update
September 1990
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division
Washington, DC 20460
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Allen Dotson served as EPA Project Officer under the
supervision of Murray Newton and William Ross, State and
Local Coordination Branch. Environmental Law Institute staff
contributing to the report were Lisa St. Amand (Project
Manager), Dr. Glen Anderson, Susan Bass, James McElfish,
John Pendergrass, Todd Edelman, Megan Lewis, Steve Mattox,
and Andrew Moyad. EPA also acknowledges the assistance of
State superfund officials and staff.
This document was prepared by the Environmental Law
Institute for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
contract No. 68-W8-0098.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
LIST OF ACRONYMS iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
H. THE EMERGING STATE PROGRAM 3
IH. STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAMS ' 5
Overview of Cleanup Activities and Capabilities 5
Statutes 6
Hazardous Waste Sites 7
Program Organization 11
Funding 16
Enforcement 26
Cleanup Policies and Criteria 31
Public Participation 34
IV. POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INVOLVEMENT 37
V. 50-STATE TABLES 41
VI. STATE SUMMARIES Ill
Region I 113
Region II 126
Region IE . 131
Region IV 142
Region V 159
Region VI 172
Region VH 183
Region VHI 192
Region IX 205
Region X 214
111
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AG - Attorney General
ARARs - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ASTSWMO - Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
CA - Cooperative Agreement
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental'Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CPCA - Core Program Cooperative Agreement
ELI - Environmental Law Institute
FTE - Full-time Equivalent
GAO - General Accounting Office
HRS - Hazard Ranking System
LUST - Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
MSCA - Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
NCP - National Contingency Plan
NPL - National Priorities List
OGC - Office of General Counsel
O&M - Operation and Maintenance
PA/SI - Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
PRP - Potentially Responsible Party
RA - Remedial Action
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD - Remedial Design
RI/FS - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD - Record of Decision
RP - Responsible Party
SACA - Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SMOA - Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
TAG - Technical Assistance Grant
UST - Underground Storage Tank
iv
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the nearly ten years that have passed since the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, generally referred to as Superfund)
became law, the enormity of the problems associated with hazardous waste sites has
become overwhelmingly apparent. Coordinated cleanup efforts between Federal and State
authorities are currently underway at numerous sites targeted by the National Priorities List
(NPL); still, many more known or suspected waste sites are not listed on the NPL and, if
they are to be addressed, most will have to be addressed by the States. In certain cases
States may feel compelled to respond in a manner that is more stringent or timely than
might be possible in joint Federal-State efforts. Where joint efforts are required, Federal
and State authorities need to ensure that their actions are mutually supportive but not
duplicative. For these reasons, the role of the States in addressing hazardous waste sites,
independently and in concert with the Federal government, will become increasingly impor-
tant as the numbers of both NPL and non-NPL sites grow.
States now are responsible for enforcing or funding cleanups at non-NPL sites; at
NPL sites, their responsibility ranges from required cost sharing at Federal fund-lead
cleanups to lead action in site activities. The prospects for increasing State involvement at
both NPL and non-NPL sites depend on the capacity of States to develop effective
programs supported by adequate resources to fund cleanups, pursue enforcement to obtain
private cleanups, and conduct oversight activities. For its part, EPA has a responsibility to
support and to assist States in the development of their cleanup capabilities.
A key step in enhancing the Federal-State partnership on Superfund is to understand
State superfund programs aimed at NPL and non-NPL sites. This is the object of the
present report, which updates the results of a study initially conducted in 1989 by the
Environmental Law Institute (ELI) for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Control Division, State and Local
Coordination Branch. The study examines site cleanup capabilities in all 50 States and
provides descriptions of statutes, program organization, funding, and cleanup procedures.
This revised version also contains an analysis of political subdivision involvement in the
cleanup process. The report, provides detailed information for each State in a "State
Summaries" chapter and in 50-State tables that facilitate comparisons between States.
Purpose of the Study
Under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
Congress requires the EPA to involve States in the Superfund program in a "substantial and
meaningful" way. The State and Local Coordination Branch (SLCB) is responsible for
developing regulations, guidance, and policy related to this Congressional mandate. In order
to fulfill its responsibilities, the SLCB needs comprehensive and current information about
State capabilities to contribute to or to manage cleanups at hazardous waste sites. The
-------
SLCB therefore contracted with ELI to collect, organize, and summarize information on
State cleanup programs.
Research Methodology
To ensure that the information for this updated report would be complete, accurate,
and current, ELI spent several months gathering and analyzing research reports, statutes,
regulations, and State documents; interviewing State program staff; and confirming infor-
mation for each State. ELI initially reviewed both information gathered for the original
1989 version of the report and newer information concerning State cleanup programs as
found in State documents, legislative reporting services, newsletters, and EPA documents.
Worksheets were developed to organize information on each State. Based on the contents
of these worksheets, ELI drafted requests for information tailored to each State program. A
detailed request for information was sent to each State, along with a general request for
copies of any relevant legislative amendments or State reports. In addition to the responses
to the detailed requests for updated program information, ELI received a variety of program
materials from the States, including annual program status reports, legislative amendments,
program descriptions, and regulations.
ELI then conducted phone interviews to obtain information that was not provided in
response to the requests for information, to clarify ambiguities in the information provided,
and to confirm information that had previously been compiled. ELI used this new
information to update the two-page summaries of State programs contained in the original
report. ELI then sent each State program office the summary for that State for review;
appropriate changes were made in response to State officials' corrections. The 1989 set of
tables for the 50 States was also revised to reflect the new information. These are
presented in Chapters V and VI.
Organization of the Report
The remainder of the report is divided into five substantive chapters. Chapter n
highlights the more noteworthy developments in State capabilities that emerged in
comparing the updated information with the original study's 1989 data. An overview of
State superfund programs is provided in Chapter in. This overview examines statutes,
program funding and organization, enforcement, and the remediation process. Chapter IV
discusses political subdivision involvement in the cleanup process. Chapter V presents
program information arranged in 50-State Tables that facilitate comparisons between States.
Chapter VI contains two-page summaries of each State program. For those States that do
not have superfund programs, the summaries focus on States' capabilities to address
hazardous waste sites using other authorities and resources.
In assembling this report, ELI has tried to take a "snapshot" of State cleanup
programs even though they are in constant flux and information about them is continuously
being updated. For the purposes of this report, we have used State information that was
available on or before September 5, 1990. States were provided an opportunity to review
and update information in the drafts of the State Summaries; 21 States provided revised
program information before the cutoff date.
-------
CHAPTER II
THE EMERGING STATE PROGRAM
The extent of the States' involvement in the remediation of hazardous waste sites is
a function of their capacity to develop and implement effective cleanup programs. This
capacity can be assessed through an examination of the resources available to the States for
cleanup purposes-statutory authority, funding, and staff-as presented in this report. In
placing the 1989 data concerning these resources alongside the information that was
collected in 1990 for the current version of this study, it becomes clear that the States are
steadily augmenting their cleanup capabilities.
An additional two States (Maryland and Pennsylvania) are now operating cleanup
programs supported by enforcement authorities and dedicated funds, bringing the number of
such programs to 27. With the passage of Delaware's Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act,
the number of States with sufficient statutory authority to support a fully operating program
has grown to 48 from last year's 47.
More strikingly, the funding available at the State level has increased dramatically
over the past year. Cleanup Funds now exist in 49 States, up from 48 in 1989. The total
of the unobligated balances available in the State Funds as reported in 1990, however, is
$699.4 million; in 1989 the figure was $415 million. The average of the Fund balances is
$14.27 million, up from $8.3 million in 1989. Fourteen States now have Fund balances in
excess of $10 million; there were nine such States in 1989. (These 14 large Funds,
however, contain over 90% of the total State superfund balance.)
Cleanup program staff levels also experienced noteworthy increases during the past
year, with 33 States reporting more staff in 1990 than in 1989. Only six States report a
decrease in cleanup program staff.
These few statistics are simply the more outstanding indicators of a trend toward
increased State cleanup capacity. A close examination of the information contained in this
updated report will lead to a fuller understanding of the cleanup programs that are
emerging as States become increasingly involved in remedial activities at hazardous waste
sites within their borders.
-------
-------
CHAPTER HI
STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAMS
The passage of CERCLA in 1980 authorized the EPA to establish a Superfund
program to address the risks posed by hazardous waste sites. Since CERCLA became law,
many States have enacted laws and developed programs with authorities and capabilities
similar to the Federal Superfund program. For the purposes of this study a State
"superfund" program has some or all of the following characteristics:
1) procedures for emergency response actions and longer-term remediation
of environmental and health risks at hazardous waste sites, including
both NPL and non-NPL sites;
2) provisions for a fund or other financing mechanisms to pay for studies
and remediation activities;
3) enforcement authorities to compel responsible parties (RPs) to conduct
or pay for studies and/or remediation;
4) staff to manage publicly-funded cleanups and oversee RP-lead cleanups.
In this chapter, information on State "superfund" programs is presented for all 50
States. The chapter highlights similarities and differences among State statutes and State
programs in areas such as cleanup and oversight capabilities, cleanup standards, funding,
enforcement authorities, program organization, and staffing. Developments in State programs
over the past year are also acknowledged in the discussion of these program areas.
A. Overview of Cleanup Activities and Capabilities
One of the goals of this project is to provide a general assessment of States' efforts
and capabilities to address hazardous waste sites. This is a formidable task because of the
dynamic nature of funding and the many changes that have occurred in the last few years.
Many States have enacted "superfund" legislation within the last three years. Some of these
States' programs have not reached optimal operational levels in terms of funding and
staffing. Thus, in addition to the many programs that embody the "superfund" attributes
above, there are a number of emerging programs that have only recently been authorized or
received initial funds, or expect to receive funding in the near future.
A second project goal is to illustrate areas where the States are making progress in
enhancing their cleanup capabilities. For some States, this may mean the passage of
enabling legislation, while for others it may entail an increase in available funding or
program staff.
-------
Table V-l on page 41 summarizes States' capabilities and cleanup activities at the
present time. Twenty-seven States with Funds and enforcement authorities are conducting
programs for removals and remedial actions at non-NPL sites. This is an increase of two
States with active cleanup and oversight programs (Pennsylvania and Louisiana) over 1989.
Some of these States also manage or oversee cleanups at NPL sites as well.
Fourteen additional States have the legal capability to conduct public or RP-lead
cleanups at non-NPL sites but have limited cleanup activities at present. Typically, the
limited activity is attributable to relatively low Fund balances and/or inadequate staffing
levels. In some instances, the State's Fund is replenished at specific time intervals and the
lull in cleanup activities is temporary. Activities have so far been limited in several States
simply because legislation was only recently enacted (e.g., Delaware).
Of the remaining nine States, some lack enforcement authorities, others have funds
only for NPL CERCLA match requirements (but not for state-lead removals or cleanups),
and others lack any program. Nebraska is the only State without a cleanup Fund of any
kind.
B. Statutes
Many States have enacted laws in the image of CERCLA that establish State
response funds. These statutes typically include provisions for enforcement authorities, a
State priority list, and remedy selection criteria. In some States, provisions for a cleanup
program and enforcement authorities may be contained in one statute, while a separate act
creates a State response fund and defines its uses, restrictions, and preconditions for use.
Table V-2 on page 45 provides a summary of the principal cleanup statutes and
selected provisions for the fifty States. All States, except Nebraska, have a cleanup Fund or
an account that can be tapped for some or all types of cleanup costs. Delaware, the only
other State lacking a Fund in 1989, recently established one pursuant to new superfund
legislation. Much greater detail on funding is provided in Section E of this chapter.
As reported in 1989, ten States use enforcement authorities contained in statutes that
were not specifically intended to address hazardous waste sites. The largest superfund
program in this category is Michigan, which relies on enforcement authorities contained in
numerous State environmental statutes. Only Colorado and Idaho do not have at least
limited enforcement authorities (see Section F for more details).
Twenty States either make use of or are authorized to develop a priority list for
State sites; this figure is unchanged from 1989. A priority list typically is one of three
types: (1) a list similar to the NPL comprised of sites identified by a minimum threshold
score; (2) a ranking of sites that determines the order in which sites should be addressed;
or (3) a multi-tiered list indicating the urgency and extent of remediation required. A
number of States also have an inventory, list, or registry of sites which are of particular
interest or concern to the State (see Section C below).
-------
Fifteen States have citizen suit provisions in their statutes; this figure is unchanged
from 1989. These provisions allow parties who are or will be adversely affected by a
release or threat of a release of a hazardous substance to file a civil action requiring that
the responsible parties prevent further damage or take corrective action. Courts may also
assess civil penalties in civil actions filed by citizens. In Massachusetts the court may
award costs, including attorney and expert witness fees. Citizen suits and property transfer
programs (discussed below) provide alternative methods for accomplishing cleanups outside
of the superfund process.
Twelve States have provisions for compensating victims of hazardous waste
releases; this figure is also unchanged from 1989. In seven States, this compensation is,
limited to reimbursement for costs of securing temporary or permanent alternative water
supplies. The remaining five States are authorized to compensate victims for a broader
array of release-related expenses. In practice, most claims are for replacement of water
supplies or relocation.
A recent development at the State level is the property transfer program. The
objective of a property transfer program is to ensure that real property, in the process of
being transferred, does not pose health or environmental risks related to hazardous waste
releases. Basically, owners of certain classes of property must file a negative declaration
concerning past or present storage, disposal, or release of hazardous waste at the property,
or obtain State approval prior to property transfer. In either case, remediation may be
required. Six States (Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and New Jersey) have
mandatory property transfer programs; this is an increase of two States over 1989. A
seventh State, Minnesota, has a voluntary program. The New Jersey and Illinois programs
apply to a broad category of industrial and commercial properties while the programs in
Connecticut and Iowa apply to a more limited group of properties (hazardous waste
establishments in Connecticut, properties listed on the registry of sites in Iowa). In Indiana,
a site owner must record a restrictive covenant on the property. Missouri's program requires
that the seller of a site notify the State within 30 days after its transfer; potential buyers
must be notified of site listing. Minnesota provides information on risks and advice on
remediation to property owners and potential buyers.
C. Hazardous Waste Sites
Estimates of hazardous waste sites in the fifty States vary greatly. Despite the
uncertainty surrounding estimates of existing sites and the risks they pose, the number of
sites reported in a State can indicate the level of current program activity, as well as the
need for future cleanup activity. Table V-3 on page 51 reports the number of sites
•contained in various categories of hazardous waste sites in each of the 50 States. Figure
HI-1 on page 10 .shows for each State the number of sites on the Federal NPL. Other
categories of State sites reported in the table include an estimate of the total number of
known or suspected hazardous waste sites located in each State, the number of those sites
which may have been identified as requiring further investigative or cleanup attention, the
sites placed on a formal State priority list, and sites listed on a State inventory or registry
of sites.
-------
Twenty State statutes authorize the development of a priority list (see Table V-2 on
page 45). Only 18 States report actually compiling a priority list, however, while the
remaining two States (Delaware and Washington) are in the process of developing one.
Generally, such a list requires prioritization of sites through a ranking, scoring, or formal
screening procedure. Many States report a less formal listing of sites, called an inventory
or registry, which generally contains all identified, investigated, unconfirmed, and potential
sites. Thirty-one States report a registry or inventory of sites. Often a State inventory or
registry closely matches State sites shown on the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list compiled by the EPA.
Priority Lists
Of the 18 States that report having compiled a priority list, approximately half
follow a formal ranking process using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) or another
scoring system. (The HRS is used to assign hazardous waste sites a numerical score
indicating the probable risks and potential impacts of hazards posed by each site; high-
scoring sites are placed on the NPL to be dealt with on a priority basis.) Ten States
organize their priority lists into priority areas or tiered ranks. It is not uncommon for State
lists to contain some or all of the State's NPL sites.
For example, South Carolina's State Priorities List includes all sites that score less
than 28.5 according to the HRS (in other words, those sites that do not qualify for
inclusion on the NPL). Maryland compiles a Disposal Sites Registry, which is a list of
ranked sites, including NPL sites, requiring remedial action. The Registry in this case
serves as a priority list Maryland also keeps a Master List of sites that are not formally
ranked but are evaluated in terms of potential hazards to public health and the
environment, risks of fire and explosion, toxic hazard, and other criteria established in
CERCLA. According to the categories of this study, this Master List of sites serves the
function of an informal registry.
Site tracking systems often reflect the organization of the cleanup program.
Vermont, which combines all hazardous waste issues into one program, has a priority list
of sites that contains NPL sites and all types of hazardous waste sites, including active
treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities and uncontrolled sites. In addition, Vermont
maintains a site discovery file containing suspected and unconfirmed sites.
Upon completion of the remedy, sites may remain on a priority list, be delisted, or
be moved to another category on the list. California, for instance, has a three-tiered priority
list—immediate, substantial, and limited threats~for sites needing cleanup. When remediation
has been completed, sites are moved to the Certified Sites List.
At least one State statute (Pennsylvania) requires that a site be listed on a formal
priority list before funds may be spent on remedial actions or studies.
8
-------
Three States (New York, Michigan, and Arkansas) which reported compiling priority
lists in 1989 no longer consider their prioritization activities to include the compilation of a
list. Another State listed in 1989, Delaware, is now in the process of developing a new
priority list; Pennsylvania is the only addition in 1990 to the States maintaining a priority
list.
Inventory/Registry
A State inventory or registry of sites is usually a list of hazardous waste sites that
is broader than a priority list, and often includes unconfirmed or unscreened sites. Thirty-
one States report keeping an inventory or registry of sites, up from 28 in 1989.
Connecticut's statute, for example, creates a site inventory and requires a site to be listed
on the inventory before any funds are expended. Maine's list includes sites that have been
cleaned up, as well as those needing further action, no action, or inspection. Massachusetts'
inventory contains several subsets: locations to be investigated, confirmed disposal sites, a
remedial list, and a list of delisted sites. Ohio's informal list contains sites categorized after
a preliminary assessment as high, medium, or low priority.
Iowa's State Abandoned and Uncontrolled Sites Registry classifies sites in a five-tier
system: imminent threat, significant threat, not a significant threat, closed with management
needed, and closed with no management needed (no further action required). Florida's Sites
List contains investigated sites that are not yet prioritized. In Texas, a facility cannot be
listed on the State Registry if the potential endangerment can be resolved under other
authorities.
In many cases it is difficult to draw distinctions between a priority list and a
registry or inventory because of the different methods used from one State to another.
Many States use the Federal CERCLIS list as a State inventory. Rhode Island, for example,
quotes the CERCLIS number for existing sites in the State. In addition, States may use
other systems for keeping track of sites. For instance, New Jersey does not have a priority
list but instead tracks major remedial actions using a status report format.
Ranking Systems
Not all States have a formal site ranking process. Many do score sites, however,
using a variety of ranking methods,. including the Federal Hazard Ranking System (HRS),
modified HRS methods, and non-quantitative ranking systems. Tennessee, for example,
ranks sites according to the HRS. The Michigan Site Assessment Model (MSAM) differs
from HRS in various ways. MSAM measures potential exposure by direct contact, fire, or
explosion-factors not included in the current HRS numerical score. Because of the effort
necessary for MSAM scoring, Michigan's practice is to do an initial screening on all sites
but fully score only those over a certain screening level.
Sites on Minnesota's Permanent List of Priorities (PLP) are ranked using the HRS,
with minor modifications that tailor it to Minnesota's specific conditions. Similarly,
Wisconsin has modified the HRS to take greater account of waste types, populated areas,
and the effects of rainfall on leachate.
-------
I
FIGURE 111-1
FINAL AND PROPOSED NPL SITES*
August 1990
a
*Source: EPA National Priorities List, Supplementary Lists
and Supporting Materials, August 1990
-------
New York has recently developed a scoring system that combines three ranking
systems: the HRS, a State-developed Health Ranking Model (emphasizing human exposure),
and a State-developed Biothreat Ranking Model (emphasizing natural resource damages).
New Jersey uses a Severity Index, modeled after the HRS, to group sites into six "action"
categories. Montana uses a non-quantitative ranking system based on the following factors:
1) contamination of a drinking water supply, 2) air contamination that may pose a health
threat, 3) contamination of surface waters that provide recreation and drinking water, 4)
impacts on wildlife, and 5) danger of fire or explosion.
D. Program Organization *
Administration of a State's program to clean up hazardous waste sites is invariably
centered in the State agency with primary responsibility for environmental matters. The
responsible agency's entire focus may be on environmental protection, as with New Jersey's
Department of Environmental Protection, or its duties may be broader, e.g.,. Colorado's
Department of Health. Table V-4 on page 56 lists the responsible agencies for the 50
States.
Of greater interest than the identity of the responsible agency are the methods by
which the States structure and staff their cleanup programs. Most States place their cleanup
personnel within the agency division responsible for waste management. The organization
of each State cleanup program is unique, however, and it is difficult to make generaliza-
tions concerning program administration. Table V-4 presents by name the specific units
within the State agencies that constitute the States' cleanup programs, as well as their staff
levels. The examples highlighted below represent some of the more noteworthy organiza-
tional features the States are implementing.
Divisions Within Programs
Many cleanup programs are divided into several units, each with responsibility for a
different program element. In Maine, for example, the Uncontrolled Sites Program consists
of 22 staff, split into three sections-^administrative support and two site management units.
The administrative support section handles grants, policy review, and development of the
site ranking system, and is funded through the State's CPCA grant. The site management
units supervise sites from discovery through cost recovery.
Pennsylvania has a significantly larger staff (over 100 people) and a more
complicated program structure for dealing with site cleanup. Thirty people are located in
the Department of Environmental Resources' (DER) Hazardous Sites Cleanup Program,
which has four sections: Site Assessment, HSCA (State superfund) Response, CERCLA
Response, and Contract Management. These headquarters staff are assisted by 77 technical
personnel in six regional offices. The Office of Engineering, which is responsible for
remedial action contracting, also provides seven positions. A six-member investigative unit
was also added in 1990. The DER's Office of Chief Counsel has 12 legal personnel
dedicated to the cleanup program. Finally, emergency response is handled by a separate
program within the DER~each of the six regions has a separate emergency response team
of six to twelve DER employees.
11
-------
Case Management Team
• Several' States (Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon) report the use of case
management teams. In New Jersey, for example, a site will be assigned to a team
consisting of a case manager, a technical coordinator, and a groundwater advisor. There are
separate teams for publicly-funded and privately-funded sites, and a case may shift from
team to team if its funding source changes, as when an administrative consent order
requiring private funding is signed. Separate negotiation units engage in communication
with responsible parties, and once a site enters the remedial action phase, a separate
construction team assumes oversight responsibility.
Multiple Personnel Functions
A number of States report that an individual staff member may have duties under
both the cleanup program and another related State waste management program, such as a
RCRA-type program. Vermont has taken this approach one step further and has integrated
its RCRA, CERCLA, preremedial and State list activities into one unit called the
Hazardous Sites Management Section. The Section's nine technical personnel spend at least
40% of their time on Federal CERCLA activities.
Intragency Activity
In many States, other divisions within the responsible agency provide support to
cleanup personnel. For example, air quality divisions often participate in cleanup activities
if air emissions are involved and water quality divisions are often consulted regarding
cleanup standards. Cleanup programs must also coordinate their activities with other
elements of the hazardous and solid waste programs.
Staffing Levels
The number of personnel devoted to site cleanup varies greatly, from the 800-plus
people in New Jersey's Divisions of Hazardous Site Mitigation and Hazardous Waste
Management (some with RCRA-type responsibilities), to the lack of staff currently assigned
to cleanup activities in South Dakota and Wyoming. Program staff levels are indicated on
Table V-4 on page 56. Eight States have over 100 people working on cleanup activities:
California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Washington. These States all have very large numbers of confirmed or suspected sites;
Washington, with 750 sites on its State database, has the fewest number of sites. Only four
States have staff levels between 51 and 100 people: Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. Again, each of these States has a great many sites, at least 400 confirmed or
suspected. The largest number of States (27) have between 11 and 50 personnel, while 11
States have 10 or fewer people assigned to their programs. Figure IJJ-2 on page 13
presents the staffing distribution for the 50 States.
12
-------
FIGURE 111-2
STATE "SUPERFUND" PROGRAM STAFF
PROGRAM STAFF
CH 10 or less
H 11 to 50
m 51 to 100
ffl over 100
-------
PROGRAM
Number of Personnel
Over 100
51-100
11-50
0-10
STAFF LEVELS
Number of States
8
4
27
11
Staff levels increased in ,33 States over the levels reported in 1989. Six States
reported a decrease in cleanup program staff .over the year, while the number of personnel
remained constant in 11 States.
In many States, staff members assume multiple duties both within and outside of
the cleanup program, and State officials are often unable to indicate the precise percentage
of time these personnel devote to cleanup activities. In Table V-4 on page 56, the number
of personnel with split duties is indicated by a footnote, with the explanation that some
portion of their time is dedicated ,to Federal and State superfund work. Several States have
more program positions authorized than are currently filled. In Massachusetts, for example,
286 superfund-related positions are authorized within the Department of Environmental
Protection, but only 244 are filled.
Intemgejicy Activities
Most States report that the agency with primary responsibility for site cleanup relies
upon other units of State government for assistance. Often, the Attorney General's (AG's)
Office handles court actions, as discussed under Legal Support, below. At least 16 States
turn to their Departments of Health or equivalent agencies for assistance in risk assessment
or standard-setting. Where the Department of Natural Resources is not the agency with
primary responsibility for cleanup program administration, it is often consulted regarding
natural resources damages. Emergency response activities often involve the State
Department of Transportation. Regional Groundwater Management Districts in Kansas,
under the administration of the Department of Agriculture, have asserted jurisdiction over
some remediation activities, as have Regional Water Quality Control Boards in California.
Legal Support
State Superfund programs obtain legal support from within their agency, from the
AG's Office, or from some combination of personnel from these two sources. Twenty-six
States report that the State AG's Office is the primary source of legal support for the
cleanup program, while agency legal personnel provide the primary support for ten State
programs. Thirteen States rely upon a combination of attorneys from both the AG's Office
14
-------
and the responsible agency. One State (Mississippi) indicates that its program is receiving
no legal support. Table V-4 on page 56 presents sources of legal support for the 50 States.
Where legal support duties are split between the AG's Office and the agency
responsible for cleanup, the agency legal staff generally provides support on administrative
enforcement issues, such as review of administrative consent orders or assessment of
administrative penalties. When a case requires the initiation of a lawsuit, as in an action
for cost recovery, it is generally referred to the AG's Office.
Staffing levels for legal personnel do not vary greatly among the States. Of the 28
States reporting staff levels at the AG's Office (11 States did not provide information on
the number of staff and 11 reported that they do not receive legal support from the AG),
25 have four or fewer full-time employees working on cleanup cases. Colorado (18),
California (nine) and New York (seven) are the exceptions. Twenty-one States reported
agency legal staff levels; of these States, 19 devote eight or fewer full-time employees to
cleanup cases. New York's Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Envi-
ronmental Enforcement has 25 staff, while the Chief Counsel's Office in Pennsylvania's
Department of Environmental Regulation has 12 cleanup-related legal support staff.
Funding Sources
There are three basic sources of funding for state program administrative and
personnel costs: State cleanup funds, State general funds, and Federal grants. The funding
sources used by the 50 States are presented in Table V-5 on page 61. Forty-seven States
fund their program staffs through a combination of Federal grants and State monies. State
funding is obtained only through general fund appropriations in seventeen of these States,
while fourteen States rely only upon their separate site cleanup funds for the State share of
administrative and personnel costs. Fifteen States use a combination of general fund
appropriations and cleanup fund monies to pay staff and administrative costs, and one State
(Iowa) obtains funding through its Oil Overcharge Fund. A few States have incidental
funding sources, indicated under the "Other" heading on Table V-5.
Three States (Delaware, Nebraska and Oklahoma) rely solely upon Federal funding
to support their cleanup programs. These three Federally-supported programs are all
relatively small, however, the largest being Delaware's staff of 20. Delaware's new
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund is expected to be available for program support in the
near future.
Table V-6 on page 65 presents the various Federal CERCLA grants available to the
States-Cooperative Agreements (CAs), Multi-Site Cooperative Agreements (MSCAs),
Support Agency Cooperative Agreements (SACAs), and Core Program Cooperative Agree-
ments (CPCAs)--and indicates which States receive funds through these grant mechanisms.
A CA enables the use of Federal funds for site-specific activities at a State-lead NPL site.
An MSCA is a similar funding mechanism which covers site-specific activities at a number
of sites. An SACA grant provides funding to States with limited cleanup staffs to enable
them to provide oversight assistance on EPA-lead sites. CPCAs are available to fund non-
site-specific program administration activities, such as database maintenance.
15
-------
Forty-four States report having CAs, 41 have CPCAs, 31 have SACAs, and 22 have
MSCAs. While the figures for CAs and CPCAs remain constant from 1989, three more
States report having MSCAs, while three fewer report having SACAs. Only two States
(Nevada and Wyoming) report receiving no funds through these grant mechanisms. These
two States, however, receive Federal funds for cleanup program administration through
other programs, such as RCRA grants.
STATES RECEIVING FEDERAL CERCLA ASSISTANCE
CAs MSCAs SACAs CPCAs
44 22 31 41
Only a few States have provided specific information on the precise staffing and
administrative costs covered by these Federal funds. Where available, these are indicated on
Table V-5 on page 61.
States with Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (SMOAs) are also indicated on
Table V-6 on page 65 and Figure ffl-3 on page 17. A SMOA documents the agreed-upon
relationship between the EPA and a State as regards Superfund activities. It can cover
issues such as review times, sharing of documents, and site-lead responsibilities. SMOA
terms range from very broad to very specific. Seventeen States currently have signed
SMOAs, eight have draft SMOAs, and nine States are negotiating with EPA over SMOA
terms. Three of the States with SMOAs (Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) are in
the process of renegotiating their agreements.
E. Funding
A Fund or funding mechanism is an essential element of a State's hazardous waste
cleanup program. It allows a State to investigate, plan, and conduct emergency response
and remedial actions at sites where there are no viable RPs, RPs are unwilling to conduct
or pay for remedial actions, or immediate action is required. Typically, a Fund is
characterized by both depleting and revolving expenditures. If there are no RPs, the Fund
is depleted as a result of expenditures for cleanup activities and must be replenished. There
may also be certain types of expenditures that the State is not authorized to recover from
RPs, such as administrative (see Section D above) and certain pre-remedial costs. If RPs
refuse to cooperate on cleanups or a State elects to use the Fund for emergency response
or investigations, the State typically will attempt to recover these Fund expenditures from
RPs.
16
-------
FIGURE 111-3
SMOAS SIGNED OR IN NEGOTIATION/DRAFT STAGE
SMOA STATUS
CD NO ACTIVITY
HI SIGNED
M DRAFT OR NEGOTIATION
-------
A Fund also allows a State to control the pace of cleanups: if RPs fail to
cooperate, the State can proceed with the cleanup and may be authorized to seek punitive
damages from RPs in addition to recovering costs expended from the Fund. Of course, for
this to work the Fund must be large enough to pay for whatever cleanup activities may
arise. Thus, depending on its size and latitude of use, a Fund can enhance a State's
enforcement effort and ability to compel RPs to conduct or pay for cleanups.
State Funds are authorized and/or used in 49 States for one or more purposes
relating to mitigation of hazardous waste risks (see Table V-7 on page 69). Delaware's
legislature added authorization for a Fund in the past year, leaving Nebraska as the only
state without an authorized cleanup Fund. Not all State Funds or accounts are included in
Table V-7. Those funding instruments that are used solely as repositories for Federal
monies or only provide debt servicing on bonds are excluded. However, these accounts and
Funds are highlighted in the State summaries in Chapter V.
Sixteen States have more than one Fund or account for handling hazardous waste
site cleanups (an increase of one since 1989). In most cases a State's Funds will differ
from each other with regard to sources or uses. For example, one Fund may derive
primarily from hazardous waste fees, while another in the same State receives legislative
appropriations. In New Jersey, the Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund, derived from
appropriations and bonds, may be used for the same purposes as the Spill Compensation
Fund, which is funded primarily from penalties and taxes; however, the latter Fund is the
first to be tapped for cleanups.
