-------
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 CORE Grants. CAs awarded.
134
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Total identified
State sites (GAO)
7
6
753
GEORGIA
[5/15/89]
I STATOTE
Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act, OA Code Ann. §§12-8-60 ftrcogb 12-8-83 (197$) establishes
the Hazardous Waste Thrust F»nd and authorizes cleanup by State and makes generators, transporters, and
ownCTs/operators liable. This is primarily a regulatory statute as is the program. Statute amended effective
7/1/89 to increase public partlcipaiion.
STATE AGENCY
Land Protection Branch of the Environmental
Protection Division of Department of Natural
Resources. No staff for State or Federal Super-
fund. Entire hazardous waste program is RCRA
oriented with 41 staff. All legal support handled
by Department of Law, with four (4) attorneys
and one (1) supervisor for all of DNR's work.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Trust Fund has a balance
of about $2M, funded from settlements with
RPs and all penalties. Amounted collected per
year is rising, approximately $500K FY88.
Virtually all hazardous waste activities are
through RCRA 75% EPA grant with 25% State
match.
Trust Fund may not be used for normal
operating expenses, must be used only for
mitigating environmental problems.
135
-------
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.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
All cleanups under State's RCRA corrective
action authority. State corrective actions must be
consistent with RCRA and CERCLA.
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 and CERCLA. Local officials must be
notified of RCRA permit applications and a
hearing held if requested more than 25 persons.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Grant for 22 sites under EPA's Environ-
mental Priorities Initiative. Had CA to do PA/SI
until 12/88 when decided to concentrate on
RCRA. No CORE grants or MA grants.
136
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Potential sites
12
5
500
KENTUCKY
[4/28/89]
STATUTE
Rev. Stat. Ann. §224.876X13) <1980) establishes die Hazardous Waste Management Fand. Other
224 outline ^on^oieiiiE aafeoiities, i r i ;
STATE AGENCY
Division of Waste Management, Uncontrolled
Waste Sites Section has three (3) full-time pro-
fessional staff plus one (1) clerical staff for
NPL sites, and nine (9) staff under PA/SI grant
Two (2) attorneys in the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet assigned to
division.
FUNDING
Hazardous Waste Management Fund has a
balance of $2.2M 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.
137
-------
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
Cleanup to background, but, in practice, site-
by-site standard used in consultation with the
Air and Water Divisions.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State actively involved in 70 sites.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements but try to involve
public as much as possible through public
meetings.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State negotiating SMOA. CORE Grant
awarded. Five (5) CAs awarded in State and
one (1) TAG approved.
138
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
unconfirmed sites
2
1
347 CERCLIS sites
MISSISSIPPI
[8/11/89]
STATUTE
Mississippi Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1974* amended numerous times (roost recently in 1987), Miss,
Code Ann,: |l?-17-29(4) jantf <®; enables State to take rehouse *ri0n twi Jfass fc «& ^ecffic Sipsrftjnd
law, 1988 Legislature created Pollution Emergency Fond §49-17-68 ml * UST Trust Fund, Miss, Code
i. §4947-401,
STATE AGENCY
Department of Environmental Quality,
Pollution Control Bureau, Hazardous Waste
Division has a RCRA and CERCLA section.
The CERCLA section has ten employees. These
positions are funded almost entirely by State
and Federal dollars. One (1) attorney from the
AG's office handles all Pollution Control Bureau
work. 1988 legislation authorized 20 positions
within DEQ. Four (4) of these positions were
allocated to the Hazardous Waste Division, with
three (3) of the four (4) in the CERCLA
section.
FUNDING
The Pollution Emergency Response Fund was
created in 1988 and has a balance close to
$300K. 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.
139
-------
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.
State has RPs coming forward voluntarily
signing "Agreed Orders." Orders issued at each
stage of process outlining work to be done.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State makes site-specific risk assessments and
follows standards such as MCLs when they are
available. Attempt is made to be consistent with
NCP.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
45 sites in RI/FS stage.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements but informal efforts
made. Local committees formed to keep abreast
of situation. Local governments and governor
notified when emergency order issued.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State says they have a one-year SMOA in
place. Not confirmed by EPA data.
State has CORE Grant and CA for PA/SI.
140
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State Priority List Sites
Sites Listed in State
Inactive Hazardous Waste
Inventory
15
7
85
781 (excludes
NPL sites)
NORTH
CAROLINA
[8/29/89]
STATUTES
I, North Carolina Comprehensive Environmental Response AM, RC Gen. Slat §|130A-310 througn *
51042 (July 1987, amended June 1989), authorizes the Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fond and
provides authority to order RPs to conduct cleanup and to recover costs.
2. North Carolina Oil Po^vaim and Hazardous Substances Control Act of 1978, N,C. Gen, SM 11143-
215.75 through 215.103 {first passed 1973} provides a fund and authority & clean up releases similar
to §311 of the Clean Water Act
3. North Carolina Waste Management Act, N,C Gen. StaL §130S-306, authorizes the Emergency
Response Fund for emergency hazardous waste cleanup.
STATE AGENCY
Superfund Section of Solid Waste Manage-
ment Division of Environment, Health &
Natural Resources (DEHNR) has 20 positions
(two (2) vacancies; two (2) additional positions
added by '89 legislature; one (1) attorney and
one (1) clerical are in AG) and administers the
Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund. The
Emergency Response Fund is administered by
the Hazardous Waste Section of the Solid Waste
Management Division. One (1) other attorney in
AG office handles State Superfund issues part
of her time. Twelve of the positions are funded
by CERCLA for PA/SI, five (5) are State-
funded, and three (3) are CORE.
The Environmental Management Division and
the Environmental Management Commission
administer the Oil or Other Hazardous Sub-
stances Pollution Protection Fund (OOHSPPF)
and the Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances
Control Act.
Administrative support is derived from State
appropriations and Federal grants.
FUNDING
Inactive Hazardous Sites Cleanup Fund
(IHSCF) has a balance of $256K as of 8/28/89
and may be used for remedial actions, emer-
gency responses, removals, and studies and
design of responses. IHSCF funded by appropri-
ations of $100K FY87-88 and $500K FY88-89
and cost recovery (no cases yet), penalties, and
fees (but none have been established). No
appropriations to the Fund were made for
FY89-90. Monies in the Emergency Response
Fund above the $500K cap go into IHSCF.
Administrative support is from general appropri-
ations.
Oil or Other Hazardous Substances Pollution
Protection Fund (§143.215.87) may be used for
emergency responses, removals and actions at
LUST sites. It is funded by cost recovery, civil
penalties and fees (authorized).
Emergency Response Fund (§130A-306) is
funded solely by RCRA penalties and is capped
at $500K. It may be used for CERCLA match
(but hasn't been to date-special appropriations
have been used instead).
141
-------
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
One (1) removal in SepL-Oct 1988. Five (5)
RP-lead cleanups in FY88-89.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Site-by-site. Groundwater standards used and
are below detection limits for non-naturally
occurring organics.
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 with public meeting
at discretion of Secretary. Public participation
requirements reduced for RP voluntary cleanup.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Draft SMOA submitted to EPA Region IV.
PA/SI CA effective 4/1/89. Have applied for
MA grant for eight (8) sites. FY CORE Grants
also awarded.
142
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed sites
14
7
42 (7/88) (all sites
with 0-28.5 HRS scores
are placed on list)
410 (CERCLIS)
SOUTH
CAROLINA
[8/11/89]
Hazardous Waste Management Act (1980), South Carolina Code Aim
Ann. §44-56-10-330 the more general cite), authorbes Fund
action, ;
J£C Code
to fe&e oic epinpel
STATE AGENCY
Department of Health and Environmental
Control, Environmental Quality Control, Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Bureau has
five (5) divisions. The Site Engineering and
Screening Division has two (2) sections. The
Site Assessment Section, funded totally by a
CA has eight (8) staff who handle the PA/SI.
