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

-------