There is considerable variation among the States in terms of funding sources,
authorized uses of Funds, and restrictions or preconditions on the use of funds. State Fund
characteristics are described in Table V-7 on page 69 and Table V-8 on page 78. A
synthesis of State trends in funding is presented below.
Fund Balances and Additions
Analysis of Fund balances and additions would ideally provide a sense of the
States' capacities to pay for cleanups. The Fund balance measures the current availability of
funds while estimated additions to the Fund provide a sense of a State's potential to sustain
and increase the Fund over time. Both measures of capacity are flawed, however,
particularly when comparisons are made across States. Some of the problems:
1. Up-to-date balances as of a single date cannot be obtained for all
Funds from every State-dates range from May 1989 to September
1990.
2. Fund balances may be low because of infrequent collection of fees or
taxes (causing the Fund to "pulse"), timing of appropriations, or a
program's need to exhaust its Fund at the end of the fiscal year
because carryover is not allowed.
18
-------
4.
A distinction should be drawn between authorizations and
appropriations. Authorization may provide a better sense of capacity, if
appropriations are made on an "as needed" basis. For example,
Oregon has established an Orphan Site Account. If the need to expend
monies in this account can be justified, three funding mechanisms are
triggered and can potentially generate up to $3 million per year.
However, the balance of the account is $0 until needed.
Fund balances may also be misleading because some portion of a Fund
may be encumbered, (e.g., CERCLA cost share) and thus there is
actually a smaller amount of funds available.
With these caveats in mind, the total unobligated State "superfund" balance for all 50
States is approximately $699.4 million, an increase of $284.4 million over the balance of
$415 million in 1989 (68.5% increase). Since obligated funds have been bindingly
earmarked for a particular use and are therefore not available for use on new projects, they
are not counted in the balance totals. An additional $1,729.2 million in bonds is authorized
in seven States-a decrease of $251.8 million, but an increase of three States, since 1989.
The distribution of Funds continues to be heavily weighted towards lower levels of
funding: including bonds, 13 States have less than $1 million, 15 States have from $1
million up to $5 million, 4 States have from $5 million up to $10 million, 13 States have
from $10 million up to $50 million, and 4 States have more than $50 million (see Figure
IH-4 on page 20). Thus, the 50-state Fund balance is misleading because more than 1/2 of
the total is in one State, New Jersey, which has $358.5 million plus $200 million in bonds
authorized. Furthermore, the total amount of funds available to the 13 other States with
Fund balances over $10 million (excluding bonds) is $275.47 million, leaving only $65.45
million to be shared by the other 35 States. Thus, the 14 States with the largest Funds
comprise 90% of the total State "superfund" balance (up from 78% in 1989). If bond
authorizations are included the disparity between the two groups becomes even larger. The
total amount of funds available for the 17 States with Fund balances (including bonds) over
$10 million is $2.363 billion or 97% of the total amount authorized within the States, and
$2.08 billion (86%) is hi just four States with balances (including bonds) greater than $50
million.
Sources of Funds
Table V-7 on page 69 indicates the sources for State Funds or funding mechanisms
and whether each is a major (contributing more than twenty percent of the Fund's total
revenues) or minor source. There are nine general types of sources: legislative
appropriations, State bonds, fees attached to hazardous waste handling or other activities,
taxes, penalties or fines, transfers from other Funds or accounts, cost recoveries, interest on
Fund monies or other State investments, and general public or private funds. It should be
noted that information on the relative contribution of each source was not available for all
Funds, and in such cases the table does not indicate any one source as being major. The
Table shows a source as major only when there is positive evidence to support that
description; lacking such evidence, a source is shown as minor. This qualification should
be heeded in the discussion that follows.
19
-------
I
FIGURE 111-4
FUND BALANCE INCLUDING AUTHORIZED BONDS
(AS OF DATE INDICATED IN TABLE V-7)
FUND BALANCE
(MILLION $)
LESS THAN 1
1 TO 4.9
5 TO 9.9
10 TO 49.9
50 AND OVER
1
-------
A total of 69 Funds or funding mechanisms for handling cleanup of hazardous
waste sites were identified among the States (16 States have more than one Fund or
account). As noted previously, this number does not include Funds that receive only
Federal monies or provide only debt servicing on bonds; Funds earmarked for leaking
underground storage tanks are also excluded. The chart below shows the number of Funds
or funding mechanisms and the number of States that rely on each of the nine types of
sources described above, either as a major or minor source.
SOURCES
OF FUNDS
Major Source For:
Fees
Appropriations
Bonds
Taxes
Penalties/fines
Cost recovery
Transfers
Interest
General funding
No. of
Funds
23
22
14
11
12
10
3
1
— '
No. of
States
21
18
13
10
12
10
3
1
—
Minor
No. of
Funds
5
17
~
2
31
43
8
21
11
Source For:
No. of
States
5
17
,
2
29
39
8
21
10
Fees on the generation, transport, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste,
hazardous substances, or solid waste are a critical source of revenue for many State funds.
They represent a major portion of 23 funds in 21 States (an increase of two States since
1989), and a minor* portion of five Funds in another five States. In addition to providing
revenue for State Funds, fees on hazardous waste are often intended to reduce the
hazardous waste stream and encourage recycling efforts. For example, fees on the transport
and disposal of hazardous waste make up 90% of Illinois' Hazardous Waste Fund; these
fees will be raised each year between FY 1989 and 1991 to increase the Fund and
discourage hazardous waste generation. In Kentucky, fees are based on the level of
treatment required for hazardous wastes; a sliding scale is also applied on solid waste
disposal in Ohio, where such fees are expected to provide 80% of total funds. In
Tennessee, a public board sets a hazardous waste fee structure for generators and
transporters within a statutory minimum and maximum in order to encourage recycling and
discourage land disposal. South Carolina charges a land disposal fee of $5.00 per ton for
hazardous waste originating within the State, and a minimum of $7.50 per ton for wastes
generated outside the State, as well as a hazardous waste storage fee; these fees provide
80-90% of fund revenues.
21
-------
Considering that such fees represent a substantial portion of many State funds, it is
worthwhile noting the types of limits that are often attached to them. Fund administrators
in South Carolina must report to the legislature on the need for continuing fee collection
once the fund balance reaches $7.5 million. Iowa and Kentucky both suspend fee collection
if the fund balance exceeds $6 million and resume collection if the balance falls below $3
million; West Virginia suspends fees whenever the year-end unobligated balance exceeds
$1.5 million and reinstates fees when the balance reaches $1 million; similarly, Illinois uses
a range of $10 million and $3 million on unobligated funds in suspending and resuming
fee collection. In Tennessee, the fee structure is adjusted annually to maintain a balance of
$3-5 million in unobligated funds, but the level of estimated fees must not exceed $1
million per fiscal year, moreover, the fees are abrogated if the legislature fails to
appropriate matching funds. Beyond the matters of equitable or adequate fee levels, fee
revenues may fluctuate due to changes in hazardous waste handling. Increasingly restrictive
land disposal practices have steadily diminished the land disposal fee receipts collected in
Missouri; treatment and disposal fee receipts have declined in Iowa as well.
Appropriations are also a primary source of State cleanup funds or funding
mechanisms. Twenty-two Funds (up two from 1989) in 19 States (no change) derive a
major portion of their revenue from appropriations, and an additional 19 States provide
some level of appropriations for their cleanup Funds. The manner in which funding is
appropriated by State legislatures indicates the flexibility with which a State can handle
hazardous waste cleanups. Many States allocate funding to their superfund programs on a
regular, typically annual, basis. In some States, such as Kansas, however, appropriations for
state-Fund cleanups must be requested on a site-specific basis.
Bonds are the major source of funding for 14 Funds in 13 States. Four of these
States (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan) have been authorized to issue
a total of $1,981 million in bonds, of which approximately $272 million has been issued.
In New York, about $140 million of the original $1,200 million in authorized bonds has
been issued to replenish the State's Fund. New Jersey's Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup
Fund currently has $200 million in approved bond issues, with $100 million having been
appropriated. Massachusetts has $49 million remaining out of $85 million in authorized
bonds. Michigan has approximately-$400 million left from a $425 million bond issue.
Taxes are a major revenue source for 11 cleanup funds in 10 States (up one since
1989). Several States charge a tax on hazardous wastes or substances that is similar in
nature to the fees described above, with some of the same types of restrictions. For
instance, Florida's main source of revenue for its Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund is a
tax on pollutants of $0.02/bbl; the tax is suspended if the Fund's balance exceeds $12
million and reinstated if it falls below $5 million. Missouri's fund is derived from taxes on
hazardous waste generators based on tonnage and method of waste handling; the tax is not
to exceed $50,000 per company per year and is capped at $1.5 million per year. In
Washington a tax on the wholesale value of hazardous substances funds both the State and
Local Toxics Control Accounts. The main source of revenue for New Jersey's Spill
Compensation Fund is a transfer tax on hazardous substances, which is expected to
contribute $26 million to the Fund in FY 1990. After November 1992, Pennsylvania's taxes
on capital stock and franchises will be either increased or decreased by $500,000 depending
on whether the Fund balance is below or above the previous year's expenditures.
22
-------
While a number of Funds have restrictions placed on fee or tax collection, the
primary cleanup Funds in 32 States do not have a cap or other restriction placed on the
Fund balance.
Penalties and fines provide a major source of revenue for 12 States, and cost
recoveries provide a major source for ten (an increase of four States since 1989). Each
category appears as a minor source for many Funds and States (see chart above). These
numbers do not accurately reflect the actual use of penalties/fines or cost recovery since
many States do not use their statutory authority to pursue these sources, often because of
limited resources.
Uses of Funds
Table V-8 on page 78 indicates the uses of State cleanup Funds. There are nine
basic types of activities for which Fund monies may be used: remedial actions, CERCLA
match, emergency response, grants to municipalities and local governments, site
investigation, operations and maintenance, removals, studies and design, and victim
compensation. The following chart shows the number of Funds whose monies are or may
be applied to each activity, as well as the number of States having at least one Fund
whose monies are or may be applied to each activity.
USES
Emergency response
Removals
Studies and design
Remedial actions
CERCLA match
Operation and maintenance
Victim compensation
Site investigation
Grants to municipalities and
local governments
OF FUNDS
No. of
States
48
46
43
45
43
40
12
32
7
No. of
Funds
60
58
53
56
50
48
12
40
8
Emergency response actions remain the most common activity for which Funds
monies are authorized-60 Funds in 48 States may be used for this purpose. Removals, as
part of both emergency and remedial actions, are also widely authorized. At present, 58
Funds in 46 States may be used for this purpose. Remedial actions are more frequently
authorized than operation and maintenance (O & M), suggesting that many states have not
taken sites to this final stage in the remedial process.
23
-------
Victim compensation is authorized in 12 States. The nature of compensation is
limited to providing alternative drinking water supplies, except in five States: California,
Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont (see Table V-2 on page 45). In New
Jersey, anyone can file a claim for personal or property damages resulting from a
hazardous discharge, within a one-year statute of limitation from the date of discovery of
damage. The State must attempt to arrange a settlement between the claimant and the
responsible party, but if the source of the discharge cannot be determined, the State must
settle the claim against the Spill Compensation Fund. Minnesota may partially compensate
innocent landowners for cleanup costs. California has a Hazardous Substance Victim's
Compensation Fund intended to provide compensation for medical and economic damages
caused by the release of hazardous substances when a responsible party cannot be found.
With money yet to be appropriated to this Fund, the three claims made to date have been
paid out of the Hazardous Substance Account.
Several Funds are not designated strictly or even primarily for use on hazardous
waste sites. For example, Kansas' Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust Fund is intended
primarily for RCRA activities, but up to 20% of the Fund can be used for emergency
response actions at hazardous waste disposal facilities closed prior to the State's 1981
hazardous waste act. Virginia's Fund is intended for solid as well as hazardous waste
incidents. Other Funds are designated strictly for hazardous waste sites for very limited
uses. Ninety-five percent (95%) of the Colorado Hazardous Substances Response Fund, for
example, must be used for federal CERCLA match.
Despite its name, Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund is used for a broad
range of activities beyond that of site cleanup. Fund monies may be used to encourage
recycling activities through a recycling grant program for which $2 million has been set
aside. Demonstration grants for alternatives to hazardous waste land disposal can also
receive funding. Private party cleanups are facilitated through a $100,000 loan Fund, and
the State also can supply loans or grants as inducements and compensation to
municipalities where hazardous waste facilities will be located.
Washington's State Toxics Control Account funds a number of activities in addition
to hazardous waste site cleanup, including hazardous and solid waste planning,
management, regulation, enforcement, technical assistance, and public education.
In Oregon, recent legislation created a financial assistance program that enables the
program to provide loans to RPs to undertake cleanup activities. The interest rate and other
terms of the loan are negotiated by the RPs and the Department of Environmental Quality.
Although many Funds are statutorily authorized for use in a range of activities, low
funding levels may restrict actual usage of monies. Kentucky's Fund was intended for use
on virtually every aspect of hazardous site cleanup and management but, due to low
funding levels, it has been used mainly for CERCLA matching funds. The Virginia Fund
may be used for the full range of remedial activities but, containing under a half a million
dollars, its actual use is quite limited. Alabama's Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund may
be used for remedial actions and operations and maintenance, but with a balance of
$193,000, is primarily used for small-scale emergency removals of drums.
24
-------
Utah allows a range of site activities, including site investigation and studies and
design, but the State agency may not use the Fund for remediation. Similarly, Colorado's
Fund may be used for site investigation, but not for removals or remediation.
Special Conditions on Fund Use
Restrictions and preconditions on Fund use are primarily of two types: those that
statutorily require the State to exhaust every funding alternative, whether Federal or private
party, before drawing upon State cleanup monies, and those that require the State cleanup
agency to obtain specific authorization before undertaking any response action. In the past
year the New Hampshire legislature removed the statutory prohibition on spending State
funds for projects that qualify for CERCLA assistance. In Alabama, sites receiving funds
must not be on the NPL at the time activity starts; and in several other States, State funds
may be used only where Federal funds are not available or sufficient. Seventeen States
require that an attempt be made to obtain responsible party participation in site cleanup
before State funds are used; many States waive this restriction in the presence of an
imminent threat to public health or the environment. Virtually all States pursue RP
participation first as a matter of practice and policy. Although it appears that only a
relatively small number of States must seek alternative fund sources before using State
monies, it is probably safe to assume that this is a far more widespread policy among
States.
Six States require that the State agency responsible for cleanup obtain prior approval
from some administrative authority before undertaking one or more types of response or
remedial action at hazardous waste sites. All expenditures must be approved by the
governor in New Hampshire, the Pollution Control Board in Minnesota, the Environmental
Quality Council in Wyoming, the Board of Public Works in Maryland, and the agency's
Commissioner in Indiana. Arkansas requires a commission to approve expenditures over
$30,000.
In five States the agency must obtain prior legislative approval for some types of
expenditures. Washington requires that any expenditure from its State or Local Toxics
Control Account first be appropriated by statute. Oklahoma requires a site-specific appropri-
ation whenever site costs are expected to exceed $1 million; Illinois must get a similar
appropriation if site expenditures will exceed $1 million for a single incident. According to
Illinois program officials, this cap has not affected the program's effectiveness. In Vermont,
non-emergency expenditures over $50,000 must be approved by general assembly or its
joint fiscal committee. Similarly, Delaware's joint fiscal committee must approve any
expenditures that would exceed 15% of the Fund balance.
California is the only State that restricts Fund use based on the origin of
contaminants-monies from the State's primary cleanup vehicle, the Hazardous Substance
Account, cannot be used for removals or remedial action if a significant portion of
hazardous substances originated outside the State.
25
-------
F. Enforcement
Enforcement authorities and capacities under State laws vary significantly. Many of
the States with cleanup fund laws have incorporated enforcement provisions into those
laws. Thirty-nine States have enforcement authorities specifically applicable to their
superfund programs, an increase of one State (Delaware) over 1989. These States may also
use other enforcement authorities in dealing with these sites, such as water quality and
hazardous and solid waste authorities.
The remaining 11 States have no enforcement provisions directly linked to State
remediation programs for hazardous sites, either because they have no such program
independent of CERCLA (e.g., Idaho, Nebraska, and Oklahoma), or because the State's
cleanup fund statute was enacted without supporting enforcement provisions (e.g., Michigan
and West Virginia). These States must rely on RCRA-type authorities, or on enforcement
authorities found in water quality or solid waste statutes and regulations, as indicated in
Table V-2 on page 45.
Who is Liable?
A key issue for State superfund programs is whether or not State enforcement
authorities can reach responsible parties to the same extent that CERCLA can. Owners and
operators can be reached under virtually any of the existing State programs. A more
difficult question is whether enforceable cleanup orders can be issued to generators and
transporters who engaged in disposal that may have been lawful at the time it occurred.
The 11 States that rely on non-superfund enforcement authorities cannot always
reach such potential RPs. For the most part, State cleanup orders issued under RCRA-type
laws require proof of a RCRA violation or, at the least, RCRA jurisdiction over the facility
or entity at the time the disposal occurred. This means that, in contrast to CERCLA
liability, under these authorities the mere release of hazardous substances at a site does not
support enforcement against former lawful disposers at that site. Even some States with
superfund enforcement authorities have limited ability to reach generators and transporters
(e.g., Oregon).
Some State solid waste laws or "imminent danger" provisions have a potentially
longer reach. State water quality laws may also provide a basis for enforcement action
against generators and transporters. Most State water quality laws have a strict liability
provision prohibiting discharges of any pollutant into "the waters of the State" without a
permit. Most States define "waters of the State" to include groundwater. (See Novick,
Environmental Law Institute, The Law of Environmental Protection, section 6.03[l][a]
(Clark Boardman, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990)).
Of the States whose superfund programs include enforcement provisions, most have
the ability to reach generators and transporters as well as site owners and operators. There
is generally no need for these States to show the existence of a violation of law.
26
-------
Liability Standards
Apart from the issue of who may be held liable, there is also the question of the
standard of Uability. There are two aspects to the question of liability. First, is the standard
strict hability-that is, based solely on the occurrence of a release or potential release-or is
it based on fault? Second, is Uability "joint and several" with each RP responsible for the
entire cleanup regardless of its contribution to the problem, or is it proportional, with each
liable only to the extent of its contribution? Under CERCLA the Federal standard is strict
joint and several liability. This is not the case with many of the States.
With strict liability, a responsible party who has contributed to hazardous conditions
at a site is Uable for the actual or potential damages posed by the hazards, regardless of
fault. Liability standards other than strict require a greater burden of proof to be satisfied
by the State, such as proof of negligence or intent. Standards dependent upon fault
effectively limit the universe of parties to whom liability may attach. This, in turn, is likely
to reduce the effectiveness of the enforcement program in comparison with a strict liability
program. J
Thirty-four States have some form of strict Uability standard (see Table V-9 on page
87). In a significant number of States, however, the standard of Uability is not clear: proof
of fault or causation may be required in order to sustain enforcement orders or to get cost
recovery. At common law, strict liabiUty is not favored, so courts may interpret legislative
silence or statutory ambiguity as requiring the agency to show causation and fault. For
example, statutes that attach Uability to "any person responsible for a release or threatened
release" may require proof of causation and fault not required by a strict liabiUty standard.
Another important question is how liability should be divided among responsible
parties who have contributed to hazardous conditions at a site. Under a "joint and several"
liability standard, each RP is Uable for all cleanup costs at a site regardless of its actual
contribution to hazardous conditions there. CERCLA's joint and several Uability standard
was asserted and upheld in litigation.
Seventeen States have enacted (or asserted) a strict, joint and several liability
standard. Eight additional States have a strict, joint and several Uability standard with a
provision that allows an RP to prove its "proportional" contribution to the site and thus
limit its liability.
Six States (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Maryland, Tennessee, and Utah) provide
expressly for a "proportional" liabUity scheme. Each RP is responsible for no more than its
proportional share. In general, the proportional UabiUty statutes do not prescribe the basis
for the apportionment, only that it be made. (An exception is Arkansas, which bases
proportionality on the volume of waste contributed to the site.)
Both versions of proportional Uability increase the probability that there will be
"orphan" shares of cleanup costs which must ultimately be borne by the State. In addition,
to the extent that proportional liabiUty is appUed to enforcement-based actions-orders to
conduct studies or remedial action-it may make such enforcement more difficult.
27
-------
Several other standards of liability exist, including those that leave the matter to
common law or other defenses, as in New York. Several States (Hawaii, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota) have adopted a strict liability standard, but do not
prescribe whether liability is joint and several or proportional.
Qrder Authorities
All 39 States with "superfund" enforcement authorities have the power to issue
administrative orders compelling responsible parties to conduct cleanup. activities. The
majority of these States also has order authority to require responsible parties to provide
information arid to conduct studies. Even those States that do not have explicit order
authority to obtain information usually assert that their authority for cleanup orders or their
procedural laws give them power to require this (e.g., Virginia). A few States believe that
they lack such authority (e.g., Florida and Indiana prior to a 1989 amendment).
The 11 States that rely on RCRA-type, solid waste, or water quality authorities have
varying ability to order cleanups. These, as noted above, do not apply in all circumstances
or to all potentially responsible parties. Of these States, only Idaho lacks order authority
altogether, it must resort to injunction actions in court.
The fact that a cleanup order may be issued by a State, however, is only partially
informative. State cleanup orders are by no means always identical to CERCLA section
106 orders, which provide for no pre-enforcement review. Nor are they always subject to
the same deferential standard of review (in the event of enforcement of the order, or in the
case of cost recovery and punitive damage suits). For example, in many of the States a
responsible party receiving an order has the right to seek review of that order before a
board, commission, or court. In Illinois, the State agency must file a complaint seeking an
order from the Pollution Control Board in an adversary action at which the responsible
party may litigate any issues. In other States, such as Virginia and Kentucky, an order may
be issued only after a hearing or opportunity for hearing. In Arizona, the recipient of an
order may seek administrative review. In Pennsylvania, one type of cleanup order is
reviewable before the State's environmental hearing board, while another type of cleanup
order is not subject to pre-enforcement review; the State has the option to select either
order. In Texas, the recipient of a cleanup order may appeal it to court; however, a
deferential standard of review is applied. Other States, like Tennessee and Oregon, do not
allow pre-enforcement review. In a significant number of States the availability of pre-
enforcement review has never been determined because all sites have been handled by
consent order.
The standard of review is also important, whether it be pre-enforcement or in the
context of agency enforcement of an order or a cost recovery action. Several of the States
expressly apply a deferential standard of review. For example, in Pennsylvania (under one
of the two Pennsylvania order types) the agency action must be upheld unless it is
"arbitrary and capricious." In Texas, the State must prove on appeal that there is an
imminent and substantial endangerment and that the recipient of the order is liable.
However, if the "appropriateness" of the remedy is contested on appeal, the remedy must
be upheld unless the court finds it to be "arbitrary and capricious." In most States,
however, no standard of review is spelled out by statute.
28
-------
Injunction Authorities
All of the States with order authorities also have authority to bring injunction
actions, either to obtain an injunction, to enforce an administrative order, or both.
Enforcement Sanctions
The primary "enforcement" tool under any of the State cleanup programs is the
ability to expend the State Fund and conduct cost recovery. This is reported by most States
with programs as the driving force behind most "voluntary" cleanups and consent
agreements. The real force of this incentive, however, depends upon the credibility of the
State's threat to spend Fund monies. The enforcement leverage of the Fund is minimal to
non-existent in those States where the Fund may only be expended for the State share of
NPL site expenditures or for emergency response, or where it may be expended on State
sites only after a lengthy and laborious listing process, or only pursuant to site-specific
authorization by the legislature. By contrast, in those States where expenditures can be
authorized and made relatively quickly~as in New Jersey and Minnesota, for example~the
State Fund cost-recovery option produces substantial enforcement success.
The effect of the Fund cost-recovery threat is enhanced in those States that have a
punitive damages provision. These provisions have become increasingly common, and now
exist in 23 States, up from 22 States in 1989. Eighteen of these States provide for the
award of treble damages, as under CERCLA. Other States provide for damages of one-and-
a-half times or twice the response costs. Maine simply provides for punitive damages
without specifying an amount (Table V-10 on page 91).
The standards for assessment of punitive damages vary somewhat, but generally
require more than simple refusal to do the work directed in an order. For example, the
Pennsylvania provision requires "willful" failure to comply. The New Jersey courts have
created a "good faith" defense to such damages. Other State laws have other, similar
provisions.
Civil penalties exist in virtually all of the State enforcement laws as well. Forty-five
States report civil penalty provisions, unchanged from 1989. These appear to be less
important in influencing behavior, and are not often assessed. Given the cleanup function
of superfund programs, the penalties typically apply to failure to comply with an order.
Penalties range from $1,000 per day (Iowa) to $50,000 per day (Louisiana and New
Jersey).
Criminal penalties are not really a factor in most State programs. Virtually all of the
programs contain provisions making the submission of false information or failure to pay
fees (in States where Funds are derived from fees) criminal offenses. In general the failure
to comply with a State cleanup order is not a criminal offense. A wide range of criminal
offenses does exist for unlawful disposal and other types of conduct. Some of these crimes
may have relevance to State superfund sites. (See McElfish, "State Hazardous Waste
Crimes," 17 Envti. Law Rep. 10465 (1987) for a comprehensive list of these crimes and
sanctions.)
29
-------
Victim Compensation Provisions
Victim compensation provisions are relatively rare in State superfund statutes. While
California, New Jersey, and Minnesota have provisions for compensating victims of
hazardous substance contamination, most States do not (see Table V-2 on page 45). A
number of States do, however, have express provisions for furnishing alternative water
supplies or providing reimbursement for the cost of such supplies in the event of
contamination from a site.
Property Transfer Programs
Two States (New Jersey and Connecticut) have enacted property transfer laws that
require industrial facilities to certify cleanup in order to transfer or close the facility. The
more comprehensive of these is New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility
Act (ECRA), which requires industrial facilities to obtain a "negative declaration," to
complete a cleanup, or to have signed a consent order assuring cleanup before the transfer
or closure occurs. Illinois has enacted a law requiring disclosure of hazardous waste
activities and cleanup efforts upon the transfer of industrial properties. Indiana requires that
the site owner record a restrictive covenant on the property, with the State determining the
scope of the restrictions. Iowa requires State approval of transactions involving property
listed on the State registry of sites. Minnesota has established an informational program
through which industrial, commercial or residential interests contemplating a real estate
transaction may contact the State to determine whether or not a cleanup is needed at a
facility or if the property is situated near an identified site. The object of the program is to
promote "voluntary" cleanups at the behest of lenders and other parties to commercial
transactions.
Other Enforcement Provisions
A number of States have made explicit provisions in their laws for the recovery of
natural resource damages. These provisions apply in addition to the CERCLA natural
resource damage provisions. Few States have litigated such actions under State provisions.
Colorado has the most experience in litigating natural resource damage cases under
CERCLA, and has achieved substantial settlements at three sites. One difficult issue in
recovery of natural resource damages is the proper method of calculation. The Pennsylvania
statute contains a provision that makes the State's calculation of such damages presump-
tively valid as a matter of law, subject to the responsible parties having the opportunity to
offer a rebuttal.
A few States have enacted favorable presumptions and rules of decision to aid in
hazardous site cleanups and enforcement. One of the better examples of such measures is
Pennsylvania's statute, which contains a provision that if contamination is found within
2500 feet of a site, it is presumed as a matter of law that the responsible parties for that
site are liable for the contamination. This limits the State's burden of proof where
contamination pathways may be obscure or complex, and shifts the burden to the
responsible parties to disprove the link.
30
-------
Evaluating Enforceabilitv of Programs
It is difficult to evaluate the enforcement component of any program. Both strong
and weak programs should produce a significant number of "voluntary" settlements and
consent orders. The only difference will be in the quality of the remedial action agreed
to-a difficult thing to assess except on a detailed site-by-site basis. The best surrogate for
that sort of review is to ascertain whether each State has available to it sufficient tools for
enforcement that allow it to exert significant and credible cleanup leverage. State programs
can be weakened if they have numerous procedural "hoops" to pass through before effec-
tive enforcement~for example, mandatory negotiating periods during which there is a
moratorium on enforcement actions or State expenditures. Likewise, rules of decision that
encourage RP litigation or delay are counterproductive, such as provisions that allow the
RP to conduct a trial on the selection of remedy, or that afford no deference to the action
selected by the State agency based on the administrative record.
The stronger programs also appear to make significant use of the credible threat of
Fund-lead actions if negotiating deadlines are not met by RPs. If this is backed up by a
punitive damages provision, the program may achieve greater success.
Nothing definitive can be said in this study about the efficacy of "proportional"
liability schemes. Joint and several liability makes the State's burden of proof much
simpler, however. It may also provide a greater likelihood that a full recovery of costs can
be made. Under a proportional liability scheme, the State may be unable to recover a
significant portion of cleanup costs, as might occur if the largest proportional contributors
were the least solvent financially. Those State programs without strict liability are even
more problematic—the task of proving fault for a release (particularly in the case of a
generator or transporter) may be quite difficult.
State programs with sufficient enforcement options, the ability to reach generators
and transporters as well as site owners and operators, a strict liability standard, and the
ability to resort credibly to the State fund appear to have the greatest potential for
enforcement success.
G. Cleanup Policies and Criteria
Cleanup policies and criteria are key elements of State superfund programs. Most
importantly to the public, they are used to establish the cleanup goals at sites and
determine the level of environmental and health risk reductions to be achieved by the
remedial action. However, as the stringency of cleanup goals increases, the costs of
mitigating site risks also increase. State superfund programs face challenges in effecting
private cleanups that meet increasingly stringent standards; when enforcement efforts fail or
there are no PRPs, a greater proportion of the State's fund will be needed to meet stricter
remediation goals.
Determining the appropriate and feasible level of cleanup for a hazardous waste site
involves technical, administrative, and economic considerations that are necessarily
evaluated on a site-by-site basis. States commonly look to Federal guidelines and standards
as they decide upon cleanup levels. Beyond such guidelines, several States have established
31
-------
procedures to determine the particular cleanup standards that are necessary for individual
sites, and many have requirements that exceed Federal standards. Overall the States vary
widely in the extensiveness and formality of procedures used to set cleanup standards.
Table V-ll on page 95 indicates a number of criteria that are used by States to
determine cleanup standards at hazardous waste sites. Only two States (Oklahoma and West
Virginia) do not report specific policy guidelines for determining cleanup levels, and only
nine States report using one of the criteria. The rest use at least two of the criteria listed.
Five States report having promulgated specific hazardous waste remedial standards (Alaska,
Michigan, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin), one State has such standards in draft form
(Washington), and three States are developing them (Delaware, Maryland, and New York).
Several States cited general statutory instructions that parallel CERCLA's original guidance
on cleanup standards, calling for cost-effective measures that protect public health and
welfare and the environment While information concerning the use of soil standards was
not solicited, one State (Wisconsin) reports using soil guidelines, another (South Carolina)
uses background soil quality, and two States (New Jersey and Vermont) report that the soil
standards are under development.
Federal Standards
Thirty States use EPA guidelines either as their sole source of cleanup standards or
in conjunction with other standards. Standards found in RCRA and CERCLA were
specifically cited as relevant, and several States follow NCP procedures. In .determining
minimum standards for surface and groundwater remediation, 28 States reference Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) set by the Safe Drinking Water Act for public water supplies.
No States use MCLs as their sole criterion, however.
Risk Standards and Assessments
Thirty-two States either reference risk levels or conduct a risk assessment in deter-
mining cleanup standards. Only one State (Rhode Island) uses a risk assessment as its sole
criterion, however. Where States mention numerical risk standards they all fall within the
range of 10"5 to 10"7 for carcinogens.
Some States invoke risk standards only in the absence of applicable standards. In
Minnesota, for example, where health-based limits have been established for many
chemicals, a risk standard of 10'5 is binding only for situations with no State or Federal
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); moreover, a non-degradation
policy prohibits sites that are cleaner than the risk standard from being degraded to that
level. Other States have risk standards that apply generally. In addition to a risk standard
for carcinogens, Ohio limits the risk for non-carcinogens to less than one excess
occurrence, and Maine restricts toxicity levels.