The Site Engineering Section has six (6) staff
funded mostly by State who handle State and
NPL sites. Legal support is located in the
Office of the Commissioner. Eight (8) attorneys
are assigned to geographical districts to handle
all environmental 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 pan
of the Fund was S4.2M as of 7/1/88. 80-90% of
revenues come from fees. Appropriations,
interest, cost recovery, and penalties 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 after Federal or RP dollars are
exhausted or unavailable.
143
-------
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 policy is to serve RPs notice with dead-
lines and inform EPA at same time.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Baseline is background or drinking water
standards. Site-by-site decisions to be consistent
with the NCP.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
One (1) NPL State lead negotiating RI/FS
with RPs. Three (3) sites State funded in RI/FS
stage; negotiating RP lead on another site. RPs
voluntarily seeking consent decrees for several
other sites.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal
provisions.
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, MAs, and FY88 CORE Grant in
place.
One or two TAGs may have been applied
for, but unsure of status.
144
-------
SITES
NPL sites 10
Proposed NPL 3
State list 281; 3 in rulemaking stage
unconfirmed sites 800-900 sites on State
suspected list analogous
to GERCUS
TENNESSEE
[8/11/89]
STATUTE
Tennessee ffattaritotts Waste Management Act o/ JS*Sl Amended 1986,19S8) (efcefl). Part I covets RCRA,
Part H (Teiuu Code Ann, ||<58-46-201 through -221) ©oven? SijjKrJpnd, fcrthorizes Jhe Hazardous Waste
Remedial Action Fund, and provides authority to take or compel remedial actions. 1988 amendments
required notice to register deeds for any site listed.
STATE AGENCY
Tennessee Department of Health and
Environment (DHE), Division of Superfund
(created 1/86) has four (4) regional offices with
a total of 63 staff authorized, SO established,
funding for 46; 37 are filled, recruiting for nine
(9). Superfund supports two (2) 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 Remedial Action Fund had a
balance of $S.1M as of 9/1/88 with S2.1M
projected to remain as of 7/1/89. 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,
removals, remediation, studies and design,
O&M, and CERCLA match.
145
-------
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.
Director 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
668 PAs and 410 Sis (1/31/87) 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
(1) NPL and 12 State-listed sites. No completed
RAs at "significant" sites, numerous removals
and containments.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
No standards in Superfund 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.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Division has a policy of promoting public
participation but no formal procedures.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in draft; CA, MAs, CORE Grant in
place.
146
-------
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
147
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed sites
23 final
16
29
1325
ILLINOIS
[6/13/89]
Envirwunentgl
Hazardous Waste Fund and
recovery, and punitive daiijages.
civtl
1986, 1987, 1988) establishes
and criminal penalties, cost
STATE AGENCY
The Division of Land Pollution Control in
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) administers State cleanup program with
26 technical and six (6) management staff
working solely on Superfund. AG provides all
legal support for agency.
The Illinois Pollution Control Board (EPCB)
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 are three (3) sources of funds for
Superfund work: the Hazardous Waste Fund
(HWF), the Clean Illinois Program (CIP), the
Build Illinois Program (BIP).
The HWF, with a balance of $4.25M as of
1/1/89, receives 90% of the fees collected for
transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes
and monies collected in consent agreements. An
average of S1.2M 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.
The BIP is funded from a bond authoriza-
tion; the Agency must request BIP funds from
the legislature each year. Currently, $7M in BIP
funds obligated~$2M rollover from previous
year and $SM new appropriations.
The CIP funds originate from general
revenues with about $2.5M appropriated
annually. Funds are primarily used for the
operations cost of State.
148
-------
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. IEPA requires written
notification of real estate transfers. State has
strict liability, with joint and several liability
assumed. State also has lien provision.
Approximately 65 §4(4) 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.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Three (3) sites on State Remedial Action
Priorities List have completed RAs. Of the
approximately 1245 sites on State CERCLIS
list, 95% have completed PA, 65% have
completed SI, 25% require not 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
CAs for 29 sites. MAs have been awarded.
Three (3) CORE Grants awarded.
SMOA in final development stage. No TAG
awarded.
149
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
suspected and
unconfirmed sites
30
7
No list yet; one under
development pursuant to
statute effective 7/1/89.
about 1200 on
CERCLIS
INDIANA
[5/15/89]
STATX3TES
Indiana Hazar4otts Waste 'A& C$805* Snvtranwntal Management Act* and Hwtardtiw Waste Land
Tax Ac/ (1981), combine to authorize cleanup activities in die State, Indiana Code |J3-7 et seq, and Ind
; Code §§6-6-6.6-1 teough -3. The statute was most rewnUy amended effectiive7/J^ jot(C^olida|e;;: aaifl
clarify cleanup provisions, require development of .$ Stelfc priority list, bcre$» ^:^:^:'ipa|tJfl|fy:''JfeniJ|''':
the cleanup fund, and provide new authority to the Commissioner including authority for mixed funding
consent agreements. I.' " .•,;;"v;''.' --'V !'• •':'-----'--'-":':-":
STATE AGENCY
Project Management Branch in Office of
Environmental Response in Department of
Environmental Management The State cleanup
section has nine (9) 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
proceedings, with 3-4 attorneys working on all
cleanup issues. IDEM has six (6) 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. Administrative
costs come from general appropriations. There
is no cap on the Fund. Funds may be used for
studies, emergency actions, removals, remedial
actions, State CERCLA match and actions at
non-petroleum LUST sites, and preauthorized
mixed funding claims.
150
-------
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 ACTIVITIES
18 non-NPL sites currently active.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
No formal standards yet Policy is to be
consistent with NCP and statute will require
consistency effective 7/1/89. Use risk ranges of
105 to 10* or use MCLs and ARARs.
PUBLIC PARTICD7ATION
No formal rules yet All final orders subject
to comment period under Administrative Adjudi-
cation Act Policy is to be consistent with NCP.
New rules plan to include 60-day comment
period on final remedy selection and will
require local governments receive annual update
of new State priority list
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
CORE Grant in FY88, 14 CAs and 12 MA
grants awarded.
151
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed sites
65
15
2019 (FY90)
(add about 240/year)
2000-3000
(1/28/87)
MICHIGAN
[8/11/89]
" .. .:. . • .... • • - '••- h STATUTE • ' '
IHiehjgw Environmental Response Act fMERA* or *Acl 30T), Mieh, Cornp, laws Ann, §§299J601, 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 DNR to clean
op abandoned hazardous waste sites. Statute has no enforcement provisions^ directs AG to pursue cost
recovery but provides no legal remedy. State relies on air, water and hazardous waste regulatory laws far
cost recovery or enforcement authority. Emergency rules to administer program adopted in 2/89 expire 2/90,
proposed permanent rules in hearing. Bill in legislature would add enforcement authorities. Te» related
pollution control acts supplement cleanup program authorities.
STATE AGENCY
Environmental Response Division in Depart-
ment of Natural Resources leads cleanup and
response work. 24 positions for original State
program in 1984 and 54 positions added after
bond issue passed. Still hiring to fill the 54.
About 30 positions will be in central office and
about 40 in nine (9) field offices (15 of initial
24 were in field).
AG's office handles all legal work and the
State program uses approximately two (2)
positions. AG files all enforcement and cost
recovery actions. Michigan Department of
Public Health replaces water supplies on
contract with DNR.