Site-by-site risk assessments are performed by at least nine States to help determine
cleanup levels. Like risk standards, risk assessments may be used either routinely or in the
absence of other standards. Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, and New Jersey weigh the results
of site-specific risk assessments along with other applicable standards to determine cleanup
32
-------
levels at each site. By contrast, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts undertake risk
assessments only when an appropriate standard does not exist for a particular situation.
Massachusetts has well-defined procedures for determining cleanup levels when no
applicable standards apply: in such a case, site-specific health-based standards for
contaminants are generated based on the scientific literature and on risk assessments, and
are used as guidelines by the State. If RPs are doing the cleanup work, they must provide
risk assessments for approval by the State.
Water Quality Criteria
Twenty-eight States reference existing surface water or groundwater quality criteria
in determining cleanup standards. Groundwater is a particular concern in a number of
States. Although Connecticut, for example, does not have specific requirements for
groundwater remediation, information drawn from its statewide groundwater classification
system is the most important factor in determining site cleanup.
Ambient Quality
Twenty States reference ambient, or background, water quality in determining
cleanup standards. No State indicates that ambient quality is its sole criterion, however.
While some States have background quality as their cleanup goal, they recognize that it
may not be feasible for all cleanups to meet this standard; in practice they may use
ambient quality as a starting point for assessing cleanup levels and negotiating with RPs. In
Oregon, for example, if cleanup to background is infeasible, the State will select a remedy
that attains the lowest concentration level that satisfies specified feasibility criteria, which
include cost-effectiveness. In other States, ambient quality is simply one factor that must be
considered before a cleanup standard is determined. Finally, some States require cleanup to
background for some, but not all, sites based upon preselected criteria such as groundwater
classification.
Hazardous
Waste
Remedial
Standards
STATE CLEANUP CRITERIA
Water
Quality
28
33
EPA
Guidelines
30
Background
20
Risk
Assessment
32
33
-------
H. Public Participation
The degree of public participation solicited in decisions about hazardous waste sites
varies widely among States. Public participation activity may be required under State
statute or regulation, pursued as agency policy, or taken up in response to expressed public
concern. Table V-12 on page 103 describes required and policy or ad hoc public
participation procedures in each State.
Thirty-eight States report some type of public participation .procedure—an increase of
three states over 1989. Twenty-one States have specific public participation requirements
mandated by statute or regulation (some also have additional procedures established as
agency policy). Another 17 States seek community involvement strictly as a matter of
policy or in an ad hoc manner. Three States (Kansas, Ohio, and Virginia) are in the
process of formulating a policy for public participation. The remaining nine States did not
describe the public participation component of their programs.
Before describing the most common approaches towards public participation, we
note unusual features in two State programs. In New York a State Superfund Management
Board provides citizen oversight of remedial plans. The Board also monitors and evaluates
the State's implementation of its cleanup program. The Board includes representatives of
environmental groups in addition to citizen representatives. Massachusetts permits public
site inspections by one or more local residents appointed to represent the community.
Public Notice Requirements
Eleven States require public notice at one or more points in the site handling
process. The types of actions for which notice is required and the number of States
requiring notice are as follows:
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Type of action
Site investigation or listing
Proposed remedial plan
Administrative/enforcement orders
Program to identify releases
Proposed settlement agreement
Notice of violation
Number of States
4
8
2
1
1
1
34
-------
Public Comments
Seventeen States solicit public comments on site listing or remedial plans; 13 of
these States solicit comments pursuant to statutory requirements, four do so as a matter of
policy. Seven States have a designated comment period ranging from 30 to 60 days; the
others do not specify a time period.
California reinforces its public comment requirement with the statutory requirement
that anyone affected by a removal or remedial action at a site must have an opportunity to
participate in decision making. The State is required to incorporate or respond to the advice
of persons affected by a removal or remedial action.
Public Meetings/Hearings
Twenty-six States report having some provision for public meetings or hearings.
They are required by statute or regulation in 14 States. In two of these States, Michigan
and Missouri, only an annual meeting is required, either to update a site list or to review
the State program. In addition, four of these 14 States require that a public meeting be
held upon petition or request. While not required by statute or regulation, in another 12
States meetings may be held as a matter of policy or in an ad hoc manner, at the
discretion of program officials.
New Jersey conducts an extensive series of public meetings related to site
disposition: in addition to a meeting required prior to adopting a ROD, the State as a
matter of policy holds meetings prior to and upon completion of an RI/FS, after the
remedial plan has been -selected, and at the beginning and the conclusion of remedial
action.
Community Relations
A community relations program similar to that outlined in the Federal NCP may be
adopted by States to lend a formal structure to public participation activities. Under such a
program, one or more spokespersons might be designated to inform, solicit views of, and
respond to inquiries from local residents and/or local government officials and agencies
regarding conditions and activities at hazardous waste sites.
Community relations programs are a rare feature of State public participation
activities. Only four States (Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, and Minnesota) report engaging
in extensive community relations efforts with regard to hazardous waste sites. In Minnesota
each site is assigned a public relations officer, while in Louisiana the DEQ conducts a
community relations program at complex sites. Maryland's Community Relations
Coordinator disseminates information concerning sites and arranges public meetings.
35
-------
Illinois maintains an active community relations program designed to fine-tune
remedy selection using information on the site provided by local residents—the program
operates on the belief that it is a mistake to wait for a proposed plan to "go public".
Because remedy selection is dependent on citizen participation to so great a degree, the
State has not faced public opposition on any of its actions in remediating sites.
In .addition to these four States, Idaho currently employs one full-time person to
handle community relations at one of its NPL sites. In Virginia, a community relations
program is now being drafted.
36
-------
CHAPTER IV
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INVOLVEMENT
While administration of cleanup activities is typically conducted at the State level,
political subdivisions in some States (counties, regional authorities, municipalities) may also
get involved in investigation, remediation, and/or oversight. In order to present a more
comprehensive view of the resources available to address hazardous waste sites, political
subdivision involvement in cleanup activities was chosen as a special topic for analysis in
the 1990 edition of this study. The following discussion focuses on the role of the political
subdivision in the cleanup process, exclusive of the part subdivisions may play as
responsible parties.
Twenty States report varying degrees and types of political subdivision involvement
in cleanup activities, which are discussed below according to the legislative authority for
political subdivision involvement, funding, the types of cleanup activities subdivisions
undertake, agreements with States, State oversight, and the role of the political subdivisions
in State cleanups. Many of the legislative provisions are either relatively new or have yet
to be invoked. The remaining 30 States report that political subdivisions have no special
involvement in cleanup activities, other than the ability to participate as a member of the
public during comment periods or public meetings or hearings.
Legislative Authority
Ten States report statutory provisions addressing the role of political subdivisions in
cleanup activities. Two of these States (Montana and North Carolina) have authority to
require the assistance of local health authorities if a site presents a public health threat.
Montana reports that its provision has never been invoked. North Carolina's statute further
provides that the State may accept staff, equipment or materials provided by cooperating
local agencies for development and implementation of a remedial action plan, but this
provision also apparently has not been used. In Virginia, if a site poses a public health
threat, the statute requires that the State must simply notify the chief administrative officer
of any potentially affected local government. Similarly, Vermont requires that towns must
be notified of hazardous waste sites within their borders, but the towns are then required to
enter the site's designation on the deed register. Pennsylvania legislation encourages host
municipality review of proposed remedial plans by establishing grants of up to $50,000 for
this purpose, although none have been awarded to date.
The remaining six statutes concerning political subdivision involvement provide for
greater participation in the remedial process. In California, political subdivisions may take
remedial action at State-listed sites under specified conditions, including Department of
Health Services' approval; the provision has yet to 'be invoked. In Arizona, political
subdivisions may apply for matching funds to lead remedial actions at orphan sites or
where responsible parties are unwilling or unable to act. Matching funds are applicable to
all remedial-related activity except enforcement, and Arizona reports some political
subdivision activity pursuant to this provision.
37
-------
Ohio may make grants to political subdivisions to pay for up to two-thirds of the
cost of closing solid waste facilities which are discovered to have been substantially con-
taminated with hazardous wastes. Similarly, New York's Environmental Quality Bond Act
of 1986 provides financial assistance to municipalities for remediation of municipally-
owned inactive hazardous waste sites.
In New Jersey, the County Environmental Health Act requires that the State provide
environmental health services for the control of hazardous substances to each county;
pursuant to this Act, the counties have concurrent powers with the State concerning small,
spill-type incident response, investigation, remediation, and disposal oversight.
Funding
Ten States report funding arrangements between the States and political subdivisions
regarding cleanup costs. Six of these arrangements involve the provision of State funding to
support political subdivision activities. Arizona provides matching funds for remedial
actions undertaken by political subdivisions where the Department of Environmental Quality
has approved the remedial action plan. Ohio may make grants of up to two-thirds of the
cost of closing a municipal solid waste facility if it is substantially contaminated with
hazardous waste, although no funds have been appropriated for this purpose. New Jersey
makes annual matching grants to county remedial programs, and political subdivisions may
also be reimbursed for cleanup costs with Spill Fund monies if the Fund Administrator
determines the Spill Act applies.
Washington's Local Toxics Control Act provides funds to support remedial actions
at municipal landfills; almost $4 million was distributed in eight grants during 1989. In
New York, a municipality may seek reimbursement for up to 75% of approved project
costs at municipally-owned inactive sites, less amounts collected from RPs, the federal
government, and insurance carriers. Finally, Vermont reimburses towns for the costs
incurred in entering hazardous waste site designation on the deed register.
Only three States (California, Kansas, and Oregon) report occasional political
subdivision reimbursement for State cleanup costs where the subdivision is not a
responsible party. In California, the State does not solicit payments for operation and
maintenance on a statewide basis, but tries to find creative case-by-case funding solutions.
In two cases involving large NPL sites and area-wide groundwater contamination, local
water purveyors are contributing operation and maintenance costs. Local taxes in a rural
water district are paying for alternate water supplies at a CERCLA site in Kansas; the
taxes are providing the CERCLA match for that site. In Oregon, one political subdivision
is contributing operation and maintenance costs for a site at which it is not a responsible
party.
One State, Minnesota, has placed limits on political subdivision liability where the
subdivision is a responsible party. Local governments are liable up to a maximum of $4
million per site, with a limit of $1.2 million if three or more such entities are responsible
parties at the same site. Costs for long-term operation and maintenance are not capped and
cannot be applied toward the limit. The State estimates that cleanups at sites owned or
38
-------
operated by political subdivisions will cost up to $57 million more than the local govern-
ment liability limits through 1994; the State will absorb these costs.
Remedial Activities
Only four States report actual instances of remedial activities conducted by political
subdivisions under State sponsorship. In Arizona, political subdivisions may apply for
matching funds for remedial actions they undertake. For example, in 1989 the city of Mesa
received $500,000 to aid in the removal of dibromochloropropane (DBCP) from a city well.
Covering half the project costs, these funds were used in the construction of a groundwater
treatment facility. In Colorado, discussions are underway concerning county maintenance of
a remedy at a CERCLA site. In Kansas, the Town of McPherson's Board of Public
Utilities, which manages the public water supply, has negotiated a consent agreement under
which the Board will conduct cleanup while the State provides design standards and
cleanup levels and will review all relevant documents. The Board is not a responsible
party. New Jersey, pursuant to its County Environmental Health Act, appears to have
delegated significant authority to counties for conducting minor cleanups. The State spells
out, through interagency agreements, workplans and grants, authority for incident response,
investigation, remediation, and disposal oversight; the powers provided are concurrent with
those of the State.
Another four States report remedial activities undertaken or proposed by political
subdivisions independent of State sponsorship. In California, State officials report a general
impression that many localities may be involved in small, low-level cleanups, but there is
no data concerning this activity. Larger cities and counties in Virginia have hazardous
materials incident teams which may perform emergency stabilization or preliminary cleanup
procedures (this is undoubtedly true in a number of other States). In Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia has a contract in place to handle hazardous materials incidents independent of
the State program. Ohio reports that the cities of Toledo and Dayton are interested in
taking response action independent of the State cleanup program.
Agreements with States
Four States report that political subdivisions have entered into some type of formal
agreement with the State which governs the terms of political subdivision involvement. In
Kentucky, the State enters into memoranda, of agreement with political subdivisions
whereby they are authorized to conduct site discovery and emergency response, as noted
above. A local Board of Public Utilities in Kansas (not a responsible party) has entered
into a consent agreement pursuant to which the Board will conduct the cleanup and the
State will provide design standards and cleanup levels and will review all relevant
documents.
On a broader scale, New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection has
entered into agreements will all 21 counties in the State to cover small incident (spill-type)
response, investigation, remediation, and disposal oversight. Negotiations for these agree-
ments are coordinated through the Department's Office of Local Environmental
Management. New York, which provides financial assistance to municipalities for the
39
-------
remediation of municipally-owned inactive sites, requires that the municipality enter into a
federal or State Order on Consent committing to a complete remedial program. If the
project involves more than one political jurisdiction, they must negotiate an intermunicipal
agreement. The Department of Environmental Conservation has prepared guidelines for its
program contained in "Municipal Assistance Program: Hazardous Waste Site Remediation--
Procedures Handbook."
State Oversight
Three States report procedures for overseeing cleanup activities conducted by
political subdivisions. In Arizona, political subdivisions wishing to conduct cleanups must
submit remedial action plans for Department of Environmental Quality approval. In New
York, applications for financial assistance to clean up municipally owned sites must include
a detailed proposal covering the purpose, scope, estimated cost and schedule of work.
Municipalities must competitively procure a qualified engineering consultant acceptable to
the Department; assistance is only forthcoming after the municipality has entered into an
Order on Consent In New Jersey, the Department of Environmental Protection's Office of
Local Environmental Management oversees county participation in small incident response,
investigation and remediation by means of negotiated agreements. Some reporting and
accountability problems have been encountered and are being addressed by the State.
Review Role in State Cleanups
Eleven States report that they seek to involve political subdivisions to some extent
in the decision-making process at State sites. Nine of these States-California, Connecticut,
Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington—have policies
by which they keep political subdivisions informed on site activities and encourage the
subdivisions to comment on proposed actions. Ohio additionally places documents related to
a site in a local repository, while Virginia has localities play a role in community relations.
Two States (Colorado and Vermont) generally go further and actually seek concurrence on
their remedial decisions as a matter of policy. Colorado does so by establishing local
advisory groups at some sites to provide oversight, review and concurrence on State
decisions.
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INVOLVEMENT
Legislative
Authority
10
States
Funding
Arrangements
with States
10
States
Formal
Agreements
with States
4
States
State
Oversight
Procedures
3
States
Subdivision
Review of
State Activities
11
States
40
-------
CHAPTER V
SO-STATE TABLES
TABLE V-l
OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES
SUMMARY
27 States have Fund and enforcement capabilities with
active cleanup programs.
14 States have Fund and enforcement capabilities with
limited activities.
9 States have partial programs, lack Funds applicable to
non-NPL cleanups, or lack enforcement authorities.
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
Full Fund and Enforcement/
Active Program
Full Fund and Enforcement/
Limited Activities
Partial Programs
1989
25
14
11
1990
27
14
9
41
-------
TABLE V-l
OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES
REGION I
Connecticut
Mtine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fond and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities contained in two statutes - Fund for cleanup and oversight limited.
REGION H
New Jersey
New York
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
REGION
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wen Virginia
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Program under development following enactment of cleanup statute.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - First allocations from Fund recently approved.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund is limited.
Limited fund capabilities - Enforcement only under RCRA-type hazardous waste law.
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Extremely limited Fund and no program staff, however.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
No State Superfund program - limited Fund and enforcement capabilities under Hazardous Waste
Management Act.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund for cleanup limited.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Must use enforcement provisions in other statutes or regulations,
however.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Two limited Funds available to program, which is becoming more
active.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
42
-------
TABLE V-l (Con't)
OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities -Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund capabilities and active cleanup program - All enforcement authority from other statutes.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities under several statutes - Active cleanup and oversight program.
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Limited program activities.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Some fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund and program activities limited.
Some fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund and program activities limited.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
REGION VU
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Fund for cleanup limited.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
No Fund and limited program activity; limited enforcement authority.
REGION VDI
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
No Fund for State cleanup - Enforcement under other statutes or Federal authority.
Enforcement capability and limited Fund - Fund and program activities limited to date.
Limited Fund and program activity - Some enforcement authority in a separate statute.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Program activity and Fund are limited.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Program activity is limited.
Limited enforcement authority and fund - Limited program activity.
43
-------
TABLE V-l (Con't)
OVERVIEW OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement authority - Program activity limited to date.
Limited fund and enforcement authority - Program activity limited.
REGION X
AlaiJca
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Program activity limited to date.
Limited Fund - No enforcement authority specifically for cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Program
activity limited.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
Fund and enforcement capabilities - Active cleanup and oversight program.
44
-------
TABLE V-2
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
SUMMARY
38 States have statutes providing full Fund and enforcement capabil-
ities.
6 States have limited Fund capabilities (e.g., limited to emergency
response and CERCLA match).
10 States contain enforcement authorities in statutes other than thek
"superfund" laws.
1 State has no enforcement capabilities.
20 States report statutory provision for a Priority List.
15 States report some type of citizen suit provision.
12 States provide some type of victim compensation.
6 States have type of mandatory property transfer program.
1 State reported voluntary property transfer program.
STATE PROGRAM
Full Fund and Enforcement
Authority
Limited Fund Capabilities
Mandatory Property
Transfer Program
DEVELOPMENTS
1989
37
7
4
1990
38
6
6
45
-------
TABLE V-2
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
o\
Statute
Cleanup Enforcement Priority Citizen Suit Victim Corn-
Fund Authorities List Provision pensation
Property
Transfer
Program
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
• Public Act, 87-561
• Emergency Spill Response Fund
• Transfer of Hazardous Waste Establishments
Program
Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Sites Act
Oil & Hazardous Material Release Prevention
and Response Act
Hazardous Waste Laws
Hazardous Waste Management Act
• Solid Waste Management Law
• Contingency Fund, Water Pollution Control
Law
X
XX WS
X X
XX XX
X X
XX X1 X2
X
X X3
M
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
• Spill Compensation and Control Act
• Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act
• Abandoned Sites Act of 1979
• State Superfund Act
• Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986
XX X
X
X X
X
X
M
Codes: ER = Emergency response and removals
CS = CERCLA share
O = Other statutes
WS = Water supplies
M = Mandatory
V = Voluntary
-------
TABLE V-2 (Con't)
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
Statute
Cleanup
Fund
Enforcement Priority Citizen Suit Victim Corn-
Authorities List Provision pensation
Property
Transfer
Program
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act
Code of Maryland, Health - Environmental
Article
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act
Waste Management Act
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund Act
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X WS
X X WS
X
o
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
• Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Removal
Act
• Resource Recovery and Management Act
Hazardous Waste Management Act
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 224.876(13)
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974
Comprehensive Environmental Response Act
Hazardous Waste Management Act
Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983
X
X
X5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X4 WS
X
o
X X
o
X X
X
X
Codes: ER = Emergency response and removals
CS * CERCLA share
O » Other statutes
WS * Water supplies
M * Mandatory
V = Voluntary
-------
TABLE V-2 (Cora't)
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
Statute
Cleanup
Fund
Enforcement Priority Citizen Suit Victim Corn-
Authorities List Provision pensation
Property
Transfer
Program
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
oo Ohio
Wisconsin
Environmental Protection Act
Hazardous Waste Act
Environmental Response Act
Environmental Response and Liability Act
Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Law
Environmental Repair Statute
X
X
X
X
X
X6
X X
X X
o
XX X
X X
X X
M
V
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
• Remedial Action Trust Fund
• Emergency Response Fund Act
Environmental Quality Law
Hazardous Waste Act
Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act
X
X
X
ER.CS
ER.CS
X7
X X
X
X X
o
0
X X
Codes: ER » Emergency response and removals
CS » CERCLA share
O « Other statutes
WS = Water supplies
M « Mandatory
V « Voluntary
-------
TABLE V-2 (Con't)
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
Statute
Cleanup
Fund
Enforcement Priority Citizen Suit Victim Corn-
Authorities List Provision pensation
Property
Transfer
Program
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
» REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Environmental Quality Act
Environmental Response Act
Hazardous Waste Management Law
Environmental Protection Act
Hazardous Substance Response Fund
Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and
Responsibility Act
Hazardous Waste Management Act
Regulated Substance Discharge Law .
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Act
Environmental Quality Act
X
X
X
cs1*
X
X
X
X
ER
X XX WS
X
X X
n10 vll
\J A
o
X X
O X
X
X X
O X
M«
M9
REGION IX
Arizona
California
* Hawaii
Nevada
Environmental Quality Act
Hazardous Substance Account Act
Environmental Response Act
Rev. Stat. "Hazardous Waste Statute"
X13
X
X
ER.CS
X XX
X X X14 X15
X X X18 WS
X
Codes: ER * Emergency response and removals
CS * CERCLA share
O = Other statutes
WS - Water supplies
M = Mandatory
V = Voluntary
-------
I
TABLE V-2 (Con't)
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PROVISIONS
Statute
Cleanup Enforcement Priority Citizen Suit Victim Corn-
Fund Authorities List Provision pensation
Property
Transfer
Program
REGION X
AUsk»
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
• Oil and Hazardous Substance Releases Law
• Hazardous Substance Release Control Law
• Liability and Cost for Oil and Hazardous
Substances Discharge Law
Hazardous Waste Management Law
Environmental Cleanup Law
Model Toxics Control Act
ER
X
X
X
X
X
X
X1
X
X
X
ws
1. During interviews, R.I. Department of Environmental Management staff indicated the possibility of citizen suits, but provided no statutory citation.
2. Limited to temporary resident relocation and temporary water supplies § 23-19.1-23.
3. Reimbursement for costs of alternative water supplies or other emergency measures.
4. Enforcement authority limited to provision for joint and several liability.
5. Creates repository for federal grant monies.
6. Establishes fund, other statutes authorize fund uses.
7. Other fund established by Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention & Control Act.
8. Agency permission required to transfer property listed on registry.
9. Seller of site must notify DNR within 30 days of transfer. Potential buyers must be notified of site listing.
10. Limited enforcement authority if groundwater affected.
11. Limited to solid waste disposal violations in cities of 1st Class.
12. Fund can also be used for related administrative costs.
13. Two additional funds, authorized under the Hazardous Waste Disposal Law, provide monies for limited cleanup activities.
14. Under separate act (Proposition 65).
15. Hazardous Substance Victim's Compensation Fund authorized with appropriations up to $2M/yr. No appropriations to date. Three small claims have been paid out of Hazardous Substance
Account.
16. Citizen suits not authorized per se but Hazardous Waste Management Act allows affected citizens to intervene in civil action, subject to court approval.
17. Procedures for ranking sites currently under development.
-------
TABLE V-3
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
SUMMARY
18 States report compiling a State priority list.
31 States have an inventory or registry of hazardous waste sites.
Total known and suspected hazardous waste sites in a State range
from 1 to 26,000 (California).
Sites identified as needing attention in States range from 1 to 1072
(New York).
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
States Compiling Priority List
States Having Inventory
or Registry
1989
21
28
1990
18
31
51
-------
TABLE V-3
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
NPL Sites
Final Proposed Total
REGION I
Connecticut 15 0 15
Maine 90 9
U, Massachusetts 25 0 25
to
. New Hampshire 16 0 16
Rhode Island 11 0 11
Vermont 80 8
REGION II
New Jersey 109 0 109
New York 83 0 83
REGION III
Delaware 20 0 20
Maryland 91 10
Pennsylvania 95 0 95
Virginia 20 0 20
West Virginia 5 0 5
State Sites
Total Known and Sites Identified Priority Inventory or
Suspected Sites as Needing List Registry
Attention __
-800 535 585
373 160 373
1713 383 I486
400 150-175 150-175
247
260 213 143 260
being inventoried (at least -500 major sites
several thousand)
-1700 1072 H20
230 under 48
development
335 HO 31 355
2377 '817 3
525 10°
346
-------
TABLE V-3 (Con't)
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Final
NPL Sites
Proposed
Total
State Sites
Total Known and Sites Identified Priority
Suspected Sites as Needing List
Inventory or
Registry
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
12
51
13
17
2
22
23
14
36
35
78
42
33
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
12
51
13
17
2
22
23
14
37
35
78
42
33
39
500+
979 631
753
800 250
599
885 872 72
425 as
1000 291
1325 224 29
1400
-4300
433 126 166
1100 TOO 117
4000 223 60
500+
631
27
750
885
425
1000
1325
2662
300
1100
173
-------
TABLE V-3 (Con't)
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Final
NPL Sites
Proposed
Total
State Sites
Total Known and Sites Identified Priority Inventory or
Suspected Sites As Needing List Registry
Attention
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
10
11
10
10
28
0
0
0
1
0
10
11
10
11
28
351 101 7
600 600
600 220
30
over 1000 29 over 1000
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
20
11
22
6
1
0
2
0
21
11
24
6
422 164 49 347
386 386
1143 602 24
40 38
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
16
8
2
3
9
3
0
2
0
0
3
0
16
10
2
3
12
3
375
168 38 168
47 21
11 73
170 170
100 86
-------
TABLE V-3 (Con't)
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Final
NPL Sites,
Proposed Total
State Sites
Total Known and Sites Identified Priority Inventory or
Suspected Sites As Needing List Registry
Attention*
REGION IX
Arizona 10
California 86
Hawaii 1
Nevada 1
i 11
2 88
6 7
0 1
800+ 500 26 16
26,000 400 -328
140 40
REGION X
Alaska 6
Idaho 9
Oregon 8
Washington 31
0 6
04 9
0 8
14 45
400+ -TOO
164 164
800
750 under 750
development
-------
TABLE V-4
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
SUMMARY
Program staff levels range from zero staff to a program with
approximately 800 positions (New Jersey).
11 States have 10 or less staff.
27 States have 11 to 50 staff.
4 States have 51 to 100 staff.
8 States have over 100 staff.
39 States rely on the State AG's office for legal support.
33 States report increases in staff levels from 1989; 6 States
report decreases.
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
10 or
11 to
51 to
Over
less Staff
50 Staff
100 Staff
100 Staff
1989
16
25
3
6
1990
11
27
4
8
56
-------
TABLE V-4
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
Agency
Program
(Number of Staff)
Legal Support
(Number of Staff)
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Environmental
Protection
Site Mediation Division (39)
Uncontrolled Sites Program (22)
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (157
funded) (DEP Total - 286
AG's Office (several)
AG's Office (1-1/2)
• DEP (5)
• AG's Office (2-3)
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Department of Environmental
Services
Department of Environmental
Management
Agency of Natural Resources
• Waste Management Engineering
Bureau (S)
• Water Resources Division (several)
Environmental Response Section (12)
Hazardous Sites Management Section
(9-includes RCRA work)
AG's Office
• DEM (.6)
• AG's Office (2)
AG's Office (3, half-time)
REGION
New Jersey
New York
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Environmental
Conservation
• Division of Hazardous Site • AG's Office
Mitigation (3001)
• Division of Hazardous Waste
Management (over SCO1)
• Division of Water Resources
Division of Hazardous Waste • NYDEC (25)
Remediation (majority of 328 staff • AG's Office (7)
Department-wide)
REGION
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Maryland Department of the Environment
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resource!
Virginia Department of Waste
Management
West Virginia Department of Commerce,
Labor, and Natural Resouces
Division of Air and Waste
Management, Superfund Branch (20)
CBRCLA/UST/LUST Program:
Preremedial (20)
Response (IS)
Community Relations (1)
* Emergency Response (13)
• Hazardous Sites Cleanup Program
(123)
Division of Special Programs (27)
Site Investigation and Response
Office (8)
AG's Office (2, half-time)
AG's Office (2, 75% of their
time)
DER Chief Counsel's Office
(12)
AG's Office (1)
AG's Office (1)
1.
Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.
57
-------
TABLE V-4 (Con't)
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
Agency
Program
(Number of Staff)
Legal Support
(Number of Staff)
REGION IV
Alabama
Florid*
Georgia
Kentucky
Mmiiiippi
North Carolina
Sooth Carolina
Tennessee
Department of Environmental
Management
Department of Environmental
Regulation
Department of Natural Resources
Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Cabinet
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources
Department of Health and
Environmental Control
Department of Health and
Environment
Special Projects Office (18)
• Bureau of Waste Cleanup (59)
• Emergency Response (14)
Environmental Protection Division
(3)
Uncontrolled Sites Branch (18)
Hazardous Waste Division, CERCLA
Branch (IS positions)
Superfund Section (25)
Site Engineering and Screening
Division (16)
•Site Assessment Section (9)
• Site Engineering Section (7)
Division of Superfund (63
authorized, 38 filled)
DEM (21)
DER's Office of General
Counsel (61)
Department of Law
Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Cabinet
None
AG's Office (2) (one part-time)
DHEC (8l)
• DHEC (2)
• AG's Office
REGION V
Ulinoii
Indima
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wiiconiin
Environmental Protection
Agency
Department of Environmental
Management
Department of Natural Resources
Pollution Control Agency
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Land Pollution Control
(263)
• Clean Illinois (48)
Project Management Branch (30)
Environmental Response Division
(78 authorized, at least 61 filled)
• Site Response Section (55)
• Program Development Section (15)
• Solid Waste Section (18)
Division of Emergency and
Remedial Response (145)
Environmental Response and Repair
(96) (State Response Program-14)
AG's Office
• DEM (6)
• AG's Office (3-4)
AG's Office (2)
• AG's Office (3)
• OEPA (6)
• AG's Office (3)
• DNR (3)
• AG's Office (4)
Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.
58
-------
TABLE V-4 (Con't)
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION Vn
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VDI
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Agency
Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology
Department of Environmental
Quality
Health and the Environment
Department
Oklahoma State Department of
Health
Texas Water Commission
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Health and
Environment
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental
Control
Department of Health
Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Department of Health and
Consolidated Laboratories
Department of Water and
Natural Resources
Department of Health
Program
(Number of Staff)
Hazardous Waste Division:
Superfund Branch (3)
Inactive and Abandoned Sites
Division (46 authorized, 23 filled)
• Toxic Sites Bureau, Superfund
Section (15);
• Other DHEC staff (10+)
Solid Waste Service (7)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Division
(38)
• Superfund (8.75)
• State Abandoned and Uncontrolled
Sites Registry (4)
Bureau of Environmental
Remediation (35)
Waste Management Program,
Superfund Section (22)
Hazardous Waste Section (8)
• Remedial Programs Section (14)
• Hazardous Waste Control (2)
• Solid Waste and Incident
Management (2)
Superfund Program (16)
Division of Waste Management "(2)
No lead division.
No dedicated staff.
Bureau of Environmental Rucnnnc*
m ,' : —
Legal Support
(Number of Staff)
DPCE (81)
DEQ(l)
DHEC General Counsel (1.5)
OSDH (1)
AG's Office (3) and
Commission Legal Staff
• DNR Legal Services (1, less
than half-time)
• AG's Office
DHE(2)
• DNR (3J)
• AG's Office
• DEC (61)
• AG's Office (I1)
AG's Office (IS?)
Special Assistant Attorney
General (3)
AG's Office (1)
AG's Office
Wyoming
1. Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal
Department of Environmental
Quality
and Remediation, Superfund Section
(21)
Water Quality Division (No full-time
staff)
and State Superfund work.
Response and Remediation(l)
• AG's Office
AG's Office (1, half-time)
59
-------
TABLE V-4 (Con't)
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
Agency
Program
(Number of Staff)
Legal Support
(Number of Staff)
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Health Services
Department of Health
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
• Office of Waste Programs (141)
• Office of Water Quality (2)
Site Mitigation Program (233)
Remedial Response Program (15)
Waste Management Bureau:
Superfund Branch (31)
AG's Office (1)
• DHS (4-5)
• AG's Office (9)
AG's Office
AG's Office (1, part-time1)
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Health and
Welfare
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Ecology
« Oil and Hazardous Substances AO's Office
Spill Response Section (22)
• Contaminated Sites Section (22)
Bureau of Hazardous Materials: AG's Office (4)
Policy and Standards and Remedial
Activities Sections (23)
Environmental Cleanup Division (46) AG's Office (1-2)
Hazardous Waste Investigation and
Cleanup Program (157 authorized,
117 employed)
AG's Office (3-4)
1.
Certain percentage of staff dedicated to federal and State Superfund work.
60
-------
TABLE V-S
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF: FUNDING SOURCES
SUMMARY
32 States receive funding for program administration and staff from
the State's General Fund.
29 States receive administration funds from their hazardous waste
cleanup fund.
All 50 States receive federal funding for program administration and
staff.
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
Support from General Fund
Support from Cleanup Fund
1989
30
23
1990
32
29
61
-------
TABLE V-5
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
FUNDING SOURCES
State General Cleanup
Fund . Fund
Federal
Grants
Other
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Miiuchuietis
New Hampshire
Rhode Hand
Vermont
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X (unspecified)
REGION H
New Jewey
NewYorfc
REGION m
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Viigini*
WestViitfnia
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X (37 positions)
X
X
X
X
X
REGION IV
Alabama
Florid*
Georgia
Kentucky
MiuiJsJppi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
X
X (1/3) X (1/3)
X(25%)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X(1V3)
X (75%)
X
X
X
X
X
X (unspecified)
CA with RPs
62
-------
TABLE V-5 (Con't)
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
FUNDING SOURCES
State General Cleanup
Fund Fund
Federal
Grants
Other
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solid waste
disposal fees
Various funds
authorized by state
statutes
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental
Program Trust
Fund
REGION VH
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
x
X X
X (8.75 positions)
X
X
X
Oil Overcharge
Fund
RP reimbursement
63
-------
TABLE V-5 (Con't)
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF:
FUNDING SOURCES
State General Cleanup
Fund Fund
Federal
Grants
Other
REGION Vffl
Colorado
Montana
North Dtkou
Sooth Dtkou
Uuh
Wyoming
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X<2/3)
X
X
X
X
X
X (1/3)
X (3 HP-funded
positions)
X (unspecified)
REGION IX
Arizona
California
HawaU
Nevada
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
REGION X
Alatka
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
64
-------
TABLE V-6
STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
SUMMARY
44 States have Cooperative Agreements with EPA.
22 States have Multi-site Cooperative Agreements with EPA.
31 States have Support Agency Cooperative Agreements from EPA.
41 States have Core Program Cooperative Agreements from EPA.
17 States have signed SMOAs.
17 States have a draft or are hi negotiations for a SMOA.
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
CAs
MSCAs
SACAs
CPCAs
SMOAs
1989
44
19
34
41
10
1990
44
22
31
41
17
65
-------
TABLE V-6
STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
CAs
MSCAs SACAs CPCAs
SMOAs
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
X
X
X
X
X
X X
XXX
XXX
X X X
X X
X X
N
N
D
N
N
X
REGION n
New Jersey
New York
X
X
XXX
X X
N
N
REGION HI
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
D
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
Tennessee
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
N
X
D
X, N
D
D = Draft
N s In negotiation
66
-------
TABLE V-6 (Con't)
STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
CAs MSCAs SACAs CPCAs SMOAs
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION Vn
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
X X N
X X D
X X X
X X X X
XX D
X X X.N
X X X X N
X X X X X
XX XX
X X X X X, N
X X X X X
X X X X
X XX
X XX
X XX
REGION Vffl
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
X X X X D
XX X
X X
X X
XX X X X(2)
D = Draft
N = In negotiation
67
-------
TABLE V-6 (Con't)
STATE/FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
CAs
MSCAs SACAs CPCAs
SMOAs
REGION IX
Arizona X
Califocnia X
Hawaii
Nevada
X X X
XXX
X
X
REGION X
Ahika
Idtho X
Oregon X
Washington X
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
x
D
X
D = Draft
N = In negotiation
68
-------
TABLE V-7
FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY
49 States have cleanup Funds.
16 States have more than one Fund or Account.
Total State superfund balance for all SO States is $699.4M (unobligated) with an
additional $1,729M authorized in bonds in 7 States.
On average, States have fund balances of $14.27M available for cleanup activities
(excluding bond authorizations above).
The 14 States with Fund balances over $10M (excluding bond authorizations)
contain $633.97M, over 90% of the total State superfund balance.
Including bond authorizations, Fund balances are distributed as follows:
1 State has no Fund (NE)
13 States have less than $1M
15 States have between $1M and $5M
4 States have between $5M and $10M
13 States have between $10M and $50M
4 States have more than $50M .
For the 39 States providing information, total annual additions to State Funds are
estimated to be $338.5M/year (a 15% increase from 1989).
Sources of Funds comprising more than 20% of Fund additions are:
Fees (23 Funds in 21 States)
Appropriations (22 Funds in 18 States)
Bonds (14 Funds in 13 States)
Penalties and fines (12 Funds in 12 States)
Taxes (11 Funds in 10 States)
Cost recoveries (10 Funds in 10 States)
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
Total Fund Balance for
50 States
States with Cleanup Funds
Average Balance Estimated
Total Estimated Annual
Additions
1989
$415M
48
$8.3M
$295M
1990
$699.4M
49
$14.27M
$338.5M
69
-------
TABLE V-7
FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Fund
Fund Balance (date)
Annual Additions Source(s) of Funds
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
• Emergency Spill Response Fund
• J2(eX5) of Special Act 8654
• $29 of Special Act 87-77
• Bond Account
• Uncontrolled Sites Fund
• Massachusetts General Fund
• Environmental Challenge Fund
• Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund
• Bond Fund
Environmental Response Fund
Environmental Contingency Fund
• S9.5M (7/90)
• $3M (7/90)
• $115M (7/90)
• S618K (7/90)
($3M in bonds authorized)
• S1.SM (8/90)
• ($49M in bonds)(7/90)
• $24M (7/90)1
• S2.9M (4/90)
• Minimal amount
$1M (8/90)
S675K (5/89)
• Not Available
• None
• $SM (FY 89/90)
• Variable
• Variable
• S7.5M
• $3M
• Approx. $800K
HOOK (1989)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A
B
B
B
C
B
C
C
B
a
a
C P T
c
g i P
c F
P
F P
B c p ,
c F T
Codes: A,a Appropriations
B,b Bonds
C,c Cost recoveries
F,f Fees
G,g General public/private funds
I,i Interest on fund or other state investments
P,p Penalties or fines
R,r Transfers
T,t Taxes •'
Note: Capital letter indicates major source of funds (20%+).
Fund balances indicate unobligated funds unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-7 (Con't)
FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Fund
Fund Balance (date)
Annual Additions Source(s) of Funds
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
• Spill Compensation Fund
• Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup
Fund
• Capital Fund
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
• S85.8M (5/90)
• S118.3M (7/90)
(S200M in bonds authorized)
• S154.4M (7/90)
J10.9M (3/90)
($1.06B in bonds authorized)
• $26M
• S45-50M
• SO
S26.2M in fees FY89/90
• c i P r T
• A B c p
• A
A B F
REGION III
Delaware
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
Fund awaiting first tax receipts
$SM (projected)
a c i p T
Subaccount of Hazardous .Substance
Control Fund
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Contingency Fund
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response
Fund
(S125K appropriated 8/90 for
emergency response)
S11.22M (7/90)
S42.7M (6/90)
$300K (7/90)
$1.3M (3/90) ($60K is
encumbered for CERCLA
match)
$45M
Variable
$500K
a B c p
A c f i p T
a c P
c F i p
Codes: A,a Appropriations
B,b Bonds
C,c Cost recoveries
F,f Fees
G,g General public/private funds
I,i Interest on fund or other state investments
P,p Penalties or fines
R,r Transfers
T,t Taxes
Note: Capital letter indicates major source of funds (20%+).
Fund balances indicate unobligated funds unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-7 (Coot)
FUNDING
Fund
OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Fund Balance (date) Annual Additions
Source(s) of Funds
REGION IV
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
Florida Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
Georgia Hazardous Waste Trust Fund
Kentucky Hazardous Waste Management Fund
Mississippi Pollution Emergency Response Fund
to North Carolina • Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup
Fund
• Emergency Response Fund
South Carolina Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund
Tennessee Hazardous Remedial Action Fund
Codes A,a Appropriations
B,b Bonds
C,c Cost recoveries
F,f Fees
G,g General public/private funds
I,i Interest on fund or other state investments
P,p Penalties or fines
R,r Transfers
T,t Taxes
$193K (9/90) <$100K
S13.4M (5/90) S20.9M (projected)
$Z8M (6/90) $500K
$18M (7/90) S200K
S200K (7/90)
• $256K (7/90) No new funds (FY 89/90)
• S287K (7/90)
S11.8M (7/90); K2M $2M (est.)
unobligated
S2.1M (6/90) Approx. $4M (FY 91)
A c p
c f I p T
p
c F i p R
A c g P r
• A c f p
• P
a c F i p
A2c F i p
Note: Capital letter indicates major source of funds (20%+).
Fund balances indicate unobligated funds unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-7 (Con't)
FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
-J Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Fund
Fund Balance (date)
Annual Additions Source(s) of Funds
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Hazardous Watte Fund
Hazardous Substances Response Trust
Fund
• Environmental Response Fund
• Environmental Protection Bond
$4.5M(6/90)
SSOOK (7/90)
• $0 (8/90)
• (-S400M in bonds
S2.5M
S2.85M
. • Variable
• Variable
c F p
a c i p T
• a c
• B
Fund
Environmental Response Compensation
and Compliance Fund
• Hazardous Waste Clean-up Fund
• Hazardous Waste Facility Manage-
ment Fund
Environmental Fund
authorized) (8/90)
$1UM (7/90)
• J22M (8/90)
• S23M (7/90)
S11.4M (7/90)
(S7.2M in bond funding for
FY91)
S3.4M
more than $4M
A C i P t
Approx. $12M shared by both • c F P
• c F
A B c F
Codes: A,a Appropriations
B,b Bonds
C,c Cost recoveries
F,f Fees
G,g General public/private funds
I,i Interest on fund or other state investments
P,p Penalties or fines
Rir Transfers
T,t Taxes
Note: Capital letter indicates major source of funds (20%+).
Fund balances indicate unobligated funds unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-7 (Con't)
FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
REGION
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Codes: A,a
B,b
C,c
F,f
G,g
M
P.P
R,r
T,t
Fund
VI
• Hazardous Substance Remedial
Action Trust Fund
• Emergency Response Fund
Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Fund
Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund
Controlled Industrial Waste Fund
• Hazardous Waste Disposal Fee Fund
• Spill Response Fund
VII
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
• Water Plan Special Revenue
• Environmental Response Fund
• Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care
Trust Fund
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
None
Appropriations
Bonds
Cost recoveries
Fees
General public/private funds
Interest on fund or other state investments
Penalties or fines
Transfers
Taxes
Fund Balance (date)
• $33M (8/90)
• S150K (8/90) (at cap)
S2-3M (7/90)
S191K (6/90)
$60K (8/90)
• S18-19M (7/90)
• $650K (7/90)
$286K (7/90)
• S3.4M (7/90)
• $690K (7/90)
• $122K (7/90)
S5.9M (6/90)
Annual Additions
• $400K
Variable
$50K (FY90)
Variable4
• $7M
• 0
$147K
• $2M (FY91)
• S500K
• $10K
S1.5M
Source(s) of Funds
• a c F g i p t3
• c i g P
A c g P r
a B c p
a c F p r
• c F i p
• A C p
a c F^ p r
• APR
• A c g i r6
• F
a c F g i p T
Note: Capital letter indicates major source of funds (20%+).
Fund balances indicate unobligated funds unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-7 (Con't)
FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Fund
Fund Balance (date)
Annual Additions Source(s) of Funds
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
Hazardous Substances Response Fund
• Environmental
Fund
Quality Protection
$SM (8/90)
• SSOOK (6/90)
• Unknown ($10M bonding
$2.6M
• S250K (expected)
• Unknown
a c
• a C
• A B
F
P
P
I
r
• Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special authority)
Revenue Account
Environmental Quality Restoration $59K (6/90)
Fund
Regulated Substance Response Fund $764K (6/90)
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund &5M (6/90)
Department of Environmental Quality $1M (8/90)
Trust and Agency Account Fund
unknown
Variable
Variable
a C F g i p R
A c g i p r
P
Codes: A,a Appropriations
B,b Bonds
C,c Cost recoveries
F,f Fees
G,g General public/private funds
I,i Interest on fund or other state investments
P,p Penalties or fines
R7r Transfers
T,t Taxes
Note: Capital letter indicates major source of funds (20%+).
Fund balances indicate unobligated funds unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-7 (Con't)
FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Fund
Fund Balance (date)
Annual Additions
Soufce(s)
of Funds
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Water Quality Assurance Revolving
Fund
• Hazardous Substance Account
• Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
Environmental Response Revolving
Fund
Hazardous Waste Management Fund
$15M (6/90)
• ~$45M obligated (8/90);
$0 unobligated
• $10M (8/90)
SSOK (6/89)
$1.7M (8/90)
$5M
• $50M
• $0
SUM
A c
• c f
• B
a c
c F
F
i
g
P
i p T
P T
i P
Codes: A,a Appropriations
B,b Bonds
Qc Cost recoveries
F,f Fees
G,g General public/private funds
I,i Interest on fund or other state investments
P,p Penalties or fines
R,r Transfers
T,t Taxes
Note: Capital letter indicates major source of funds (20%+).
Fund balances indicate unobligated funds unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-7 (Con't)
FUNDING OF STATE CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Fund
Fund Balance (date)
Annual Additions Source(s) of Funds
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
• Oil and Hazardous Substance
Release Fund
• Separate "Mitigation" Account
• Kenai Special Appropriation
• Hazardous Waste Training, Emer-
gency, and Monitoring Account
• Hazardous Waste Emergency
Account
Hazardous Substance Remedial
Action Fund
• State Toxics Control Account
• Local Toxics Control Account
• $18.6M (7/90)
• $1M (7/90)
• $1.6 M (5/89)
• $82K (8/90)
$6.5M (4/90)
• $15.2M (3/90)
• $25.2M (3/90)
• $1M
• S1-1.25M
• -$4K
$3M
• S22M
• $23.8M
• A
• A
• A
• A
• C
a
• c
• T
g
c P
c
f
p
c F p
i p T
1. Additional monies available to fund program operations (apart from the Environmental Challenge Fund) from an original $21M appropriation in July 1987 will be exhausted by July 1991
(MA)
2. Appropriations set equal to fees. Estimated fees cannot exceed $2M/yr. (TN)
3. From Emergency Response Fund if it exceeds S1SOK. (AR)
4. Transfer funds if balance drops to $20K to restore balance to S100K. (OK)
5. Hazardous Waste Fees are suspended if fund balance surpassed $6M; resume if balance falls below $3M. (IA)
6. Includes federal grant funds. (KS)
-------
TABLE V-8
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
SUMMARY
States authorized to use Fund for:
Emergency Response (48 States)
Removals (46 States)
Remedial Action (45 States)
Studies (43 States)
CERCLA Match (43 States)
O&M (40 States)
Victim Compensation (12 States)
Special Conditions on Fund Use:
Use voluntary and/or Federal funds first (17 States)
Seek approval, authorization, or special appropriation to
obligate funds (14 States)
Limitation on amount available for cleanup activities
(7 States)
Funds available only for limited types of wastes, facilities,
or conditions (5 States)
NOTE: The figures for Special Conditions on Fund Use are tentative. In each case, State officials were
invited to comment on such conditions, but not all conditions were necessarily noted.
STATE PROGRAM
Authorization for:
Emergency Response
Removals
Remedial Action
Studies
CERCLA Match
O&M
Victim Compensation
DEVELOPMENTS
1989
46
42
41
40
36
34
11
1990
48
46
45
43
43
40
12
78
-------
TABLE V-8
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Fund
Uses of Fund
Special Conditions on Fund Use
REGION I
vo
Connecticut Emergency Spill Response Fund
§2(eX5) of Special Act 86-54
$29 of Special Act 87-77
Maine Bond Account
Uncontrolled Sites Fund
Massachusetts Massachusetts General Fund
Environmental Challenge Fund
New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund
Bond Fund
Rhode Island Environmental Response Fund
Vermont Environmental Contingency Fund
a e i or s v
a c . i s r
a c o r v
a c e i o r s
a c e i o r s
a c e i o r s
a e i o r s
a e r s
CO
a c e i o r s v
a e i r s v
• CERCLA match limited to $5M/site.
• Site must be listed on State Inventory; unacceptable threat to public health; no RPs
or RPs in noncompliance with cleanup order.
• Funds may now be expended regardless of qualification for CERCLA assistance.
• Expenditures must be approved by Governor.
• Expenditures exceeding S50K for any category of activity require approval of general
assembly or its joint fiscal committee.
• RPs must be given opportunity to conduct cleanup.
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
• Spill Compensation Fund
• Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup
Fund
• Capital Fund
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
• aceiorsv
• a c e i o r s
• a c e o r s
acegi
other1
• State has issued Spill Act directive.
State must make reasonable effort to secure voluntary agreement to pay costs of remedial
actions.
Codes: a
c
e
g
i
o
r
s
v
remedial actions
CERCLA match
emergency response
grants to municipalities, local governments
site investigation
operation and maintenance
removals
studies and design
victim compensation
NOTE: Special conditions do not apply to all funds in States with more than one fund. See-text for discussion.
-------
TABLE V-8 (Cont)
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Fund
Uses of Fund
Special Conditions on Fund Use
REGION HI
Delaware
Maryland
t?
PenntyivanU
Virginia
00 West Virginia
O
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
Subaccount of Hazardous Subctance Control
Fund
Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
Solid and Hazardous Waste Contingency
Fund
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund
a c Oe i o r s
other2
a c e i o r s v
a c _e o r s v
other3
a c e i o r s
c e i o s
No more than 15% of Fund may be expended without joint fiscal committee approval.
Authorization from Board of Public Works required prior to expenditure.
• Funds may be used to address hazardous waste, not hazardous substances.
• State must make 'reasonable efforts* to secure agreements from owners and
operators or other RPs to pay cleanup and remedial action costs.
• Studies and design and other preparations for remedial actions disallowed unless the
Fund balance exceeds SIM ajd if the expenditure does not reduce the Fund below
this amount.
Codes: a remedial actions
c CERCLA match
e emergency response . - •'
g grants to municipalities, local governments
i site investigation
o operation and maintenance
r removals
s studies and design
v victim compensation
NOTE: Special conditions do not apply to all funds in States with more than one fund. See text for discussion.
-------
TABLE V-8 (Con't)
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Fund
Uses of Fund
Special Conditions on Fund Use
REGION IV
00
Alabama
Florida .-
Georgia
Kentucky
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
Hazardous Waste Trust Fund
Hazardous Waste Management Fund
Pollution Emergency Response Fund
• Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
• Emergency Response Fund
Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund
Hazardous Remedial Action Fund
a c e o r s
a c e o r s v
a c e r
a c e o r s
a c e r
• a e s
• e r
a c e o r s
a c e i o is
• Sites must not be on NFL at time activity starts.
• Fund monies may be spent only if no liable parties can be found within reasonable
time or if imminent threat exists.
RPs not viable or unavailable and imminent danger to health and the environment
Cleanups limited to those involving solid waste or contamination of air and waters of the
State.
• Secretary of Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources determines no
funds or action available from other sources.
• DEHNR must approve RD/RA.
Exhaust available liability, insurance and federal funds before using Fund.
Codes
o
r
s
V
remedial actions
CERCLA match
emergency response
grants to municipalities, local governments
site investigation
operation and maintenance
removals
studies and design
victim compensation
NOTE: Special conditions do not apply to all funds in States with more than one fund. See text for discussion.
-------
TABLE V-8 (Con't)
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Fund
Uses of Fund
Special Conditions on Fund Use
REGION V
oo
to
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Hazardous Waste Fund
Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund
• Environmental Response Fund •
• Environmental Protection Bond Fund1 •
Environmental Response Compensation and a
Compliance Fund
• Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund •
• Hazardous Waste Facility Manage- •
mcnt Fund
Environmental Fund
a c e i o r s
a c e i o r s
a c4 e i o r s
a e i o r s
c e g i o r -s
a e i r s
ceo
Site expenditures not to exceed SIM without legislative appropriation.
Fund expenditures must be authorized by the Commissioner.
• Numerical risk assessment before expenditures on evaluation or response.
v5 • Must seek RP or federal funds first.
• Expenditures must be approved by Pollution Control Board.
• Sites where hazardous waste treated, stored or disposed.
a c _e i o r s
other6
If requested, administrative hearing and judicial review before expenditures on remedial
action.
Codes: a remedial actions
c CERCLA match
e emergency response
g giants to municipalities, local governments
i site investigation
o operation and maintenance
r removals
s studies and design
v victim compensation
NOTE: Special conditions do not apply to all funds in States with more than one fund. See text for discussion.
-------
TABLE V-8 (Con't)
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Fund Uses of Fund
Special Conditions on Fund Use
REGION VI
Arkansas • Hazardous Substance Remedial Action • a c i o r s • Not available for actions "duolicative" of CERCLA.
oo
U)
Trust Fund
• Emergency Response Fund
Louisiana Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Fund
New Mexico Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund
Oklahoma Controlled Industrial Waste Fund
Texas • Hazardous Waste Disposal Fee
Fund (Fund '550")
• Spill Response Fund
a c e r s
a c e i r s
a c ego r s
a c e i o r s
e r
• Site must be on State Priority List.
• Commission on Pollution Control and Ecology approval if expenditure exceeds
Agency must make a demand on RPs.
Site-specific appropriations required for expected costs greater than $1M.
• RP, third party, or CERCLA funds insufficient for remedial action.
• Discharge to the waters or groundwaters of the state.
Codes: a remedial actions
c CERCLA match
e emergency response
g grants to municipalities, local governments
i site investigation
o operation and maintenance
r removals
s studies and design
v victim compensation
NOTE: Special conditions do not apply to all funds in States with more than one fund. See text for discussion.
-------
TABLE V-8 (Con't)
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Fund
Uses of Fund
Special Conditions on Fund Use
REGION VII
00
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
a c e o r s v
• a c e o r s
• Water Plan Special Revenue
Contamination Remediation Account
• Environmental Response Fund • afl c e r s
• Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust' • c°
Fund
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund
None
a c Qc i o r s
other3
75% of Fund must be used for remediation at non-CERCLA sites and for CERCLA cost
share,
• Generally, funds appropriated on a site-by-site basis.
All reasonable efforts to secure voluntary agreements from RPs.
Codes: a remedial actions
c CERCLA match
e emergency response
g grants to municipalities, local governments
i site investigation
o operation and maintenance
r removals
s studies and design
v victim compensation
NOTE: Special conditions do not apply to all funds in States with more than one fund. See text for discussion.
-------
TABLE V-8 (Con't)
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Fund
Uses of Fund
Special Conditions on Fund Use
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
oo Utah
Wyoming
Hazardous Substances Response Fund
• Environmental Quality Protection Fund
• Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special
Revenue Account
Environmental Quality Restoration Fund
Regulated Substances Response Fund
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund
Department of Environmental Quality Trust
and Agency Account
cio
• a e i o r s
• c
a e o r s
a c e o r s
c e i o r s
Five percent (5%) of funds may be used for administrative costs.
• Release or threat of release and remedial action will not be properly conducted by
RPs, no RPs, or RPs refuse to clean up.
• CERCLA match only.
• Determine that discharge occurred, RPs unwilling or unavailable to conduct corrective
action.
• Site must be on state hazardous substances priority list.
• Funds may be used for investigation but not remediation.
• Requires finding that use of fund is necessary and approval of Environmental Quality
Council.
Codes: a remedial actions
c CERCLA match
e emergency response
g grants to municipalities, local governments
i site investigation
o operation and maintenance
r removals
s studies and design
v victim compensation
NOTE: Special conditions do not apply to all funds in States with more than one fund. See text for discussion.
-------
TABLE V-8 (Con't)
USES OF STATE CLEANUP FUNDS
Fund
Uses of Fund
Special Conditions on Fund Use
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Washington
Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund
• Hazardous Substance Account
• Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
a c e g i o r s
a c e t o r s v
a c e i o re
,10
• To use Fund monies the program must demonstrate that a release does or may
impair state waters.
• Reasonable and necessary costs where RP not identified or fails to comply with
cleanup order.
• Expenditures for removal or remedial action prohibited if significant portion of
hazardous substances originated outside state.
• RPs - given notice and opportunity to conduct removal or remediation - fail to
comply. Consistent with NCP.
Hawaii
Nevada
c£ REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Environmental Response Revolving Fund
Hazardous Waste Management Fund
• Oil and Hazardous Substance •
Release Response Fund
• Separate "Mitigation' Account •
• Kenai Special Appropriation •
• Hazardous Waste Training, Emergency, •
and Monitoring Account
• Hazardous Waste Emergency Account •
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Fund
a c
a e
a c
a c
a i
a r
e
a11
e i T
i o r s • For studies, Interim Finance Committee approval if not already budgeted.
• First seek RP action, unless there is imminent hazard to health or environment.
e g i r s
e g i o r s
o r s
c e g i or s Only 25% of Orphan Site Account, a subaccount of HSRAF, may be used at sites with
• State Toxics Control Account
• Local Toxics Control Account
"unwilling" RPs. Use requires showing imminent threat.
e i o r s v • Appropriation by statute.
• Appropriation by statute.
1. Bond debt service. (NY)
2. Loans to nonprofit and small business RPs who settle. (DE)
3. Private party cleanups, recycling grant program, demonstration grants, municipality loan program. (PA)
4. CERCLA match monies from this fund are authorized, but site-specific appropriations have been the historical source of matching funds. (MI)
5. Hazardous Substance Injury Compensation Fund, which is established under separate legislation, has never been used. (MN)
6. LUST match. (WI)
7. Remedial Action may be taken pursuant to a court action. (MM)
8. Up to 20% of Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust Fund may be used for emergency response at HW facilities closed before 1981 Hazardous Waste Act. (KJ>)
9. Health studies, property acquisitions, and studies concerning hazardous waste facility development (MO)
10. Pursuant to the Hazardous Substance Victim's Compensation Fund, a separate account (CA)
11. Reimbursement of private remedial action or removal expenditures disbursed pursuant to an order on showing that party not liable, order was arbitrary and capricious, and costs incurred
were reasonable. (OR) i
12. Assist local governments in paying for contaminated site cleanup, solid and hazardous waste planning, recycling, and waste reduction. (WA)
-------
TABLE V-9
LIABILITY STANDARDS
SUMMARY
17 States have strict, joint and several liability. 8 additional
States have strict, joint and several liability with provisions for
proving apportionment.
6 States have proportional liability. (In 4 of these States
liability is strict)
5 States have strict liability but do not prescribe either joint
and several or proportional liability.
2 States have joint and several liability but not strict liability.
14 States have other liability standards, or unspecified stan-
dards. (Two of these states have other statutory provisions
summarized in the preceding categories.)
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
Strict, Joint and Several
Liability
Proportional Liability
Strict Liability (but not
Joint and Several)
Joint and Several Liability
(but not Strict)
Other or Unspecified Liability
Standards
1989
14
5
9
1
17
1990
17
6
5
2
14
87
-------
TABLE V-9
LIABILITY STANDARDS
Joint and Not
Strict Several Proportional Other Specified
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
MuuchuictU
New Hampshire
Rhode Wand
Vermont
X X
X X
X X X1
X X
X1 X 1
XXX1
REGION H
New Jewey
New Yorie
X X
X3
REGION m
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wett Virginia
X X
X*V"4
A
X5 X Xs
X
X
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mbrfisippi
North Carolina
Sooth Carolina
Tennessee
X
X X
X
X7
X1
X
X X
X X
88
-------
TABLE V-9 (Con't)
LIABILITY STANDARDS
Joint and Not
Strict Several Proportional Other Specified
REGION V
Illinois
Indians
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION VH
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
AA
REGIOlN^VUl
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
X X"
X X
X
X X Xs
X" X
XX Xu
X
X X XM
xu
X
X X X1
Xu Xa
X X"
X
X
X
XXX9
X
X
x x
89
-------
TABLE V-9 (Con't)
LIABILITY STANDARDS
Strict
Joint and
Several
Proportional
Not
Other Specified
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
X
X
X
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
X"
X
X
X
1. Where liable party establishes by a preponderance of evidence that he or she liable for a portion then liability Mvisible."
2. "Absolutely" liable - interpreted as strict, joint, and several by agency. •*
3, Determined by Commission, any statutory or common law defense available.
4. Where there is reasonable basis for determining contribution.
5. Legislative history indicates joint and several liability.
6. At multi-party sites, State is required to prepare NBARs and parties may "cashout" with proportional share plus premium.
7. "Any person responsible for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance."
8. "Any person creating, or responsible for creating, an immediate necessity for remedial or clean-up action."
9. Court apportionment
10. No liability standard specified in Statute - State has argued for strict, joint and several liability.
11. Primary cleanup statute leaves liability up to common law standards.
12. "Persons responsible for hazardous waste cleanup" - interpreted as joint and several.
13. Limited strict liability - $5M for transporters, $50M for facilities.
14. Generators and transporters are not strictly liable; State also asserts joint and several.
15. liability is strict for those in possession of hazardous material involved in spill.
90
-------
TABLE V-10
PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
SUMMARY
. 23 States have punitive damages provisions.
18 States have punitive damages provisions for treble the
State's cost.
2 States have punitive damages provisions for double the State's
cost.
2 States have punitive damages provisions for one and one-half
times the State's cost.
1 State does not limit the amount for punitive damages.
45 States have civil penalty provisions.
Most States have civil penalties of up to $10K/day (18 States)
or $25K/day (16 States).
3 States have civil penalties of up to $50K/day.
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
Punitive Damages Provisions
Civil Penalty Provisions
1989 1990
22 23
45 45
91
-------
TABLE V-10
PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
Punitive Damages Civil Penalties
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
1 1/2 times (negligence) Up to $25,000/day
AG may seek (no limit)
Treble costs Up to $25,000/violation
Treble Up to $10,000/day or administrative penalties
Treble Up to $50,000/day
REGION H
New Jeney
NewYoik
Treble Up to $50,000/day
Up to $25,000/violation plus $25,000/day (Doubles for second
violation)
REGION HI
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Treble Up to $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day. Administrative-up to $l,000/day ($50,000
cap).
Treble Up to $25,000/day (min - $5,000/day).
Up to $25.000/day
Penalty for not paying fee
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
$100-25,000 ($250,000 max.)
Up to $25,000/day
Up to $25,000/day
$l,000/day
Up to $25,000/day
$10,000/day for violation involving hazardous waste (Public
Health Land)
Treble Up to $25,000/day with stipulated penalties of $l,000/day
1 1/2 times Up to $10,000/day
92
-------
TABLE V-10 (Con't)
PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
Punitive Damages Civil Penalties
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION VH
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Trebte $10,000 for violation and $l,000/day
Treble $25,000/day and $500/hour of violation of emergency older,
under revision
$25,000/day
$20,000/day or $100,000 for disturbing closed RCRA facility
Up to $10,000/day
$10 to $5.000/day
Treble Up to $25,000/day
Treble RP's share of costs Up to $SO,000/day
$5,000/day or $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
Double Up to $10,000/day
Treble Up to $l,000/day
Treble Up to $10,000/day
Judicial only
93
-------
TABLE V-10 (Con't)
PENALTIES AND DAMAGES AVAILABLE
IN STATE "SUPERFUND" STATUTE
Punitive Damages
Civil Penalties
REGION Vm
Colorado
Montana Double
North Dakou
South Dakou
Utah
Wyoming
Up to $1,000 administrative penalties or $10,000 per day for
violation of order
Up to $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 per day for violation of
order, violation of permit, regulation, or standards, or violation
of statute, permit, or orders.
Up to $10,000/day -
Up to $10.000/day
Up to $10,000/day for violations of Environmental Quality Act
REGION IX
Arizona Treble
California Treble
Hawaii Treble
Nevada
Up to $5,000/day or up to $10,000/day (judicial)
Up to $25,000/day
Up to $25,000/day
Up to 510,000/day
REGION X
Aluka
Idaho
Oregon Treble
Washington Treble
$500-100.000 + $10,000/day
Up to $10,000/day
$10,000/day
Up to $25,000/day
94
-------
TABLE V-ll
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA*
SUMMARY
States reported that their cleanup policies and criteria includes one or more
of the following:
• 5 States have promulgated separate hazardous waste remedial
standards.
• 28 States reference MCLs.
• 33 States reference water quality criteria.