FUNDING
Environmental Response Fund (§299.609) has
a balance of S6.3M but all but $1.7M is obli-
gated and State expects to obligate remainder by
6/30/89. ERF is funded by appropriations ($58M
'84-88 and $30.1M for FY89, bonds (voters
approved $425M 11/8/88), cost recovery and
CERCLA funds ($500K/year average).
Hazardous Waste Service Fund is also
funded by appropriations and may be used when
DNR declares hazardous waste emergency, but
none declared in past five (5) years.
152
-------
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
Current policy is "any detectable level" of
volatile organic compounds is unacceptable.
DNR has proposed rules that would be risk-
based using 107 for carcinogens and a 20% of
lifetime risk for non-carcinogens.
Remedy selected must achieve level such that
further cleanup would not reduce risk further.
State has a non-degradation standard for ground
water.
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 (6) RAs completed at $3.9M
(9/30/88). Estimate 250 RP lead RD/RAs.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public hearing when State list updated.
Emergency rules in effect till 2/90 allow public
comment at delisting (but hearing not required).
Proposed rules would provide public hearing
during remedy selection. State models its system
on CERCLA.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA being negotiated. 61 CAs and 48
MAs awarded. CORE Grant application
submitted for FY90.
153
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites
unconfirmed sites
40
0
157
118
300
MINNESOTA
[8/11/89]
STATUTE
Minnesota Environmental Response
-------
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
$130M of RP cleanups at 73 sites conducted
through 6/30/88. $4.7M in costs recovered
since 1983, and seven (7) major lawsuits have
been filed.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup decisions are made on a case-by-
case basis with similar criteria as the NCP. The
MPCA seeks a cost-effective cleanup and uses
ARARs. A 105 cancer risk factor is used in the
absence of applicable standards. The Depart-
ments of Health and Agriculture are consulted.
A groundwater bill which would set standards
currently passed during the last legislative
session. A non-degradation policy applies to
cleaner sites.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
MPCA has lead for all but two (2) NPL
sites, with RI/FSs averaging 18-24 months and
S300-500K. 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.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA development is underway. FY88
CORE Grant, no TAG grants awarded. CAs and
MAs awarded to date.
155
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list (informal)
suspected and
unconfirmed sites
29
3
430 (includes
NPL sites)
1074
OHIO
[8/11/89]
STATUTE
Ohio Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal law, OJNio Key.Qxte §5^34.01
contains provisions for two cleanup funds and enforcement authorities.
$88}
STATE AGENCY
The Office of Corrective Actions and Office
of Emergency Response in the Ohio Environ-
mental Protection Agency (OEPA) jointly
administer the cleanup program. These offices
will be merged in FY90.
The Office of Corrective Actions has 52
authorized positions with several current
vacanies. The Office of Emergency Response
has 18 staff.
Program has four (4) full-time staff attorneys,
AG's office supplies three (3) full-time Assistant
AGs plus 2-3 FTEs (funded by OEPA).
FUNDING
State has two (2) Funds available for
cleanups; Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund has
about $7M 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 $13M, 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.
156
-------
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
Approx. 85 sites being addressed (most in
RI/FS stage), two (2) sites are in RA construc-
tion phase.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
State ARARs apply, standards consistent with
EPA, 10* risk from carcinogens and less than
one non-carcinogen case.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Limited statutory authority; policy to expand
public participation under development Current
policy is to be not inconsistent with NCP.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in draft. Four (4) CAs and four (4)
MAs awarded. First TAG in Region V made to
citizen group at Industrial Access site.
157
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed sites
35
4
60 (including NPL)
173 (7/87 inventory)
2700 known landfills
WISCONSIN
[8/11/89]
: .;. ... "; . . :: .. STATOTES: :—''vj •-'•- ---,,':: --H;^. ....':"
I. Environmental Repair Statute, Wis. Stat §144^442 (1984). Enacted as; part of the GflJibdwater bill,
this section creates the Environmental Repair Fund, requires a State ranking system and authorizes
DNR to take emergency and remedial actions, recover costs and obtain RP lead cleanups.
2. Abandoned Containers Statute, Wis. Stat §144.77: (1987), authorizes J8SR to »se money; appropriated
for ERF to remove and dispose of abandoned containers that have hazardous substances. : :
3. Hazardous Substance Spill Statute, Wis. Stat §144J6;(?), authorizes P&R to use money; appropriated
for ERF to respond to discharges of hazardous substances, requires development of a contingency
plan. • i ....=.'- ---; : • • -- ' • - ; •
The State also uses authorities under solid waste law and assorted regulations, f ;
STATE AGENCY
Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management,
Environmental Response and Repair Section,
Superfund Response Unit with 17 FTE in head-
quarters and 23 field officers. It is a decen-
tralized program with no direct supervision of
field offices. About 40 staff total.
Legal support comes from two (2) attorneys
in the DNR's Bureau of Legal Services and on
a case-by-case basis from the environmental unit
of Wisconsin's DOJ (3-4 attorneys).
FUNDING
The Environmental Repair Fund (ERF) has a
balance of $3.7M as of 6/30/89. $4.2M was
appropriated in FY89 with $1.7M carryover. A
variety of fees provide more than $1M annually
and cost recovery actions and interest also
contribute.
Legislature established separate account for
funds from cost recovery and oversight ($300K
in FY89) to be used for "administration of
program." Primarily used to fund safety
equipment and training.
ERF may be used for emergency response,
removals, O&M, CERCLA match, and studies,
designs and construction of remedies. Construc-
tion of remedies is subject to prior administra-
tive hearing and judicial review.
158
-------
WISCONSIN (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State has strict liability under the Aban-
doned Container and Spill Laws but under the
Environmental Repair Statute the standard is
explicitly not strict The burden of proof is on
the State.
The State estimates a 65% 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 ERF
for a State-funded action when RPs are non-
existent or insolvent.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Either State or Federal action underway at all
but three (3) of NPL sites. 11 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. Also have
internal guidance on soil and groundwater
remedies. Department of Health does risk
assessments at sites where promulgated
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.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA under negotiation to cover remedial
and preremedial actions. Have a "mini SMOA"
on State enforcement lead. State received CAs
covering 17 sites, CORE Grant, and MAs
covering 12 sites.
159
-------
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
160
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites
unconfirmed sites
10
0
7 (includes 2 NPL)
5
26
ARKANSAS
[6/14/89]
STATUTES
The Rew&al Action Trust Fwd Act (RATFA) {Act 479 of 1385* as amended by Acts 380, 761 of
1987) establishes the Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Trust (HSRAT) Fund, which replaced the;
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (enacted in 1983). L '•'
Emergency Response fund Act (ERFA) (Act 432-F of 1985) establishes the Emergency Response
Fund (ERF). Both RATFA and ERFA provide for {ffopottional liability, civil and criminal penalties,
treble damages, cost recovery, and
STATE AGENCY
The Superfund Branch of the Hazardous
Waste Section is located in the Dept. of
Pollution Control and Ecology. The Branch is
staffed by 1.5 employees, with legal support
available from Dept. attorneys. A staffing freeze
has limited program operations.
FUNDING
HSRAT Fund, with balance of $1.6M
(5/15/89) 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 and remedial actions at State-listed sites,
and for CERCLA match. (Approximately 80%
is designated in 1989 far 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.
161
-------
ARKANSAS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
RATFA provides State authority to issue
administrative orders for information, site
access, and remediation. Although injunctive
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.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Air and water regulations used as standards
for hazardous waste cleanup.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has lead on one (1) 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 (3) sites, CAs for eight (8)
sites. Eight (8) MAs. A CORE Grant was
awarded in FY88.
162
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed sites
9
2
should be promulgated
by the end of 1989
506 on CERCLIS
LOUISIANA
[5/12/89]
STATUTES
Several Chapters of the Louisiana Environmental Quality Law, La. Rev, StaL Ann. §§200l-2J9l (1979),
provide relevant authority. Tte Hazardous Waste Control law {La. Rev, Stat. Ann. §§2171-2206), Inactive
and Abandoned Hazardous Wast* Site Law (La, Rev. Stat Arm. §§2221-2226), and chapter 12 entitled
Liability for Hazardous Substance Remedial Action (La. Rev, Slat, Ann, ||2271-2280), together establish
several funds and provide fte strict, joint and several liability- information-gathering', administrative order
authority; injunctive reM; cost recovery; Hens; and treble damages. Site access and civil and criminal
penalties are provided by the ^ Environmental Quality Law's general enforcement provisions.
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 19 of
its 25 authorized positions currently funded.
About 80% of the Division's S5.9M budget is
federally funded.
FUNDING
The primary cleanup fund is the Hazardous
Wate Site Cleanup Fund. The Fund's balance is
$0 (5/89); in 1987, monies from all funds not
constitutionally protected were divested by the
legislature due to budgeting difficulties. In
normal times, the Fund's primary source of
monies is penalties, with some funding from
appropriations, 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, which were not divested,
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.
163
-------
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,
liens, treble damages; and has strict, joint and
several liability. The State has the lead at one
(1) final NPL site; there is a State-lead enforce-
ment agreement at one (1) of the proposed sites.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Of the 17 completed RAs, 15 were con-
ducted by PRPs at a total cost of $15M, and
two (2) 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.
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.
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 signed 3/88. One MSCA covering
seven (7) sites; 10 site-specific CAs. Nine (9)
MAs incorporated into MSCA. No TAGs.
CORE Grant for FY88.
164
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
unconfirmed sites
6
4
Same as CERCLIS list
NEW MEXICO
[5/10/89]
STATUTE
Hazardous Waste Emergency Fund, MM Stat, Aim, 74-4-8 within ttazarfaw Waste Ac(>
744*1 to 74443 (1988) provides funds for removals, emergencies, and State
enforcement authorities.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Health and the Environ-
ment, Environmental Improvement Division,
Bureau of Hazardous Waste has three (3)
divisions: (1) UST; (2) RCRA-Hazardous Waste,
with four (4) staff on permits and corrective
action; (3) Federal Superfund with IS staff. The
Superfund program is supported by $1.5M in
Federal funds.
OGC provides legal support with additional
special AGs housed in DHE. 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.
S320K. No cap on the Fund. Penalties and fines
are the only continuing source of funds.
Funds can be used for emergency response,
studies and design for emergency and removal
response, State CERCLA match, and remedial
actions pursuant to court action. No State long-
term cleanups.
165
-------
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
No promulgated standards-use State ARARs,
particularly GW standards and water quality
rules.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No State-lead NPL sites.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
State follows CERCLA/NCP procedures at
NPL sites.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA signed 12/87. CAs, MSCA, and MA
Grants, CORE Grant in FY88.
166
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Total identified State
sites (GAO)
8
3
11 (NPL)
30
OKLAHOMA
[5/25/89]
STATUTES
I. Controlled Industrial Waste Disposal Act
-------
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. 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 (1) NPL site under the
direction of State Water Resources Board.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal
provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA in process. CAs cover nine (9) sites,
MSCAs for five (5) sites. CORE Grant awarded
FY88. Eight (8) MAs awarded.
168
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites
unconfirmed sites
24
4
29 (28 Non-NPL)
over 350
over 1000
TEXAS
[7/12/89]
'" • ;f."7'."^ STATUTE
The Texas Solid Weste tyytiwtAet, Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann, Art* 4477-7, was amended in 1987
to establish the Hazardous Waste Disposal Fee Fund (Fund 550), In 1989 the statute was substantially
amended to strengthen the Fond program and its enforcement provisions, Texas also has 8 Spill Response
Fund* established under the i ttezantows Substances Spill ftevenlioti & OjnfcOl Act, fexas Water
126.261 et seq. (amended 1983,1985).
STATE AGENCY
Texas Water Commission, Hazardous &
Solid Waste Division, Contract & Remedial
Activities Section--33 positions. There are five
(5) staff devoted to the State list Superfund
program; the remainder work on NPL and pre-
remedial programs, and LUST. Commission
legal staff and three (3) attorneys with the
Attorney General's office provide enforcement
support as needed. The Fund covers administra-
tive costs for the State-list Superfund unit
FUNDING
Fund "550" has a balance of $11-12M (as of
5/89) and is primarily funded by fees on
hazardous waste disposal. The Fund also
receives interest, cost recovery, penalties and
interest on late fees. Revenues are
approximately $7M/year.
The Spill Response Fund receives appropria-
tions, and fines and penalties under the Texas
Water Code. It is capped at $5M, exclusive of
fines and penalties.
169
-------
TEXAS (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Comprehensive order and injunctive author-
ity, civil penalties, cost recovery, liens, de
mnims 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 RVFS 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 (7) pre-1989 administrative orders
on State-listed sites, RPs at three (3) have
complied and are doing RI/FS, the four (4)
others appealed in court.
Eight (8) 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
No SMOA. FY88 CORE Grant, 24 site-
specific cooperative agreements, 17 sites under
multi-site agreement. 18 site Management
Assistance Grants. No TAGs.
170
-------
REGION VH
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
171
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed State sites
9
15
19 (37 proposed)
(includes NPL sites)
384
IOWA
[8/11/89]
1977,1978,
1979,1980, 1981,; 1982,1983,1984,1985,; "•"^'•' •'• •
Significant amendments concerning cleanup authority for abandoned and uncontrolled sites enacted in 1979,,
1981, and 1987,
1984 amendment establishes Hazardous
Reroed|^ Fund,
STATE AGENCY
Two (2) .subdivisions of the DNR's Solid
Waste Section are connected with State Super-
fund program: one (1) is responsible for
enforcement/remedial activities, the other
handles registry (SAUSR) of sites. Total staff
for the two (2) subdivisions is 13. Legal support
is provided by DNR attorneys for administrative
actions; AG's office institutes all legal pro-
ceedings. Administrative costs of State Super-
fund 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. $230K with an average of
$140K/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.
172
-------
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 POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup decisions are made on a site-by-site
basis. Recent regulations include cleanup goals
for ground water.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Approximately 20 RP cleanups are either
completed or ongoing for non-NPL State sites.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal requirements or informal
procedures.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
Multi-site CA to identify sites, classify
according to hazard level, and place on State
registry. CAs and 16 MAs obligated. CORE
Grant in FY88.
173
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Non-NPL sites (state cleanups)
unconfirmed sites
9
2
12
489
KANSAS
[5/12/89]
• • STATUTE':. :::"':' :'fv - '"•". ""::/vI"':c"':":;;..'
Environmental Response Act (ERA), K.S. Ann. |65-3452 et seq. (1988), amends Kansas* hazardous waste
law, enacted 1981 and amended 1984 and 1985. The Act established the Environmental Itesjpojise Bund
(ERF) which replaces the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund and the Pollutant Discharge Cleanup Fund, and
provides enforcement authorities for hazardous $ufrsfrfflses as well as hazardous wastes. / ;: j i: : •: :;
STATE AGENCY
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment's Bureau of Environmental
Remediation (BER) is responsible for Federal
and State Superfund, cleanups, LUST, and
emergency response. 23 of its 32.5 employees
are assigned to Superfund duties, in addition to
two (2) Department lawyers who work on
Superfund. Administrative costs are covered by
appropriations from the State's general Fund.