• 30 States reference EPA Guidelines.
• 20 States reference background quality.
• 32 States reference risk levels or conduct a risk assessment.
A State Program Developments box is not provided for this category. The
information gathered for the 1990 version was more detailed than that collected for the
previous year; comparisons therefore would be misleading.
95
-------
ON
TABLE V-ll
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Promulgated
Hazardous
Waste Water
Remedial Quality
Standards MCLs Criteria
EPA
Guide- Cleanup to Risk Standard/
lines Background Assessment Comments
REGION I
Connecticut X X
Maine X
Massachusetts X X
New Hampshire X
Rhode Island
Vermont X X
X State groundwater classification is most important
factor.
X Toxicity levels and risk range of 10"6 to 10"7 for
carcinogens.
X Permanent solutions whenever feasible; feasible
includes both technical and economic practicabil-
ity. If no applicable standards' exist, DBF gene-
rates site-specific health-based standards including
risk assessment.
X Meet or exceed Federal standards.
X
Groundwater standards may trigger remedial
action. State is developing soil standards.
REGION II
New Jersey X
New York X X
o
X X Soil standards under development. 10"° goal
pursued for carcinogens.
X Under development by interagency task force.
-------
TABLE V-ll (Con'td)
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Promulgated
Hazardous
Waste Water
Remedial Quality
Standards MCLs Criteria
EPA
Guide- Cleanup to Risk Standard/
lines Background Assessment
Comments
REGION III
Delaware X X
Maryland
Pennsylvania X
Virginia X X
West Virginia
X X
X X X
X-Sara X
{121
X
Hazardous waste remedial standards under
development.
Hazardous waste remedial standards under
development.
Statute provides that SARA $121 applies.
Risk factor of 10"5 or 10"6 for' carcinogens;
ambient air quality monitoring.
No published guidelines.
-------
TABLE V-ll (Con'td)
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Promulgated
Hazardous
Waste
Remedial
Standards
Water EPA
Quality Guide-
MCLs Criteria lines
Cleanup to Risk Standard/
Background Assessment
Comments
REGION IV
oo
Alabama
Florida
X
X
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
Risk assessments on site-by-site basis. Statutory
guideline: "protect human health and the
environment.'
Site-specific based on risk assessment and any
existing standards. Cleanup to state water
standard or ambient quality.
Cleanup to background or drinking water
standards for groundwater.
In practice, site-by-site standard, in consultation
with Air and Water Divisions based partly on risk
assessment.
Reference background, detection limit, published
standards, site-specific risk.
Process includes reference to health-based risk
assessment and groundwater regulations.
Consistent with NCP. Use MCLs for ground-
water, background for soil.
To extent practicable, remedies consistent with
NCP. State-level ARARs, protection of human
health and environment and cost-effectiveness.
-------
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
TABLE V-ll (Con'td)
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Promulgated
Hazardous
Waste
Remedial
Standards
Water EPA
Quality Guide-
MCLs Criteria lines
Cleanup to
Background
Risk Standard/
Assessment
Comments
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
XX X
X X
X
X
X
X
Cleanup objectives selected on site-by-site basis.
Consistent with NCR Cancer risk range of 10"5
to 10"' where MCLs and ARARs ate not estab-
lished or where multiple carcinogens present.
X X
X
X
X
Three-tiered cleanup standards: Type A - to
background; Type B - risk-based; Type C - tow
priority, less stringent than Type B.
Health-based limits on many chemicals; ARARS.
In the absence of applicable standards, a cancer
risk standard of 10"5 is used. A non-degradation
policy applies to cleaner sites.
Standard consistent with NCP. 10"6 risk for
carcinogens and less than one noncarcinogen case.
Risk assessments at sites where promulgated
standards do not apply. Department guidelines
for soil contamination.
-------
TABLE V-ll (Con'td)
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Promulgated
Hazardous
Waste Water EPA
Remedial Quality Guide- Cleanup to Risk Standard/
Standards MCLs Criteria lines Background Assessment
Comments
REGION VI
Arkansas X- Air and X X
Water Regu-
lations
Louisiana X
8 New Mexico XX X
Oklahoma
Texas X X
ID"** for carcinogens.
Cost-effectiveness; exposure level that poses no
significant threat to public health or environment
Aim for permanent remedies.
All cleanup actions are conducted under
CERCLA.
Site-by-site determination.
"Lowest cost alternative that is technically feasible
and reliable and which effectively mitigates and
minimizes damage to and provides adequate
protection of public health and safety or the
environment"
REGION VII
Iowa XX X
Kansas XX XX
Missouri X
Nebraska X
Recent regulations provide cleanup goals for
groundwater.
Use Kansas Action Levels; otherwise use
background.
Uses Department of Health and other lexico-
logical information.
-------
TABLE V-ll (Con'td)
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Promulgated
Hazardous
Waste
Remedial
Standards
Water
Quality
MCLs Criteria
(
EPA
Guide- Cleanup to Risk Standard/
lines Background Assessment Comments
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana X
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XX X
X X May also impose site-specific criteria.
XX X Criteria selected on site-by-site basis. Narrative,
not numerical, risk levels.
X
X Follow NCP procedures, meet CERCLA, use
MCLs if applicable.
Wyoming
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
X
X
X
X
"Assure protection of public health, welfare, and
the environment, be cost-effective over period of
potential exposure, assure maximum beneficial
uses of waters of state." MCLs or state standard
of 10 risk of cancer.
Remedial Action Plans based on, among other
things, the effect of contamination on beneficial
uses of resources, the effect of action on ground-
water, site-specific characteristics and cost-
effectiveness. At least as.stringent as CERClA
and NCP. Generally 10"6 cancer risk.
Site-by-site groundwater standards.
-------
TABLE V-ll (Com'td)
STATE CLEANUP POLICIES AND CRITERIA
Promulgated
Hazardous
Waste
Remedial
Standards
Water
Quality
MCLs Criteria
EPA
Guide-
lines
Cleanup to
Background
Risk Standard/
Assessment
Comments
REGION X
8
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
X
X
In draft form
Continuing development Anticipate use of risk
assessments.
If cleanup to background infeasible, action
selected that attains lowest concentration level
that satisfies certain feasibility criteria, including
cost-effectiveness.
At least as stringent as all applicable State and
Federal laws.
-------
TABLE V-12
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
SUMMARY
38 States have public participation procedures; 21 of these
States have statutory or regulatory public participation
requirements.
3 States are developing a policy for public participation.
11 States have public notice requirements.
17 States solicit public comments.
26 States hold or may hold public meetings or hearings.
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTS
Public Participation Procedures
Statutory or Regulatory
Requirements
1989
35
22
1990
38
21
103
-------
TABLE V-12
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
State
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
REGION I
•Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Must publish results of site investigation within 30 days of completion and
notice of local residents' rights regarding site disposition.
Must hold public meeting upon petition of 10 or more local residents and
present plan for community involvement regarding response actions. May
develop such a plan and' hold public meetings even in the absence of a
petition.
May provide technical assistance grants.
Must permit public site inspections by community representatives.
Public meetings held at various stages of investigation and cleanup at State-funded
sites.
Records are open to public inspection. Policy to keep local officials and residents
informed.
May hold public hearing in enforcement actions.
Holds public meetings; public informational meetings conducted upon request.
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Public meeting prior to adopting ROD.
Public notice and brief analysis of remedial plan; 30-day comment period;
public meeting; document repository, mass mailings.
Public meetings prior to RI/FS, upon completion of RI/FS, upon completion of
RD, at beginning of RA, at conclusion of RA.
State Superfund Management Board, which oversees remedial program, includes
environmental group and citizen representatives.
-------
TABLE V-12 (Con't)
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
State
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
REGION III
Ul
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Public hearings must be held on proposed settlement agreements and
proposed remedial action plans.
Allow for comment and at least one public hearing on administrative record
for remedial action. Respond to all significant comments.
Community Relations Coordinator disseminates information and arranges public
meetings.
Community relations plan being drafted.
May hold public meetings.
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
30-day comment period on Cleanup Plan after notice is published in
newspaper.
Notice and summary of RA plan published weekly for 3 weeks; 45-day
comment period for State-funded cleanups.
May hold public meetings.
May hold public meetings
Policy requires public comment period and direct mailings to interested patties.
Public meeting at discretion of Secretary.
Public meeting at end of RI/FS.
-------
TABLE V-12 (Con't)
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
State
REGION V
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
o
o\
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Citizen information
Annual public hearing when site list is updated
Proposed rules call for public hearings during remedy selection
Public notice and comments for proposed site listing and for other stages in
site handling.
Public meeting and comments on remedial plan.
Public notice of site list. 30-day comment period.
Public hearing regarding site list if requested by any person.
Public notice of any proposed remedial action except in emergency.
Public hearing if requested within 30 days.
Community relations coordinators assigned to most sites.
30-day comment period for final remediation decisions/orders. Must notify all
affected parties of proposed remedial action. 2 or 3 public meetings per lite,
followed by mailings to affected parties. Often poll public regarding possible
remedies.
Public comment allowed at de-listing (until 2/90)
Public relations officer is assigned to each site.
Public meeting at completion of RI/FS to explain proposed plan.
Policy under revision.
Open Records Law provides public access to State records.
-------
TABLE V-12 (Con't)
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
State
Statutoiy/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
i
Oklahoma
Texas
Comments received on the site listing become part of the administrative
record.
Must provide opportunity for public comment on closure plans
Public notice and comment for site listing.
Public meeting prior to remedy selection.
Public hearing may be held regarding site listing.
Community relations program at complex sites; regular public meetings. Prior to
concluding settlement agreements, holds public meeting and makes copies of
agreements available.
Settlement agreement process includes public input.
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Present annual report on state hazardous waste program at a public meeting.
Information obtained from firms is available to public, with certain
exceptions.
Public notice of remedial action plan; 30-day comment period during which
a hearing may be requested.
Drafting contingency plan to formalize requirements
-------
TABLE V-12 (Con't)
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
State
Statutory/Regulatory Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
,_i Utah
O
0° Wyoming
Public notice for administrative orders and consent decrees.
Follows NCP public participation requirements.
Public involvement encouraged early. Committees at select sites allow public
participation in risk assessment design.
Local officials provided with site information.
Public participation is informal and includes opportunity to review documents and
comment on rulemakings. Citizen commission at one NPL site.
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Regulations provide for citizen participation with regard to site listing, and
remedial action plans where interest is shown.
Must hold at least one public meeting on remedial action plan and consider
any comments. Anyone affected by a removal/remedial action must have
an opportunity to participate in dedsionmaking.
Public participation activities may be implemented by the department and
required of RPs.
Gtizens are informed of state activities at hazardous waste sites via newspaper and
public meetings. All comments are considered.
Schedule of activities for site must be made available.
-------
TABLE V-12 (Con't)
STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES
State
Statutoiy/Regulatoiy Requirements
Policy/Ad hoc Practices
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Notify the media of program for identifying releases.
Public notice and copies of proposed remedial actions; 30 day comment
period; public meeting if requested by at least 10 people. Public notice and
copies of final RA. Public notice regarding proposed settlement agreements.
Establish regional citizens' advisory committees.
Public notice of investigative or remedial plans, compliance and enforcement
orders, notices of violation, agreed orders and consent decrees.
Public participation grants to individuals and non-profit public interest groups.
Citizen advisory panels are formed for major cleanups.
Community relations program at one NPL site
-------
-------
CHAPTER VI
STATE SUMMARIES
This chapter contains a concise, two-page summary of each State's hazardous waste
cleanup capabilities. The States are listed according to EPA Regions.
Nine program elements are described in each of the summaries:
• Sites - includes NPL sites, State list sites, State inventory or registry sites,
unconfirmed or potential State sites, or total identified hazardous waste sites.
• Statutes - lists legislation providing Fund, cleanup, and enforcement
capabilities, and major provisions of statute(s), including significant
amendments.
• State Agency - describes State agency(s) responsible for hazardous waste
cleanup, including number of program staff and number of staff providing
legal support.
• Funding - includes description of funding mechanism, sources of funds, fund
balances, annual additions, and authorized expenditures.
• Enforcement - discusses legal authorities such as liability standard, cost
recovery, penalty and damage provisions, order authority, in addition to
enforcement methods.
• Cleanup Activities - presents information on cleanup activities at both NPL
and non-NPL State sites.
• Cleanup Policies and Criteria - summarizes cleanup standards and/or criteria
and policies used for remedy selection.
• Public Participation - summarizes statutory requirements and State policies
and procedure for public participation in the hazardous waste cleanup
program.
• Federal/State Partnership - lists any agreements or grants existing between the
State and EPA.
The information for each of the State programs is current as of the date indicated on
the first page of the summary.
Ill
-------
FIGURE VI-1
EPA REGIONS
REGION X
REGION I
REGION III
REGION IX
REGION IV
a.
-------
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
113
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Total of known and
suspected sites
15
0
Inventory of Haz. Waste
Disposal Sites: 585 sites
(includes NPL sites)
Approx. 800
CONNECTICUT
[7/24/90]
1.
2,
3.
4.
Public Act 87*561, codified' at Conn. Gen, S^«22*&3a temi& *&%
Sunerfund program,. authorizes:' Fiind expendilures 'and eos^reoavery, _ _
" ' s-v '% " s>x'*' ' %
Emergency Spilt Response Fund, Com
'
<*»*«*
ra of Hazardous Waste
(1985) creates property transfer program and negative declarafion te«plrement
Water PoBtuton
amendments), provide authority" for Sadmin|stmtlv6 cleaaup orders,
(1967 ' and
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Protection,
Waste Management Bureau, Site Remediation
Division includes 39 staff supported with State
and Federal funds. (Recent legislation created
and funded 17 new positions.) The AG's office
provides legal support with several attorneys
working part-time on State superfund issues.
FUNDING
Funding vehicles include the Emergency Spill
Response Fund, with a balance of $9.5M (7/90)
and bonds authorized by Special Acts in 1986
and 1987 with $16.5M uncommitted (7/90). The
Emergency Spill Response Fund is primarily
funded by a generator tax. Hazardous waste
civil penalties and criminal fines are also
credited to the Fund.
The Response Fund and Special Acts monies
can be used to pay for studies and design,
emergency response, removals, remediation and
State CERCLA match. O&M costs are paid
from State General Fund, with a limited amount
of funding from the Response Fund.
In order to expend Funds on remedial
actions, DEP must determine threat is
unacceptable, be unable to determine RP, or RP
must be in non-compliance with or appealing
order.
114
-------
CONNECTICUT (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities available include strict, joint
and several liability, orders for information and
site access, subpoena authority, administrative
and consent order authority, injunctive action
and cost recovery authority. Civil penalties of
$25K/day available under hazardous waste
program, 1 1/2 x punitive damages available in
cost recovery actions. Lien provision also
available. Preferred enforcement method is
consent order, followed by administrative order,
or court action. State is required to attempt cost
recovery.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Inventory of 585 sites includes 50 sites that
have been cleaned up. Approximately 200 sites
under consideration for listing on Inventory.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Determined on site-by-site basis, including
consideration of ground-water classification and
related water quality criteria. Cleanup standards
for soil and water are usually set at drinking
water standard, MCL, or State Action Level. If
no such reference standard exists, Department of
Health will assist DEP in setting risk level.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No public participation requirements. DEP
contacts local officials with cleanup workplan
and holds public meetings at various stages of
investigation and cleanup, but only at State-
funded sites.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
A SMOA is in negotiation. State has CAs,
SACAs, and a CPCA in FY90.
115
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list of known
and potential sites
0
373 (includes NPL sites).
Of these sites, at least 120
need no further action; six
have been cleaned up.
Sites known to need
investigation or cleanup
160
MAINE
[7/24/90]
Uncontrolled
1987, and 1990) provides
$te* M *$»!&'
cleanup olf sites Ml eflfbiceaieat aatfiorliles.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Material Control,
Division of Licensing and Enforcement, Uncon-
trolled Sites Program has 21 staff split into
three sections: administrative support and two
site management units. Funding from Federal
and State sources.
One to one and one-half positions in the
AG's office are devoted to Superfund-type
enforcement activity. Dept. also works with
Bureau of Health in conducting risk assessments
and lab work.
FUNDING
Two accounts:
(1) The Uncontrolled Sites Fund contains
approximately $1.5M obtained through cost
recovery at 2 sites.
(2) The "Bond Account", authorized by
cleanup fund referenda in 1984 ($3.23M) and
1987 ($5M) contains $618,000, with $3M in
bond sales authorized by the Legislature in
Spring 1990. No cap on Fund.
Fund used for site investigation, emergency
response, studies and design, remedial actions,
O&M, State CERCLA match.
116
-------
MAINE (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities include strict, joint and
several liability, orders for information, site
access and remediation, order authority, cost
recovery, liens and punitive damages.
Commissioner must designate a site for consent
decree. Penalty authority from hazardous waste
statute. Dept. also has property forfeiture
provision (used once).
State prefers negotiated agreements. About 20
cleanup orders issued to date. Cost recovery
settlement received in two cases. Dept. writes
and negotiates agreements, AG handles other
enforcement.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No State-lead NPL sites. Six sites cleaned up;
160 sites are known to need investigation or
cleanup. Discovery program in 1987 identified
180 sites in a two-week period.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Case-by-case. Risk to human health, future
water uses, drinking water standards and toxicity
levels considered. Risk range of 10"5 acceptable
for carcinogens.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. Participation on an
ad hoc basis. Dept. policy is to keep local
officials and residents informed.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA under negotiations. CPCA in FY90.
State has received MSCA funding, CA funding,
and SACA funding.
117
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list (confirmed sites)
Priority list
Unconfirmed sites
25
0
1486 (includes
NPL sites)
383
2297
MASSACHUSETTS
[8/10/90]
The Massaclwetts OH aM frtizarffow Materiel K$f&&$ Prevgn&m gad Resjjtoi&G 4e^Massr Oetu
21E (1983, amended in 198ft, piMdes for strict joint and iseveral Hafeflifyj site access* idftssaatooa, aftd
administrative order authority;* ayenctive J^ief; civil and criminal penalties', cost tecoVery; priomy lieas; and-
citizen suits. ' ^^--,? i - ^'" ""- ,'"""«,\ >*
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup has 157
funded positions (includes 22 Federally funded
positions) and is the lead bureau administering
the Waste Site Cleanup Program. Two other
bureaus within DEP have staff dedicated to the
program. The total Waste Site Cleanup Program
has 286 authorized positions, of which 244 are
funded.
Fifteen DEP attorneys and five attorneys in
the AG's office provide enforcement support.
FUNDING
Bonds fund program activities. Balance of
$49M in bonds (out of $85M authorized)
remains available for site investigation, studies
and design, removals, emergency response,
remedial actions, CERCLA match, and O&M.
Bonds are repaid by cost recovery, and
hazardous waste transporter fees (approx.
$6M/yr) are used for debt service.
Program administration and personnel costs
are financed by penalties and fines and cost
recovery (including oversight cost recovery)
deposited in the Environmental Challenge Fund
(ECF). Balance of ECF is $2.4M as of 7/90
with expected annual additions of $3M. A one-
time appropriation in 1987 of $21M to the ECF
will be exhausted by 7/91. DEP is currently
working to establish a permanent funding source
for the Waste Site Cleanup Program.
118
-------
MASSACHUSETTS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
DEP will provide PRPs an opportunity to
clean up a site; if the party is recalcitrant, DEP
will clean up the site and recover costs. Admin-
istrative orders are used less frequently, due to
the appeals process. Voluntary cleanup is high
(80-85%), which program staff attribute to the
statute's provisions for priority liens and treble
costs. Three third-party lAGs are being nego-
tiated at Federal facility NPL sites, which are
all EPA-lead.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
266 RAs completed. An additional 1486
confirmed sites and 2297 suspected sites on
State List of Confirmed Disposal Sites and
Locations to be Investigate^.
80-85% PRP cleanups.
One State lead at one NPL site.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Permanent solutions required. Cleanup to
background conditions required where feasible.
Temporary solutions required at priority sites
until permanent solution becomes feasible.
Applicable or suitable analogous Massachusetts
health and environmental standards are cleanup
requirements at all disposal sites (although more
stringent requirements may apply). In addition,
"total site risk" drives derivation of site-specific
health-based cleanup requirements for complex
sites.
Risk assessments are used to determine
cleanup standards. In sum, a non-carcinogenic
effect of 0.2 on the Hazard Index and a com-
bined (additive) cancer risk of 10s are used.
The Hazard Index is calculated for groups of
chemicals with the same mechanism of toxic
action.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The statute and regulations require public
notice of site investigation results within 30
days of completion. Public meetings are held
upon petition for community involvement
regarding response actions. State technical
assistance grants and public site inspections are
also available, and local officials are informed
of site activities throughout the cleanup process.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA with EPA in draft-includes
provisions for consent order dispute resolution.
One MSCA covering 22 sites. Three site-
specific CAs. SACAs and one TAG. CPCA for
FY90.
Three Federal facility NPL site SMOAs with
DOD in draft.
119
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Total known and suspected sites
16
0
400
Sites identified as
needing attention
Between 150-175
non-NPL hazardous
waste sites
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
[8/14/90]
STATE AGENCY
The Waste Management Division of State's
Department of Environmental Services ODES)
administers HWCF. The Division is broken into
three bureaus. The Waste Management
Engineering Bureau is primarily responsible for
Federal and State Superfund work and has five
' staff funded by the HWCF. The HWCF also
funds several other positions within the DBS,
including a team of hydrogeologists within the
Water Supply and Pollution Control Division of
DBS. AG's office provides legal support and
receives an annual appropriation from the
HWCF.
NeW ItQfttDSKb'8 nuwuwjoK* w«a»i5, **•»«»» »»««••«»%««» ,,„,— -—, f • .-..
- * - —^ 1987, and tf&fy, ««MI*i» State, Fi|M .and p^v|desf
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Laws
provide for strict, joint and several liability.
State is authorized to issue administrative orders
including orders for information, site access, and
site cleanup. State also has subpoena and
consent order authorities. State may take
injunctive action to induce generator to clean up
site. State has first priority lien on real property
where hazardous waste and hazardous materials
are located, on business revenues generated
from the facility on the real property where the
hazardous wastes and hazardous materials are
located, and on all personal property located at
the facility. State may impose criminal penalties
and bring action to recover costs.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The HWCF is used to fund several staff
positions within DBS, and has been used for
emergency removal at the N.H. Plating facility
in Merrimack, and for various hydrogeological
studies at sites in the preliminary stages of
investigation. It also will be used to engage in
clean-up order actions at the Hunt Tire facility.
Portions of the HWCF are used for a household
hazardous waste clean-up program, and to pay
the AG's office for legal services.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup must meet or exceed Federal
standards. The State ARARs are as stringent as,
or more stringent, than Federal standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. The State is
currently studying and establishing public
participation procedures, and intends to hire a
public relations coordinator. Presently RPMs
informally contact local citizens and government
officials.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
MSCAs for seven sites. CAs for 13 sites.
Eight SACAs granted. FY90 CPCA. No
technical assistance grants.
121
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Suspected and
unconfirmed sites
11
0
247 (on CERCLIS)
RHODE ISLAND
[8/16/90]
; Hazardous
I
^jWuTE'
C-«" ' ' . '
Laws,
23-1&143 {!*», amended, m '
sites,
: imt W« pm *&SB«'s'!' - s"' A"*"' - '"'' 5""; - ^ ' « - -", 'M
£ , >; - AV"'^'-' •>" '" Ixfcfel^'5*'' - ';«"'-, > »"' " """••"> - "
r :•.- ,<^r-^ X«/K - - *-~- -- —
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Air and Hazardous Materials,
Environmental Response Section has 12 full-
time professional staff. Staff funding from
CPCA, CAs for NPL oversight and preremedial
work, and Bond Fund.
In-house legal support provided by one
attorney (60% of time), with assistance from
two attorneys at the AG's office on criminal
cases.
FUNDING
Environmental Response Fund has a balance
of $1M (8/90). Primary source of Fund is
bonds, with smaller contributions from cost
recoveries and penalties/fines.
Fund may be used for site investigation,
emergency response, removals, site evaluation,
remedial action, CERCLA match, and temporary
water supplies and resident relocation.
122
-------
RHODE ISLAND (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities include "absolute" liability
(strict), subpoena, administrative orders, injunc-
tive action, civil and criminal penalties, cost
recovery and treble damages.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Case-by-case; no standards. Some degree of
risk analysis usually conducted.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No information.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal pro-
cedures on State cleanups. On Federal enforce-
ment sites, process may include hearings where
public can become involved. Public informa-
tional meetings are conducted upon request.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State has CAs for pre-remedial work and
SACA at 10 NPL sites. CPCA for FY89/90.
123
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list of known,
suspected and closed sites
Sites "active" in program
Unconfirmed sites
8
0
260
143
70
VERMONT
[7/24/90]
2.
A-W4 •* ""IvX- '* f flf t£f "• f - /
_/ „;/;;STATUTES^ ,,,^,,_ - - -^
1. Contingency Fund, Vermont Water Potiiuidn'Control Law> Vt^.StaJ- f^1*1' **** ^ §§1282-1283*
provides fund for emergency responsCst»flies and desip and remedial acttom , Hc;%
Vermont Solid Waste Manaement ty. Vt && Ana. tit 10 ||6601-6618
amendments in 1981, J985, and 1987) provides enforcement authorities
"• • '
3 An Act Relating to AdmnKtrafce. Eitforcment
.
Ann, tit. 10 §§800i*822l (1989) piovMes additioM ettfoicement aofborities.
-.-1 f f ^ " * *• , ss s,, -^fv • SW-^^v .. X&jj^xn.^ 5
,
Environmental LW$ (A
-------
VERMONT (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Under Fund, Agency must give "discharging
party" opportunity to clean up. Agency sends
out letters, to be followed by administrative
order in the event of noncompliance. 95% of
sites are voluntarily cleaned up by RPs. The
State has strict, joint and several liability and
treble damages provisions. Liability apportion-
ment is available. The Agency has strong order
authority including authority to request informa-
tion, subpoena documents, issue administrative
orders, issue consent orers, and issue orders for
entry. Civil penalties of $50K per violation in
addition to $50K per day for continuing
violation.
Penalties and fines go to General Fund;
recovered costs go into Contingency Fund.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
46 sites have been closed as of 7/90.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Water quality criteria based on ground-water
statute and drinking water standards are used as
triggers for remedial action. Actual cleanup
determination made on a case-by-case basis.
State uses draft soil standards policy to deter-
mine soil cleanup standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. Agency meets with
town officials and holds public meetings.
Statutory requirement to notify municipalities of
sites within their borders; site designation must
be entered on deed register.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in place. Two MSCA's in 1989 for
pre-remedial, and remedial management
assistance. FY89 CPCA.
125
-------
REGION H
New Jersey
New York
126
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Total known and
suspected sites
109
0
Status Report Update:
approx. 500 major sites
being inventoried
(expected to be at least
several thousand)
NEW JERSEY
[8/16/90]
, , ,< ,*V>J jj, ,,. . . „ ..,. ._ , , ---- ••
New Jersey Spill Compensation afld"C
-------
NEW JERSEY (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities include strict, joint and
several liability, with a treble damages provision
applicable to NJDEP costs. Injunctive action,
cost recovery authorized in Act. Civil penalties
of up to $50K per day. Catastrophic discharge
provision allows for penalties of up to $10M
for discharges £100,000 gallons. Lien provision
in statute has priority over all other liens.
Department policy, to preserve treble damages
provision, is to provide RP notification and
chance to cleanup.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of the NPL sites in State, approx. one-third
State-funded, one-third Federally-funded, one-
third privately-funded. Approx. half of NPL
sites in State are State-lead.
Between July 1 and December 31, 1989, 130
ECRA consent orders were executed, with
financial assurances of over $47M.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Use appropriate and applicable existing
criteria, or action levels, including water quality
criteria, drinking water standards, background
levels. Standards assessed on a site-by-site basis
and should be consistent with NCP. NJDEP in
process of developing risk-based soil standards,
currently uses Interim Soil Action Levels, which
are based on approximations of background
concentrations.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Act specifies that actions should "to the
greatest extent possible, be in accordance with
the NCP." Department policy is to generally
follow NCP procedures. State holds public
meeting prior to adopting RODs, public meeting
prior to RI/FS, upon completion of RI/FS, upon
completion of RD, at beginning of RA, at
conclusion of RA.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA. State has
SACAs. CPCA in FY89.
received CAs and
State source estimates that New Jersey
received $281.1M in Federal Superfund monies
in FY88~41% of the national total. In FY89,
the State was awarded $113.3M in Federal
funds, 18% of available CERCLA dollars.
128
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Unconfirmed sites
83
0
1,437; 1,120 on registry
(includes NPL) plus
317 delisted
586: 547 under investi-
gation and 39 awaiting
investigation
NEW YORK
[7/27/90]
'•" X"Xv^ v
" v ; STATUTES \ ' -~
(&?9t Cftlpter 285, ^Etiviajnmental <&nservati0& L$w article 27* title 13)
taatotes slate^ide ioyefltoty of sites, registry of sites, and providfek ordered: ^
* 2. jvew y&rk State Superfund Act (1982> Chapter 857), establishes Fond for cleanup <£ sites and'
; - CERCLAntateh. ; ,,,' ss ""^ -^,
; / ^ r; I$8t5;Akendn3iaits;to S^Superfunl'Act. (1985^ Chapter 38) increase^ assessments and &esl,
i%" "ftrtytronfMnfal Quality ttontAet tf im> aalto%» $1,2B m ixids^ tojidjjress^liaaotive^teardoa^
i% wast& ates, JlO|||t of which was. ledM^lfor use la leaning up jnoiihazffrdoBS waste landfills^
STATE AGENCY
Appropriations for staff from State General
Fund transferred to Hazardous Waste Remedial
Fund. Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (DEC) has approx. 328 staff working on
State and Federal Superfund activities~291
funded by State and approx. 37 funded by
Federal monies. Most of personnel in Division
of Hazardous Waste, Remediation. Approx. 25
staff work on State Superfund in the Division
of Environmental Enforcement and the Division
of Legal Affairs. Seven attorneys with the AG's
office work on cleanup issues.
FUNDING
Current funding mechanism is Hazardous
Waste Remedial Fund, State Finance Law §97-
6. Prior to 4/1/87 hazardous waste assessments,
regulatory fees and an oil transfer surcharge
funded this "Investigation and Construction
Account" In 1989, State began selling EQBA
bonds. Fund Balance as of 3/31/90, $10.9M.
Remaining bonding capacity is $1.06 billion.
Since 4/1/87, assessments, fees, and oil trans-
fer surcharge have been placed in "Industry Fee
Transfer Account," which will be used to pay
for one-half of debt service on bonds.
Waste end fee collections were $5.4M in
FY89/90 and regulatory fees were $5M. Petro-
leum transfer fee collections were $15.8M in
FY89/90.
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund used for
site investigation, emergency response, removals,
studies and design, remedial actions, O&M,
State CERCLA match and Title 3 grants to
municipalities.
129
-------
NEW YORK (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Division of Environmental Enforcement and
AG's office involved in enforcement activities.
Legal authorities include orders for information
and site access, subpoena authority, administra-
tive order authority, consent order and injunctive
action authority. Civil penalties of $25K per
violation in addition to $25K per day for con-
tinuing violation. Penalty doubles for second
violation. Criminal penalty up to $25K/day and/
or one year imprisonment Penalty doubles for
second violation. Cost recovery also authorized.
Preferred enforcement method is negotiated
settlement
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of the 1,120 sites on Registry, 911 have
action underway, 67 awaiting cleanup, 39
awaiting investigation, 55 others with deferred
action, 48 sites cleaned up of which 43 require
O&M, five require no O&M. 317 sites delisted,
46 cleaned up, 271 required no action. Goal is
to remediate 500 sites by year 2000.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Decisions on site-by-site basis in cooperation
with the Department of Health. DEC draft
policy is to encourage use of permanent
remedies. Standards under development by inter-
agency task force.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Rules specify DEC must publish notice and
brief analysis of remedial program, allow 30
days for comments, provide opportunity for
comments at public meeting, establish a docu-
ment repository and contact list, and perform
mass mailings. DEC must solicit view of
Federal, State and local government officials,
local civic organizations, and local residents.