FUNDING
ERF balance of $4.5M (anticipated, 7/1/89).
Virtually all funds are from appropriations.
Fund can be used for emergency response
removals, studies and design, remedial actions,
oversight and management, CERCLA match,
and action at LUST sites.
Funding for state action at non-NPL sites is
appropriated on a site-specific basis through
legislation.
174
-------
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 can adopt standards which the Bureau
of Water Quality and Health will set-expected
within two years.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
RP investigations, remedial design or
remedial action underway at 78 hazardous waste
sites and 59 leaking underground storage tank
releases.
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 10 sites, MAs have been set for four (4)
sites. CORE Grant was awarded for FY90.
175
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed sites
14
7
54*
1400 CERCLIS
* State ranking system establishes 5 priority
categories for State registry: 11 are priority one,
requiring immediate action; 24 are priority two,
requiring action; 16 are priority three, action
may be deferred; 3 are priority four, site closed
with continuing management; 0 are priority five,
site closed with no further action required.
MISSOURI
[5/15/89]
STATUTE(;S) '
Hazardous Waste Management Z*w, Mo. Rev. Stat, §§260.350 - 260,552 (197?,
1983, 1985, 1987, 1988) authorizes Fond and provides for strict IfabiBtyv site access,
Order authority, civil and criminal penalties, and punitive damages. .; : : -:"^ /:.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Division of Environmental Quality, Waste
Management Program has four (4) sections:
Superfund Section, Hazardous Waste Section,
Solid Waste Section, and an Enforcement
Section which handles only solid waste and
RCRA sites. The Superfund Section has 16
technical and administrative staff. About 10 lab
technicians are located in the Lab Services
Program, which handles much of the field work
and Sis. Three (3) attorneys in the Department
are available for the Division of Environmental
Quality. The AG's office handles all litigation.
With Federal and State funds combined Super-
fund program has an annual budget of $4.6M
with S1.7M for personnel and support.
FUNDING
The Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund has a
balance of $5.9M (4/1/89) 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.
176
-------
MISSOURI (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
State tries to get RPs to do cleanup first If
RPs are recalcitrant or insolvent, and site is
small, the State will fund removal-type actions.
If the cleanup is costly, State will try to use
EPA authority and funds. The State has had
substantial 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 (2) State-
funded cleanups (basically drum removals), and
16 RP cleanups.
Seven (7) of 14 NPL sites are State lead and
the State plans to take lead on new sites added
to 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 copy of registry.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA, CAs for 23 sites, MA grants at
IS sites. State received CORE grant for FY88,
one (1) TAG.
177
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Total identified State
sites (GAO)
3
2
40
NEBRASKA
[5/15/89]
STATUTE
Legislation is pending to establish Superfund; enactment is unlikely this year, Nebraska Environmental
Protection Act (N;et». Rev, SW,§8H501:through §814533) does not cover Saperfand si^s;
However, State uses Tide 118 of its regulajions* i^ulgated under 181-1501 tp
groundwafer and set standards for cleanup. Applies ®&y to actions after i978.;
STATE AGENCY
The Superfund unit of the Hazardous Waste
Section (Department of Environmental Control)
has five (5) professional staff; three (3) support
staff also work within the Section. Legal
support is provided by Department attorneys and
one (1) attorney from AG's office who works
with the Department Administrative support
costs are covered by CORE grants and EPA
funding.
FUNDING
No Superfund
178
-------
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 (largest)
Class.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Title 118 sets standards for groundwater
cleanup.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Tide 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 (7) sites and five (5)
MAs. CORE Grant awarded.
179
-------
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
180
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
unconfirmed sites
13
3
400 sites in CERCLIS
through initial site
investigation
COLORADO
[8/11/89]
STATUTES
ti tf&ardows Sfdxtmces Response Fwd, Colorado Rev, Stat. Section 35-16-101 et seg.* J085
, : amended, provides funds for State CERCLA match, some administrative costs, and some
! futuie £ost&. ; ;
CERCLA Recovery FoiK?, Colorado Rev, Stat. Section 25-16-201, 1985 as amended,
account for natural resource damages. ;
STATE AGENCY
Within the Office of Health and Environ-
mental Protection of the Department of Health,
the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
Division contains three sections with Superfund
staff in each: (1) Remedial programs with 14
staff working on Superfund; (2) hazardous waste
control (RCRA type program) with two (2) staff
working on Rocky Flats cleanup and; (3) Solid
waste and incident management with two (2)
staff working on PA/SI and emergency
response. AG's office provides legal support
with 18 staff handling natural resource damages
litigation.
FUNDING
Hazardous Substances Response Fund balance
of approx. $3M, collected from solid waste
disposal fees (approx. $1.3M/yr) and site-
specific settlement costs. Fund used for
CERCLA match, 5% for administrative costs,
and site-specific operations and maintenance
costs. There is no cap on the Response Fund.
CERCLA Recovery Fund does not disburse
funds. It is an account for receipt of natural
resource damages for transfer to the legislature
or general fund.
181
-------
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 AC has filed
seven (7) CERCLA natural resource damages
lawsuits, of which three (3) have been settled
with remedial action underway. Two (2) others
have received favorable court rulings, one (1)
has joint agreement with RP for RI/FS and one
(1) is being addressed under Federal Superfund.
State has used its hazardous waste law at Rocky
Flats and Rocky Mountain Arsenal; no other
enforcement has taken place at inactive or
abandoned sites.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
Cleanup standards are determined on a site-
specific basis, using State ARARs where
applicable.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
State has lead on two (2) NPL fund-lead
cleanups.
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 MA Grants.
182
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites
unconfirmed sites
8
2
159 (includes NPL)
149
at least 151;
undetermined
MONTANA
[8/11/89]
STATUTES
Until 5/10/89, the law in effect was ifce EnvtMnmrud Quality frote&km Fund Aett Mont Cede Am
§§75-10-701 to -715 (1985), which provides for strict HabiKty, judicial civil penalties, ;
damages, and cost recovery. .
A new law, (he Montana Comprehensive Enw&menial Cfeantip and JtesponsibiUty Act (CECpSA) has
been passed by the legislature and was signed by the governor 5/10/89. CECRA provides the
Mowing additional authorities: joint and several liability, information gathering and site access,
subpoena and administrative order authority, administrative civil penalties, liens, and administrative
condemnation power. j ;
STATE AGENCY
MDHES, Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau,
Superfund program has 14.5 people, mostly
funded through EPA cooperative agreements.
Staff includes one and one-half (1.5) attorneys
from AG's office, assigned to the agency.
FUNDING
Although law was enacted in 1985, funding
was not appropriated until 1987 for the 1989-91
biennium. Fund balance is technically $0 as of
5/11/89, but a recent settlement will yield
$160K when finalized. Funding will come pri-
marily 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 $250K/yr.
The Fund can be used for emergency
response, removals and remedial actions, and
investigations. Funding for O&M, State
CERCLA match, and actions at LUST sites are
provided by other statutes.
183
-------
MONTANA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences (MDHES) is required to
make a good-faith effort to have RP clean up
prior to using the Fund. Money obtained from
cost recovery and civil penalty assessments are
returned to the Fund. At sites worked on this
far, the State is still at the study stage.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
CECRA requires standards that assure present
and future protection of public health, safety
and welfare, and the environment
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
MDHES has issued two (2) negotiated orders
for RI/FSs. It has issued two (2) unilateral
orders for conduct of RI/FS at third site, and
one (1) unilateral order for an emergency
cleanup. In addition, the DOD has completed
cleanup at two (2) sites pursuant to a negotiated
order.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CECRA requires public notice of administra-
tive orders and consent decrees.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
SMOA development underway, but outcome
uncertain. Draft SMOA with Dept. of Defense,
but State has serious concerns. CORE Grant in
FY88. One (1) multisite CA; several others for
individual site work. One (1) TAG awarded.