State Superfund Management Board, charged
with oversight of the remedial program, includes
environmental group and citizen representatives.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
CPCAs, CAs, and SACAs awarded in State.
State anticipates submitting draft SMOA to EPA
during summer 1990.
130
-------
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
131
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites
20
0
48
investigated 230 sites
DELAWARE
[7/26/90]
STATUTE „,, I ,^, , - , " 'J
Ztefewortf Hazardous Substance Zleanup Act, &l. Code AttnTtl, 7/§§9lfe^9120
-------
DELAWARE (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act establishes
strict, joint and several liability and authorizes
cost recovery. DNREC must attempt settlement
prior to initiating enforcement action, unless
emergency exists. State has injunctive action
and order authority. Civil penalties of up to
$10K per day; treble damages.
CLEANUP POLICIES AND
CRITERIA
DNREC references water quality criteria and
adheres to EPA guidances. New cleanup regula-
tions anticipated within one year. New statute
requires establishment of Priority list
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Five NPL State-lead cleanups ongoing.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public hearings must be held on proposed
settlement agreements and proposed remedial
action plans.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA signed 10/88. FY90 CPCA. State
receives CA and SACA grants.
133
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Priority list
9
1
355 (CERCLIS, NPL
and State non-NPL remedial)
31
MARYLAND
[8/9/90]
&>&*
1987 ^and 1989| provides'for H^atdba& Safcsta^c* Cenjteol Baad wftemsmmttt wtootftitss.
*S * ' ' '"'' '
STATE AGENCY
Department of the Environment (MDE),
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Administration, CERCLA/UST/LUST Program
has two divisions: (1) CERCLA Preremedial
Division, with approx. 20 full-time staff; and (2)
CERCLA Response Division, with 15 full-time
staff. 25 of these are professionals. There is one
full-time community relations staff person.
AG's office has staff located at MDE, two
attorneys devote approx. 75% of time to
CERCLA. Administrative costs from CORE
grant, appropriations.
FUNDING
Subaccount of State Hazardous Substance
Control Fund is funded by bond issuances.
Fund balance of $11.22M (7/90). No cap on
Fund. Board of Public Works authorization
required prior to expenditure; Board has
allocated funding for 31 projects. Fund monies
can be used for emergency response, studies
and design, remedial actions, O&M and State
CERCLA match.
134
-------
MARYLAND (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
No prerequisite to enforcement action,
however, the State prefers use of administrative
settlement The Department sends a demand
letter with a tune-frame for compliance. AG
may bring cost recovery action on an apportion-
ment basis when there is reasonable basis for
determining contribution. Recovery otherwise
not apportioned. Statute authorizes .orders for
entry and search but not for information.
State has injunctive action, corrective action,
consent order, and civil penalty authority.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State hazardous waste regulations and State
hazardous substances response plan being
updated to include cleanup standards.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Two state-lead NPL sites. Thirty-one ongoing
non-NPL cleanup projects, including sites where
State oversees RP cleanup.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements. Community
Relations Coordinator arranges public meetings.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in negotiations phase. State received
CPCA for FY90. CAs obligated at four sites.
135
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites
Unconfirmed sites
95 [+6 sites cleaned
up and delisted]
0
3
2288 with completed PA
86 awaiting PA
PENNSYLVANIA
[7/10/90]
, , , , ,
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup ^
-------
PENNSYLVANIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The HSCA has comprehensive order and in-
junctive authorities, civil penalties, criminal
penalties, treble damages, and orders for infor-
mation and access. The HSCA provides for
NBARs, de minimis settlements, natural resource
damages, legal presumptions of culpability for
contamination, and whistleblower protection.
There is a 120-day notice period before a site
may be placed on the State list, to encourage
RP cleanup prior to listing. There is also a 120-
day moratorium on enforcement at multi-party
sites if RPs seek to negotiate shares. For
remedial actions extending beyond interim
actions, section 1301 requires DER to initiate
action under other state laws (e.g. Clean
Streams Law, Solid Waste Management Act)
against owners or operators before it may do
HSCA enforcement or cost recovery against
RPs.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
EPA and/or the State have completed 2288
PAs at CERCLIS sites. Approximately half
require no further action. Only 86 sites still
need PAs. State has lead at eight (8) NPL sites
for RI/FS. State has initiated responses at 14
non-NPL sites with five (5) actions completed.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Until the State promulgates its own stan-
dards, HSCA provides that SARA §121 applies.
On a case-by-case basis DER may add more
stringent standards including state ARARs, or it
may waive or modify otherwise applicable
requirements under HSCA §504.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DER must take public comment and hold
public hearing on administrative record for
remediation. DER must respond to all signifi-
cant comments in making its decision on the
record. However, interim response action can be
taken as long as notice is provided within 30
days.
HSCA has citizen suit provision.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA; no CPCAs. MSCA for six RI/FS.
Applications have been submitted to EPA for
two sites. Another cooperative agreement for
PA/SI. State also receives SACA grants. TAG
awarded at one site.
137
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Unconfirmed sites
SITES
20 [+1 site delisted]
0
100
525
VIRGINIA
[8/3/90]
, , .STATUTE ^ ^ ,,-,
Virginia Waste Management Act, Va. Code ||1'0,1-1400 through 30vl-l4$f #9$$, amende^ Ityl, 1988, and '
1990), provides for the Solid and Hazardous Waste Coatingeney. Fund for emergency response/; ^tudies and
design, remedial actions, and State CERCL^ wafe&_^_ , "'" ', ' , * , ,, '
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Waste Management, Divi-
sion of Special Programs, has three branches
dealing with site cleanup: (1) the State cleanup
program with five staff; (2) the pre-remedial
program with nine staff; and (3) the Superfund
remedial program with nine staff. The Division
also has four administrative staff. The State
cleanup is State-funded, while the remaining
two are Federally-funded. The Department
works with the AG's office for enforcement and
relies on the Dept of Emergency Services
(under the Secretary of Public Safety) for
emergency response actions.
FUNDING
Solid and Hazardous Waste Contingency
Fund contains $300K. The major source of the
Fund is solid and hazardous waste penalties and
fines. An initial 2-year appropriation of $1.28M
was allocated for program support costs, not the
Fund. There is no cap on the Fund. The Fund
is authorized for emergency response, removals,
studies and design, site investigation, remedial
actions, O&M and State CERCLA match.
138
-------
VIRGINIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State has statutory authority for administr-
ative orders, consent orders, injunctive action,
civil penalties, and cost recovery. The State also
has a lien provision and authority for criminal
penalties. The State's preferred enforcement
method consists of obtaining voluntary cleanup,
without a consent order. 28 RP cleanups
(voluntary) currently underway. No enforce-
ment or cost recovery to date.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards are guided by health
assessments and State ARARs. Health assess-
ments performed by staff lexicologist. Risk
level of 10* is generally considered a baseline
cleanup level.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has lead at four NPL sites.
State also actively involved in groundwater
modeling and innovative technologies at EPA-
lead NPL sites.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal
procedures.
Community relations plan and administrative
record requirements for contested sites and fund
sites in draft form.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA signed 9/88. State received FY88,
FY89 and FY90 CPCAs. CAs obligated at 20
sites. State has also received annual pre-
remedial grants.
139
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Unconfirmed sites
5
0
346 (on CERCLIS)
WEST VIRGINIA
[8/3/90]
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund Aet, W*V«, Code §§20*SG4 ferogh
for emergency response and Stats CERC1LA nJ$teh. K
provides Fund
STATE AGENCY
The Waste Management Section, within the
Division of Natural Resources, within the
Department of Commerce, Labor, and Environ-
mental Resources contains the Site Investigation
and Response Office. The Office contains 8
FTB staff working on four programs: (1) pre-
remedial PA/SI; (2) remedial; (3) CORE pro-
grams; and (4) emergency response. There is an
additional enforcement unit within the Waste
Management Section with four staff serving
hazardous waste and solid waste. The AG pro-
vides legal support with one staff member. State
administrative costs are paid from Fund and
federal grants.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund
contains $1.3M ($60K is encumbered for
CERCLA match; an additional $234K expected
to be encumbered by 9/90). Main source of
Fund is hazardous waste generator fees assessed
on 71 generators in State. Fees set annually to
approach revenue limit of $500K per year and
to maintain at least $1M at the beginning of the
calendar year. Generator assessments cease if
unobligated balance exceeds $1.5M at year end.
(Fees start again when balance reaches $1M.)
Fund may be used for emergency response,
O&M, site investigation, and State CERCLA
match. The Fund may not be used for studies
and design or for other preparations for
remedial actions unless the Fund balance
exceeds $1M and the expenditure does not
reduce the balance below $1M. Fund may be
used only for hazardous wastes, not hazardous
substances.
140
-------
WEST VIRGINIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Prior to Fund expenditure, director must
make "reasonable efforts" to secure agreements
from owner/operator or other RPs to pay
cleanup and remedial action costs. All monies
collected pursuant to enforcement action or cost
recovery deposited in Fund. No enforcement
action or cost recovery taken to date. Under
Fund statute, State has authority only for cost
recovery, and interest collection for unpaid/late
paid generator fees. Other enforcement action
taken under State RCRA equivalent.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No State-lead NPL sites.
Fifteen Sis underway since 1988, over 200
PAs completed since program inception.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Not developed.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal
procedures.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Draft SMOA. CAs and FY90 CPCA
awarded.
141
-------
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
142
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Suspected and
unconfirmed sites
12
0
500+
ALABAMA
[8/9/90]
estapjisnes cleanup fond*
r''r ^STATUTE
Cleanup fund {$. 132) (l$8$) provides eBfoHsanenf authorities
STATE AGENCY
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management, Special Projects Office has eight
staff for its Federal and State programs. Two
in-house attorneys are assigned to RCRA and
Superfund, but work primarily on RCRA. The
AG's office assists on investigations.
FUNDING
Alabama Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
will have a balance of $193K for FY91 as of
10/1/90. Cost recoveries and penalties/fines
accrue to Fund.
Fund may only be used at sites that are DOI
on NPL at time activity starts. Fund primarily
used for small-scale emergency removals of
drums.
No cap on Fund.
143
-------
ALABAMA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Liability is proportional, not joint and
several, and State determines proportional con-
tributions; if it cannot it must file declaratory
action and court determines proportions.
Legal authorities include administrative and
site access orders, civil penalties, and cost
recovery. Criminal penalties are available only
through the regulatory programs but not the
cleanup statute. Hearing required before issuance
of administrative order unless imminent threat to
human health or environment State prefers
voluntary agreements with RPs, if not it takes
small-scale removal actions itself or refers the
case to air or water programs for enforcement
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has only conducted removals.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
"Necessary to protect human heath and the
environment." Cleanup standards include water
quality criteria and MCLs/MCLGs. State
performs risk assessments and follows EPA
guidelines and standards where there is no State
standard.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
30-day comment period on Cleanup Plan
required by statute. Single publication of notice
in paper in county. Hearings required prior to
issuing AO unless imminent threat to human
health.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State has a SMOA, CPCA, and CAs for
PA/SI.
144
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Confirmed sites
Total known and
suspected sites
51
0
631
979 (on CERCLIS)
FLORIDA
[8/14/90]
'I, JPtoM* J&toMaUf&6fr*& PttuottaL $nd jfetRftmtf "Act, '11376.30
/^,W J£S6, «£ 1988) fishes Water Quality Assurance
37631$ fl983
>V,» «aaw ««? &^<-<-
•~ ' -
-£974
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Regulation,
Division of Waste Management, Bureau of
Waste Cleanup contains five sections: (1)
Hazardous Waste Cleanup (15 staff); (2) Prelim.
Assessment (7 staff); (3) Site Investigation (14
staff); (4) Technical Support (17 staff) and; (5)
Enforcement with six District staff. Approx. 59
total staff. Legal support provided by DER
OGC. Administrative support from Fund,
general revenue, other trust funds, and Federal
monies.
FUNDING
Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund set up
with $11M transfer from Coastal Protection
Trust Fund. Now funded by excise taxes, dis-
charge permit fees, interest transfers from other
funds, cost recovery and penalties and fines.
Balance $13.4M (5/90) unobligated funds. Pro-
jected revenue for FY90 is $20.9M. Tax is
levied if Fund falls below $5M and suspended
if Fund is over $12M.
Funds emergency response, studies and
design, remedial actions, O&M, State CERCLA
match.
145
-------
FLORIDA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities include strict, joint and
several liability, administrative and consent
order authority, and cost recovery. Civil
penalties available under hazardous waste
statute. No authority for information orders or
site access orders. Department does not have
unilateral order authority. Enforcement process
includes warning notices, consent orders, notices
of violations, civil suits and appeals.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Site-specific based on risk assessments and
any existing standards. Cleanup to water
standard or ambient quality.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State-lead cleanups on about 50% of NPL
sites. Ten State cleanups completed, work in
progress on 28 sites. 200+ RP cleanups in RI
phase, 40 in RA phase.
50% of State sites addressed by RPs, 25%
need no action, 25% are State lead.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No citizen participation or administrative
record requirements. Involvement varies on site-
specific basis.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA. No CPCA. One CA for
preremedial program.
146
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Total identified
State sites (GAO)
13
0
753
GEORGIA
[8/9/90]
Wtaw Matta&m&fit Act* 04 €od& Ann; §!12&.«& fltroagfe 12*8-83 (1979) establishes -
,> tft^Hazffdptts Wj&$e Titt$t Fond and 8athor|ze$ cleanups by State and wakes generators, transporters and '
'ySSSSl"**?^-**** ^ ^ P^^y * regulatory s»tete 4s is the program. $t#afc amended ^ffeptive '
3/3C»9Cf lojnere^ pub]ftc participatio» and add: jx»Haean pr&ven^mitawsrnentSx 4 \ ,
, % ^ ^ <^'~ •. W '^ ' -ij\'/ •"• «• " """
STATE AGENCY
Land Protection Branch of the Environmental
Protection Division of Department of Natural
Resources. Three staff for Federal Superfund,
five staff requested in FY91 for State
Superfund. Entire hazardous waste program is
RCRA oriented with 41 staff. All legal support
handled by Department of Law, with four
attorneys and one supervisor for all of DNR's
work.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Trust Fund has a balance
of about $2.8M, funded from settlements with
violators and all penalties. Amount collected per
year is rising, approximately $500K.
Virtually all hazardous waste activities are
through RGRA 75% EPA grant with 25% State
match.
Trust Fund may not be used for normal
operating expenses and must be used only for
mitigating environmental problems. Fund can be
used for CERCLA match.
147
-------
GEORGIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State RCRA/HSWA corrective action pro-
vision is major authority used to obtain
cleanups. Provision covers more than RCRA.
Past or present generators, transporters and
owner/operators who contribute to a release are
liable.
Statute requires agency to seek consent order
first. RCRA statute includes authority for site
access, information gathering, subpoenas, admin-
istrative orders and injunctive actions. No lien
authority or punitive damages. State does not
take Fund-lead actions, all are paid for by RPs.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Drinking water standards where applicable,
otherwise cleanup to background. For soil, RP
proposes standards.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
All cleanups done under State's RCRA/
HSWA permit program. 80 RCRA permits with
75% required to do corrective action. About 40
are active.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Statute requires consistency with Federal
RCRA. Local officials must be notified of
RCRA permit applications and a hearing held if
requested.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
CPCA established in FY89.
148
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Potential sites
17
0
800
KENTUCKY
[7/27/90]
Rev^Siat 4tp.^^«876(t3) {establishes''the Btaantous Waste Management Fuad, Other
of ehapter 224,oufliRe emwcemem authorities* Also ptovMes for a priority list and citizen suits.
•• •• •• ' ' •'"" "r~ '~ ' ' ' '-"" '
STATE AGENCY
Division of Waste Management, Uncontrolled
Sites Branch has funding for five full-time pro-
fessional staff plus one clerical staff for NPL
sites, and 12 staff under PA/SI grant. Two
attorneys in the Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Protection Cabinet assigned to division.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Management Fund has a
balance of $2.8M with $200K collected annually
from penalties/fines, cost recoveries, interest,
generator fees and transfers from the Abandoned
Nuclear Waste Site Fund.
There is a $6M cap on Fund, with fees
suspended until Fund balance falls below $3M.
Fund unavailable unless RPs unable to
address site and there is imminent danger to
both health and environment. Fund may not be
used if Federal Superfund money is available,
except in emergencies.
149
-------
KENTUCKY (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Legal authorities include administrative,
information and site access orders, subpoena,
injunctive action, liens, civil and criminal
penalties.
Statute authorizes Cabinet to order cost
recovery or compel performance by "any person
responsible for release or threatened release of a
hazardous sustance."
State negotiates settlements, then, if settle-
ment not reached, issues administrative orders.
Enforcement efforts to date have focused on
removals.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Either use risk assessment or cleanup to
background. Site-by-site standards used in
consultation with the Air and Water Divisions.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State actively involved in 100 sites.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements but try to involve
public as much as possible through public
meetings.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State negotiating SMOA. CPCA awarded in
FY90. Two CAs and one TAG awarded.
150
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Unconfirmed sites
0
246 sites on a
pre-CERCLIS list
353 (on CERCLIS).
MISSISSIPPI
[8/8/90]
1, mats&pi
• -' STATUTES
' ^ *
D&postf Act of 1§74, amended numerous limes
2, ^ Miss. Code Ana, M9-|i4ai (19S8) seated a tJSf Trust Fua4 " •• - - \, -'-
X- •• ^ff ^f~' f fiTs^ j-f " ; . "* '•f -. f ft ^f
%1 ,_Mss, Code Ann, |4!H7-|$ {l^^cjFeaiied^^ the PpWtion Bmergen^^ Fund! %
, ''-.••''•'_ •. '" /'' - ^^"•'..'._ ' s % "~'
4, 4^ anrf Water P&lMpn &nml Act, Wss. Cbde Aa«, §i7-*9>^ » se^ also ewaWes reeotise actions.
"f f" W' ' "" ''• v .. •• ^ * f ' ' "• % "* -1 %
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Quality, Pollu-
tion Control Bureau, Hazardous Waste Division
has a RCRA and CERCLA section. The
CERCLA section has 15 employees. These posi-
tions are funded almost entirely by State general
fund and Federal grants. One attorney from the
AG's office handles all Department of Environ-
mental Quality work.
FUNDING
The Pollution Emergency Response Fund was
created in 1988 and has a balance close to
$200K. The Fund is authorized to receive
money from civil penalties from the pollution
regulatory programs, cost recovery and any
other sources. The Fund may be used to
mitigate, abate, cleanup or remediate pollution.
The State appropriates funds on a site-by-site
basis for CERCLA match.
151
-------
MISSISSIPPI (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The Department must use its general enforce-
ment authorities or its authorities in other regu-
latory statutes to compel RP action and for
enforcement action. The Act provides that any
person responsible for creating immediate need
for remedial or cleanup action involving solid
waste shall be liable for the cost of such action
and that the Department may recovery its cost
of response. The Act gives Commission
authority to regulate any contamination of the
air and waters of the State.
State has RPs coming forward voluntarily
signing "Consent Orders." Ex parte or Consent
Orders issued at each stage of process outlining
work to be done.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
93 sites in Rl/FS stage.
11 site cleanup completions or no further
action decisions since July, 1989.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State considers background, detection limit,
published standards, health criteria, site-specific
risk assessment (using a range of 10* - 10*),
alternate concentration limits (ACLs), and
Hazard Index to determine cleanup levels. State
chooses highest of the above as cleanup
standard.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Policies require public comment period,
direct mailings, and possible public meetings
during remediation process. Local governments
and governor notified when emergency order
issued.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State has a one-year SMOA, renegotiated
yearly. State has CPCA, CA for PA/SI, MSCA
for NPL sites plus lAGs with DOE and DOD.
152
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Priority List Sites
Sites Listed in State
Inactive Hazardous Waste
Inventory
22
0
72
885 (excludes
NPL sites)
NORTH
CAROLINA
[8/9/90]
-I*
1987, amended June _
$ Authority to order RPs to conduct cleanup and to^ecov^- costs.
md
tw<%? Control Mt,
-------
NORTH CAROLINA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Secretary of DEHNR must seek voluntary
action by RPs before issuing orders or taking
direct action. Joint and several liability for oil
or hazardous substance discharges. Definition of
RP similar to CERCLA §107 with similar
defenses. State must show danger to public
health or environment and that it has complied
with statute in order to recover its costs.
Cap on liability of $3M for implementation
of RA program for RPs that volunteer. State
has authority to issue orders for information,
site access, subpoenas, and administrative orders
for monitoring, analysis and emergency
response. There is a general judgment lien
provision. Civil penalties for negligent discharge
of oil or hazardous substance. No punitive
damages. Register of Deeds records notice of
hazard and Secretary cancels it when hazard
eliminated.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No current State lead cleanups.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Site-by-site. Groundwater standards used and
are below detection limits for non-naturally
occurring organics. Also use a health-based risk
assessment, with an acceptable risk level of 10 .
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Statute requires Secretary of DEHNR to
develop plan for public notice and local
government involvement in RA program.
Secretary must also notify and involve local
board of health and health director. Notice and
summary of RA plan published weekly for three
weeks in local newspaper and copy of plan
filed with register of deeds before approval. 45-
day public comment period for State-funded
cleanups, with public meeting at discretion of
Secretary. Public participation requirements
reduced for RP voluntary cleanup.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
PA/SI CA effective 4/1/90. FY90 CPCA also
awarded.
154
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Unconfirmed sites
23
0
85 (7/90) (all sites
with 0-28.5 HRS scores
are placed on list)
425 (on CERCLIS)
SOUTH
CAROLINA
[7/27/90]
South Carofina Code Ann, ||44-55-$0
«•»
STATE AGENCY
Department of Health and Environmental
Control, Environmental Quality Control, Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Bureau has
five divisions. The Site Engineering and Screen-
ing Division has two sections. The Site
Assessment Section, funded totally by a CA has
nine staff who handle the PA/SI. The Site
Engineering Section has seven staff, funded
mostly by the State, who handle State and NPL
sites. Legal support is located in the Office of
the Commissioner. Eight attorneys are assigned
to geographical districts to handle all environ-
mental work.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Contingency Fund is
umbrella for two (2) separate accounts, the
permitted sites (RCRA) and uncontrolled sites
(Superfund). The latter account comprises
approximately 75% of the Fund. The unobli-
gated Fund balance in the uncontrolled sites part
of the Fund was $4.2M and $7.6M is obligated
as of 7/1/90. 80-90% of revenues come from
fees. Appropriations, interest, and cost recovery
also contribute. Actions including emergency
response, removals, studies and design, investi-
gation, remedial action, O&M, and CERCLA
match, but, excluding victim compensation, may
be funded only after Federal or RP dollars are
exhausted or unavailable.
155
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Statute explicitly adopts CERCLA §107 and
implicitly CERCLA in toto. To date, State has
only sought negotiated agreements.
Statute requires Department to exhaust RP
and Federal funds before using its own. Depart-
ment procedure is to serve RPs notice with
deadlines and inform EPA at same time.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Site-by-site decisions to be consistent with
the NCP. Normally use MCLs for groundwater
contamination and background for soil
contamination.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
One NPL State lead negotiating RI/FS with
RPs. Three sites State funded in RI/FS stage;
negotiating RP lead on another site. RPs volun-
tarily seeking consent decrees for several other
sites.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal
provisions.
requirements or informal
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA signed 8/88 covering primarily NPL
sites. Currently being renegotiated to include
language on all sites, primarily for emergency
response. CAs, SACAs, and FY89 CPCA in
place. State currently seeking MSCA.
156
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Unconfirmed sites
SITES
14
0
291; llin rulemaking stage
1000 sites on State
suspected list
TENNESSEE
[7/30/90]
- Tennessee Hmwtfrw yfae Mam^m»t^:itf 198$ (amended 1986,4988, 1989, 1990). Part I covers
RCRA, Part 31 tTenn, Code Ann, ||<$$46-50l through -221) Covers Supa^jhd, awfhomes fo$ Hazardous*
Waste Remedial Action Fund, and provides authority to take & compel ssmedial actions 1988 amendments
require noffce to register deeds for any site listed, _,,,,., - "" "
STATE AGENCY
Tennessee Department of Health and Envi-
ronment (DHE), Division of Superfund (created
1/86) has four regional offices with a total of
63 staff authorized, 50 established, funding for
49; 38 are filled. State Superfund supports two
attorneys in DHE and receives some AG
attorney support on a cost reimbursement basis.
Administrative costs are funded out of
Hazardous Remedial Action Fund and from
Federal grants.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund has
a balance of $2.1M (6/90), with annual
additions of $4M. Fund is comprised mostly of
fees on transporters and generators which must
be matched equally by an appropriation of equal
value or the authority to collect fees lapses.
Cost recovery, penalties and fines, and interest
may also contribute.
Fund may be used for emergency response,
site investigation, removals, remediation, studies
and design, O&M, and CERCLA match.
157
-------
TENNESSEE (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Statute provides for strict and several liability
and AG equitably apportions liability. The
statute provides for a lien that is limited to
marginal improvement in cost of land and does
not have priority.
Commissioner of DHE is authorized to issue
orders for information, access and remedial
response, assess civil penalties, and impose
punitive damages of up to 150% of the State's
costs.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
710 PAs and 452 Sis have been completed
for sites on State suspected list Two-thirds
(2/3) of sites determined not to be a hazard to
health and environment have been placed on
inactive list RAs completed at one NFL and 12
State-listed sites. No completed RAs at
"significant" sites, numerous removals and
containments.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
No 'standards in statute. To the extent
practicable, remedies are consistent with the
NCP. Use State ARARs, seek compliance with
environmental laws, protection of human health
and environment and cost-effectiveness. Risk
assessment used where no promulgated
standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public meeting required at end of RI/FS
stage. Division plans to hold public meetings at
SI stage.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in draft; CA, SACAs, CPCA in
place.
158
-------
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
159
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Unconfirmed sites
36
1
29
1325 (on CERCLIS)
ILLINOIS
[8/2/90]
liability, iajoflcttve
#8^*986, 1987,**$$ *t
civil w& criminal
1. Illinois Environmental Protection Aty j
Hazardous Waste Fund and provides'
cost recovery, and punitive damages, ' _ , «"«*-"•• ^
2, Responsible Pnp#y Tfantfe?'Acf\im^$ti&t Act 86-679, i^svides fo« envtomedtal discfosm' t
for real property transfers. „ , <, , „„, „ '"'"'"
./fp%^""> ->
STATE AGENCY
The Division of Land Pollution Control in
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(ffiPA) administers State's Clean Illinois
program with 48 staff working on Clean
Illinois. 37 staff work on NPL sites. AG
provides all legal support for agency.
The Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB)
adopts all regulations to implement the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, including State
contingency plan. IPCB also is only agency
authorized to issue unilateral orders, but only
after a hearing.
FUNDING
There is one (1) source of funds for cleanup
work: the Hazardous Waste Fund (HWF). Two
funds used in the past, the Clean Illinois Fund
and the Build Illinois Program, are no longer
used for cleanups.
The HWF, with a balance of $4.5M as of
6/30/90, receives 90% of the fees collected for
transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes
and monies collected in consent agreements.
$2.5M is collected each year and the Fund is
capped at $10M in unobligated funds. The
HWF is primarily used for State work and for
CERCLA match. A separate Hazardous Waste
Research Fund is allotted the remaining 10% of
fees. Fund can be used for emergency response,
removals, studies and designs, remedial actions,
and CERCLA match. No more than $1M can
be used on any single incident without
legislative appropriation.
160
-------
ILLINOIS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State has authority to issue notices for
information gathering and to enter sites; IPCB
may issue unilateral administrative orders after a
hearing. State is authorized to take injunctive
action and may impose civil and criminal
penalties. State may seek cost recovery and
punitive damages. EPA requires written notifi-
cation of real estate transfers. State has strict
liability, with joint and several liability assumed.
State also has lien provision.
Approximately 65 §4(q) notices have been
issued through 4/89 for immediate removals and
voluntary cleanups. Approximately 60% of sites
are handled by RPs.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup objectives set on a site-by-site basis
by two Agency committees. Initial standards are
set by a technical committee. These standards
are evaluated by an administrative management
committee based on other site issues; this
committee makes the final recommendation for
cleanup standards. An ARARs manual has been
published by State. ARARs include water
quality criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, background, and
risk assessments (if performed following Federal
guidance). Risk levels below 1 x lO"6 are
considered de minimis and levels above that are
studied further.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Three (3) sites on State Remedial Action
Priorities List have completed RAs. Of the
approximately 1325 sites on State CERCLIS
list, 95% have completed PA, 65% have
completed SI, 25% require no further action.
IEPA has secured over 60 RP cleanups since
1984.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Majority of Superfund sites and many RP-lead
sites are assigned community relations coordina-
tors from the Division of Land Pollution
Control.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in final development stage. SMOA
with DOD also being finalized. CPCA FY89
Eight CAs.
161
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Suspected and
unconfirmed sites
35
0
No list yet; one under
development pursuant to
statute effective 7/1/89.
about 1400
(on CERCLIS)
INDIANA
[7/31/90]
,, . ^ STATUTES^/;; y/ " s \
, 'v "• <• _, _, Sf s ".<• v, •?•• f f t
1. Indiana Hazardous Waste Act (1980)', Environmental Management Act, and, Ht&ardow Waste Land
Disposal Tax Act (1981), Indiana Code £13-? et seq. and fed. Code §| effective t/1^90, provides ft* ftul
environmental disclosure for real property transfers, , . , , -
STATE AGENCY
Project Management Branch in Office of
Environmental Response in Department of Envi-
ronmental Management. Two State cleanup
sections have a total of 13 project managers,
and the Federal sites section has 12. A technical
support section with 12 staff serves both
sections and LUST. Attorney General represents
IDEM in all court proceedings, with 3-4
attorneys working on all cleanup issues. IDEM
has six attorneys for all cleanup work in the
Branch.
FUNDING
Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund
(§13-7-8.7-1 through -6) is funded by taxes,
penalties, cost recovery, punitive damages, gifts,
interest, grants, and appropriations (effective
7/1/89). Biennium beginning 7/1/89 legislature
authorized $5.7M ($2.85M/year) to be spent
entirely on site-specific activities. $500K desig-
nated for CERCLA match. Administrative costs
come from general appropriations. There is no
cap on the Fund. Funds may be used for inves-
tigations, studies; emergency actions, removals,
remedial actions, State CERCLA match and
actions at non-petroleum LUST sites, and pre-
authorized mixed funding claims.
162
-------
INDIANA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
CERCLA §107 is adopted as liability
standard-strict, joint and several. Commissioner
has authority to issue orders for information,
site access, and, under amendments effective
7/1/89, for unilateral administrative orders. The
State may also sue for injunctive relief, cost
recovery, punitive damages (effective 7/1/89),
civil penalties and criminal penalties. Effective
7/1/89 the Commissioner will be authorized to
enter mixed funding consent agreements. The
majority of cases have been agreed orders. No
cases have yet been decided by a court. Owners
of sites must record restrictive convenant with
County Recorder; and Commissioner determines
if one is necessary to warn future buyer.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards decided on a case-by-case
basis. Statute requires consistency with NCP.
Use. MCLs wherever possible or cleanup to
background. Also use ARARs and risk assess-
ment, whichever is more stringent.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
24 non-NPL sites currently active.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Policy is to include a 30-day comment
period for final remediation decisions/ orders,
public meetings, and notification of all affected
parties of the proposed remedial action.
In practice, two or three public meetings are
held per site, followed by mailings to affected
parties.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Currently working towards SMOA. Nine
SACAs and two CAs awarded.
163
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Total known and
suspected sites
State list
78
0
approx. 4300
2662
MICHIGAN
[8/21/90]
Michigan Environmental Response Act C'MERA" or "Act 307"), Mich,, Comp, Laws Ami §§299.601, et'*
seq., (1982) (amended 1984 to allow Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reimburse individuals that
replaced own water supplies due to hazardous waste discharge), primarily intended to allow DMR to clean
up abandoned hazardous waste sites,'Statute has BO ejoforsement provisions, directs AG'to pursue cost
recovery but provides no legal remedy, $tat$, relies
-------
.MICHIGAN (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
No enforcement authority or liability
provisions in MERA. State uses pollution
regulatory statutes and appends MERA cost
recovery claims.