184
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
unconfirmed sites
2
0
46-47 on CERCLIS
NORTH DAKOTA
[5/22/89]
STATUTE
North Dakota does not have; its own State Superfund &w,
agreements with EPA, Its Hawrtous Waste p^$&twt Act
10 (1981, amended 1983 and 1987) provide^ Some authority
but is limited. -- -i - '-: "Li:"-" "......
administers CERCLA through cooperative
vmkNJVQjnt Cote;§m~%)34\ to -
can be used in conjunction with cleanups,
A bill just enacted by the 1989 legislature creates die Environmental Quality Restoration Fund. This fund
provides cost recovery authority but no liability standard, and applies to all environmental programs; it
becomes effective 7/1/89, i :; v ;!?: ; : k > f
STATE AGENCY
The lead agency is the Division of Waste
Management, in the Dept. of Health & Consoli-
dated Laboratories' Environmental Health
Section. Two (2) of the Division's 16 staff do
some 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 currently 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.
185
-------
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 CERCLIS sites have undergone
PAs and Sis, and the State expects to complete
all of these studies by the end of 1989.
Cleanup costs have diverged widely,
mostly range around $100-200K.
but
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
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 (1) MSCA covering three sites. Several
CAs for site work and PA/SIs. No TAGs
awarded; two (2) communities have applied.
CORE Grant for FY88.
186
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Non-NPL sites
1
0
56 on CERCUS
SOUTH DAKOTA
[8/4/89]
STATUTES
i. South Dakota's Regulated Substance Discharge Law, S.Dak. Codified Laws Ann, ||$4A42-1 to -IS
(enacted 1988, amended 1989), establishes a cleanup fund and provides for strict liability,
administrative order authority, injunctive relief, cost tecovery, and Bens.
.2, The Hazardous Waste Management Act. S.DaL Codified Laws Am. §§3441-1 to '23 (1983> amended
most recently in 1988), provides for civil and criminal penalties, information orders, and site access.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Water and Natural
Resources is the lead agency. Only State
activities have been PAs performed with EPA
funding.
The Attorney General's office provides legal
support as needed.
FUNDING
The Regulated Substances Response Fund
has a balance of $710K. 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, and investigations and
managerial activities.
187
-------
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.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The only NPL site is at FS stage.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal provisions.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
One (1) MA; no SMOA, CAs, TAGS, or
CORE Grants.
188
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed sites
5
7
required by new law,
but not yet promulgated
191 on CERCUS
UTAH
[8/11/89]
• '= Uv-V" STATUTE
The Utah Hazardous Substance? Mitigation Act, Utah Code Ainu ||26-l4d-lOl K» -801 (!$$> ttfce& e#e#
on 6/30/89* This statute repeals part of an older law, the Utah Hazardous Materials fmestigaftMt and
Response Act, §§26*1449 and r20. The new taw provides for strict liability, site access, administrative
order authority for direct and; immediate threats, mjunctive relief, civil penalties, and *?ost
and several liability is explicitly unauthorized.
STATE AGENCY
The lead agency is the Department of Health,
Division of Environmental Health, Bureau of
Solid and Hazardous Waste. The Superfund
Branch in the Bureau has primary responsibility;
it has a staff of 16, of which two (2) are State-
funded. Of the remaining 14 positions, four (4)
are funded by a CORE grant and 10 are funded
by a multisite cooperative agreement One (1)
staff attorney at the Bureau level handles most
legal duties, although the AG's office is
available for administrative negotiations, as well
as litigation, as needed.
FUNDING
The Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund
has had $3M appropriated for startup; of this,
$1.6M is the State's match for the Sharon Steel
NPL site and $120K is designated for the UST
program, leaving $1.28M for use by die agency
for general cleanup activities. Funding will
primarily come from annual appropriations,
although cost recovery monies and penalties will
also be deposited into the Fund.
The Fund can be used for emergency
response, removals, remedial investigations, and
the State's CERCLA and RCRA LUST match.
The Fund cannot be used if the site can be
cleaned up under any other State statute.
189
-------
UTAH (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
The State strongly desires PRP leads with
State oversight, since its funding will be limited
and it has no authority to conduct remedial
actions. The State intends that most remedial
investigations will be performed by RPs. 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 Federal
Superfund.
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. There are currently
three (3) State leads at NPL sites, with plans
for two (2) more.
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 the remedy selection process
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. MSCA covers nine
(9) sites; site-specific CAs for seven sites. Nine
(9) MAs provided for in MSCA. No TAGS.
CORE Grant for FY87.
190
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
unconfirmed sites
SITES
1 (Baxter/Union Pacific
Tie Treating site in Laramie)
100-120 sites
on CERCLIS
WYOMING
[8/11/89]
STATUTE
The Wyoming Environmental Quality Arr(EQA), Wyo, Stats, §§35-llrl01 b -1207 (1987), doe* not
provide a fund for state cleanup actions. Other funds, however, enable state cleanup in emergencies (see
"Funding" below). The EQA requires containment and notification of releases and grants the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) authority to gain site access, issue administrative orders, and seek injunctive
relief and civil or criminal penalties through the State's Attorney General, Interested citizens may bring civil
suits to compel compliance to the extent that such action could have been brought in Federal district court.
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;
these positions cover RCRA and solid waste.
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 (7) 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 without the Environmental Quality
Council's approval, through the existing DEQ
Trust and Agency Account The current balance
in this fund is $1.1M. The fund, previously
limited to abandoned mine reclamation
activities, is funded by penalties and fines.
EQA also provides a cleanup fund for UST
sites.
191
-------
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
A.F.B. site, which is being considered for NPL
proposal, and which is the only Federal facility
of concern in the State at this point. All
CERCLIS-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, but the State's
relations with EPA are mostly limited to remedy
selection. No CORE grants have been awarded,
and no community has received a TAG grant
No MSCA is currently in place. State involve- .
ment in pre-remedial activities in prior years
was covered under an MSCA.
192
-------
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
193
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites
unconfirmed sites
5
4
23
5 emergency action sites
about 700 on CERCLIS
ARIZONA
[8/11/89]
STATUTE
The Arizona Environmental Quality Act, Ariz, Rev. Stat Amu $$4&2$t 10 -2$7 {1986, amended 1987)*
establishes the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF, pdpotarly
-------
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 voluntarily perform
work. 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 actions are handled
by the AG's Office, which has two (2) 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. The
State has completed nine (9) cleanup projects,
14 projects are ongoing, and six (6) are
proposed.
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 (2) 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 approxi-
mately S2.19M in EPA grants. There are no
current plans to develop a SMOA.
195
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
unconfirmed sites
SITES
52
36
Three-tiered--
approx. 328 total
Approx. 5000 sites on the
Abandoned Site Program
Information System (ASPIS)
List includes CERCLIS
(about 4000).
CALIFORNIA
[8/11/89]
:... -. p • . - pV ; STATUTES
California Hazardous Substance Account Act* Cat Health & Safety Code §|25300 et seq. (1981, amended
1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988), which includes fee Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984,
§§25285 through 25386.6, and the Hazardous Substance Cleanup Financing Authority Act. §§25392 through
25395 (1984), establishes site mitigation program nod provides cleanup fund.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Health Services (DHS), Toxic
Substances Control Division, Site Mitigation
Unit is staffed with 170 people in four regional
offices and headquarters. Budget for site
mitigation activities $62.37M~approx. $24M for
staffing. However, bond fund no longer viable
and Hazardous Substance Account has $15M
cap, so remaining funds from emergency appro-
priations.
DHS has in-house legal staff, with 4-5
attorneys assigned to Site Mitigation Unit. AG's
office has two (2) attorneys assigned to Toxic
Substances who devote approx. 50% of time to
Site Mitigation. DHS also works with California
Air Quality Resources Board and the Regional
Water Quality Control Boards. The Water
Quality Control Boards also undertake their own
cleanups in cases of "classic" groundwater
contamination.
FUNDING
(1) Hazardous Substance Account, in the
General Fund, §25330. Primary source of
funding for Account is tax on disposal of hazar-
dous waste (cap $15M per year). Balance of
$1.8M, collects an average of $15M per year.
Fund used for removal and remedial actions
(prohibited until RPs given notice and oppor-
tunity to cleanup), studies and design, O&M,
and State CERCLA match.
(2) Hazardous Substance Cleanup Fund
§25385.3, known as "bond fund," authorized
debt of $100M~exhausted since 12/88.
(3) Hazardous Substance Clearing Account,
to pay off bond debt, receives cost recovery.
(4) Superfund Bond Trust Fund, to ensure
payment of interest on bonds, receives $5M
annual transfer from Hazardous Substances
Account
(5) Appropriations authorized for Hazardous
Substance Victim's Compensation Fund ($2M/
year authorized; small amounts expended).
(6) §25354 creates Emergency Reserve
Account ($lM/year) for spill response.
(7) Additional authorization for health effects
studies, funding local agencies for hazardous
materials equipment, and other items.
196
-------
CALIFORNIA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
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 $2SK/
violation, criminal penalties up to $2SK/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 1/89, remedial actions (State and
Federal) have been completed on 176 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. 64
undergoing RP cleanup, 60 in negotiations with
RP, 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.
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
Had MSCA from 1/1/88 to 12/31/88 covering
State oversight expenses at NPL sites-currently
renegotiating. Draft SMOA also scheduled to be
finalized in 1989.
State has CAs, MAs, and CORE Grant in
FY89.
Two (2) TAGs awarded in State.
197
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Total identified
State sites
0
6
not yet promulgated
no information
HAWAII
[6/1/89]
StATUTE
Hie Hawaii Environmental Response Act, Haw. Rev, Stats. §§148.1 to .7 (1988), establishes a rqnd (or
emergency response actions and provides for strict liability, administrative order.."
civil penalties, and cost recovery. I " ''•• \ :i \:^ ,
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 10 staff members and a budget of
approximately $300K/yr. Legal support is
located in the AG's office.
FUNDING
The Environmental Emergency Response
Revolving Fund has a balance of $150K
(6/1/89). Sources of the Fund are appropriations,
cost recovery, and penalties. The Fund may be
used for emergency response actions, removals,
and the State CERCLA match.
198
-------
HAWAH (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.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
No information available as of 6/2/89.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There are no public participation require-
ments under the Superfund law. 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, MAs or TAGs. CORE
Grant for FY89.
199
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
Non-NPL sites
None
None
115 on CERCLIS,
of which about 85 are
mining sites.
NEVADA
[6/6/89]
'... :.. 7 "" ""...[.. STATUTE
Stat. $§4$9JQQ~459.6Qp (1981, amended :1983V 1985, mi 1987) laefcs a specific naihe,vbiat Slate
officials refer to it as the "hazardous waste statute," Primarily covering operating facilities, this law gives
authority foe spill cleanup by either the State or responsible parties. This statute also established a hazardous
waste management fund, which may be iised for Kano»alsv oversight, and site operations and maintenance
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 Section oversees the
State's hazardous waste, solid, waste, and UST
programs. The Waste Management Section has
the lead on activities governed by the hazardous
waste statute. The Section has a staff of 11
people; seven (7) of these positions cover hazar-
dous waste work. One (1) attorney within the
Department is shared by the air, water, and
waste programs.
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 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 EPA RCRA and UST grants.
Roughly three-fourths of the monies in the
hazardous waste management fund (balance
$lM-5/89) derive from waste volume fees~$20
per ton for out-of-state waste, $10 per ton for
waste generated in-state. Cost recovery,
penalties, and permit fees provide the remaining
funds. There have been no State appropriations.
Fund covers emergency response, removals, and
activities related to oversight of the management
of hazardous waste.
200
-------
NEVADA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Though the hazardous waste statute sets no
standard for liability, this law provides 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 nor does it
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.
PUBLIC PARTICD7ATION
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 is currently seeking a Federal
CORE program grant, but it has not developed
a SMOA, CAs, or MAs. The State hopes to
gamer additional Federal monies, at least to
provide administrative support. A larger concern
of the State is that it not be regarded as a
national dumping ground by any entity-Federal
or State.
201
-------
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
202
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
Non-NPL sites and
unconfirmed sites
1
0
1
277
ALASKA
[8/11/89]
•; • - ...; ; - STATUTES
Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substance Releases Law, Alaska Stafcj- ||46.08-005 & M& {19B6), authorizes a
fund and provides for administrative and consent order authority, injunctive relief, civil and criminal
penalties, and cost recoveiy.
Hazardous Substance Release Control law, Alaska Stats. §§46.09*010 to ,900 (1386), covers enforcement
and other provisions.
Mobility and Cost for OH and Hazardous Substances Discharge Law, Alaska Stats. §§46.03.822 eJL^Sfiu
(1989), was enacted in response to the Exxon Valdez spill, and provides for strict, joint and several
liability.
STATE AGENCY
The Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion's Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill
Response Section is responsible for cleanup
activities.
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 ("the 470 Fund") has a balance
of $1.5M as of 5/30/89, which is supplied by
appropriations. Following the Exxon Valdez
spill the Fund was supplemented with $20M,
which the State expects to recover. Fund monies
may be used for emergency response, remedial
actions, and the State's share of Federal oil
discharge cleanups and CERCLA match.
Monies from forfeited performance bonds,
cost recovery and penalties are placed into a
"mitigation account" separate from the 470
Fund, but available for the same purposes.
203
-------
ALASKA (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Liability is strict, joint and several.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
No information available as of 671/89.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
Focus on site identification--!^ the Kenai
Special Project, which was designed to locale
and identify all potentially contaminated sites on
the Kenai Peninsula.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No formal policies.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
No SMOA, CAs, MAS, or TAGs. CORE
Grant for FY88.
204
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
unconfirmed sites
4
0
about 175 on CERCLIS
IDAHO
[5/23/89]
' ; . : I : : "" 7 (STATUTE
Idaho has no State Superfund law. The Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA)* Idaho Code
.. J0N4W to -4*32 (1983, amended 1984, 1986, 1987, and 1988), estaWIsbes two foods tot povides only
minimal legal authority for site cleanups. ; :
STATE AGENCY
The lead agency is the Department of Health
and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality,
Bureau of Hazardous Materials. CERCLA
responsibilities are split between the Policy and
Standards Section and the Remedial Action
Section. The Policy and Standards Section
handles CORE grant funding, pre-remedial
activities, and support services; the Remedial
Action Section handles site-specific remedial
work. Of a total of 38 personnel in the two (2)
sections, about 10 work primarily on Superfund.
Two (2) 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 Emergency
Account, which has a balance of $82K (5/89)
and can be used for emergency response. The
fund's primary source of monies is penalties,
and is not relied on heavily by the agency.
The HWMA also establishes the Hazardous
Waste Training, Emergency, and Monitoring
Account The HWMA authorizes use of this
fund for necessary 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 is $1.6M
(5/89), primarily obtained through a waste
disposal fee.