Most RP lead response actions are negotiated
with DNR. 832 of sites on State list have RP
lead work.
Liens are authorized under the Hazardous
Waste Management Act (regulatory statute).
State first negotiates with RPs then seeks
Federal response and CERCLA funds prior to
using State funds.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State has recently promulgated cleanup
standards which place sites into one of the
following categories:
Type A - cleanup to background;
Type B" - risk-based cleanup protective
of human health and environment;
Type C - less stringent than Type B,
cases of low priority.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
607 actions at 388 sites by DNR since 1984.
389 were temporary or permanent water
replacement. 49 RI/FS (9/30/88) costing $17.6M
completed. Six RAs completed at $3.9M
(9/30/88). Estimate 250 RP lead RD/RAs.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public hearing when State list updated. New
rules provide public hearing during remedy
selection. State models its system on CERCLA.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA signed 1990. 61 CAs and 48 SACAs
awarded. CPCA application submitted for FY90.
165
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State priority list
Non-NPL sites
Unconfirmed sites
42
0
166
126
433 (on CERCLIS)
MINNESOTA
[8/8/90]
' Minnesota Environmental ^Response 1985,1986» 1987, and $90}, este^h^ $m
1 Ji\junctive relief, civil penalties, and cost jreeoverjf,
^ §|II5BJ25 - 37, is avaitobte foT victim'compensa^on,
mm, ft*, ,
tdes fer $rictt joint «o}
St&siattce Injaij' '
"
STATE AGENCY
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), Groundwater and Solid Waste Divi-
sion has three sections dealing with Superfund.
The Site Response Section (55 staff) is
primarily responsible and handles hazardous
waste sites. The Program Development Section
(15 staff) handles preliminary assessment and
listing, and the Solid Waste Section (18 staff)
handles sanitary landfills. All together there are
88 positions related to or funded by the cleanup
program. Legal support is from three attorneys
in the AG's office who work full-time for the
State program.
FUNDING
MERLA Fund balance of $11.2M (7/90),
with an average of $3.4M/yr collected through
appropriations, cost recovery and penalties/
fines, waste end taxes, and interest.
The Fund may be used for all remedial
activities, O&M, and CERCLA match. MPCA
must obtain Pollution Control Board approval
(Determination of Inadequate Response) before
expending funds. MPCA must seek Federal
funding before using State funds.
166
-------
MINNESOTA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
MERLA requires State to seek RP cleanups
prior to use of MERLA Fund. All cost recovery
and penalties/fines are returned to MERLA
Fund. Although State has no statutory authority
to issue administrative orders for information or
site access, MERLA requires RPs to answer
MPCA requests. State has had an estimated
$150M of RP cleanups conducted through
6/30/89. $4M in costs recovered since 1983, and
seven major lawsuits have been filed. RPs are
conducting 87 of the 120 cleanups being
performed.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup decisions are made on a case-by-
case basis using criteria similar to the NCP. The
MPCA seeks a cost-effective cleanup and uses
ARARs. A 10"s cancer risk factor is used in the
absence of applicable standards. Other standards
include recommended allowable limits (RALs)
for drinking water contaminants, water quality
criteria, MCLs/MCLGs, and cleanup to back-
ground. Permanent remedies are always the
goal, and the strictest standards are applicable at
each site.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
MPCA has lead for all but two NPL sites,
with RI/FSs averaging 18-24 months and $300-
500K. RD averages 6-10 months and RA
averages 12-18 months and $1-8.5M. There
have been response actions at 104 sites since
1983. 38 sites have RA completed with O&M
in place. 11 sites have been delisted.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Entire process is public with notification of
RPs and approval of all State actions at a
public meeting of Pollution Control Board.
As a matter of policy, MPCA conducts
public meetings after completion of the RI/FS to
explain the proposed plan.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA reached 9/89 for FY89. FY89 CPCA
and enforcement CA. No TAG grants awarded.
CAs and SACAs awarded to date.
167
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Priority list
(high or medium priority on
Ohio Masters Sites List)
Suspected and
unconfirmed sites
33
0
700
1100
OHIO
[8/8y90]
-'t 5
f f • • „ • s
Ohio Solid and Hazardous Waste'msposat £atv QJwa Itev, Code §§3?3401 * ,9 (1980,-amended $88}
contains provisions fot two cteanup Funfc and
STATE AGENCY
Division of Emergency and Remedial
Response in the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) administers the cleanup
program. Program employes 145 staff.
Program has six full-time staff attorneys,
AG's office supplies three full-time Assistant
AGs plus 2-3 FTEs (funded by OEPA).
FUNDING
State has two (2) Funds available for clean-
ups. Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund has about
$22M balance. Approximately 20% is from
penalties and 80% from solid waste disposal
fees. Money recovered from RPs also goes into
HWCF, but has been insignificant to date. This
Fund is used for day-to-day activities. The Fund
may also be used to build additional hazardous
waste facilities and to buy sites. Hazardous
Waste Facility Management Fund has a balance
of about $23M, all from fees although
recovered costs may return to the Fund. This
Fund is used for CERCLA 10% matching
funds, State level-of-effort contracts and non-
investigatory emergency response actions.
Approximately $12M/yr in fees is collected
and distributed between the two funds according
to a sliding scale that considers where the waste
was generated and disposed.
168
-------
OHIO (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Statute is silent on liability standard; OEPA
has argued for strict, joint and several liability
but no decision in pending court case. Statute
authorizes judicial search warrants for site
access, administrative orders, injunctive actions,
civil penalties, cost recovery, liens, criminal
penalties in limited circumstances, and citizen
suits. There is no provision for punitive
damages.
The State is prohibited from taking action if
USEPA is pursuing a claim.
State must attempt to reach a consent agree-
ment with an owner/operator before OEPA may
do the work. State does not mix State and
Federal claims. State prefers to use CERCLA
§107 for cost recovery.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
117 sites being addressed (most in RI/FS
stage), 17 sites are in RD/RA phase. Three sites
are in O&M phase.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Use promulgated standards (MCLs) wherever
possible. Otherwise use risk assessments. Cumu-
lative carcinogenic risk >10~* is unacceptable.
Also conduct ecological risk assessments.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Limited statutory authority; general rules in
Ohio Administrative Code apply; policy under
revision. Current policy is to be consistent with
NCP.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in final draft. Four CAs and four
SACAs awarded. Two TAGs awarded since
1988. CPCA in FY89.
169
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Unconfirmed sites
39
0
60 (includes NPL)
4,000 known waste
disposal sites
WISCONSIN
[8/6/90]
3.
i. Environmental Repair Statute* .Wfel itat 1144442 £1984). laacted as part of -the Qroiwdwater bill*
this section creates the %Yiwnroental Fund, .regpres a'Siate ranking system and aufoonses PN& to
take emergency* and reme^Bat 4ctionsnrecover cois and obtato B|* lead,cleam$s>
2, Abandoned Containers Statute, Wis * States J.44.7T, autftorkes PNR to use money appropriated
for EF to remove and dispose *oi; abandon^ con^lneas to have hazardous swfestanfces,
Hazardous Substance &*# »e, wk ,sk |144,m a»|lpi5W8 PI^R to^«se roqnev appmted for
EF to respond to discharges of hazaidoysulstance$> requires development of a 00neng-efl0jr $&*<
K v ssS -'•^.?; % M'-' " __ '
STATE AGENCY
Response programs are in the Department of
Natural Resources, Bureau of Solid and Hazar-
dous Waste Management, Environmental
Response and Repair Section and the respective
sections of the six district (field) offices.
Approximately 96 staff are in the central and
district offices, dealing with Federal Superfund,
LUST, State response and State tank programs.
14 people staff the State response program.
Legal support comes from three attorneys in
the DNR's Bureau of Legal Services and on a
case-by-case basis from the environmental unit
of Wisconsin's DOJ (four attorneys).
FUNDING
The Environmental Fund (EF) has approxi-
mately $11.4M appropriated for FY91. A
variety of fees provide more than $4M annually.
Bonding will provide $7.2M in funding in
FY91.
EF may be used for emergency response,
removals, O&M, CERCLA cost-share, LUST
cost-shares, and studies, designs and
construction of remedies. Construction of
remedies is subject to prior administrative
hearing and judicial review.
170
-------
WISCONSIN (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State has strict, joint and several liability
under the Abandoned Container and Spill Laws
but under the Environmental Repair Statute the
standard is explicitly not strict (it is joint and
several). The burden of proof is on the State.
The State estimates a 75% rate of RP
cooperation. When they don't comply the State
tries to initiate a Federal Superfund or LUST
action at the site. As last resort will use EF for
a State-funded action when RPs are nonexistent
or insolvent.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Either State or Federal action underway at all
but six of final NPL sites. Two sites being
addressed under RCRA authority. Eight Fund-
financed NPL sites. 40 State-funded projects
ongoing.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Have promulgated groundwater standards in
NR140 with a minimum enforcement standard
and a prevention action standard. Use water
quality criteria. Also have internal guidance on
soil and groundwater remedies. Department of
Health does risk assessments at sites where pro-
mulgated standards do not apply.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The State list is subject to public notice, 30-
day comment period and hearing requirements.
Remedial actions are subject to public notice,
and a public hearing if requested, within 30
days. There have been no formal challenges by
the public to State-funded RAs. All files open
to public with limited confidentiality and
enforcement exceptions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA under final negotiation to cover
remedial and preremedial actions. Have a "mini
SMOA" on State enforcement lead. State
received CAs covering 2 sites, Preremedial CA,
CPCA, and SACAs covering 12 sites.
171
-------
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
172
-------
SITES
NPL sites 10
Proposed NPL 0
State priority list 7 (includes 2 NPL)
Known and suspected sites 351
ARKANSAS
[8/15/90]
' I, The Rwttediat Action Trust Fmd Act {RATFA} (Aet 4^9 of 19&5, as amended by Acts 380, 751 of
1987} establishes the Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Trust (HSRAT) Fund, which replaced the
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (enacted in 1983),
•2, s 'Emergency Response ffund Act <$KKA) (Act 432-P of 1985) establishes the Emergency Response
Faji&,(BRFj* Both RATFA and ERFA provide fbr proportional liability, civtt and criminal penalties,
tp&te damages, cost recovery, and *$operlien" authority.
STATE AGENCY
The Superfund Branch of the Hazardous
Waste Division is located in the Dept. of
Pollution Control and Ecology. The Branch is
staffed by 3 employees, with legal support
available from DepL attorneys. A staffing freeze
has limited program operations.
FUNDING
HSRAT Fund, with a balance of $3.3M
(8/90) derives primarily from annual fees
(approximately $400K/year) on hazardous waste
generators within State or those accepting waste
generated outside State for transport/storage/
disposal. The Fund also receives some revenues
from penalties and some appropriations.
HSRAT Fund can be used for studies and
design, removals, and remedial actions at State-
listed sites, and for CERCLA match. (Approxi-
mately 80% is designated in 1990 for CERCLA
match.)
The ERF is used only for emergency response
action and is funded by civil penalties. It is
capped at $150K; funds accruing above this
level are deposited in the HSRAT Fund.
173
-------
ARKANSAS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
RATFA provides State authority to issue
administrative orders for information, site
access, and remediation. Although injuncu've
action is not expressly provided for, State may
proceed under RCRA-type law. RATFA autho-
rizes civil and criminal penalties for violating
the Act, making false statements, or violating an
order. RATFA also provides for treble punitive
damages, cost recovery, and "superliens." ERFA
also provides for orders, treble damages, cost
recovery and superliens. Action by the legisla-
ture in the last legislative session impedes use
of the superlien provisions, which, however,
were not repealed.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Air and water regulations used as standards
for hazardous waste cleanup.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has lead on one NPL site which is
currently in RD phase.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public hearing may be held on site listing.
Comments received on site become part of
administrative record.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
MSCA for three sites, CAs for eight sites.
Eight SACAs. A CPCA was awarded in FY89.
174
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
11
0
600
LOUISIANA
[8/1/90]
--STATUTES; '
$?** ^1 Lo£sia?? *fc**MM«tftf Ratify Law, La. S6v. Slat Ann
relevant authority, U» Hazardous Waste Control Law (LiL Rev %&T J^tttvHVMUf
STATE AGENCY
The Inactive and Abandoned Sites Division
in the Department of Environmental Quality's
(DEQ's) Office of Legal Affairs and Enforce-
ment is the lead agency. The Division has 23 of
its 46 authorized positions currently filled.
About 80%, of the Division's $5.7M budget is
federally funded.
FUNDING
The primary cleanup Fund is the Hazardous
Waste Site Cleanup Fund. The Fund's balance is
$2-3M (7/90). In 1987, monies from all funds
not constitutionally protected were divested by
the legislature due to budgeting difficulties. The
Fund's primary sources of money are penalties
and appropriations, with some funding from cost
recovery and gifts. The Fund can be used for
emergency response, removals and remedial
actions, studies and design, O&M, and
CERCLA match.
Two other funds are the UST Trust Fund
and the Motor Fuels Underground Tank Trust.
The UST fund is used for administrative costs
associated with the UST program- and UST
cleanups. The Motor Fuels Trust can be used
for certain UST response actions when the UST
owner is in compliance with State law.
175
-------
LOUISIANA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State will negotiate a settlement with
PRPs or issue a remedial demand order
wherever possible. The State has administrative
order and injunctive authority, cost recovery,
Kens, treble damages; and has strict, joint and
several liability. The State has the lead at one
final NPL site; there is a State-lead enforcement
agreement at one of the proposed sites.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
DEQ is required to select remedies, based on
cost effectiveness, that reduce exposure or
potential exposure so as not to pose any
significant threat to public health or
environment. DEQ makes substantial use of
EPA procedures and guidance. Aim for
permanent remedies.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of the 17 completed RAs, 15 were con-
ducted by PRPs at a total cost of $15M, and
two were State-funded.
28 PRP-lead cleanups are scheduled at an
estimated cost of $200M. An additional 24 site
cleanups are expected to cost $800M.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A public comment period is required for
closure plans when DEQ proposes to treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous wastes at
abandoned sites. At complex sites, DEQ
institutes community relations programs that
include regular public meetings. Prior to
concluding settlement agreements, DEQ makes
them available to the public and holds public
meetings.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA updated in 1990. One MSCA cover-
ing seven sites; 10 site-specific CAs. Nine
SACAs incorporated into MSCA. No TAGs.
CPCA for FY90.
176
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Total identified state sites
Sites needing attention,
10
0
600
220
NEW MEXICO
[7/31/90]
, STATUTES
An
**
% '"'•»_ -•" - «^
-2. %* Fater Quality "Act> ^TJfcl Stat Ann, 74-6-1 «f **?. ptoviie^ additional enftttcemettt authorities -
r " ' '
1,, Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund, N,M. Stat. Ann, 74-4-B * within Hazardous Waste Act NM
-*- ** ™
STATE AGENCY
The Health and the Environment Department,
Environmental Improvement Division has three
bureaus: (1) UST; (2) RCRA-Hazardous Waste,
with four staff on permits and corrective action;
and (3) Toxic Sites, which includes Federal
Superfund with 15 staff. The Superfund
program is supported by $1.5M in Federal
funds.
,OGC provides legal support with additional
special AGs housed in HED. Approx. 1.5 FTE
of legal support works on hazardous waste
cases.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund funded by
appropriations, bonds, cost recovery, and
penalties and fines. Balance in the Fund approx.
$191K (6/90). No cap on the Fund. Penalties
and fines are the only continuing source of
funds. Fund revenues in FY90 were approxi-
mately $50K.
Fund can be used for emergency response,
site investigation, studies and design for emer-
gency and removal response, State CERCLA
match, and remedial actions pursuant to court
action. No State long-term cleanups.
177
-------
NEW MEXICO (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement authorities include orders for
site access and information, administrative and
consent order authority, injunctive actions, civil
penalties and cost recovery authority.
Statutory standard interpreted as joint and
several. No cases litigated to date.
Preferred enforcement method includes
sending notice of violations with a time period
for compliance and a proposed penalty or
injunction.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Uses hazardous waste cleanup standards,
water quality criteria, and MCLs. State also uses
10'5 additional lifetime cancer risk in deciding
cleanup levels.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
One State-lead NPL site.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
State follows CERCLA/NCP procedures at
NPL sites.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA. CAs, MSCA, and CPCA grants.
178
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Total identified State
sites (GAO)
10
1
12 (NPL)
30
OKLAHOMA
[7/25/90]
20J4
l Waste,.
Ok,
Article 20, §1-
8^e jCRA-tjfe tows^fiwt potently cboll 1» used for ajbandoned sites;tljat foream
' ••
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Health's Solid Waste
Service has seven staff members working full-
time on Superfund. Legal support is provided
by one Department attorney working full-time
on Superfund.
Administrative costs are provided by CAs,
CPCAs, and SACAs.
FUNDING
Controlled Industrial Waste (CIW) Fund,
with balance of $60K (8/90), is derived
primarily from RCRA-type permit fees. Funds
may be transferred from Public Health Special
Fund.
CIW Fund can be used for emergency
response, removals at abandoned sites, CERCLA
match, monitoring, and assistance to counties
and municipalities.
179
-------
OKLAHOMA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Orders for site access are provided under
general authorities granted to the Department of
Health. The State has authority to issue sub-
poenas, administrative orders, and consent
orders under a general procedures law.
CIWDA authorizes injunctive action and both
civil and criminal penalties for RCRA-type
hazardous waste violations. No cost recovery
except under Federal CERCLA.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Air and water cleanup levels are determined
on a site-by-site basis.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
RA completed at one NPL site under the
direction of State Water Resources Board. RA
50% complete at another RP-lead NPL site
under supervision of Dept. of Health.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal
provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in process. CAs cover nine sites,
MSCAs for five sites. CPCA awarded FY90.
Eight SACAs awarded.
180
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites
Unconfirmed sites
25
3
29 (28 Non-NPL)
over 350
over 1000
TEXAS
[8/1/90]
^ -The T^^d WtofrDte*** AM, Tex. Health & Safely Code Ann, Art, 4477-7, was
; »«jMtt& the Hazardous, W^te Disposal Pee. Fund
-------
TEXAS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Comprehensive order and injunctive author-
ity, civil penalties, cost recovery, liens, de
minitrds settlement, mixed funding, double
damages are available to State. Liability is joint
and several unless proved by preponderance of
the evidence to be "divisible."
Commission issues a notice of proposed
listing of the site and gives 90 days for RPs to
offer to do RI/FS and 60 days thereafter to
negotiate agreed order, if not, then RI/FS is
financed by State Fund. After RI/FS is
completed, the Director proposes a remedy,
solicits public comment and holds a meeting.
RP has 60 days after meeting to offer to
perform remedy, and 60 days to negotiate
agreed order. If not, then Commission lists the
site and issues the order.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of seven pre-1989 administrative orders on
State-listed sites, RPs at four have complied and
are doing RI/FS. Three have pending appeals.
Eight negotiated RP cleanups at State sites.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Remedy based on "the lowest cost alternative
that is technically feasible and reliable and
which effectively mitigates and minimizes
damage to and provides adequate protection of
public health and safety or the environment."
The Commission may approve remedial action
that does not meet ARARs in certain circum-
stances, including--for State-funded cleanups
only-where ARARs will not provide a balance
between public health and safety vs. need to
conserve Fund for use at other sites "taking into
account the relative immediacy of the threats."
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public notice and comment required in order
to list a site. Public meeting required after
RI/FS prior, to remedy selection.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA signed in 1989. FY89 CPCA, 24 site-
specific cooperative agreements, 17 sites under
MSCA. 18 site SACAs. No TAGs.
182
-------
REGION VH
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
183
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Total known and
suspected sites
20
1
49 (29 proposed)
(includes NPL sites)
422 (on CERCLIS)
IOWA
[8/9/90]
* tow Co*
»«,
m »8o, an. 1982,
Significant amendments concerning cleanurt suffcority for abwdone4
1981, and 1987. s '
un0qntroHed i
^
Jrt.
1984 amendment establishes Ha^oiis^Waste^Reniedlal 1
- &'ff,%f, s,r ''';' \'?,'w'vvry$jjj^$%r-',"--','
STATE AGENCY
Two subdivisions of the DNR's Solid Waste
Section are connected with State Superfund
program: one is responsible for enforcement/
remedial activities, the other handles the State
Abandoned and Uncontrolled Sites Registry
(SAUSR). Total staff for the two subdivisions is
12. Legal support is provided by DNR attorneys
for administrative actions; AG's office institutes
all legal proceedings. Administrative costs of
State Superfund subdivision covered by HWR
Fund, EPA grants, and appropriations; costs of
SAUSR covered by Oil Overcharge Fund.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Remedial (HWR) Fund
balance of approx. $286K with an average of
$147K/yr collected primarily through fees on
the transport, treatment, and disposal of
hazardous waste.
HWR Fund can be used for emergency
response, removals, studies and design, remedial
actions, O&M, CERCLA match, and develop-
ment of alternatives to land disposal. 75% of
the Fund must be used for remediation at non-
CERCLA sites and for CERCLA cost share.
184
-------
IOWA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State must try to negotiate a settlement
with RPs prior to using Fund monies for
cleanup. The State can issue orders and
injunctions against RPs to clean up sites.
Although the State cannot impose civil penalties
for RP failure to clean up, it can collect treble
damages for willful failure to clean up.
Negotiated settlements have been generally
successful. The majority of sites are RP
cleanups.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Approximately 22 RP cleanups are either
completed or ongoing for non-NPL State sites.
CLEANUP POLICIES
* AND CRITERIA
Cleanup decisions are made on a site-by-site
basis. Recent regulations include cleanup goals
for ground water. Risk assessment used to help
determine cleanup standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Must provide technical advice and assistance
to political subdivisions and to other persons
upon request.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
/
MSCA to identify sites, classify according to
hazard level, and place on State registry. CAs
and 16 SACAs obligated. CPCA in FY90.
185
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State inventory
11
0
386
KANSAS
[8/2/90]
^TATITE ~"f ,, " '/;f>
. ******
primarily for CERCLA match and oversight -_ '- ,*- - , ; ? ^ j "^ ' ,
STATE AGENCY
Kansas Department of Health and Environ-
ment's Bureau of Environmental Remediation
(HER) is responsible for Federal and State
Superfund cleanups, LUST, and emergency
response. 35 of its 44 employees are assigned to
Superfund duties at least part-time, in addition
to two Department lawyers who work on Super-
fund. Administrative costs are covered by appro-
priations from the State's general Fund.
FUNDING
Kansas maintains three funds. The Water
Plan Special Revenue-Contamination Remedia-
tion account is the primary cleanup fund. It
contains $3.4M (7/90), with annual additions of
$2.0M (FY91). The account consists of fees
charged to water users and on pesticide and fer-
tilizer sales. It also included a transfer of funds
by the legislature from the Economic Develop-
ment Initiative Fund (funded by lottery receipts).
The account is used for studies and design,
removals, emergency response, remedial actions,
CERCLA match, and O&M.
The ERF contains $690K (7/90). Annual
additions vary, but approximate $500K. It con-
sists primarily of appropriations and Federal
grant funds, and is used for enforcement and
oversight of RI/FSs and CERCLA match.
The Hazardous Waste Perpetual Care Trust
Fund contains $122K (7/90), with annual addi-
tions of $10K. It is designed primarily for
activities at RCRA facilities, which pay fees to
support it. However, up to 20% of the Fund
may be used for emergencies at facilities closed
prior to 19'81.
186
-------
KANSAS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The ERA authorizes the State to issue orders
and injunctions against RPs to effect site
cleanups. Civil penalties for violation of an
ERA order are not available, however. Penalties
are available under RCRA, nuisance, or water
laws; and State can use these authorities for
enforcement (including cleanup of groundwater
and soil).
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
BER uses groundwater cleanup target con-
centrations which the Bureau of Water has
established.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
RP investigations, remedial design or
remedial actions are underway at 58 hazardous
waste sites, and post-cleanup monitoring is
occurring at 18.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal pro-
cedures. State is developing a contingency plan
which will include guidelines on community
participation.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA currently in draft CAs have been set
for four sites, SACAs have been set for nine
sites. CPCA was awarded for FY90.
187
-------
SITES
Knal NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
22
2
57*
1400
CERCLIS sites
* State ranking system establishes 5 priority
categories for State registry. Priority rankings
are reviewed and amended each Fall. Of the 57
sites listed at the close of FY90: 10 are priority
one, requiring immediate action; 17 are priority
two, requiring action; 21 are priority three,
action may be deferred; 4 are priority four, site
closed with continuing management; 3 are
priority five, site closed with no further action
required: 2 sites are unclassified.
MISSOURI
[8/9/90]
-
istrative order authority, civil and criminal penalties, and punitive damages, „„„ "," , - *
lowt+wv v»>™~ »-m- •» ," ^v.iww"*'' ,, ; * C"'' ' '* ' ' ""
resources in the State's saperfund seetiott- s ' ~" '"'*'" " **, - .
' ^ .**
STATE AGENCY
Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Division of Environmental Quality, Waste
Management Program has four sections:
Superfund Section, Hazardous Waste Section,
Solid Waste Section, and an Enforcement
Section that handles only solid waste and
RCRA sites. The State's Superfund Section has
22 technical and administrative staff. About 10
lab technicians are located in the Lab Services
Program, which handles much of the waste
management field work. Three attorneys in the
Department are available for the Division of En-
vironmental Quality. The AG's office handles all
litigation. With Federal and State funds com-
bined; the State Superfund program has 'an
annual budget of $4.6M with $1.7M for
personnel and support.
FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund has a
balance of $5.9M (6/30/90) primarily provided
by taxes on hazardous waste generators based
on tonnage and the method of handling waste.
There is a $1.5M/yr cap on this tax. Fees on
landfilled waste also contribute, though the
amount is down to about $500K/yr because of
increasingly strict land restrictions. Cost
recovery, penalties/fines, donations, and appro-
priations are all potential contributors.
The Fund may be used for emergency
actions, removals, studies and design, and
remedial actions. It may also be used for the
non-Federal share of O&M costs and to meet
the State's CERCLA match. The Fund can be
used for health studies, acquisition of property,
and to study the development of a hazardous
waste facility in the State.
188
-------
MISSOURI (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State seeks RP cleanup first. If RPs are
recalcitrant or insolvent, and if site is small, the
State will fund removal-type actions. If the
cleanup is costly, the State will try to use EPA
authority and funds. The State has had substan-
tial success in convincing PRPs to conduct
cleanups.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
DNR is currently developing standards.
Meanwhile, the Department sets standards on a
site-by-site basis in consultation with the Dept.
of Health and using published lexicological data
from ATSDR and other sources.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
To date DNR has completed approximately
265 PAs, 120 Sis. There are 26 ongoing
cleanups in State including work at NPL sites,
RCRA closures, EPA removals, two State-
funded cleanups (basically drum removals), and
16 RP cleanups.
Seven of 20 NPL sites are State lead, and
the State plans to take the lead on new sites
added to the NPL.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Annual meeting required to report status of
hazardous waste program to public. Public has
access to information collected under various
authorities, unless it is a trade secret or
otherwise exempted from disclosure. Local
governments must be notified of sites in their
jurisdiction and sent a copy of the registry.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA. CAs for 9 sites and SACA
grants at 50 sites. State received CPCA for
FY90, one TAG, 2 lAGs.
189
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Total identified State
sites (GAO)
6
0
40
NEBRASKA
[7/30/90]
ff;y-&ys.
<>-', : STATUTE^ ^ ^ ^,,
Legislation is pending to establish Superfund; enactment is unlikelv this y'm,"mbra$ka
Protection Act . Rev. Stat. §814501 through §814533) does not cover Saperfand sites
However, State uses Title 118 of its regulations,'promulgated..,under §81-1505, to prohibit
groundwater and set standards for cleanup. Applies only to actions after 1978,
l^M ^'^'-•••^y
..!*!t!Vrrg,.
STATE AGENCY
The Superfund unit of the Hazardous Waste
Section (Department of Environmental Control)
has five professional staff; three support staff
also work within the Section. Legal support is
provided by Department attorneys and one
attorney from AG's office who works with the
Department Administrative support costs are
covered by CORE grants and EPA funding.
FUNDING
No Superfund.
190
-------
NEBRASKA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Title 118 authorizes the State to issue
administrative orders and injunctions against
RPs generating groundwater pollution. The State
may also seek judicial civil penalties. Citizen
suits may be pursued against solid waste
disposal violations in cities of 1st (lareest)
Class.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Tide 118 sets standards for groundwater
cleanup.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Title 118 requires RP to submit Remedial
Action proposal based on "detailed site assess-
ment." Public notice of the proposal is given
by newspaper and radio, with copies available
in public libraries. A 30-day comment period
and any requested hearings run prior to final
review.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
CAs covering seven sites and five SACAs.
CPCA awarded.
191
-------
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
192
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Unconfirmed sites
16
0
375 sites (on CERCLIS)
COLORADO
[8/2/90]
!.
^"'-'
-------
COLORADO (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State's cleanup fund statute contains no
enforcement authorities. Colorado may use
authority under other statutes (e.g., Water
Quality Control Act and hazardous waste law)
for cleanup of some sites. The AG has filed
seven CERCLA natural resource damages law-
suits, of which three have been settled with
remedial action underway. Two others have
received favorable court rulings, one has joint
agreement with RP for RI/FS and one is being
addressed under Federal Superfund. State has
used its hazardous waste law at Rocky Flats
and Rocky Mountain Arsenal; no other enforce-
ment has taken place at inactive or abandoned
sites.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has lead on two NPL fund-lead
cleanups.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards are determined on a site-
specific basis, using State ARARs and risk
assessment where applicable.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal public participation requirements.
AG follows NCP procedures under natural
resource damages cases.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in draft form. State has received
CAs, MSCAs, and SACAs. CPCA for FY90.
194
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
8
2
168 (same as total,
includes NPL sites)
High priority sites on State list 38
CERCLIS sites 153
Total identified sites 168
(CERCLIS plus 15 petroleum sites)
MONTANA
[7/26/90]
-STATITF1S
the law i» effect was fee BMirmmttititi Qwti& Pfomti&n PwtiAet* M&fti, Code Ana,
to, -755 .' % ' • " '
The Ma&wa C&wjprehewive $mfrmm&m subpoena and administra-
ci«a penaltfes, Sens, and aftntaistealive cowiemnalion power.
STATE AGENCY
The Superfund Program of the Solid and
Hazardous Waste Bureau in the Montana
Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences (MDHES) has 21.5 people, mostly
funded through EPA cooperative agreements.
Staff includes three special assistant attorneys
general assigned to the agency.
FUNDING
Although the Environmental Quality Protec-
tion Fund Act was enacted in 1985, funding
was not appropriated until 1987 for the 1989-91
biennium. The fund balance as of 6/90 was
$500K. Funding will come from a trust fund
that collects taxes on natural resource extraction,
with additional funding expected from cost
recovery, penalties, and appropriations. The tax
and other sources are expected to generate
$250K per year.
The Fund can be used for emergency
response, removals, remedial actions, and
investigations. Funding for O&M, State
CERCLA match, and actions at LUST sites are
provided by other statutes.
In addition, $10M in bonds are authorized for
the Hazardous Waste/CERCLA Special Revenue
Account, although no bonds have been issued.
195
-------
MONTANA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Montana Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences (MDHES) is required to make
a good-faith effort to have RP clean up prior to
using the Fund. Money obtained from cost
recovery and civil penalty assessments are
relumed to the Fund. The State can choose to
issue a unilateral order, negotiate a consent
order, institute a civil action, or clean up a site
using State funds.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
CECRA requires cleanup that assures present
and future protection of public health, safety
and welfare, and the environment and that is
consistent with all applicable environmental
requirements, criteria, and limitations. In
addition, the State is required to select cleanups
that use permanent,solutions, are cost-effective,
and that use alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
MDHES has issued five negotiated orders for
RI/FSs. It has issued four unilateral orders for
conduct of RI/FS and one unilateral order for
an emergency cleanup. In addition, the DOD
has completed cleanup at two sites pursuant to
a negotiated order.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CECRA requires public notice of administra-
tive orders and consent decrees.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA development is being considered.
CPCA in FY88, FY89, and FY90. One MSCA;
three other CAs for individual site work. One
TAG awarded.
196
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Non-NPL sites
2
0
47 (on CERCLIS)
NORTH DAKOTA
[8/10/90]
-STATUTE
> -tf-Sfff
Nottn Dakota does not Jiave its own State Sapjsrfuiid law feat a&winigtejts cmctA'tJiroagfc eoot*erMv«
agreements'*?^ EPA, Its, Hy'&$ ^® iegyatore 'and effeefive 7/189 creates the Environmental Qiaa%
.Fuftd.'Tlti&Jai5td. provides cost tecovety authority but no Ua&lll^ staiidatd, attd il applies Wall euvifofl-
' mental proggtains* - ^ ..... - - „, -
STATE AGENCY
The lead agency is the Division of Waste
Management, in the Department of Health &
Consolidated Laboratories' Environmental Health
Section. Two of the Division's 16 staff do some
Federal Superfund work. The Division's legal
support is an Assistant Attorney General
assigned to the Department who works on all
environmental programs.
FUNDING
The State program is currendy funded by
appropriations and EPA cooperative grants.
The new Environmental Quality Restoration
Fund will receive cost recovery monies and
contributions from settlements. The Fund may
be used for emergency response, removals,
remedial action, and O&M, possibly studies and
design, and administrative expenses. The Fund
balance is $59K (6/90).
197
-------
NORTH DAKOTA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Voluntary cleanup is the preferred enforce-
ment method and the State has had a 95% PRP
cleanup rate to date. Where voluntary
compliance is not obtained, the State will obtain
a judicial order, although no such actions have
been taken.
The HWMA authorizes administrative orders,
injunctive relief, civil and criminal penalties.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Standards are determined on a site-by-site
basis. Federal guidelines will be used where
applicable.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Most of the CERCLJS sites had undergone
PAs and Sis by the end of 1989. Cleanup costs
have diverged widely, but most range from $25-
200K.
PUBLIC PARTICD7ATION
Very few statutory requirements exist for
public participation, but the Division notifies
local officials with information about a site.
Local communities can become involved in site
activities.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA signed and none in progress.
One MSCA covers three sites. Several CAs for
site work and PA/SIs. No TAGs awarded; two
communities have applied. CPCA secured in
FY88.
198
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
3
0
Non-NPL sites 73 (on CERCLIS)
(includes ~20 Native American
Reservation sites, which the
State cannot act on)
SOUTH DAKOTA
[7/26/90]
""/^:;i' . STATUTES ' .
J&akota*s Re$$<#ed Substmm Discharge Lawf SJbak* Codified ta.w$
v.._r-34 ,I98& .amended , 1989>» establishes ^ cleanup fiaidv aad provides^
\admiafcsto.ve otder auKiorl^* injoncifive jeilef, cost jrecovery> aafi *'
,^/<;-:> " \cj
^*ftf . * .- >
2.
-12-1 to -15" '
sb&i liability; -
.• biost
V
.%' <•'
Ifosfe Management Act> S
for T
~,jf% •
JUws Attdu ||3441-1 to -23
paialtifes,
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Water and Natural
Resources is the lead agency. The only State
activities have been PAs, which have been
performed with EPA funding.
The Attorney General's office provides legal
support as needed.
FUNDING
The Regulated Substances Response Fund
has a balance of $764K. Funding sources are
appropriations, cost recovery, penalties, and
gifts. The legislature authorized a one-time
transfer of $350K from the Petroleum Release
Compensation Fund (UST Fund) to the Fund in
1989. A temporary fee increase on pesticides
also provided some monies. The Fund may be
used for administrative activities, emergency
response, removals, investigations, and
managerial activities.
199
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The law makes discharge of a "regulated
substance" a "violation," and authorizes orders
and injunctive actions to cause the "responsible
person" to conduct "corrective action." The law
defines liability for expenditures by the
Department as "strict," and provides for a lien
on property cleaned up by the Fund.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State indicates that it expects to use EPA
standards. Essentially, the State allows EPA to
pursue remedial activities. Thus far, the State
has participated as a third party for CERCLA
cleanups.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The only final NPL site (Whitewood Creek)
is at the FS stage.
. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
One SACA and two CAs. No SMOA, TAGs,
or CPCA.
200
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Unconfirmed sites
9
3
12 (same as NPL total)
198 (on CERCLIS)
UTAH
[8/13/90]
Hie Vteti Mqzarfaus Substances Mitigation Act, Utah Code Ann, ||26-14<3-101 to -801
effexJtive.Ott 6#0$& This statute repeals part of an older law, &e Viah Hazardous Materials Jwestismian
-------
UTAH (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State strongly desires PRP leads with
State oversight, because its funding is limited,
and it has no authority to conduct remedial
actions. The State intends RPs to perform most
remedial investigations. In the absence of RP
action, the State will pursue enforcement and/or
initiate an RI using the State Fund. Remedial
actions will be conducted either under State
enforcement authorities or the Federal Superfund
statute.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
The State has adopted a flexible cleanup
policy that addresses sites on a case-by-case
basis. The policy requires that the source of
contamination must be eliminated or controlled.
Residuals will be evaluated according to other
background contaminants, environmental con-
siderations, technical feasibility, and economic
considerations. Use MCLs where applicable.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Under the old law, one PRP cleanup with
State oversight took place. RODs have been
signed for two NPL sites, and RODs are
expected at two additional sites in the near
future.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Records obtained by the department are to be
made available to the public unless entitled to
confidentiality. Rules providing for public par-
ticipation during remedy selection will be
promulgated in the near future.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Second SMOA signed 12/88, which covers
issues such as CAs, lead designations, adminis-
trative record development, enforcement, and
Federal facilities responses. Currently negotiating
a revised SMOA, which is intended to streng-
then the State's approval role and overall part in
the Superfund process. lAG's have been signed
for two Federal Facilities; a third is being nego-
tiated; a fourth in expected in early 1991.
MSCA covers 10 sites; site-specific CAs for
nine sites. Four SACAs provided for in MSCA.
No TAGs. CPCA for FY90.
202
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Total confirmed and
unconfirmed sites
3
0
100-120 sites
(on CERCLIS)
WYOMING
[8/9/90]
^
Brwrtwrnetftat Qwtity Act* (EQA), Wyo. SMS, $§35-11-101 Jo -1207 {1&$7}, does not
provide a &nd for State cleanup actions, Other funds* however, enable State cleanup in emergencies {see
"Funding" Mow). Ttie EQA requires contararaeat and notification ol leases aM grants Ute Department of
Environments! Duality ^ vw, j- •• /^.;?^ *" v *•
STATE AGENCY
The Solid Waste Management Program
(SWMP) within the Department of Environ-
mental Quality leads State hazardous waste
efforts. The SWMP has 12 positions authorized
for RCRA and solid waste activities. No staff
work on cleanups in the SWMP. Superfund
activities are covered by DEQ's Water Quality
Division (WQD). The WQD already has led
most activity at the Mystery Bridge proposed
NPL site, and its mandate is broader than that
of the SWMP.
The Environmental Quality Council is an
independent body of seven members serving an
administrative judicial role. The Council
conducts hearings and hears appeals, and
approves all regulations recommended by DEQ.
FUNDING
The EQA provides no statutory funding for
remedial actions; DEQ has sought line item
appropriations only for pre-remedial adminis-
trative costs on a case-by-case basis in the past.
Under the Wyoming Oil & Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Contingency Plan, under the
EQA, releases posing an imminent threat to
public health or safety may be contained,
cleaned, or disposed through the governor's con-
tingency fund upon gubernatorial authorization.
Effective June 8, 1989, a new provision-
under the EQA will enable DEQ to fund emer-
gency actions with the Environmental Quality
Council's approval, through the existing DEQ
Trust and Agency Account The current balance
in this fund is about $1M. The Fund, previously
limited to abandoned mine reclamation
activities, is funded by penalties and fines.
EQA also provides a cleanup fund for UST
sites.
203
-------
WYOMING (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
DEQ does not-consider itself to be an initial
response agency. During releases, the agency's
first priority is to contact responsible parties to
determine if they have conducted or will con-
duct cleanup. When RPs are unwilling or unable
to act, DEQ seeks funds from the governor's
contingency account, seeks approval from
Council to spend Trust and Agency account
funds, or contacts the EPA Regional Response
Team. It has been several years since money
was sought from the contingency Fund.
Notices of violation and administrative orders
are issued as a last resort when negotiations
fail.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Using Federal management assistance monies,
DEQ has conducted PA/SI work for the pro-
posed NPL site as well as the F.E. Warren
AJUJ. site, which is being considered for NPL
proposal, and which is the only Federal facility
of concern in the State at this point. All
CERCOS-listed sites have undergone PAs and
several have undergone Sis.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
The State has no general cleanup or design
standards. Standards are developed on a site-by-
site basis, with guidance coming from Federal
standards such as MCLs and ACLs. The State
does, however, have standards for inorganic
compounds in water.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is able to participate in a variety
of informal ways. First, any information
obtained by DEQ under the EQA is available
for public review. Second, citizens may
comment on rulemaking and permitting
decisions. Finally, the governor created a citizen
commission for the Mystery Bridge NPL site to
comment on site activities.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA is planned. The State's relations
with EPA are limited mostly to remedy
selection. No CPCAs have been awarded, and
no community has received a TAG grant No
MSCA is currently in place. State involvement
in pre-remedial activities in prior years was
covered under an MSCA.
204
-------
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
205
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State priority list
Unconfirmed sites
SITES
10
1
26
800+ on Arizona
CERCLA Information and
Data System (ACIDS) list
ARIZONA
[8/10/90]
The Arizona Environmental Quality Act, AikJSfcv. $m> Ann. ||4&-2$Mo -287 W&, •#**&*
establishes the Water Quality Assurance Devolving Fund {WQARF, y&toOy called "warf") and p
for strict, joint and several liability* administrative orders* abatement and *ea»edM actions, injanctlve actions,
civil penalties, cost recovery* and treble damages, In 1990, the 39& Legislature passed a fea providing fees
and taxes as major sources of WQARF funding^'Ms legislation, however, eliminates State appropriates to
' '' " '
the Fund.
STATE AGENCY
State statute determines that the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the
Department of Water Resources have joint
authority for remedial actions. The DEQ has
two offices overseeing Superfund work. The
Office of Waste Programs (OWP) is comprised
of mostly technical people managing most site
activities, including enforcement case develop-
ment; this office has a staff of 16. The other
office is the Office of Water Quality, which has
two hydrologists working on site cleanup issues.
The Department of Health Services performs
epidemiological studies for the WQARF
program upon request under interagency
agreements.
FUNDING
The Water Quality Assurance Revolving
Fund (WQARF) is the State Superfund. With
resources of approximately • $15M (6/90).
WQARF was formerly supplied by appropria-
tions but is now funded by taxes and fees.
Penalties and cost recovery enhance the Fund,
which is used for administrative costs,
emergency actions abating threats to State
waters, remedial actions, O&M, water quality
monitoring, and State CERCLA match costs.
To use Fund monies, the program must
demonstrate that a release does or may impair
State waters.
Political subdivisions are eligible for State
matching funds for ground and surface water
remediation.
206
-------
ARIZONA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State must demonstrate culpability before
initiating enforcement actions, as RPs have the
right to a review hearing. Generally, responsible
parties are encouraged to perform work volun-
tarily. Site investigations, RI/FS, risk and health
assessments, and a remedial action plan must be
developed before an order may be issued.
Strict, joint and several liability applies.
Administrative orders, treble damages, injunctive
actions, and civil penalties are authorized.
By statute, enforcement auctions are handled
by the AG's Office, which has two assistant
attorneys general assigned to the Office of
Waste Programs (1 FTE).
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
WQARF rules require prior approval for
remedial actions by private parties when a cost
recovery action is contemplated. A number of
voluntary cleanups are being supervised.
Operable units or partial cleanups are underway
at five NPL sites. Fifteen sites have been
remediated under WQARF authority, and 13
others are underway. A large number of sites
are still in the investigation stage.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Remedial actions must assure the protection
of public health and welfare and the environ-
ment, allow the maximum beneficial use of
State waters, and be cost effective over the
period of potential exposure to hazardous
substances. The State uses federal MCLs where
applicable and "Arizona action levels," which
impose a 10* risk for unregulated carcinogenic
chemicals.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Important site and program actions are
announced in two state-wide newspapers. Public
comment is required for the annual priority list
and elective for other remedial actions.
Comment summary and response is required for
the annual list and others for which comment
has been invited. Any. political subdivision that
uses, has or will use the waters of the State,
and State agencies may apply for matching
funds for remedial actions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Arizona receives federal funds under
MSCAs. Since 1987 DEQ has received over
$2M in EPA grants. In early 1990 a MSCA
was completed that covered 11 NPL sites, two
of which were State leads. There is a PA/SI
agreement for the State to conduct site dis-
covery work. A CPCA supports the MSCA and
Title HI tasks. There are no current plans to
develop a SMOA.
207
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Total known and
suspected sites
86
2
Three-tiered--
approx. 328 total
Approx. 26,000 potential
sites on the Abandoned
Site Program Information
System (ASPIS)
CALIFORNIA
[8/15/90]
,
California Hazardous Substance Account.MM^A*&, S^f rode^§253(X) <*'«* (mi,
1982,1983,1984, 1986, 1987,1988 and 19$9>, which includes the Hawrfow Substance Cleanup
of 1984, §§25285 through 25386.6, and the Hazardous Sutistance Cleanup Fmanang Authority Act
through 25395 (1984), establishes site mitigation'program ani pr'ovSdes^anup^fiwd*^ r
,*"•'•• ' m, ' ' ' '
,, f> ?ff
-------
CALIFORNIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
i ,
Legal authorities include strict liability, yet
apportionment is required. State has authority
for orders for information and access, subpoena
authority, administrative order authority. Civil
penalties up to $25K/day or up to $25K/
violation, criminal penalties up to $25K/day
and/or imprisonment for up to one (1) year.
(Penalties associated with hazardous waste
management law, rather than Superfund
specifically.) Treble damages available. Citizen
suit provision under Proposition 65. PRP may
seek judicial review of final remedial action
plan, RP must be given notice and opportunity
to assume cleanup responsibility and fail to
comply in order for State to undertake cleanup
or enforcement activity. Preferred method is
negotiated settlement, consent order with
stipulated penalties for noncompliance.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
As of 7/1/90, remedial actions (State and
Federal) have been completed on 201 sites--
approx. 20 of those were State-funded, a small
percentage Federal, the remainder are RP
cleanups.
Of the sites on the priority list-approx. 100
undergoing RP cleanup, 100 in negotiations with
RP as site investigation continues, 20 are State-
funded cleanups, the remaining sites have
unidentified RPs, no agreement, are potential
orphans, or are backlogged.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State has Applied Action Levels (AALs)
based on 10"* risk for carcinogens. Remedial
action plans must be based upon, among other
things, the effect of contamination on beneficial
uses of 'resources, the effect of alternative
remedial action measures on groundwater, site-
specific characteristics, and cost-effectiveness.
State has promulgated MCLs for many water
contaminants and a number of other standards
including air toxics. Deed restrictions are used
to prevent inappropriate uses of land in future.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DHS must hold at least one public meeting
before adopting a remedial action plan and must
review and consider any public comments.
Anyone affected by a removal or remedial
action must be provided with the opportunity to
participate in DHS's decisionmaking • process.
DHS must develop and make available to the
public a schedule of activities for each site.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
MSCA since 1/1/88 covering State oversight
expenses at NPL sites-currently renegotiating.
SMOA signed summer 1990.
State has CAs, SACAs, and CPCA in FY90.
Two TAGs awarded in State.
209
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Total identified
State sites
1 (DOD)
6
not yet promulgated
no information
HAWAII
[8/21/90]
.. af fynd for emergency response actions aftd provides for strict
^te access( authority, civil penalties, and cost
et .
adMftlsttativ^ atd^r
STATE AGENCY
The Hawaii State Department of Health,
Environmental Protection and Health Services
Division, Hazard Evaluation and Emergency
Response Program is the lead agency. The
program has 15 staff members. Legal support is
located in the AG's office.
FUNDING
The Environmental Response Revolving Fund
has a balance of $50K (8/90). Sources of the
Fund are appropriations, cost recovery, interest,
and penalties. The Fund may be used for emer-
gency response actions, removals, remedial
actions, site investigation, and the State
CERCLA match.
210
-------
HAW AH (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
There do not appear to have been enforce-
ment activities yet by the State. The State is
using two EPA Region IX IPAs to help develop
regulations and policies.
Liability is strict, and includes liability for
natural resource damages. Orders and injunctive
authorities are available. Punitive damages for
failure to perform removal or remedial actions
are treble. Civil penalties of up to $25K per
day for noncompliance with statute, rules, or
orders. Cost recovery actions must be
commenced within six years of completion of
response actions.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No information available as of 8/21/90.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State references water quality criteria,
drinking water standards, background quality
and EPA guidelines. Risk assessments are rarely
conducted.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .
Public participation activities may be
implemented by the DepL and required of RPs.
The State's hazardous waste management law
requires the Department of Health to develop a
public education program for hazardous waste
issues.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA. No CAs, SACAs or TAGs.
CPCA for FY90.
211
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
1
0
Total known and 140 (on CERCLIS), of which
suspected sites about 85 are mining sites.
Sites identified as
needing attention
40
NEVADA
[8/21/90]
'JSfev. Rev, Biat. §§459.400*459,600 (1981/amended '1981 'jsflf and 198?);iae& a spM^'aami J)«t s£
officials refer to it as the "hazardous waste statate "^marily eoveriag operating fecmftes, ttas few g»?es
authority for spill cleanup by eitherlhe Stafc or te^nsib'te parties, tlite $^|wt0.4lsO e$tawiSned 9 wag*
. .
authority for spill cleanup by eitherlhe Stafc or te^wnsibte parties, this $%%tofm> mmwm a J
dous Waste Management Fund, which may be aseii for lemovals, oversight, a»d site operations and
tenancecosts. ' . : ^<^.?l\"yr.''*$?£ '••:-" '<'*?'' '.""''-+" '""
STATE AGENCY
Housed within the Division of Environmental
Protection, which itself is part of the Depart-
ment of Conservation and Natural Resources,
the Waste Management Bureau oversees the
State's hazardous waste, solid waste, and UST
programs. The Waste Management Bureau has
the lead on activities governed by the hazardous
waste statute. The Bureau's Superfund Branch
has a staff of three people. One Deputy Attor-
ney General provides legal support for all
NDEP functions.
A variety of other agencies are involved in
the hazardous waste program secondarily. The
most important, the State Environmental
Commission, is the rulemaking and hearing
body for all environmental matters in the State.
Other agencies with intermittent roles include
the Division of Health, Division of Emergency
Management, the Division of Water Resources,
the State Fire Marshal, and the Divisions of
Forestry and Wildlife.
FUNDING
Most of the State's funding for cleanup
comes from the Hazardous Waste Management
Fund and LUST grants. Roughly three-fourths
of the monies in the Fund (balance $1.7M-8/90)
derive from waste volume fees~$20 per ton for
out-of-state waste, $10 per ton for waste gener-
ated in-state. Cost recovery, penalties, and
permit fees provide the remaining funds. There
have been no State appropriations. Fund covers
emergency response, site investigation, removals,
remedial actions, and activities related to over-
sight of the management of hazardous waste.
212
-------
NEVADA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Liability is strict for those in possession of
hazardous material involved in a spill. Admin-
istrative order authority, including orders for
information and site access, subpoena authority,
injunctive action, civil and criminal penalties,
and cost recovery. Cost recovery is generally
secured in consent agreements.
The State encourages responsible party par-
ticipation, but it intends to issue orders for
recalcitrants. No orders have yet been issued,
nor have injunctive actions been sought, but the
State has collected approximately $100K in
penalties in the last two (2) years.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
While the State keeps no site list and does
not have any State-funded sites, it has overseen
several cleanup actions. An Anaconda Copper
Company site suffering groundwater contamina-
tion is being cleaned under an administrative
order. Also, a stretch of the Carson River
roughly 75 miles long, from Carson City to the
Stillwater Wildlife Refuge, has been contami-
nated with mercury by previous mining
activities; monitoring activities as well as a
health advisory on fish have occurred. Last, the
State is attempting to identify PRPs at .a mining
site; it is currently negotiating with Anaconda
and several other PRPs.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Drawing from Federal guidelines on UST
cleanups, as well as those from California, the
State has created its own hybrid of cleanup
standards. Specific standards are determined
site-by-site, but the State usually refers to EPA
guidelines. Recent petroleum spill regulations
reference Federal standards.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There are no statutory requirements or
program policies for public participation.
Citizens, however, usually notify the Department
of hazardous waste problems, and the Depart-
ment typically informs concerned citizens of site
progress.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
The State has a grant for PA/SI. Negotiating
for CPCA.
213
-------
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
214
-------
SITES
NPL sites 6
Proposed NPL 0
CERCLIS sites approx. 200
State contaminated site list approx. 700
(incl. CERCLIS sites,
petroleum sites)
ALASKA
[7/27/90]
f , Alaska Sm $|46^8j005% to
^s a fund and provides, for admjttis&a&ve aria conseitt^der auaiott%;vJtt|uactlv6 relief* civil
and erMtttoal peuaMes, and cost v "
tftGztfffotts Substance Relea& Canffd L0wt ^Ja^a Stats< ||46m010:"tQ ,900 (1886k covers enforce*
,'HKSit and other provisions, " •• -- ' < , ^
fv f , •"•&?• «% •* -•j^.,,.,
for Oil
s, (19S9), was enacted U^jesponse to
jftUgK spia, and provides fer stdct, M»t and
- " " - v- _ *" , ,
STATE AGENCY
Tlie Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion's Contaminated Sites Section is responsible
for cleanup activities. This section contains
about four staff.
The Office of the Attorney General provides
legal support
The Department of Emergency Services also
has involvement in emergency situations.
FUNDING
The Oil and Hazardous Substance Release
Response Fund has a balance of $18.6M as of
6/30/90. Fund monies may be used for emer-
gency response, remedial actions, and the State's
share of Federal oil discharge cleanups and
CERCLA match. These monies derive from a
50 per barrel tax on oil from the pipeline.
Monies from forfeited performance bonds,
cost recovery and penalties are placed into a
"mitigation account" separate from the Fund but
are available for the same purposes.
215
-------
ALASKA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Liability is strict, joint and several. Civil
penalties are $500-100,000 for first violations,
and no more than $10,000 per day that a viola-
tion continues. Individuals are subject to
criminal penalties of $10,000 per day, up to one
year imprisonment, or both, for knowingly falsi-
fying documents used for purposes of compli-
ance monitoring.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Regulations for hazardous substance sites are
being prepared for public comment. Generally,
the State uses MCLs/MCLGs and EPA water
quality criteria.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Focus on site investigation and cleanup. The
Release Response Fund is expected to back
investigation and/or remediation at about 20
sites per year. DEC is developing a site ranking
system distinct from the Federal HRS. This
system is expected to be final 12/90.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Citizen advisory panels are formed for major
cleanups.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA, MAs, or TAGs. .MSCA, CPCA
for FY90.
A DSMOA was signed 6/90, and DEC sub-
mitted a CA proposal to DOD for three sites.
216
-------
SITES
NPL sites 9
Proposed NPL 0
Unconfirmed sites approx. 175 (on CERCLIS)
IDAHO
[8/16/90]
STATUTE,
no State Superfund law, The #fofc> ttwm&^s Wme Mmagment Mt {BWMAX Mafeo Code
§§39-4401 to -443.2 (|983, amended 1984, 1986, J9S7, ajjd 1988), establishes mo tods bat Fovides only
minimal fegaliautfiority for site cleanups. s :
STATE AGENCY
The lead agency is the Department of Health
and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality,
Bureau of Hazardous Materials. CERCLA
responsibilities ate split between the Policy and
Standards Section and the Remedial Activities
Section. The Policy and Standards Section
handles CORE grant funding, pre-remedial
activities, and support services; the Remedial
Activities Section handles site-specific remedial
work. Of a total of 38 personnel in the two
sections, 23 work primarily on Superfund. Four
deputy AGs are assigned to the Bureau of
Hazardous Materials.
FUNDING
Funding for cleanups is generally obtained by
legislative appropriations. The HWMA, however,
establishes the Hazardous Waste Training,
Emergency, and Monitoring Account. The
HWMA authorizes use of this Fund for neces-
sary removal and remedial actions, but program
staff caution that this is primarily a hazardous
waste management fund, not a cleanup fund.
The Fund's balance was. listed as $1.6M in mid-
1989. No change in this amount was noted in
1990. Monies are obtained primarily through
appropriations and a waste disposal fee.
The HWMA also establishes the Hazardous
Waste Emergency Account, which has a balance
of $82K (8/90) and can be used for emergency
response. The Fund's primary source of monies
is penalties, and it is not relied on heavily by
the agency.
217
-------
IDAHO (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State prefers RP cleanup, particularly
since it has no funding of its own. The State
has essentially no enforcement authorities under
the HWMA. For emergency conditions, the
State has injunctive and order authorities under
the Idaho Environmental Protection and Health
Act
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
The State has not yet developed cleanup
standards.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
There is a joint state/federal lead at one of
the five NPL sites (Bunker Hill). Of the NPL
sites, one cleanup is virtually complete (Arrcom
site, EPA cleanup); one (the joint lead) is in the
middle of the RI; cleanup is scheduled to be
started at the third site by RPs in summer 1991;
the RI/FS is just getting underway at the fourth
site; and TAG negotiations are underway at the
fifth site.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A full-time on-site community relations
person has been hired for the Bunker Hill NPL
site. This person coordinates monthly public
meetings, manages media contact, and deals
with community health concerns.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA. One MSCA covers the four NPL
sites; CAs cover two sites. One SACA exists
for each NPL site, plus a second MA at Bunker
Hill (two operable units). No TAGs. CPCA for
FY89 and FY90.
218
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list and Confirmed
Release List (CRL)
Site Discovery Database
(total suspected, potential,
and reported sites)
8
0
under development
approx. 800
OREGON
[8/9/90]
Law* °*- ^ Stat& M4&L260 -
&MIUK* KwMdW Actiott Fund (HSKAP) aad provides
order aatoty for cleapu lajinctiv^ retter; civit penalttes, -«ost recovery, 8ens» aad
H ^ wWn.RAP and
STATE AGENCY
Lead agency is the Environmental Cleanup
Division (BCD) in the Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ). Program has 46 per-
manent staff in four sections: (1) Site Response
(12 positions), (2) Site Assessment (10
positions), (3) Policy and Program Development
(six positions), (4) Underground Storage Tank
Cleanup (nine positions), and nine other
positions, including the Administrator, two
specialists, and support staff. Two attorneys
from the AG staff handle litigation and advise
BCD as requested. The Fund supports just over
half the agency's administrative budget.
FUNDING
HSRAF has a balance of $6.5M (4/90) with
an average of $3M/yr collected from appropri-
ations, cost recovery, penalties and fines, and a
monthly fee on the operator of the State's only
hazardous waste and PCB disposal facility. DEQ
also receives Federal superfund monies.
The Fund can be used for emergency
response, removals, studies and design, remedial
actions, O&M, State CERCLA match, and
actions at LUST sites up to the State's 10
percent match.
The Orphan Site Account, within the
HSRAF, has the potential to provide an
additional $3M/yr for purposes of bond debt
retirement, with equal amounts collected from
hazardous substances fee, petroleum fee, and
solid waste tipping fee.
219
-------
OREGON (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
ECD favors an approach that seeks voluntary
cleanup from PRPs prior to issuance of orders;
use of the Fund is agency's last choice. As of
6/90, ECD is involved at all seven NPL sites
and has 38 voluntary PRP cleanups. Statute
establishes strict liability for owners, operators,
and any person who caused or contributed to
hazardous substance release. However, transpor-
ters and off-site generators are generally not
regarded as liable. Although the statute is not
explicit, ECD interprets liability as joint and
several; this has not yet been challenged.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
ECD is providing oversight at 45 sites. The
DEQ is providing oversight under State authori-
ties at one NPL site in which EPA is not
actively involved. At that site, EPA has deferred
to the State.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Regulations require cleanup to background
(pre-release) levels. If this is infeasible, a
remedial action is to be selected that attains the
lowest concentration level that satisfies certain
protective and feasibility requirements. Oregon
has developed LUST cleanup standards and is
currently reviewing the possibility of establish-
ing numeric standards for soil cleanup.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Regulations for the statute were promulgated,
as mandated, with significant input from a 22-
mernber committee composed of citizens, local
governments, environmental groups, and
industry.
The law mandates public notice of DEQ's
program for identifying releases, proposed settle-
ment agreements, and all proposed remedial
actions with a 30-day comment period. Public
meetings are required for proposed remedial
actions if requested by a minimum of 10
people. Public notice provided for final remedial
action.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
A SMOA is nearly complete; expected by
November. SACAs, CAs for all seven NPL
sites, MSCAs for PAs and Sis at 72 sites.
CPCAs have been granted each year since at
least 1988--FY88, 89, and 90.
220
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State database
SITES
45
0
750 (includes NPL sites,
State sites, and sites which
have been cleaned up)
WASHINGTON
[7/27/90]
, .p&st Control Aetj, Wasbx &eY> Code «a, TCUOSD (1988), aathca&e& funding for two accounts*
, enforcement and public pafllcipaaon procedures,
STATE AGENCY
Department of Ecology, under the Assistant
Director for Waste Management, has 157 staff
in the Toxics Cleanup Program. 41 of the posi-
tions are federally funded-the remaining are
supported by the State Toxics Control Account.
The Attorney General's office, handling settle-
ments, has approx. 3-4 FTEs working on
cleanups.
FUNDING
Two accounts: (1) State Toxics Control
Account and (2) Local Toxics Control Account
State account receives 47% of the revenue
from a tax on wholesale value of hazardous
substances plus cost recovery, penalties and
fines, and any earnings on Fund balance.
Balance in Fund estimated to be $15.2M on
3/30/90. Amount collected per year available for
cleanup $22M. No cap on Fund. State account
funds related activities in other agencies, in
addition to various divisions within Ecology.
Legislature must appropriate Fund monies for
cleanup.
Fund can be used for site investigation,
emergency response, studies and design,
remedial actions and O&M, State CERCLA
match, program administration. Part of cleanup
Fund set aside for LUST hardship cleanups.
Penalties and fines earmarked for best manage-
ment practices and recycling, not cleanup.
Local account receives 53% of tax revenue
from tax on wholesale value of hazardous sub-
stances to help local governments pay for site
cleanups, waste planning, reduction and
recycling. Balance $25.2M on 3/3/90.
221
-------
WASHINGTON (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Model Toxics Control Act provides for strict,
joint and several liability, subpoena authority,
site access authority, enforcement order
authority, injunctive action, civil penalties (up to
$25K/day), cost recovery, treble damages.
Citizen suits and contractor indemnification
authorized. Consent decree must be obtained by
AG and issued by Court. Approx. 60-70% of
cases resolved through negotiation, 30-40%
through enforcement orders. Only one traditional
cost recovery action at NPL site-cost recovery
usually built into consent decrees.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
At least as stringent as all applicable State
and Federal laws, including health-based
standards under State and Federal law. DOE
references water quality criteria, drinking water
standards, background quality, risk levels, and
EPA guidelines. State cleanup standards
proposed for public comment in August 1990.
Priority list of projects and recommended
expenditures is under development.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
14 NPL State-lead sites (in addition to
Hanford site which is a mix of authorities).
Fewer than 20 sites with completed remedial
actions, 101 State and 43 NPL cleanups in
progress.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DOE must establish regional citizens'
advisory committees, notify public of develop-
ment of investigating or remedial plans and
availability of RI/FS and Cleanup Action Plan,
give concurrent public notice of all compliance
orders, enforcement orders, or notices of viola-
tion. Provisions include public notice and
hearing on consent decrees. Dept. in process of
developing administrative record and ROD
policy. Model Toxics Control Act authorizes
public participation grants to affected persons or
not-for-profit public interest organization.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State SMOA signed March 1989. CPCA in
FY89. State has MSCA, SAGA, and CAs.
222
fc US. QOVERNMENTPRNnNQ OFHCEISei-SW-IBBOSW
------- |