205
-------
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
ACL
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 four (4) NPL sites (Bunker Hill). Of the
four (4) sites, one (1) 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 1989; and the RI/FS is just getting
underway at the fourth 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 (2) sites. One (1) MA
exists for each NPL site, plus a second MAG at
Bunker Hill (two operable units). No TAGs.
CORE Grant for FY89 and FY90.
206
-------
SITES
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State list
suspected sites
6
1
under development
750
OREGON
[8/4/89]
"'.; ' "', T. "•;:•;, STATUTE •
Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law, Ot. Rev. Statt, §§46&54G - 390 (198?* amended !$$»>, establishes
the Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Fund (HSRAF) m& provides for strict liability, ^dmiJiisttative
order authority for cleanup^; injunctive relief, cfyil penalties, cost recovery, liens, and pmutive damages.
Amendments establish Orphan Site Account within HSRAF and modify the inventory provisions for State
sites (ORS §466,557).
STATE AGENCY
Lead agency is the Environmental Cleanup
Division (BCD) in Dept. of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). Program has 30 permanent staff
and nine (9) temporary positions in four (4)
sections: (1) Site Response, (2) Site Assessment,
(3) Policy and Program Development, and (4)
Underground Storage Tank Cleanup. AG staff,
one to two (1-2) attorneys, handles litigation,
and advises BCD as requested. The Fund
supports a little over half the agency's admin-
istrative budget.
FUNDING
HSRAF has a balance of S4.5M (4/89), with
an average of $2.25-2.5M/yr collected from
appropriations, cost recovery, penalties and
fines, and a monthly fee on the operator of the
State's only hazardous waste and PCB disposal
facility.
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
may provide an additional $3M/vr with equal
amounts collected from hazardous substances
fee, petroleum fee, and solid waste tipping fee.
207
-------
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
4/89, ECD is involved at all seven (7) NPL
sites and has 24 voluntary PRP cleanups.
Although the statute is not clear, ECD assumes
liability is joint and several; this has not yet
been challenged.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
ECD has asked for one (1) NPL lead, and
may consider a second one.
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.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Regulations for the statute were promulgated,
as mandated, with significant input from a 22-
member 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
SMOA in plans, MAs, CAs for all seven (7)
NPL sites, multisite CAs for PAs and Sis. One
(1) community is considering a technical
assistance grant There is a CORE Grant for
FY88.
208
-------
NPL sites
Proposed NPL
State database
SITES
25
20
700 (includes NPL sites,
State sites, and sites which
have been cleaned up)
WASHINGTON
[8/11/89]
• .O ' : ' T STATUTE *.'•
Model T&xics Control Act (Initiative No. 97), voted into Jaw Nov. 1988, effective Ma«* U 1989 (teplaced
Hazaidoss Waste Cleanup LJIIW, Wash. Rev, Code eh. 70J05B {198?)), M&rtiye authorises funding for
two accounts, enforcement and public participation procedures.
STATE AGENCY
Department of Ecology, under the Assistant
Director for Waste Management, has 110 staff
on the Hazardous Waste Investigations and
Cleanup Program. 20 of the positions are
federally funded-the remaining are supported by
the State Toxics Control Account and General
Fund (starting July 1, 1989 all administration
funding from Account). The Attorney General's
office, handling cost recovery and settlements,
has approx. 3-4 FTEs working on cleanups.
FUNDING
Two accounts: (1) State Toxics Control
Account and (2) Local Toxics Control Account
State account from tax on wholesale value of
hazardous substances funded by 47% of tax
revenue, cost recovery, appropriations (ending
after July 1, 1989), penalties and fines, and any
earnings on Fund balance. Balance in Fund
estimated to be under $1M on 6/30/89. Amount
collected per year available for cleanup $8.SM.
No cap on Fund. State account funds other
agencies, in addition to various divisions within
Ecology.
Fund can be used for emergency response,
studies and design, remedial actions and O&M,
State CERCLA match. Part of cleanup Fund set
aside for LUST hardship cleanups. Penalties
and fines earmarked for best management
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.
209
-------
WASHINGTON (continued)
ENFORCEMENT
Initiative provides for strict, joint and several
liability, subpoena authority, orders for site
access, administrative and consent 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 (1)
traditional cost recovery action at NPL site-cost
recovery usually built into consent decrees.
CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
12 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 45 NPL cleanups in
progress.
CLEANUP POLICIES
AND CRITERIA
At least as stringent as all applicable State
and Federal laws, including health-based
standards under State and Federal law. State
standards under development.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DOE must establish regional citizens'
advisory committees, notify public of develop-
ment of investigating or remedial plans, give
concurrent public notice of all compliance
orders, enforcement orders, or notices of viola-
tion. Provisions do not necessarily apply at
remedial selection phase. Dept in process of
developing administrative record and ROD
policy. Initiative authorizes public participation
grants to affected persons or not-for-profit
public interest organization.
FEDERAL/STATE
PARTNERSHIP
State in process of converting operating
agreement into SMOA.
CORE Grant in FY87. State has MSCA,
MA, and CAs.
210
-------
APPENDIX
SAMPLE INFORMATION
WORKSHEET
211
-------
STATE NAME
A. ENABLING LEGISLATION AND REGULATION
Enabling Legislation or Regulation and Date of Enactment
[if amended, describe significant changes]
Related Legislation or Regulations and Date of Enactment
[including funding mechanisms]
B. STATISTICS [please note when statistics compiled]
# of suspected and unconfirmed sites:
# of sites on State's priority list:(including NPL sites?)
# of sites on NPL final (proposed):
# of Federal Facilities:
Additional Statistical Information;
C. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Overview of Program
[division, offices, responsibilities & division of labor]
[do they work only on Superfund?]
[ "as of _/_/__" # of staff, size of budget]
[ where is legal support located?]
1. Organization and Personnel
Lead Agency
Other Agencies
2. Funding
Funding Vehicle(s): [name of Fund]
212
-------
Funding Source(s): [give approximate proportions]
appropriations
bonds
cost recovery
penalties/fines
taxes
fees
transfers from other funds
others
Balance in Fund as of / / ;
Average Amount Collected per FY:
Cap on Fund:
Source of Administrative Support Costs
Use of and Restrictions on Fund Monies
emergency reponse
removals
studies and design
remedial actions
operations and maintenance
State CERCLA match
actions at LUST sites
victim compensation
Monies collected in enforcement actions
$ recovered:
$ collected in fines and penalties:
Where are these $'s placed?
3. Contracting Practices
Procurement Practices
REMs
ARCs
Lab Work (State/contract)
213
-------
Program Functions
1. Ranking System
[if different than EPA's - describe factors]
2. Standards for Cleanup and Design
[types of remedies undertaken]
3. Additional Prerequisites for Remedy Selection
[administrative record, citizen participation/comment period]
D. LEGAL AUTHORITIES
1. Authorities Available (note § of statute)
Liability Standard
Orders for Information
Orders for Site Access
Subpoena Authority
Administrative Order Authority
Consent Order Authority
Injunctive Action
Civil Penalties
Cost Recovery
Liens
Punitive Damages
Criminal Penalties
Citizen Suits
Other
2. Preferred Enforcement Method
214
-------
E. OTHER INFORMATION
Federal/State Relationship
Superfund Memorandum Of Agreement (SMOA)
Cooperative Agreements (CAs)
Site-Specific Enforcement Agreements
Management Assistance Grants (MAs)
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
CORE Grants
Local Government Involvement
Public Participation
215
-------
CONTACT SHEET
NAME OFFICE/TITLE PHONE
.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFI CEI I 98g_748- 1 59/00364
216
-------